My solution to the Israel/Palestine issue

[IrishHand]

Reading some of the things written in a couple other threads on the topic, I'm blown away by the horrendous amounts of bias which some people are allowing to blind their perceptions of the realities of the Israel/Palestine problem. I will start this by saying that other than the fact that I value all humans as humans, I couldn't care less about either group. Israeli, Palestinian, Iraqi, French, American - all just people living in different areas under different governments.

Some people go on and on about how evil the Palestinians are, and how evil the suicide bombers are - presumably under the argument that terrorism and everything associated with it is pure evil.

My problem with this is that, from any objective standpoint using any reasonable definition of terrorism, the Israelis are far worse terrorists than the Palestinians. Just because the Israeli terrorists happen to look nicer on TV because they wear military uniforms or have government positions doesn't mean they're any better than their Palestinian counterparts who hide in slums or bombed-out buildings.

Palestinians target women and children with their attacks. Absolutely. And I agree that this is wrong. (I'm not a fan of the word "evil" since it's too subjective - "wrong" still has moral connotations, but I think it's more generic.) However, Israelis also target women and children with their attacks - and the kill a hell of a lot more of both than the Palestinians do. Not only that, they use their military power to - often in complete opposition to agreements they've made - occupy lands, cities and peoples they have no right to, then subject the Palestinians to further death and hardship while depriving them of many basic human rights. There's simply no rational way to argue that's not terrorism.

The 'self-defense' arguments are ridiculous. A suicide bomber kills a half dozen Israelis. Somehow, firing a ton of explosives at the Palestinians is self-defense? Shooting children on TV is self-defense? Occupying a city with tanks and machine gunners is self-defense? Not even close. It's all retaliation. It's no different than a 5-year old hitting another 5-year old in the playground 'cause he hit him first. No! He hit me first! No! He hit me first. Yesh...that's self-defense. If anything, the actions on BOTH sides are retaliation for legitimate complaints. Both sides claim that every one of their terrorist acts is a retaliation, and from their perspective, both are right. There's no point arguing which 5-year old hit the other first. The goal should be to stop them from fighting.

What's my biggest problem with this? My biggest problem is that my country is openly and directly providing the more extreme terrorists with a ton of money, technology and military expertise. Given our country's position on terrorism, among other reasons, the United States needs to discontinue all aid to Israel. No more money. No more weapons. No more training. If the Israelis want to continue a national campaign against the Palestinians using bullets, missiles and bombs, we need to stop providing them.

Rather than a couple of 5-year olds smacking each other around in the playgroud, our country has armed one 5-year old to the teeth. Is it any surprise that the other 5-year old has resorted to fighting dirty? More shameful is that the 5-year old with all the weapons has dropped to his level and fights just as dishonorably. The right thing to do is for us to take away at least part of the ridiculous advantage we've given and let the 5-year olds figure it out themselves.

Respectfully,
Irish

Get a job, then you won't be so busy solving all the world's problems on this message board

[Clarkmeister]

"using any reasonable definition of terrorism, the Israelis are far worse terrorists than the Palestinians"

I agree, and I think this is why we have such problems understanding other Nations' attitude towards us. We do not acknowledge their view of Israel as a terrorist state, so do nut understand how hypocritical our whole "war on terror" appears to them. Thus we don't understand why they hate us. That isn't to say that the widespread hatred of the US by the Arab world is justified, but it is to say that we need to at least attempt to understand their viewpoint.

[IrishHand]

Exactly - and I don't know that I was clear on that point. Nealy every Middle Eastern nation considers the Israelis to be the pre-eminent terrorists in the world. In their minds, a couple of planes doesn't really compare to years of killing Palestinians, and I don't know that I can disagree despite my strong feelings about 9/11.

The US will never be able to achieve their stated diplomatic goals in that part of the world so long as our obvious hypocrisy continues. There's a reason that nearly every terrorist manifesto against the US relates in part to our support of the Israeli state.

[MMMMMM]

It is illogical to equate collateral damage inflicted by Israel in self-defense with acts by the Palestinians which target primarily innocent civilians. When defending against attacks, some collateral damage is unavoidable (although Israel at times could exercise perhaps more restraint). That is very different from targeting civilians especially.

Many may not realize it, but it is also quite debatable as to whether the Palestinians even have any right at all to that land. My understanding of the situation is as follows: Before the 1900's, primarily Jews lived there. The Arab influx to the area greatly increased following the greater Jewish influx to the area in the early 1900's. After the partition of Israel, Jordan and another Arab state "stole" much of the land demarcated for the "Palestinians" (and interestingly, on passports earlier in the century, Jews from the area were referred to as "Palestinian" while Arabs from the area were referred to as "Arab").

The Arab states combined have a land mass 880 times that of Israel.

After the Yom Kippur war, negotiations brokered by Kissinger, the USSR, Jordan and other Arab states gave Israel the right to the land in question as part of the agreement which also returned to these countries certain
other lands which Israel captured in the war. At the time, today's occupied territories were in fact owned by Jordan etc., not by the "Palestinians," so these Arab states had the legal right to grant Israel rights regarding this land. In fact, the "Palestinians" as a recognized group did not even exist at that time. The "Palestinians" have also fallen far short of living up to their U.N. agreement to provide Israel with safe and secure borders, so Israel is not bound to live up to its terms of the agreement either, since that is a key point upon which the agreement hinges. Additionally, Arafat issued a statement in, I believe, 1972, which was similar to what Hamas still avows: that the goal is the eradication of Israel and reclamation of all the land for the Arabs.

Why also can't the Arab states simply absorb their fellow Arabs? Because to do so would remove the visible reason for attacking and ultimately destroying Israel which has been the goal of the Arabs all along. And why doesn't Jordan give back the partitioned land they stole from the Palestinians? The history of Arab aggressions against Israel may provide some clues.

These are also reasons as why it is debatable whether the lands in question are really the issue after all. As we know, certain militant groups have vowed to attack Israel until it is completely destroyed and to use violence to scuttle any potential emerging peace agreement. History has clearly shown that whatever borders Israel has established, she will be attacked from just outside those borders. The Palestinians have clearly demonstrated that, far from assuring Israel safe and secure borders as promised in the U.N. resolution, they have instead continued to attack Israel on a consistent basis. So what is Israel to do?

Well, Arafat said that he wished he had accepted the peace proposal which he walked away from when he initiated the most recent intifada. Well how about now? It's probably the closest thing to a reasonable proposal or settlement we are going to see for a long time.

[MMMMMM]

If the Palestinians were to stop attacking Israel, there would be peace. However if Israel were to disarm, Israel would be destroyed. Legitimately defending against terrorism is not the same thing as terrorism. Also, when terrorists hide amongst the civilians, it is impossible to counter-attack them without some civilian casualties. Contrast this with the Palestinians who instead seek to inflict civilian casualties.

I do agree that Israel could at times exercise more restraint. On the other hand, just what would WE do if we were attacked on such a continual basis from our borders???

[B-Man]

No offense Irish, but your view is very typical of people who are uninformed on the history of the region, pre- and post-1948.

To call Israel wrose terrorists than the Palestinians is preposterous. To call their actions worse than the 9/11 attacks is absurd. The few valid points you make are far outweighed by these nonsensical assertions.

There is NO moral equivalence between a terrorist and a victim. If the Palestinians would simply stop attacking Israel, there would be peace. There was almost peace before the current intifidah broke out--Bill Clinton, for all his faults, nearly pulled off what I thought was impossible. But Arafat blew up the deal, rejecting an offer(which he now says he wishes he had accepted) which would have given the Palestinians 93% of the land they were asking for, and instead resorted to violence. Hence, the last 2+ years...

I can't state a response any better than M has, so I will stop right there and refer you to his posts. I just don't think you fully understand the facts and the history of this situation, because you seem to make good sense on most of the other topics on which you have posted. But you are way off base here.

[Clarkmeister]

"It is illogical to equate the collateral damage inflicted by Israel in self-defense with acts by the Palestinians..."

But that's the point of Irish's post. To the Arabs, it is Palestine which is reacting in to Israel and not the other way around. Each act of violence by both sides is viewed by that side as "retaliation" for the act of violence which immediately preceded it. It has long since degenerated into a hopeless chicken and egg problem and neither side has the desire to extricate themselves from it.

That, however, should not stop us from extricating ourselves from it.

[B-Man]

I don't see how any reasonable, informed person could disagree with anything you said. It is hypocritical for others to criticize Israel and its policies yet support the war on terror being pursued by the U.S. Of course both the U.S. and Israel are morally right and justified in their actions (maybe not every single action, as I have said before, but in the vast majority).

[Clarkmeister]

"If the Palestinians would simply stop attacking Israel, there would be peace"

Two thoughts.

1. The Palestinians are saying "If Israel would stop attacking and oppressing us, there would be peace"

2. Do you really believe that Sharon wants peace? I certainly don't.

[MMMMMM]

I agree with your point especially that it should not stop the effort to extricate the peoples from the violence. Yet, although both sides feel the other is wrong, I feel there is something especially wrong and immoral about targeting primarily innocent civilians for cold-blooded murder. The Israelis go after the terrorists and the innocent people unfortunately sometimes get in the way. The terrorists go after the innocent people.

[B-Man]

1. The Palestinians are saying "If Israel would stop attacking and oppressing us, there would be peace"

Do you read the newspapers on a daily basis? Almost without exception, every Israeli incursion into the West Bank/Gaza is in response to a suicide attack. It is not a "circle" or violence, it is a cycle of Palestinian attacks followed by Israeli responses, sometimes brief periods of calms, followed by more suicide attacks. This is not my opinion, this is an observation based on events repeated over and over during the last two years. So while they can say whatever they want, the facts speak for themselves.

Do you really believe that Sharon wants peace? I certainly don't.

I don't know, but it would be nice to give him the 7 days of calm he has been asking for for over TWO YEARS to restart negotiations. What is so unreasonable about a request for a 7-day lull in suicide attacks?

Do you think Rabin or Peres (two doves) wanted peace? Of that, I am positive. Neither succeeded because when push came to shove, Arafat was not ready for peace. The doves were not successful, so the Israelis elected a hawk. He hasn't been succesful either. Where they go next, I don't know, but I don't think the U.S. throwing up its arms and walking away is the answer.

[andyfox]

"Before the 1900's, primarily Jews lived there. The Arab influx to the area greatly increased following the greater Jewish influx to the area in the early 1900's."

This is completely false. The Turkish census of 1878 listed 403,795 Muslims, 43,159 Christians, and 15,011 Jews, plus 10,000 Jews of other citizenship (i.e., recent immigrants). By 1912, after an easing of restrictions of Jews being allowed in, the population figures were on the order of 525,000 Muslims and 40,000 Jews. There was no Arab "influx"into the area. The first comprehensive British census was in 1931, listing 759,700 Muslims and 174,606 Jews.

"The Arab states combined have a land mass 880 times that of Israel." "Why also can't the Arab states simply absorb their fellow Arabs?"

I have never quite understood the point of statements like this. One might just as well say that the American Indians had a land mass X times as big as what was being sought by the English settlers on the east coast. The fact of the matter is that the Pequots or the Massachusetts Indians had nothing whatsoever to do with the Cheyenne or the Navajo or any other Indian "tribe." "Indian" land was an invention of the invaders. Why couldn't the Navajo simply "absorb" the Pequots? Why couldn't the Spaniards simply have "absorbed" the English? These are ridiculous questions. The Palestinians were the people who lived in Palestine, not other Arab lands.

The fact of the matter is that the Zionists, as part of a colonial, imperial enterprise, invaded Palestine with the intent to displace the current settlers, the Palestinians. Nothing in the whole sorry story should be clearer than this. The Zionists always wanted to deal with Britain and strove as much as possible to ignore the Palestinian Arabs. They claimed that Palestine could easily be theirs, that it made sense, because it was a land without people for a people without a land. This was an out-and-out lie.

I think one can argue over the degree of relevance of these facts to the current situation, but let's at least get the facts straight.

[IrishHand]

If the Palestinians were to stop attacking Israel, there would be peace.
Prove it. Of course, you can't prove that any more than you can prove the opposite assertion (that if the Israelis stopped killing Palestinians, there would be peace), which demonstrates a number of my arguments.

However if Israel were to disarm, Israel would be destroyed.
I never suggested they should disarm. I just think it's horrendously hypocritical for the US to continue supporting one side in a conflict where clearly both sides are engaged in terrorist activities. How well would Isreal fare without their US crutch? Who knows? Maybe they'd lose the ability to slaughter Palestinians when they get the urge.

Legitimately defending against terrorism is not the same thing as terrorism.
Explain to me how the intentional murder of children and women who almost surely have nothing to do with the terrorism is legitimate? The Israeli military is miles ahead of anything the Palestinians could come up with (thanks again to misguided US benevolence). If they wanted, they could send in a special forces team to capture or kill suspected terrorists in a building if that was there goal. Invariably, the Israelis opt for much more widespread destruction in their 'self-defense'. Why surgically remove a suspect when you can just level the building? If the US acted like Israel did, we'd have turned Afghanistan into the Afghani Irradiated Sea. Instead, we actually waste insane amounts of money trying to capture or kill terrorists without killing everyone who has the misfortune of being in their general viscinity.

Contrast this with the Palestinians who instead seek to inflict civilian casualties.
The Palestinians are trying to do the EXACT SAME THING as the Israelis - only they don't have the US-supplied military power to engage in wholesale 'self-defense' the way the Israelis can. What do you think Arafat would do if he had an equal military? Probably blow up buildings that might contain people he suspects of killing Palestinians and then unjustifiably occupy Israeli lands in contravention of agreements he recently made.

I do agree that Israel could at times exercise more restraint.
And I agree that the Palestinians could at times exercise more restraint. Glad we see eye to eye on this.

I feel there is something especially wrong and immoral about targeting primarily innocent civilians for cold-blooded murder.
How again does this differ from what the Israelis do? I understand the concept of collateral damage. You bomb a weapons factory at night and the janitors get killed. It sucks, but what can you do? You bomb an enemy encapment and the medics and civilian support personnel get killed. It sucks, but what can you do? An source tells you that Mohammed al Soontobeblowinupisraelis is in a 2nd floor apartment on Hamas Ave. You bomb the building, killing all the residents and hopefully getting the bad guy too. From an objective standpoint, you targetted "primarily innocent civilians for cold-blooded murder" unless of course you'd like to argue that the destruction of the residential building accomplished a military objective. No wait...you're not actually at war with these people, you just kill them in self-defense on a regular basis.

The Israelis go after the terrorists and the innocent people unfortunately sometimes get in the way.
Too bad there aren't reliable statistics about this assertion of yours, because I'm fairly certain that a lot more of the innocent people have been killed than terrorists. To me, it's pretty evident that a related assertion is more accurate: the Israelis go after innocent people and the terrorists fortunately sometimes get in the way.

If the Israelis want to kill Palestinians, I'll think it's wrong (just as I do the other way around), but that's their business. I just think it's patently wrong for us as a country to give them them means to do so, watch them do so, then help them reload.

Irish

[andyfox]

I've always felt that if there was to ever be any chance of peace, both Arafat and Sharon would have to depart from the scene. Yet, last week, I watched a biography of Jimmy Carter and was reminded of the fact that Begin and Sadat managed to make peace, a peace that has stood up for many, many years. Eqypt, before Sadat, was the most implacable and truculent of Israel's enemies, and Begin was a terrorist.

Certainly if those two managed to make peace, any two, even two despicable men like Arafat and Sharon, could do it.

[IrishHand]

No offense Irish, but your view is very typical of people who are uninformed on the history of the region, pre- and post-1948.
My level of ignorance is always up for discussion.

To call their actions worse than the 9/11 attacks is absurd.
How many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli actions in the past 10 years? Oh...that's right...we can't know for sure since the Israelis are killing poor, uneducated people who don't bother with things like statistics when they fight a daily battle for survival. So you're saying that the 9/11 attacks are worse than years and years of run of the mill Israeli retaliations which kill Palestinians on a regular basis? I'm afraid there are quite a few people around the world and specifically in the Middle East who don't share your assesment.

If the Palestinians would simply stop attacking Israel, there would be peace.
You and M&M must plagarize at the same website or something. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif To restate my response to M&M: the opposite is just as true in the minds of the other side.

There is NO moral equivalence between a terrorist and a victim.
How many terrorists have been killed in Israeli actions? How many innocent victims? As noted above, the ratio's not looking good for Israel.

But Arafat blew up the deal,
According to the Israelis, Arafat is responsible for everything that's caused them to kill Palestinians. That's pretty convenient. I find it very difficult to appreciate the phenomenal moral virtue and justness of the Israeli cause in light of historical and contemporary realities in the region.

I just don't think you fully understand the facts and the history of this situation, because you seem to make good sense on most of the other topics on which you have posted.
I am totally open to the possibility that I misunderstand some or many aspects of the situation. Indeed, I am well aware of my factal and historical limitations on this topic (although I try not to go outside my base of knowledge) - that's one of the reasons I began this thread - I learn far more from hearing other's perspectives than I do from hearing myself think.

It is not a "circle" or violence, it is a cycle of Palestinian attacks followed by Israeli responses, sometimes brief periods of calms, followed by more suicide attacks.
It appears to me to be far more of a circle. Just because the Palestinians are unable to respond to a perceived injustice in the immediate way that the Israelis can (due in part to US aid - recurring theme), that does not mean that the "periods of calm" are anything other than Palestinians planning and engaging in their retaliation or self-defense. I have a tough time completely condemning the suicide attacks when they're faced with a vastly superior force and, as a practical manner, have no way of responding in any proportional way to the attacks by the Israeli armed forces. I also suspect that the suicide bombers would happily target Israeli military targets if they were able to get anywhere near them. They aren't so their only option, if they want to kill Israelis, is to kill civilians. I'm not agreeing with what they do - in fact, as a philosophical matter I'm totally opposed - but I understand the position they feel they're in.

My bottom line is that while I might understand each side's perspectives, I don't agree with what either side does in furtherance of their perspective, and as such, believe that it's patently wrong for the US to support Israel. It is clear to me that both sides kill civilians on a regular basis in some vain hopes that this'll provide enough deterrence to the other side or at least erode enough public support for the present regime's policies such that they'll ultimately improve the negotiated solution to this region's issues whenever they actually do negotiate a solution. (Sorry 'bout the long sentence - not sure how best to break it down.) I think that's wrong and I think it's hypocritical of the US to support Israel because of it.

Irish

[MMMMMM]

OK--here's my source:

http://www.naomiragen.com/Other%20Articles/NoMansLand.htm

(excerpt): "When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.


By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland - the Promised Land Moses and Joshua had conquered millennia earlier, historians and Jews believe, on the direct orders of God. That's not to say there wasn't always a strong Jewish presence in the land - particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on
assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal.


The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews. "The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property," the book states. Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it." (end excerpt)

Andy, at this point I don't think whose land it was historically is even the most important issue. I think the other points, and working towards a peace settlement, are more pressing by far now. However I do think that the historical basis is interesting and somewhat relevant. I'm really just making the point that it's not so clear-cut regarding whose land it was, historically speaking, as many seem to automatically presume. And since it is debatable, focussing on that issue may prevent both sides from reaching an accomodating and pragmatic compromise.

[HDPM]

There has never really been a Palestine. The Jews used to have more land when David was around (didn't the borders of Israel go to Damascus and pretty far east then?) I mean, which historical borders do we talk about? What if the Romans want their land back? The middle east shows the basest political truth. The land belongs to those who can keep it by force. A lot of places aren't worth fighting over, or aren't worth the cost and hassle. Israel is worth it to a lot of people. So Israel has a right to its land and makes both war and political compromises to keep it. And the land was given to them originally by the country that had it. So the Palestinians are SOL, which is why they resort to terrorism.

Kust another anti-Semite. You fit right in with the Klansman types of Ryan21. The government is watching you.
Perhaps you are the re-invention of Chris Alger, if he isn't in jail or deported yet.

Did you beg Mason to allow you to start with anti-Semitic dogma again? Or did you blackmail him?

Still donating to terrorist "charities?"

Almost every government agency considers you a national security risk, and a racist pig.

[nicky g]

just to add a couple of things: i often hear the argument that prior to israel, there was no country called "palestine", no people referred to as the palestinans etc. that's true; that area was always a region of some empire or other. for a short while their land was variously part of jordan and egypt. it's now controlled by israel. but that doesn't change the fact that there is a local arab population there (a very dense one) that's been there for 100s of years, that doesn't want tbe part of israel, egypt or jordan. it wants independence. and it has a right to it.

the situation in the occupied terroritories isn't mainly one of "collateral damage", though there have been well-publicised instances of that - most of the deaths are those of young palestinian protestors and stone throwers, children on the fringes, and bystanders, shot by the army. these aren't peaceful gathrings - they're mini-riots. but they're not a threat to the lives of the israeli soldiers by any stretch of the imagination, who pick out and shoot people from a great distance. furthermore the rioters have a right to protest an illegal occupation, military repression and economic starvation, while the soldiers have no right to be there in the first place.

the talks collapsed because of two things. the land being offered to the palestinains was divided by uncrossable israeli security channels; it was completely unviable - hence the references now to a viable state. the palestinians lost 78% of previously arab land to the israelis; they have a right to 100% of the west bank and gaza, undivided and minus fundamentalist settlers (an issue which was to be left out of any deal).furthermore, the israelis totally refused to address the issue of the 4 million palestinian refugees. there is clearly no way for all of them to return to israel. but israel bears a huge responsibility for the problem and has to deal with it.

this isn't to say that the arafat didn't behave terribly; arafat's a corrupt old fool. but the israelis were making an offr they knew no palestinian leader could ever accept.

i don't think there's any need for comparisons betwen the suffering of the palestinians and israelis, and 9/11. 9/11 was an unjustifiable outrage. it wasn't "less bad" than palestinian suffering. it was an atrocity and that's it.

just some of my thoughts. ng.

[HDPM]

"the palestinians lost 78% of previously arab land to the israelis; they have a right to 100% of the west bank and gaza,
undivided and minus fundamentalist settlers"

Why? Maybe they do, but what is your argument here?

[nicky g]

i suppose i'm an anti-semite too, because i don't believe in military repression, illegal occupation and shooting children. i'll be sure to mention it to my jewish wife, and her family when we go to visit them for passover.
why don't you argue a case instead of throwing idiotic insults around? criticising the policy of a state isn't racism or anti-semitism.

[nicky g]

because it's their land. they own it, they live on it, they work it. they have a legal right to it; they have deeds of ownership etc. under international law it belongs to them. the settlers have no legal right to that land. am i being naive here? it seems a fairly straightforward point.
the fact that they've already lost so much seems to me to make it unreasonable to ask them to agree to a deal that takes even more.

[andyfox]

"When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted"

As big a Mark Twain fan as I am, he was mistaken. Practically all westerners who visited the Holy Land in the 19th century were disappointed. It seemed an empty wasteland, the same way the New World, when visited by Europeans, seemed an empty wasteland despite the fact that millions of people lived there. They lived in a way that was foreign to the vistors/invaders.

Karl Marx also believed non-westerners to be unworthy of existence.

I agree with you, as I alluded to in my first post, that the exact relevance of the history can be debated and that, at the least, it is somewhat relevant. The Jews have always claimed that the land was there for the taking, without inhabitants, or at least without inhabitants of any importance. It is this attitude that continues in the thinking of those like Ariel Sharon to this day.

I do disagree completely and vehemantly, however, with your assertion that it is debatable as to whose land it was. Looking only at Jeruslaem, as you have, distorts the reality. The small pre-zionist Jewish population of Palestine was concentrated in four Jewish "holy" trowns: Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad, and Tiberias.

At the beginning of the 19th century, for example, Palestine had a population of about 275,000 to 300,000 people, of whom 90% were Muslim Arabs, 20,000 to 30,000 Christian Arabs, and 7,000 to 10,000 Jews. For hundreds of years, probably since the end of the 7th century, on the land called Palestine, there had existed as a huge numerical majority a socially, culturally, politically, economically identifiable people. The Palestinian Arabs were indeed on the land, and any 18th- or 19th-century account of travels there--including Mark Twain--will find mention of them.

Here's what Moshe Dayan said in 1969:

"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here. . . Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. . . There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. (Ha-Aretz, April 4, 1969; emphasis added)

Here's what Arthur Ruppin said:

"Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands. . .we are bound in each case . . . to remove the peasants who cultivated the land." (Quoted in Benny Morris, Righteous Victims; emphasis added)

One can find quotes from most Zionist and Jewish leaders from every era of a similar bent. The Palestinian Arab majority was always known, always recognized, but kept in the background for strategic reasons.

[B-Man]

To call their actions worse than the 9/11 attacks is absurd... I'm afraid there are quite a few people around the world and specifically in the Middle East who don't share your assesment.

Well, there are quite a few people in the Middle East who celebrated the 9/11 attacks, handed out candy in the streets, and cheered the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans. Are you relying on them to support your opinion? 3,000 innocent, unsuspecting civilians were murdered on September 11th. How you can compare anything Israel has done to this makes me question your motivations and true feelings on this subject. Honestly, I don't even know where to begin. I'm shocked anyone could say such a thing, let alone believe it.

If the Palestinians would simply stop attacking Israel, there would be peace... You and M&M must plagarize at the same website or something. To restate my response to M&M: the opposite is just as true in the minds of the other side.

The fact that it is true in their minds (which I am sure it is NOT, by the way) doesn't make it true. The stated goal of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and several of the other terrorist groups is not the creation of a Palestinian State, it is the destruction of Israel. They don't want to be next to Israel, they want all of it. Still, Israel tries to make peace, cedes land, and, almost without exception, does not attack unless provoked. Check the timeline of events for the last two years, there is no circle of violence. Almost every time there has been a period of calm, it has been shattered by a suicide bombing, not by an Israeli incursion (with one notable exception, but there are at least a dozen other times when the calm was ended by a suicide attack).

There is NO moral equivalence between a terrorist and a victim... How many terrorists have been killed in Israeli actions? How many innocent victims? As noted above, the ratio's not looking good for Israel.

You've lost all credibility with me when you compare self-defense to the deliberate targetting of innocent civilians. Specifically targetting women and children for death is far different that the Israeli army assasinating terrorist leaders, or going into Palestinian lands in response to suicide attacks to destroy terrorist infrastructure. How can you not see this?

But Arafat blew up the deal,
According to the Israelis, Arafat is responsible for everything that's caused them to kill Palestinians. That's pretty convenient. I find it very difficult to appreciate the phenomenal moral virtue and justness of the Israeli cause in light of historical and contemporary realities in the region.

It would be nice if you looked at the facts. Arafat himself has said he wishes he accepted the deal which was offerred to him in August, 1999. He threw away 7 years of productive peace talks and interim agreements and returned to his violent past. I don't see how you could possibly deny this.

that does not mean that the "periods of calm" are anything other than Palestinians planning and engaging in their retaliation or self-defense.

I guess it is too much to ask that during periods of calm they think about continuing the calm and perhaps trying to return to the negotiating table, rather than return to murdering as soon as possible. Every time there is calm I am hopeful progress can be made, but it is always shattered by another suicide attack.

I have a tough time completely condemning the suicide attacks...

I hope you don't really mean that, and I suggest you re-examine that thought, because if you really feel that way then you are devoid of all morals.

[B-Man]

Good point.

[andyfox]

"And the land was given to them originally by the country that had it."

Well, Britain gave up their Mandate because the Jewish terrorists forced them out. If you are referring to the Balfour Declaration, let's remember that the declaration was made by European power about a non-European territory in flat disregard of both the presence and the wishes of the native majority resident in that territory and it took the form of a promise about this same territory, to another foreign group, so that this foreign group might make this territory a national home for the Jewish people. Balfour himself wrote, "In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting hte wishes of hte present inhabitants of the country."

So you're right, they're SOL. While I disagree with the concept and idea of a Jewish state, and would favor a return to the old binational approach which had a small following many years ago, you're right: Israel exists and will continue to do so.

The Zionists themselves also resorted to terrorism to get their state. Begin's book The Revolt has been used as a sort of textbook by many terrorist groups, some Palestinians included. Again, your point that might makes right is certainly true. The "basest" political truth indeed, in both senses of the word.

It's a sad, sad story with enough horror for both sides to be ashamed of with enough left over for the rest of the world to be equally ashamed. Once, in a moment of anger/frustration, I startled my family with the assertion that I hoped they all would kill each other, all of them, the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that we could then start from scratch without the hatred built in. I'm ashamed of that statement, it reaks of what the totalitarians, the communists and the fascists, always wanted to do, start with a "clean slate."

But what other solution presents itself?

[Clarkmeister]

I don't know if the US throwing up its hands and walking away is the solution either, but I do know that our current policy isn't working, and may in fact be contributing to the ongoing strife. At the very least we need to be examining our support of Israel and considering that we are enabling a great deal of bloodshed and terrorist type activities.

Its not like we are in lockstep with the rest of the western world on this one either. The arabs hate us for our policy there, the Europeans think we are wrong, the Russians think we are wrong, maybe....just maybe we are wrong on this one. What is wrong with asking the question "why are we the only major country that feels this way on this issue"? Its our tax dollars at work and I think its a fair question.

[andyfox]

What a shame. Everyone else here is engaging in a political discussion, certainly an emotional issue, with heartfelt feelings. Pull up all the anonymous posts and what do you see: it's disgraceful and disgusting.

Mr./Ms. Anonymous: I would welcome your contributions of substance. Show Irish, or me, where we're wrong. Present your case. Please don't continue what you're doing.

[B-Man]

But what other solution presents itself?

I think there will only be peace when a generation of leaders on both sides have the wisdom to look past their dislike (hatred in some cases) of the other side and the political strength to implement a compromise.

Unfortunately, even if Arafat and Sharon wanted to come to an interim agreement, say, for example, the deal which was offerred to Arafat in August, 1999, I'm not sure either one of them has the political power in his own state to sell it to the masses. I could be wrong (and I hope I am), but the situation just seems too inflamed after 2 years of killing. I think there needs to be a period of calm, followed by renewed negotiations. The problem is, how do you get to the calm?

I think Israel should strongly consider unilaterally withdrawing from the Palestinian territories and fortifying the border to keep out terrorists. If the settlers wont leave, they will be on their own (and they will be killed by the Palestinians). It is just too difficult to keep the suicide bombers out of Israel without a fence/wall/ditch/whatever along the West Bank.

After the border is fortified and there is a period of calm, maybe then peace talks can start up again.

Or I might be crazy, I don't know.

[andyfox]

"The land belongs to those who can keep it by force"

Just doing some re-reading to respond to a few posts and I came across this from the conclusion of Benny Morris's Righteous Victims: "The only language that either side has understood in this conflict is force."

[B-Man]

At the very least we need to be examining our support of Israel and considering that we are enabling a great deal of bloodshed and terrorist type activities.

No, we are helping the one and only democracy in the entire region defend itself from relgious zealots who are bent on its destruction. We are not promoting terrorism, we are helping a democracy defend itself, as we would do the same (and are doing similar in our own situation).

I think you also need to consider the motivations of the Europeans and the Russians in often siding with the arabs. I'll give you a hint,part of it is a 3-letter word...

I have no problem examining U.S. policy, I do it all the time, and especially have looked long and hard at the middle east situation. I just happen to think we should support the lone democracy and our only true ally in the region, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they have the moral highground, IMO.

[andyfox]

I think you're on the right path: some kind of big, bold stroke, something to show the world that we're taking a crazy step, something completely unthinkable to most people, in order to show we're completely and utterly devoted to putting an end to this thing. We've taken our giant step, now we need you to reciprocate.

Some political points of agreement between us. Scary, huh?

/forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[B-Man]

[Clarkmeister]

Ah, but you've hit on the crux of the initial post, and my agreement with it. Namely that both sides feel they are defending themselves from religious zealots who are bent on their destruction. Its the ole "are they freedom fighters or terrorists" question. Answer: depends whose side you are on.

[Clarkmeister]

This is correct.

Someone has to take an absolute stand, turn the other cheek and prove to the other side, and to the world that they are serious. Otherwise it can never end.

[HDPM]

But Israel was given the land by the British essentially. It was British land, not Palestinian land. Then Israel won more land in wars. Under international law, this land is Israel's. You lose in war you lose. The whole thing I said above about force is what it comes down to. Look, your country revolutionized the ownership of real property and the nature of estates in land. But the Domesday book starts in 1067 for a reason. And if Hitler won, the old fee simple absolute in somebody's family since 1067 would have ended promptly in 1947. I wasn't just being a smart ass. Civilized systems of real property ownership are backed by force; the force of the courts of law acting through the police in civilized domestic fights, or the force of armies to keep it against invaders. But it's just force that makes the whole thing work at some level.

[andyfox]

I just took a look at your source. It's filled with untruths and distortions, but just to address one:

"After 1948, the land of Arabs who left the territory of Israel was assigned to an administrator of absentee lands, and under Israeli law the absentee Arabs could return and reclaim their land. Thousands of them did so (the figures I have seen are over 15,000)."

After April 1948, the Jews were pressed, by, among others, the United States and Britain, to allow refugees to return.
This pressure resulted in two Israeli offers to allow some refugees to return. In July 1949, for example, Israel offered to take back "100,000," which was actually 65,000, since 35,000 had either already returned or were on their way, but only if the Arab states agreed to conclude a peace agreement.

Since they knew the Arabs would not conclude a peace agreement, they knew the offer was not going to be accepted.

There could not be such a thing as a Jewish state unless the majority of the citizenry were Jewish. From the very beginning, the Zionists wanted the Palestinian Arabs out. Herzl wrote as much in his diary, talking about the need to keep it secret.

The Israelis will still not let the population return, for the same reason.

Zionism has become a tragedy, both for the Jews and the Palestinians. The dream of creating a place where people who were persecuted could live in peace foundered because it based itself on colonialism and imperialism and the false idea that the disparate people who had a religious belief in Judaism constituted a people. And on the other side of the coin, the Palestinians certainly never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity (Abba Eban).

[andyfox]

It was not British land. All of the subjects of the Mandates were supposed to be given their independence in due course. Only the Palestinians were denied.

In my opinion, neither people are worthy of the land and both ought to be kicked out, one people to Mars and the other to Venus. Although we'd probably eventually get caught in the crossfire.

Irishhand is a raging anti-Semite in favor of suicide bombing,and has blamed the USA for 9-11. His blatant racial slurs caused him to hide behind a new moniker.
On the contrary, this forum has turned into a racist paradise. Between the anti-Black posts over the last week (the most disgusting was the individual pretending to be Randy Moss), and the latest anti-Semitic garbage, the KKK forum would be a better name for it. MM wholeheartedly supports it. Perhaps you are an anti-Semite. Anyone that believes that Arafat, Fatah, and the Al Asq Brigades truly represent the Palestinian people, or that suicide bombing is an acceptable peace initiative is insane.

[MMMMMM]

Clearly both you and Chris Alger have a far better knowledge than do I of the history of the region.

Regarding the idea proposed further down in this thread, that a major step need be taken (such as Israel unilaterally withdrawing from certain regions), I would agree that that would be great PROVIDED they have a reasonable/reliable partner for peace in the Palestinians. Yet the Palestinians (and Arabs of other nationalities too) have displayed a perpetual propensity to attack Israel, and there exist significant factions which will NEVER acknowledge the right of Israel to exist and have vowed eternal violence. So if Israel were to decide that she would be willing to take such a major step, just WHAT would be done about the murderous fanatical factions? And just HOW would Israel's security be assured? Unfortunately, I don't see any answer to this aspect of the problem (other than perhaps a modern Berlin Wall which would only be a partial solution). Most Palestinians might even rejoice and forswear violence if Israel were to unilaterally withdraw, but there would still be major elements which would not, as their avowed aim is the annihilation of Israel proper. This is perfectly in keping with their historical attacks on Israel and avowed aims, so it would be unreasonably idealistic to assume that they too would become peaceful. Hamas et al simply would continue their murderous ways as they have promised.

Any ideas or suggestions?

[B-Man]

I agree with everything you said, but I think perhaps I didn't make clear that there are multiple purposes in unilateral withdrawal.

The primary purpose of unilateral withdrawl, IMO, is increased security for Israel-proper. If there is a Berlin-type wall on the border with the West Bank, much as there is with Gaza, then it will be FAR more difficult for the suicide bombers to enter Israel. This will, hopefully, have the effect of creating a period of calm, after which negotiations can be started.... but that is the secondary to increased security and calming the violence. I don't think there can be any agreement or even meaningful negotiations as long as the violence is continuing. And if the Palestinians are not willing to stop the violence or come to the table, Israel is no worse off than they are right now (and probably better off because there will be some sort of secure border).

As for the radical groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the dismantling of these groups is going to have to be part of any permanent agreement. If I was Israel, I wouldn't tear down the wall until all major Palestinian factions had reached a peace accord, or the P.A. had dismantled/disabled the rogue terror groups. Of course this is going to be much more difficult than it sounds, and will require a strong and courageous Palestinian leader who is actually willing to fight Palestinian terror groups in order to achieve peace (much like David Ben-Gurion, I believe, went after Menachem Begin to show him who was REALLY in charge, and to get him to fall in line).

Can any of this really happen? I don't know. But it might be worth pursuing.

[andyfox]

If there were a comprehensive peace agreement, and radical elements on either side resorted to violence in order to subvert the peace, the two sides would have to agree that they would jointly go after the culprits and stop the violence by either doing them in, arresting and trying them, deporting them, etc.

A major, almost impossible undertaking, I think, which is why I'm so pessimistic about the possibilities of the situation every being solved.

[MMMMMM]

It might seem like a small point to some, but I believe the occupation is actually legal, not illegal. As I understand it, the territories in question were at the time owned by Arab states which traded to Israel the right to them in exchange for a return of other territories captured by Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

Hi Irish,
Hmmm... I see.

I tend to think all peoples can suck. Though objectively some groups do more than others.

Who sucks the most depends on what era you look at.

I think we can agree that many people are flat out animals.

Seems the world just can't seem to see that we really could engineer utopia if we want.

We've been to the moon for crying out loud. What could be so difficult about engineering plenty of good food and shelter?

But noooooo!

Don't know too much on this issue, but the more moral of the two groups would be the ones to stop first.

Probably not in human nature though.

I believe Al Habib started the Palestine/Israeli issue. Prior to him killing some Jewish folks Jews and Muslims lived side by side in the region.

Some historians say Habib was a little nuts in the psychiatic sense.

[MMMMMM]

Anonymous Coward: "Don't know too much on this issue, but the more moral of the two groups would be the ones to stop first."


One unfortunate problem with this beautiful suggestion is that, historically, whenever Israel has withdrawn/stopped, Israel has been attacked.

If Israel does NOTHING Israel will be attacked. That's what history demonstrates.

Israel was attacked repeatedly before the occupations. The Arabs/Palestinians simply will not truly accept Israel's right to exist. They do not accept the existence of a miniature Jewish state in their midst (which comprises a grand total of...let's see... approximately 1/9 of 1% of the total Arab land mass. Considering that the Jews lived there too for a very long time, one might think that 1/9 of 1% for their own country would not be too much to ask). Nor do the Arabs ever put pressure on Jordan to return the partitioned land Jordan stole from the Palestinians.

Sure, Israel could withdraw unilaterally and be attacked again soon after. No problem.

[nicky g]

this place has become shockingly racist. the black stuff was horrific. but criticisng israel and anti-semitism aren't the same thing.
for the record i am no fan of arafat, and as i've said a gazillion times i think killing civilians, suicide bombings included, is completely wrong. fatah is too big an organisation with far too many factions and sub-organisations to blanketly condemn. there are good and bad people in it.

[nicky g]

off topic and irrelevant, but: i'm not british. i'm irish. i'll mention it in my profile when i get a chance.

[nicky g]

the occupation is illegal under an assortment of united nations resolutions.

[HDPM]

And how does that change the situation regarding the British holding property by force? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[nicky g]

what, me being irish or the occupation being illegal under un resolutions? or something else? sorry, i'm really lost with all these posts and i'm not sure i understand the question anyway. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif
but anyway: force has to underpin all law in the end. that doesn't mean there is no right and wrong. if someone does something wrong by force eg tries to take the land someone has lived on for years with no reasonable claim to it by force, then a legal body has the right to intervene and forcefully stop it. if that doesn't happen, the resident has the right to resist by force. obviously there comes a point when a situation becomes irreversible; eg i don't think the israelis had the right to the land of israel 50 years ago, but there they're now and what are you gonna do. that's not the case in the occupied territories and the settlements and so on should be resisted.
the british were rightly thrown out of nearly everywhere they took by force. hurray! alas, they left a billion massive problems in their wake. /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

[nicky g]

"Most Palestinians might even rejoice and forswear violence if Israel were to unilaterally withdraw, but there would still be major elements which would not, as their avowed aim is the annihilation of Israel proper. "

I don't know. The avowed aim of the IRA was a united Ireland. But when the British government sat down and talked to them seriously, without putting stupid obstacles in the way and ready to seriously discuss grievances and solutions, the IRA ended their campaign. It's still their goal but they don't bomb for it. There are still huge problems. But the situaion is much better.

Terrorists or whatever you want to call them need measures of popular support to keep going on the level Islamic Jihad and Hamas do, and the IRA did. If there was a fair solution to the occupation and refugee problem, that support would wither away quickly. Also, with the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure completely demolished, they have no way to stop these groups, even if they wanted to. They don't much, but with a fair settlement they would.

[HDPM]

"force has to underpin all law in the end. that doesn't mean there is no right and wrong"

I agree with this. But what I am saying is that the Palestinians never really were able to muster the political weight to get or keep the land. Israel was created under international law. The lands taken subsequently were legallt taken in wars. The Palestinians are screwed essentially.The other Arab countries that sold them out should have helped, but instead let the situation fester for their own purposes. And that purpose is the destruction of Israel which they have no right to do.

[MMMMMM]

Not so simple. The U.N. resolution also requires that the Palestinians ensure that Israel has safe and secure borders--and this is a key point upon which much hinges--but instead, the Palestinians regularly send over murder/bombers. The U.N. resolutions do not simply apply to Israel whilst the Palestinians fail to uphold their end of the affair and in fact do precisely that which is opposite their agreements.

[IrishHand]

Explain to me how a group of people with no country or military is supposed to "ensure that Israel has safe and secure borders" - especially in light of the fact that Israel owns the best military force in the region?

[MMMMMM]

Well it's in the U.N. resolution, or words to that effect.

It must mean that they are not to attack Israel, and it is incumbent upon the Palestinian leadership to ensure that the Palestinians do not attack Israel. However they have done precisely the opposite, with Arafat himself even calling for the intifada. So why should only Israel be expected to abide by the terms of the U.N. resolution--especially while under attack.

The Arabs as a whole really need to openly and definitively acknowledge Israel's right to exist--something they have never done.

There is little point in Israel withdrawing if she will still be subjected to attacks from Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc., with the open and/or tacit support of most other Arabs and Arab states. In fact, there is every reason for Israel to continue expanding her borders as long as a buffer zone is required due to Arab/Palestinian hostility.

[IrishHand]

ok - so we've covered that both Israel and the Palestinians have consistently killed innocent civilians and have both violated the terms of UN resolutions. Why again should my money go towards supporting one side or the other when neither has acted in a decent or humane manner?

For those who seem to rely on the idea that Israel occupies the moral high road in this conflict, I have video footage of a Palestinian kid being murdered I'd like to show you. Both sides have admittedly done a number of things over the course of the conflict that they'll admit were 'wrong' by any definition - we can argue that one side is more wrong, and both sides believe the other is, but that still won't make me feel good when I know that my money is supporting blatant terrorism while we have a laundry list of relatively indisputable good causes that are in desperate need of more funding.

I think this thread has shown that there are a ton of great arguments on both sides of this conflict (or at least some highly opinionated people /forums/images/icons/smile.gif) , but I started it originally to question US policy, not Israeli or Palestinian policy. I can understand both Israeli and Palestinian policy - my question remains - why should our country dump money and weapons into Israel?

Regards.
Irish

to irritate people like you!

[IrishHand]

I appreciate that you think I'm the focal point of our nation's foreign policy, but what I was looking for was intelligent responses.

Love,
Irish

[MMMMMM]

Because:

1) Israel is the only democracy in the entire area, 2) all the other regional governments are essentially totalitarian in one way or another, 3) Israel more closely shares our values, 4) Israel is our ally 5) Israel, while imperfect, does still occupy more of the moral high ground than regional Arabs or Palestinians who promote terrorist atacks 6) let's not equate defending against terrorism with terrorism itself: the Palestinians terrorists target primarily civilians, while Israel targets primarily militants...if you can't see the difference in these two approaches on moral grounds I really don't know what to say

[IrishHand]

(1) Not when we're finished with Saddam they won't be. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif More importantly, since when does being a democracy mean you're entitled to huge sums of my country's money?

(2) So what? I wasn't advocating giving any of them money.

(3) Again...so what? There are a lot of countries who share our values much closer than Israel but you don't see us giving them fighter jets, tanks, technology, nukes, etc. If similarity were the basis for giving military and other aid, then the UK would still be a military powerhouse.

(4) Again...so what? They'd still be our ally even if we didn't provide them with ridiculous amounts of aid. It's not like Israel is in a position to be picky with their allies, as I understand the international scene. More importantly, I looked at the membership roster of NATO, which is our most important formal military alliance, and I'm pretty sure I didn't see Israel's name there. Plus...for our allies, seems to me they spend more time making us look bad than furthering our interests. They 'accidentally' kill civilians on a regular basis - we attack an entire country looking for terrorists and hardly kill anyone we don't intend to.

(5) How much more of the high ground? I'd say it's like 60-40, which hardly makes me feel good about funding their "less bad" terrorist activities.

(6) Israel targets primarily militants? I assume by "militant" you mean "any Palestinian in the area we attack in 'self-defense'". Again, I wish there were accurate stats regarding number of terrorists killed by Israeli retaliations and number of civilians. I'm confident the numbers would hardly be flattering. Again - the US goes into Afghanistan and we don't seem to be having that tough a time separating the people we want to kill from the people we don't. The difference is that the US has a vested interest in not murdering any Afghani who looks sideways. Israelis don't seem to share the same compassion for their Palestinian neighbors (even with TV cameras around, apparently - guess we can add a lack of common sense to the lack of compassion).

What I'm getting at is that the US has a finite amount of money, and a large number of important things to spend it on - my salary foremost among them. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif To me, there should be a definitve, articulable reason for any large-scale support to a foreign country. I understand dumping money into 3rd world countries - it looks humanitarian, and while it shames me to see it this way, serves it's primary goal of enriching American industrialists. Either way - this country (or at least a very wealthy portion of it) are benefitting from it. I can understand dumping money into Afghanistan - we eradicated the prior government and assumed responsibility (at least in the short run) of getting them up and functioning as a nation. Same goes for Iraq. There are no similar justifications for Israel, and, respectfully, I don't feel that any of those you offered provide one.

Irish