Israel, Gaza, and the Middle East Conflict

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
That's what my mom said. That you didn't know what terror is until the Two Towers disaster.

I think, I definately knew what terror was, and how it was, well terrible. But I never knew what it felt like. And it doesn't matter how many times this will happen again, I will never understand why.

[Cirdan]

I like that "performanced based and goal driven roadmap" bit. It sounds like some corporate mission statement.

I don't think that all Israelis want the extermination of all the Palestinians but I'm sure there is a significant portion that would like to see the extermination of the radical factions. This is the critical point and Radagast could give us a better perspective.

How much influence do the hardliners have in the parlimentary system in Israel? Even if not the majority, the system allows a large influence for minor factions to be swing votes in determining leadership and policy

Israel has the fourth(?) largest military in the world. If they wanted to exterminate the Palestinians it wouldn't be very difficult.

How about just renaming all the disputed areas "Palestine: Home of the Israelites"?(j/k)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I like that "performanced based and goal driven roadmap" bit. It sounds like some corporate mission statement.

Well basically it is a mission statement. The only way to get to peace is to take one step at a time. Unless the beginning steps are taken and succeed - they will never get to the final result (which is supposed to be peace to the region).

I don't think that all Israelis want the extermination of all the Palestinians but I'm sure there is a significant portion that would like to see the extermination of the radical factions. This is the critical point and Radagast could give us a better perspective.

Well I think pretty much everyone wants to ectermination of the radical factions. If they aren't eliminated - they will always cause problems. I don't necessarily mean all out killing of them - but the dismantlying of Hamas one way or the other. The only way it will happen though is with Palestinian help.

How much influence do the hardliners have in the parlimentary system in Israel? Even if not the majority, the system allows a large influence for minor factions to be swing votes in determining leadership and policy

Sharon was/is part of that hardline political perty. Right now he is hated in his party for his actions.

Israel has the fourth(?) largest military in the world. If they wanted to exterminate the Palestinians it wouldn't be very difficult.

That's very true. If Israel wanted they could eliminate all the Palistinians. I don't think any country would be putting up with the stuff Israel has been putting up with. Hamas' attitude even reinforces that they don't want peace at all. I don't think Hamas represents the feelins of all Palestinians though.

It was just on the news - Palestinians and Israelis are meeting tonight. A US Mediator is going to be there. Koffi Anan is talking about sending UN peacekeepers.

As far as I'm concerned - the peace process is still on track. It's much more positive than just having meetings at Camp David - doing a few photo ops at the White House and then going back to the Middle East where they just go back to the way it was before the talks. Been there - done that. It's about time someoine tried something new.

[Silme*Christian]

Is this thread filled with people who went to Israel?!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Silme*Christian
Is this thread filled with people who went to Israel?!

No - it's filled with people who watch the news and educate themselves on the Middle East.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
The British gave it to them. All of Israel as it is now is theirs legally. I'm not sure if the territory they got through various wars with the surrounding Arab nations they still have or not - but that land too is theirs (if they still have any of it that is... they were attacked just a few days after becoming a nation, any land gained in that should be theirs).

The British could not have given them that land, because the British didn't own it. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Britain and France were given League of Nations Mandates to administer their respective areas (France had Syria and Lebanon-notice, no oil) for the express purpose of guiding the inhabitants toward self-determination.

Of course, a cynic or a Marxist might take the view that Britain and France pushed the League (which at that time they completely dominated) into handing them over a huge chunk of territory for exploitation, as per the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

The problem was that in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 the British also promised to agree to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Palestinian part of the Mandate.

After WWII, sympathy for the sufferings of the Jewish people were such that the United Nations voted to establish a Jewish Homeland by dividing Palestine.

Naturally enough, the Palestinians didn't agree- after all, if the West wanted to compensate the Jews for the suffering caused by Germany, why not give them Bavaria or Saxony- or Wales or Provence or New Jersey?

And , JerseyDevil, just checking out "The Peace to End All Peace" at Amazon, it seems like a very good reference, which is why I doubt that the author claims that Britain "owned" the Middle East, unless he's referring to a metaphorical rather than legalistic sense (as in "the Spurs own the Nets).

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then what is your recommendation - disolve Israel because the palestinian homicide bombings will continue? If that's the case - why not just eliminate the Palestinians then? Israel would have lived in peace had the Arab countries not tried to eliminate them.

It's the Palestinians and other Arab countries which keep the hatred alive. How would you feel about Norway if norwegians kept coming over to Sweden and blowing up buses, restaurants, etc? I bet you wouldn't trust Norwegians very much. I also bet you would demand your government to take action against them to protect you. I know if canada and Mexico were doing this to the US - I would demand my government to take action against them. I think it is a lot to ask of Israel not to take action - while their citizens are purposely targeted and PUBLIC buses are blown up.

But what if Norway was occupying Sweden, or the US was occupying Mexico or if Russia or China was occupying the US?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think one can FORCE them - but I think action can be taken against them. Just like action was taken against the fringe groups who tried to disrupt the start of the US and the rebuilding of Russia after the Soviet Union fell. The Palestinians themselves will have to take a hardline against Hamas and Israel will have to take a hardline against the settlers. If both groups took action against their own fringe groups - then it would build a little more trust that something was being done and that the moderate groups who want peace are serious.

Hear, hear, about Israel at least- about Shay's Rebellion, if that's what you mean, I'm not so sure. "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing...."; Thomas Jefferson; Letter to Madison.

IMO, Arafat totally betrayed both the peace process and his own people when he refused to accept the deal offered by Barak, or even state a counter-offer.

He thought he could exploit suicide bombings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to force a few more concessions.

My basic opinion is this: I don't believe that the establishment of the State of Israel was just, but it exists now and the only solution is for the Palestinians to swallow their bitterness and accept a compromise.

Of course, that would deprive every despotism in the Middle-East of one of its main excuses for not reforming....

[Spock]

The tribes in Judea had been there long before the land was called Palestine; it's historical fact. When the holocost alerted British sensibilities they merely tried to give back what once was. After all there are millions of miles surrounding Israel which have been and still are controlled by Arabic tribes. For those of Palestinian decent who chose to live within the State of Israel after it's inception, working with and not against should have been the rule. Now those who have no right claim Israelis have no right and they kill without regard and for no purpose other than the utter destruction of the State of Israel. That is middle age thinking at best.
The words of T.E. Lawrence still ring true (and apply to the current continued fighting with Israelis:

"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel"

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Spock
The tribes in Judea had been there long before the land was called Palestine; it's historical fact. When the holocost alerted British sensibilities they merely tried to give back what once was. After all there are millions of miles surrounding Israel which have been and still are controlled by Arabic tribes. For those of Palestinian decent who chose to live within the State of Israel after it's inception, working with and not against should have been the rule. Now those who have no right claim Israelis have no right and they kill without regard and for no purpose other than the utter destruction of the State of Israel. That is middle age thinking at best.
The words of T.E. Lawrence still ring true (and apply to the current continued fighting with Israelis:

"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel"

The name "Palestine" originally comes from Philistine, the people who lived in the coastal area while the Judeans and Israelites lived inland - areas that they themselves had stolen from the original inhabitants, the Canaanites.

For the British to decide to give Israel to the Jews to rectify ancient injustices is the equivalent of Israel deciding to give England back to Wales; or America, Canada or Australia back to their original inhabitants- or for that matter, shipping the Germans and French back to Hungary, or the Hungarians back to Central Asia.

As compensation for the Holocaust it makes even less sense.

The Arabs have thousands of miles of land? so do the Europeans and their descendants-- let them give some of it up.

Pick a point in history, pick your favorite tribal legend, and justify it on that.

[Spock]

It's called war and has been done so since the beginning. Even in Asia. Time for those who lost (eons ago) to get over it. Time for those who murder and hate and who failed 50 years ago to kill the State of Israel, to realize PEACE is the only viable option to bloodshed.

[Spock]

[
For the British to decide to give Israel to the Jews to rectify ancient injustices is the equivalent of Israel deciding to give England back to Wales; or America, Canada or Australia back to their original inhabitants- or for that matter, shipping the Germans and French back to Hungary, or the Hungarians back to Central Asia.

.....................WHAT!? That is convoluted at best.

As compensation for the Holocaust it makes even less sense.

Not really, the land was theirs from ancient times. The land wasn't of any value even to the tribes living there. The Israelis made it livable, viable and profitable when centuries of camel drivers could not.

The Arabs have thousands of miles of land? so do the Europeans and their descendants-- let them give some of it up. THE EUROPEANS only want Arab oil and have no interest in Jewish rights per se.

Pick a point in history, pick your favorite tribal legend, and justify it on that. [/B][/QUOTE] pleeeease "stolen" is such a loaded word. Warfare directes spoils to the winner it has always been so even amongst Bedouin and Chinese.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
The British could not have given them that land, because the British didn't own it. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Britain and France were given League of Nations Mandates to administer their respective areas (France had Syria and Lebanon-notice, no oil) for the express purpose of guiding the inhabitants toward self-determination.

No Graymouser - England OWNED and RULED over the Middle East as a conquering power. They're ultimate goal was to set up democracies and such - which they failed at. Britain created all the countries of the Middle East and gave the land to their Arab supporters. The Middle East was made up of warring tribes - which the English arbitrarily brought together. They created Iraq even - that's why you have the Kurds in the north - whose land is actually within 4 different countries and who are not happy, the you have the Shi'as in the south and the Sunis in the middle. Saudia Arab was created as a thank you to one of their supporters.

The problem was that in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 the British also promised to agree to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Palestinian part of the Mandate.

After WWII, sympathy for the sufferings of the Jewish people were such that the United Nations voted to establish a Jewish Homeland by dividing Palestine.

The Palestinians were never a country. There was technically no palestine.

Naturally enough, the Palestinians didn't agree- after all, if the West wanted to compensate the Jews for the suffering caused by Germany, why not give them Bavaria or Saxony- or Wales or Provence or New Jersey?

The Jewish homeland was established long before. Sorry - but I don't think you fully understand the situation in the Middle East of that time. As for giving them New Jersey - Britain couldn't - we're part of an independent country - unlike Canada - where they could have given them Ontario.

But what if Norway was occupying Sweden, or the US was occupying Mexico or if Russia or China was occupying the US?

That's a stupid analogy - because the only reason Israel is occupying those areas - is because they were attacked by the Arab countries. They gained that land through a war that the Arab countries started. It seems as if you really don't understand the history of the Middle East - but pieces here and there and some agreements which were made.

[jerseydevil]

Graymouser - Spock seem to make some very good points against your posts and assumptions. England CONQUERED the Middle East and destroyed the Ottoman Empire - the land was theirs to do with what they wanted to - which they did.

The Palestinians could be living in a very nice country right now - if they weren't always blowing themselves up.

[Radagast The Brown]

orioginally posted by Cirdan
I don't think that all Israelis want the extermination of all the Palestinians but I'm sure there is a significant portion that would like to see the extermination of the radical factions. This is the critical point and Radagast could give us a better perspective.

Right now, most of the people are in the right (like democrates and republicans - there is right and left here. The left want peace in ore oeacefull way (give the arabs almost everything they want) and the right is more like - almost not to give them. If they attack us we attack them etc.. Sharon is in the right), though most old people are in the left... and the kids are n the radical right. Generally - more ten years, when all the young kids will grow (as me), the goverment will be more radical.

originally posted by GrayMouse
The name "Palestine" originally comes from Philistine, the people who lived in the coastal area while the Judeans and Israelites lived inland - areas that they themselves had stolen from the original inhabitants, the Canaanites.

That can be right - but the Philistines are not the ancestors of todays palestinians.
The areas were not stolen - they were conquered. Look in the Bible.

As compensation for the Holocaust it makes even less sense.

But it's true.



From the Proclamation of Independence, quote:

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, defiant returnees, and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State....

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by Cirdan
How about just renaming all the disputed areas "Palestine: Home of the Israelites"?(j/k)

HAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry, nothing else to post. THat rocks.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Spock
It's called war and has been done so since the beginning. Even in Asia. Time for those who lost (eons ago) to get over it. Time for those who murder and hate and who failed 50 years ago to kill the State of Israel, to realize PEACE is the only viable option to bloodshed.

If it's called war, maybe those who lost refuse to accept that it's over.

As did the Jews after the Romans kicked them out of Palestine- eons later, they returned.

As did the Irish, every time they were crushed by the Brits, or the Poles every time they were divided between Germany and Russia, or the Vietnamese against the Chinese, French and Americans.

The Palestinians' inspiration is the Crusaders, whose states lasted from 1098 to 1291- four times as long as the current State of Israel has existed- but who eventually went back where they came from.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Spock
[

Not really, the land was theirs from ancient times. The land wasn't of any value even to the tribes living there. The Israelis made it livable, viable and profitable when centuries of camel drivers could not.

[/FONT]

If it wasn't valuable why did they fight to keep it? If it wasn't livable, how was it that people had lived there for thousands of years?

This is the same argument that the Europeans applied to the aboriginal peoples they conquered, and the Nazis applied to the peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
[B]That can be right - but the Philistines are not the ancestors of todays palestinians.
The areas were not stolen - they were conquered. Look in the Bible.

How do you know? Have you checked their DNA?

Charging into someone's land, running a sword through them, slaughtering their male children and claiming their women as slaves- I may be morally obtuse, but please explain the difference between conquest and theft?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No Graymouser - England OWNED and RULED over the Middle East as a conquering power. They're ultimate goal was to set up democracies and such - which they failed at. Britain created all the countries of the Middle East and gave the land to their Arab supporters. The Middle East was made up of warring tribes - which the English arbitrarily brought together. They created Iraq even - that's why you have the Kurds in the north - whose land is actually within 4 different countries and who are not happy, the you have the Shi'as in the south and the Sunis in the middle. Saudia Arab was created as a thank you to one of their supporters.

The Palestinians were never a country. There was technically no palestine.

The Jewish homeland was established long before. Sorry - but I don't think you fully understand the situation in the Middle East of that time. As for giving them New Jersey - Britain couldn't - we're part of an independent country - unlike Canada - where they could have given them Ontario.

Certainly Britain RULED over the Middle East, and with France (as definitely a junior power ) arbitrarily drew borders and created countries.

But the original question was about the LEGAL establishment of the State of Israel, and no matter what way you look at it the British did not own any territory in the Middle East, the way they legally owned India or Hong Kong- their legal authority wasn't based on conquest. As the British and French both openly acknowledged, their authority (not power !) in the former Ottoman Empire was based on a mandate from the League of Nations to administer the occupied territories for the (eventual) benefit of the local inhabitants.

Part of the problem here is you are describing what actually happened in terms of the straight-forward imperial power politics- and I agree with you on that -while I'm talking about the diplomatic and legal framework that was used as a justification.

Currently the USA and Britain RULE over Iraq as occupying powers ( along with the other members of the Coalition, of course- anybody asked Eritrea's opinion lately?), recognized as such by the UN- does that mean that the USA owns Iraq?

Of course, Palestine wasn't a country- it was a separately administered and recognised territory - the Mandate of Palestine.

And the Jewish homeland was established long before what?
Actually, the Balfour Declaration didn't specify Palestine as a Jewish National Homeland- there was some discussion of Uganda or Madagascar.

Referring to New Jersey, I wasn't saying that Britain or anyone else had the authority to give it to the Jews, but bringing out the Arab argument-

"Hey, WE didn't stuff Jews into ovens, you so-called civilised Westerners did- if it was solely the fault of the Germans, let them compensate the Jews; if it was a collective guilt of Christendom, work it out among yourselves- but don't take OUR land because YOU feel guilty"