Israel vs Palestine

Remove all ads!

Since the whole conflict is fireing up again, or at least on the news more now that the fighting in Iraq is pretty much over, I was wondering what your oppinions on the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is. Who do you think should really be in control of the land and why?

 

Since you asked, Thauglor, I think that what is happening at the present is a reaction to Shrub's so called "Roadmap to Peace." The PM of Israel, Sharon, was suppose to be here in the US this week but the attacks kept him away. They were carefully orchestrated to put a roadblock on Bush's "map."

The whole idea of this marketing term has a very artificial feel to it and is, I think, Bush trying to prove that he can "win the peace." It is more for the people back home than any real desire of his to bring a lasting peace to the Middle East.

He has bullied most of the states in the region and seems satisfied for the moment. A few indicators point towards the Far East now, but we will have to see. It is getting too near the 2004 campaign and Shrub knows he needs the votes of the "soccer moms" if he wants another term. Because of them he may have to hang his six-guns up for now.

[ May 21, 2003, 19:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Like a heroin addict, I've popped back in.

You know, I run a lot. I don't pronate at all and so use a cushioning shoe and not a motion control shoe.

The other day though, I twisted my ankle at the lake.

I never twisted my ankle before "Shrub" was in office.

Clearly "Shrub" is to blame for my twisted ankle.

Kinda like blaming him for this age old problem dontcha think? I mean, clearly things were going so well before.... oh, wait....

Also, just noting the potential breadth of this topic is staggering.

 

The other night my father and I were having a conversation about nuclear weapons...inevitably this led to talk about Revelations. My father is a revelationist, not a christian. Well anyway, he mentioned that the conflict is not going to be over till all the Palestinians are dead. He listens to Rush Limbaugh all day and watches Fox News all night. Now from knowing him these 23 years I have realized that he is a right-wing lunatic. But it troubles me how many people are probably just like him. How many people eagerly anticipate the day Isreal nukes another nation? How many people believe Isreal being nuked or nuking will be the justification of a life-times faith? How can these two nations not be in conflict when a peaceful resolution of that conflict would leave so many people with their brimstone sitting uselessly next to yesterdays newspaper?

 

Laches -- I did not blame him for the problems between Israel and Palistine, merely responding to the current attacks that have occured over the last week. The conventional wisdom, if there is such a thing, is that the attacks were connected to Sharon's visit.

Now, many feared that if we attacked Iraq that there would be an increase in terrorism. You can argue that attacks would have occured anyway. But in the larger picture IMO, Bush is playing a lot of politics with situation in the Middle East. There is no way you can disconnect the US meddling in the region from the situation between Palestine and Israel.

There are times that we have helped, Carter (Camp David) and Clinton (came really close, but no cigar (I won't say something tacky about who got the cigar, because I know all of you are thinking it), and times that things have been really bad, Reagan and Shrub.

The real problem is that both sides are run by hardliners. IMO, the leaders of the US and Europe should stop dealing with hardliners on both sides, which includes both Shaorn and Arafat. They had a moderate guy in Israel some years back, who could have been a real hope for peace, but the hardliners killed him the same as the other side did Sadat of Egypt. It is always an "us against them" mentality. That is the tie-in with Bush.

As a hardliner he uses the same approach. Yes, he himself gets up and says, "the Muslims are our friends," but listen to the people who support him: Rush, Delay, the evangelical right (I would never use the word Christian to describe that bunch of politcal dogs, since they are an insult to real Christians everywhere). They create in the minds of others the stereo-typical view that the challenge America faces is the hatered of Muslims everywhere. Then Bush fullfills that prophesy by doing something to get an angry reaction, and they say "see, what did we tell you? Muslims hate us and are our enemies."

About your ankle, I hope you have lots of good insurance, because you won't get any help from Shrub (but that's another topic, if you wish to start a thread, I will meet you there). Good luck with your running, Laches.

[ May 21, 2003, 17:43: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Nothing will ever solve this conflict. You could make an exact copy of Israel and give one to each and they would still fight over pathetic matters. "He killed my fathers cousins best friends flat mates uncle, so it is my duty to kill him and get revenge," well you get the idea. This is one fight that wont end in the for-see-able future.

 

Hi, Laches, glad you're back.

Chandos the red wrote:

Yes, that's one of the main parts of the problem. Every great leader who dares to move versus peace somehow signs his on death judgement. I think it's good you bring up Saddat and Rabin. Rabin was an Israel war hero, with stong credentials and was the last big leader in Israel, a lot of Isrealis trusted him and were ready to follow him, whereever he would lead them. A "hawk" turned "dove" which had much political power. The only way to stop him, was to kill him.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ga0

But Israel/Palestine is another issue, which is A. a hot potatoe topic and B. another huge friction in the middle of the pond.

I personally think, neither the USA nor Europe can open the gordic knot. It needs the chinese or the Indians. A big part of "Israelis" can't stand the Europeans (Antisemites), a big part of the Palestinans can't stand the Americans (Anitsemites, Arabs are semites too).

Or an divine Intervention. An Angel coming down, saying stop it, both of you, live peacefully together, children of Abraham.

Edited some spelling errors after Charlie pointed out, that Israel is written in English:"I S R A E L". Sometimes I really hate taetchars. He, he, that's the same spelling as in German. But why do the English speakers spell English "English", instead of "Inglish", like they actually say it, I guess I will never no. Ahm, no, I will never know.

[ May 21, 2003, 13:07: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

There was a thread about this some months ago. Most people agreed that it was a very difficult situation considering this conflict is decades old and no one can prove who has more right to be there.

P.S. Damn it, it's spelled I-S-R-A-E-L. How can I take you guys seriously when you can't even spell the name properly? Other errors are excusable. This is not.

 

Theatschiers tend to inflame me. That's the wrong starting point. Everyone who's living there has the right to live there. Saying, that one side has more right to be there and has to leave would be very dangerous. Because it would mean that the Australians have to leave Australia, because it is clear, Aboriginies have way more right to be there, than the descendants of foreigners, who are known as "Australians". The same would be for New Zealand (Sp?) and South-Africa.

Now, South-Africa is interesting. Some whites claim, that there acutally were there before the blacks came. That's even true, as far as I know. But that does not mean, that blacks haven't the same right to live in South-Africa as the others and it does not mean, that the whites have a right to put up an "Apartheid-regime".

And the British can't claim Norhtern-Ireland for them and demand, that the Irish descendants who live there, emmigrate. It is just not fair, nor right.

And even if, Australians would say, ok, that's true, Australia belongs to the Aboriginies. Where should they go ? Which country would be ready to take millions of Australian refugees ? Danemark ? USA ? Canada ? UK ? Indonesia ? China ? Hong-Kong ? The Republic of Ireland ? Germany ? Japan (he,he, they would propably make some "camps" on Okinawa) Philippines ? Who would want millions of Australians ?

Ah, I know, the 20 million Australians could be equally distributed on Jordania, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon (Sp ?) and the Algerian desert.

[ May 21, 2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Oh come now. That is stretching at its best. There may be lots of ways to criticize the current administration for its dealings with Israel/Palestine, just as you could criticize many others (those damned Germans and French aren't trying hard enough! Clearly the French gaullist tendencies and unilateralist demands of potential EU members, including the nation of Turkey which has a populace that practices the tenets of Islam, in the recent past is hardline and serves to justify in the minds of hardliners the hardline approach taken by those in Israel and Palestine) but your approach imo is largely more related to your intense personal dislike of Bush than it is to the specific situation. I have no problem with you disliking Bush, hell, I don't like him (nor do I despise him) but your dehumanization of him and reaching to draw tangential connections doesn't really strike a strong chord imo.

Like I said, there is plenty to criticize in the current process. You could criticize the amount of time it took to address the situation (of course, others think, like Yago it may appear to some, that the US shouldn't even be involved so this criticism isn't clear cut) or you may criticize the specifics of the plan but those are specific criticisms that imo are much different from a generalized criticism of "Bush is an ******* and therefore they're being *******s too."

Here is the plan, or "roadmap," a good place to start if you want to criticize it (there's lots of reputable writers who have criticized it if you don't actually want to read the whole plan and want a Cliff's Notes version (sp?)):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59050-2003Apr30.html

And a note for what I take was obvious but just in case - I don't blame France's unilateralist moves for the problems in Israel/Palestine.

 

At Laches:

In my own defence, I have to say, that ideally the far-eastern nations (Japan, China, Korea) should make some peace intervention. I stated cleary, as you did yourself too, that neither Europe nor the USA have no own meddlings in the middle-east. I've mentioned Europe and the USA, not the USA alone. Yes, some European countries used to have colonies in this region, not too long ago, that does not further reputation there.

How could I've said India, I have completly forgotten about Pakistan and Bangladesh (Sp ?).

 

Laches -- Here is the problem and my criticism of Bush: He is refusing to deal with Arafat, and I think that is a good thing; Arafat is one piece of the problem. Instead Bush is trying to reach out to alternative leadership and that is also a good thing.

But Bush will deal with Sharon. Sharon is as hardline as they come and you know that to be true. He could find alternative leadership in Israel but he won't do it. IMO that is because of politics. Much of his support is on the far right and he knows that he must have it, just as he needs the soccer moms who are more moderate. Do yourself a favor and listen to these guys on the far right, the way they stereo-type anyone who is Muslim, or Arab. It is painful, but important to know what these guys are saying, because they have a strong voice in policy.

As far as Bush's humanity goes, much of my rants about him are just rhetorical. It is the nature of politics in the USA. Bill Clinton was accused by conservatives of everything from rape to murder. He used to run around in a jogging suit and everyone made fun. Now we have a president who puts on a suit and tie and we all are supposed to not go over the top in our criticism. Give me a break, Laches, I know you have a great sense of humor.

Charlie: I visit these boards because they are fun. There is really excellent content on these boards by people with some good ideas, both progressive and conservative. I really don't care what you take seriously, but don't cuss at anyone because of his/her spelling - that is inexcusable, IMO.

[ May 21, 2003, 19:57: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I've touted this before and I'll do so again:

We are NOT the issue in the Israel / Palestine saga. By that I mean US / UK / The West as a whole etc. We are not causing the problems there, though admittedly perhaps we should be more proactive in the peace process.

The real reason imo that peace seems and, probably is, a long way off is that within the Jewish and Palestinian communities in the region there are those who will not settle for anything other than complete domination. Yet again the extremists are out in force when a "serious" peace effort is being made.

Until the moderates on both sides can sway, control or however else you want to put it, the extremists on both sides, they will not find the road that leads to peace on their map.

Before anyone blames it all on suicide bombers and extreme Palestinian organisations, remember how Rabin and his peace efforts were cut short by Jewish extremism.

BTW, it really gets my goat when this topic is phrased like some sort of sporting contest. Israel v Palestine indeed. What shall we have? Israel by 4?

 

Yes, the problem is not with the map itself but with the political context. Try to get both sides to agree with the map and you've got something. I was listening, just this morning, to a guy ranting on Fox News about the terrorist attacks (I wish I could remember his name), but he was supposed to be some expert on terrorism. Nevertheless, he began by talking of extremists in Saudi Arabia and how the war in Iraq had been a set-back to them. But he ended his remarks by saying that "hatred is being preached from the pulpits of mosques all over the world."

This is exactly the kind of thing I am ranting about. He has no more idea of what is being preached in mosques than the dog, sleeping under my chair does. The guy wants to create an image of raving Muslims who are a threat to peace. It is all politics.

 

I don't know about that, Chandos. I firmly believe that hatred is being preached in mosques worldwide. Not all of them, but enough to convince young men to fly airliners into buildings. The flip side the guy on your radio didn't mention is that hatred is also being preached over Christian pulpits all over the world. Not all pulpits, but enough to convince Irish Catholics to plant bombs on schoolbusses and Irish Protestants to lob bombs into gradeschools. And don't even get me started on the atrocities committed by all sorts of religions in Africa, South America -- pretty well everywhere. It only takes a few hatred filled pulpits of any faith to tar the whole religious community with an undeserved name.

 

Yes, but I connect that with the British expirience of terrorism and the solution of Viking:

In my view, religion never played a role in the Northern-Ireland conflict. How comes, that all over Europe, catholics and protestants live together in peace ? And terrorists in Norhtern Ireland call themselves the "Irish Republican Army" or the "Ulster Volunteer Front". And political authorities, controlled by the "Anglo-Irish", like the police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (sp ?)

They even appointed a canadian, neutral view, to look into things:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2078318.stm

Well, religion does only play a very marginal role in the Northern-Ireland conflict. Religion their is one of the excuses of an Apartheid-kind of system, that gives one half of the population more rights and privileges and material gain, while discriminating the other. Religion is not the important issue. I guess, they freak out about gaelic street-signs and so. And demographics is a problem. The protestants are shrinking majority and it will only take approx. 10-20 years, until the result of a referanda may lead to the reunion of the island.

Yes, they preach hate in churches there, but not out of "belief", but out of simple greed and envy versus eachother. The anglo-Irish want to secure their Apartheid-system, the Irish want to get rid of the Anglo-Irish. And don't forget the history, like the civil-war, independence war, the delibarete destruction of the gealic (sp ?) language and forced deportation.

But I drifted from my main point. Ignore extremitsts. If pacification is the wanted target, extremists will do everything to hinder it. They're lost souls. The only problem is to not let them spoil the future.

And I think the Palestine/Israel conflict has only marginaly to do with religion, but with land, water, demographics and political control. Jerusalem just happens to be the tripple-holy city. Now, some foolish heads claim the "city" for them. Not because of religion, but religion is a means to "have" the city.

 

Yago, don't particularly want to piss on your little fire about Northern Ireland here, BUT....

Apharteid style system? come, come. That is simply a complete distortion of anything resembling fact. If you actually believe that there is or has recently been any sort of government policy to segregate the Catholic community recently, you are completely wrong.

Religion doesn't play anything but a fringe part? True to a degree, but also a complete fallacy. Religion has long ago become the way people identify themselves, thus it has become more of an excuse to polarise themselves within groups in society than actually about the religion they believe in. People class themselves as Catholic and Protestant now without actually believing in the religion itself, it has become just a label.

The above is of course true for people around the world, not just in Northern Ireland. Still pisses me off no end that Americans post September 11 talk big about war on terror, yet had spent 25 years funding the IRA up until about 1994.

BTW - UVF = Ulster Volunteer Force

 

I'm sorry I brought up Northern Ireland! I was simply pointing out that people other than Muslims use religion as a mask for hatred and violence. But that doesn't make what they do right. I also mentioned Africa, South America and a few other hot spots as well.

 

Lord Depaara - I agree with the general idea of what you are saying. But the impression that the hate mongers are trying to project here in the states is one in which most Muslims can be seen as enemies of America and Arabs as terrorists, because of their religious beliefs. All of us should know that nothing could be further from the truth. But many Americans who refuse to think for themselves are swayed by this kind of rhetoric.

That is one of the reasons why America is now supposed to be on the side of Israel, instead of the right reasons. It is because all of us are supposed to know that Arabs and Palestinians are Muslims, and Muslims are taught to hate anyone who is not Islamic.

Historically, the Christians (and I use the term loosley to include Nazi Germany) have been the worst perpetraters of anti-Semitism. They have committed more horrible crimes against the Jewish people than anyone else. Muslims have not so bad a track record as Christians. This is swept under the carpet so to speak, because everyone is supposed to know that it is the Germans and the Nazis were the main ones who committed such crimes. But the historical record shows that such persecution is very deep in Christian roots. I won't cite all the instances, otherwise I would be here typing till tomorrow morning. If you doubt read, _The Merchant of Venice or _Ivanhoe_ . Fiction may not be history in the real sense, but is sometimes a good indicator of currents of thought and social conditions, IMO.

After fifteen hundred years of inhumane treatment and almost constant persecution, one would think that today's right wing zealots would say simply that we owe it to Israel to finally give them the safe space and security from such persecution. But instead we are treated to how it is a bastion of democracy in an ocean of tyrants and toltalitarian states, that despise Americans based on religious principles. They are in someway all terrorist states.

I suspect that there is growing dislike for America among Muslims. Of course every American knows that it is because of nothing that we would do that would create dislike (Please note that I am not referring to the insane madmen who flew planes into buildings but mainstream Muslims who suddenly find 250,000 Americna soldiers sitting on their doorsteps). The reason for any dislike is because Americans are successful and everyone else is just jealous of us. This is the kind of nonsense that Jerry Falwell and Rush sitting on the right would have the average American believe.

Yago is absolutely right when he says that the reason for the conflict is more practical (land, water, etc) rather than on ideology or religious differences. But how much easier it is for Americans to believe that it is otherwise.

Added Falwell link: http://www.adn.com/24hour/world/story/572160p-4483668c.html

[ May 22, 2003, 06:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

This conflict between these two nations is as old as the nation of Israel. When the Jews wanted a place they could call home and the USA and europe decided that they could grant that nation they found they state of Palaistine (which was the historic birth land of the Jewish nation) and decided to split this nation in two and give one piece to the Jews and one piece to the Palaistinians.
At first there was no conflict between these two nationalities until one day the zealots of the Jewish came to power and this was the beginning of the end. They decided they needed more breathing space and they took it by force. The Israelis were better equipped (of course) and they didn't have a real problem to get what they want.
The Palaistinians didn't like that and furthermore they didn't like to be prisoners in their own homes so they fight back.
At this point the tensions are too high and although i've read yesterday that the majority of Palaistinians would oppose the suicide attack IF there was a true step towards peace and equality i personally doubt that the attrocities by both sides will be easily forgotten.
But they must try or else they will never manage to enjoy peace and a life that doesn't fear to end from a stray bullet or anything unnatural.
But both goverments are lacking common sense and still expect the other side to step back and grant their requests. That is utopic and if they don't wake up the only ones who will continue to pay for this situation are the simple people fom both sides