The Israeli Palestinian conflict

[TaiDaishar]

and unless one of them breaks the spiral of violence it will just keep going.

There have been attempts by the Israelis to break that cycle and most of the times were rewarded by a terrorist attack.

[Griselda]

The problem with stalling an entire peace process over terrorist attacks is that it gives fanatics free reign to dictate international politics. If an antire peace process can be sidetracked because if the actions of one sixteen year old kid, how is there ever going to be peace?

No, I don't have any solutions, but I think that's a major problem here.

-Griselda

[TaiDaishar]

The problem with stalling an entire peace process over terrorist attacks is that it gives fanatics free reign to dictate international politics.  If an antire peace process can be sidetracked because if the actions of one sixteen year old kid, how is there ever going to be peace?

Yep, that is a problem and I would agree that ignoring terrorist attacks during peace process should be done IF the goverment tries and actually make a real effort to stop terrorists, as of now the Palestinian goverment has yet to do something except for talking.

[Jester]

The way Judaism has come to be interpreted is as much the product of the history of the Jewish people post-moses as it was the original text. There's more than enough in there to justify a conqueror position there. Besides, having a pacifist holy text that disavowed all worldly wealth never stopped the Christians from looting and pillaging, did it?

No, I doubt seriously the contention that the Jews would be significantly different from the Arabs (and vice versa, of course) were their situations reversed at an early enough date.

Of course, that date would have to precede Islam, so it would fall apart pretty badly at that point.

Jester

[pakman]

EDIT: Self Nuke.

[whyBish]

Can anyone see Jews teaching "Death to Arabs!" in their f**king schools

Well, their military seems to have done a lot of 'retaliation'. Who needs to indoctrinate child terrorists when a nation already has a military force?

[whyBish]

"...by right, the land Israel captured IS Israel's territory now and the Palestinians' demands they will return their land back is empty since they are no longer the Palestinians' areas..."
???
So if some other nation takes over Israel, then Israel will have no claim since it now belongs to that other nation?

"as for the PLO, last time I checked it was a terrorist organization"
A terrorist organisation in whose eyes? The same people who would classify the Isreali army as a 'security force'?

Sorry, if these comments seem inflammatory, but I will stand by what I said last time (not the 'Nuke both of them' comment ;) ) this was raised... how many Palestinians do you think are reading this board?

[Feryar]

Yep, that is a problem and I would agree that ignoring terrorist attacks during peace process should be done IF the goverment tries and actually make a real effort to stop terrorists, as of now the Palestinian goverment has yet to do something except for talking.

You seem to be blaming only the palestinians for this conflict, or at least that is how I read it.

In my eyes, a helicopter firing rockets against a car in the middle of rush hour, killing maybe one a-hole but also doing parts of his family in adition to anyone unlucky enough to be nearby, is no better than someone blowing a bomb on a bus. I don't consider the Israel army to be a bit better than their arab enemies.
There, I've said it. I know I should not have, but that is indeed how I feel about it.

There are always two sides to a conflict. Always. Keep that in mind.

[TaiDaishar]

You seem to be blaming only the palestinians for this conflict, or at least that is how I read it.

In my eyes, a helicopter firing rockets against a car in the middle of rush hour, killing maybe one a-hole but also doing parts of his family in adition to anyone unlucky enough to be nearby, is no better than someone blowing a bomb on a bus. I don't consider the Israel army to be a bit better than their arab enemies.
There, I've said it. I know I should not have, but that is indeed how I feel about it.

There are always two sides to a conflict. Always. Keep that in mind.

The Palestinians did start this entire mess in the first place, that's why I blame them most, especially after such a generous offer made by Israel's Prime Minister, they metaphorically slapped Israel's face by turning into terrorism after this offer and this is why most people in Israel do not believe peace can be resolved (although still hope for one, even the ones yelling "Death to Arabs").

And you are right about one thing, a helicopter firing rockets against a car is not very subtle and I hate this way as much as you do, going out and saying that you believe that a helicopter firing rockets in order to kill an "a-hole" as you put it and unfortunately hitting civilians is the same as a fanatical muslim blowing himself up in order to kill jews no matter age/sex believing that because he killed those jews in his death he will now be granted permission to heaven (and 70 virigins) is something that makes me want to hit you with my trout.

So if some other nation takes over Israel, then Israel will have no claim since it now belongs to that other nation?

You took that phrase out of proportion (my fault as well, I admit), what I meant is that Israel captured these territories when they were the DEFENDER, Israel did not attack at first, the Arab League did and by now demanding the terriroties that were captured by the enemy you forced war unto is like punching someone in the nose and then suing them for hitting you back.

A terrorist organisation in whose eyes? The same people who would classify the Isreali army as a 'security force'?

And how do you classify the Israeli army? Israel if it really wanted to, could kill/throw anyone from the Palestinian territories (not saying that is good and/or Israel will really do it) and Israel NOT doing is a partial reason why Israel's army isn't just an oppression force like so much think it is.

The reason why most people think Israel is bad is because Israel is considered the big, powerful nation using guns against hapless citizens while the Palestinians are generally considered as poor people trying their best to defend themselves against guns with rocks and stones.

In order to try and give you some perspective, imagine you, an adult, being cursed by the child next door constantly and him throwing rocks on you, when you finally grab the little brat in the shirt and asking him (with a little amount of fury of course) why is he doing it and he starts crying, you will be considered by the passbyers as a bad man, but are you a bad man? Are the passbyers judgment is correct when they saw only the end of the conflict instead of the entirity of it?

[eppie]

Hi,

first I want to say that I will not start mentioning the who was there really first arguments. (I'm also an atheist, so I don't believe anything christians, muslims, jews etc. say about holy places) If you show me ten israelis and ten palestinians I am not able to see the difference, a same thing that can even more clearly been said about katholics and protestants in ireland). Hatred is by both people's beeing preached by leaders mainly. Concluding I will not say one of both groups is right in what they believe.
However we have a conflict here in which one of the groups is inhabitant of one of the world richest countries, is heavily supported by the USA an governs the land, while the other group is living in extreme poverty with no future hopes whatsoever. Terrorism can of course not be aproved of, but I can also imagine very good why a palastian would do it. Let's make it clear, you are not going to do a suicide attack, just because on school they teached you to hate the jews. If you decide to do this suicide attack your life stinks so incredibly and you are without hope that it is the only thing you want to do. If you kill yourself, why not take with you some of the "enemy", that is how they think.
The first thing that has of course to be done, is create a basis of equality; a country cannot have to different classes of citizens which have such a difference in wealth and freedom. I don't think israel has to be afraid to be run over by other arab countries.
Of course for the USA and in lesser extent for europe it is economically very important to have a "nice" conflict running somewhere far from home, that is the main reason the conflict is not solved yet. I think that if you ask palestinians and israelis if thet would like a country without violence, in which everybody can visit every sacred place that he wants most of them would say yes.

[TaiDaishar]

I think that if you ask palestinians and israelis if thet would like a country without violence, in which everybody can visit every sacred place that he wants most of them would say yes.

I think not, but it's just my opinion.

Not so long ago I saw a TV show that simply recorded Palestinians (whether they're at home making cookies, watching TV or cursing an Israeli soldier), a few "May all the Israels go to hell and leave our country" were heard, half of it from children, problem is that how they said it, they said it like you say "Damn cockroaches are all over the place", there hasn't been real fury in their voice, it sounded more like something they say so much that they say it now without thinking even.


I don't understand what you meant about a "nice" conflict good for Europe/USA, could you elaborate on this subject?

[pakman]

I disagree. This conflict is all about religion, neither side can see through their blinders. Suicide bombers do what they do because they are "promised" (read brainwashed) by their leaders. It's these same religious leaders that run the countries, and if it's not a religious leader, you can be sure that there isn't one far away somewhere in the administration of that leader. The suicide bombers are nothing more than tools.

[pakman]

I think he might mean that it's "nice" to have a politically tense situation. This situation can be used to buy votes, gain economic status, gain wolrd favor. All in all it's "nice" to have something to enable you to improve you view among people. Maybe I missed the target completely.

[eppie]

[QUOTE]
I don't understand what you meant about a "nice" conflict good for Europe/USA, could you elaborate on this subject?


The three most influencial lobby's in the US are the weapons industry, the oil industry and the jews (american israelis). (because of the huge wealth these three groups posses)

1st weapons industry: not only the weapons they can sell to the israelis (I know israel has a very large weapons industry itsself) but also the ones that via via arrive to the arab countrys and the palestinians.
I think most conflicts escalate under influence of the weapons industry, (but I have no proof of this of course)

I wonder where that satelite is with which they " found" all those WMD in Iraq
, in north korea it was the higher level of Krypton in the air to prove there was another nuclear plant?!?! But that is another topic.

2nd the oil industry: it is very important that america has a base in the middle east....this situation has changed a bit lately of course because of the crises in Irak, Iran, Afghanistan and the cooled relations with saudi arabia (israel is the only sure ally of the USA)

3rd the israeli lobby is very influencial, and makes sure america will keep supporting israel (for obvious reasons)

The weapons are of course the most important reason to keep the conflict running, the other two are more in favour of direct "victory" for israel....... (as i realize now) Maybe there is also a rich palestinian lobby??.

Well I will think about it some more...keeps the brains working!

Nice thread by the way,

[Occhidiangela]

The religious differences are used as an excuse to point out who "they" are, but the core issue is that it's a land deal. The other twine of religion in the weave is that for the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, Jerusalem is, for differing reasons, a "holy city." The suggestions that have for decades been put forward to set up Jerusalem as an international city, similar to but different from The Vatican, have fallen on deaf ears. It may truly be in the "too hard" category.

[Jonathon Spectre]

I don't really like arguing on the Internet, but there are just a couple of points I'd like to make vis a vis this issue.

Here is the "Cliff's Notes" version of the last four years of the Arab-Israeli conflict:
Israel: "Please stop detonating nail bombs on crowded buses full of women and children!"
Arabs: "Not till you're all dead!"
Israel: "... Well, okay, if that's how it has to be."

Secondly, anyone remember Oslo? This was where ex-Perjurer-in-Chief Clinton got the Israelis to hold a gun to their own heads and offer to give the Palestinians literally 99% of what they wanted. Land, a "state" of "Palestine," etc. What was Yasser Arafat's response to this unbelievably (many would say "suicidally") generous offer? He went back home and started paying people to set off nail bombs on buses.

Why? Well, because the moment the "Palestinians" (I use this term not because there is such thing, but because I don't want to type out "Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis, etc." every time) get their own country, they actually have to run their own country. And it turns out, that's hard! That's a lot harder than just setting up a few bomb factories and sending children off to die. What would happen to Yasser Arafat if suddenly all the "Palestinians" had him to blame for their miserable existence instead of the all-encompassing boogeyman Israel? What if suddenly it was Yasser and the "Palestinian Authority" who were responsible for providing power and water to the "Palestinians," something that is currently done by those evil, evil Israelis? It's a lot easier to destroy than to create. Yasser should know. He's responsible for plenty of destruction and death. Hell's gonna be hot for the ugliest man on Earth.

I also take issue with the term "cycle of violence." That implies that both sides are just as culpable. Well, they are not. The Israelis are not deliberately targetting civilians. The Israelis respond to terrorist attacks with military force because they have to. No self-respecting country, hell, no self-respecting HUMANS, would simply sit idly by and let their citizens be killed over, and over, and over, and over ad infinitum without doing everything possible to kill those responsible. When's the last time the Israelis disguised a suicide bomber as a paramedic and tried to get him thru a checkpoint in a frigging ambulance?! Remember Jenin? The Israelis could have just rolled up the heavy artillery and levelled the whole damn place, but instead they sent their brave soldiers into that rat's nest to try to (and this is important) minimize civilian casualties. In other words, to not kill people who haven't actively tried to kill Israelis.

Contrast this with the "Palestinians." Blech.

One side in this conflict is a discrete state with a military (used against those who attack or threaten that state), civilian representative government, a modern economy and infrastructure, etc. The other is a terrorist power whose leaders go out of their way to keep their subjects as powerless and miserable as humanly possible in order to perpetuate their own rule. It is mind-boggling to me that ANYONE cannot see who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are here.

Of course, there are plenty of people who don't wish to discriminate between good and evil. That certainly explains why people can look at some grubby terrorist blowing up children at a Passover dinner as "freedom fighters." >snickering< I bet George Washington and Yasser Arafat would get along so well.

If the "Palestinian" "leadership" had the least bit of interest in actually accomplishing their goals of giving their subjects a home, peace, and prosperity, they would adopt the non-violent tactics of M.Gandhi and M.L.King Jr. However, that assumes these medieval thugs have any interest in anything except their own aggrandizement and killing every last Jew on the face of the Earth. To make that assumption, you must disregard evidence and history.

/obligatory Nazi reference
Nazis had their sympathizers, too. One of the most rabid was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat's mentor.
/obligatory Nazi reference

JS
Who'll now bugger off from this thread and go pick up Star Wars Galaxies

[Jester]

"The Israelis respond to terrorist attacks with military force because they have to. No self-respecting country, hell, no self-respecting HUMANS, would simply sit idly by and let their citizens be killed over, and over, and over, and over ad infinitum without doing everything possible to kill those responsible."

"If the "Palestinian" "leadership" had the least bit of interest in actually accomplishing their goals of giving their subjects a home, peace, and prosperity, they would adopt the non-violent tactics of M.Gandhi and M.L.King Jr."

Do you honestly put these two paragraphs together without noticing that they openly contradict each other? That one side, the side you support, should be given as much latitude as needed, whereas the other, the side you don't support, should forget about everything ever done to them and adopt a strict pacifist stance?

Yikes. Either both sides have the right to "defend" themselves, and this is going to continue until Israel is destroyed and the Arabs ruined, or both sides are going to learn Mr. Gandhi's lessons, and the killing might stop.

But to perscribe different remedies for the opposing sides? That's just a double standard. (Unless, of course, Palestinians aren't self-respecting humans, a contention your arguments lend support to...)

Jester

[TaiDaishar]

the side you support, should be given as much latitude as needed

Maybe I misunderstoof him but he never said Israel should be given as much latitude as possible, he's trying to show you that the so called oppression of the Palestinians is an act trying to defend Israeli civilians and not simply trying to kill Palestinians

whereas the other, the side you don't support, should forget about everything ever done to them and adopt a strict pacifist stance?

Everything ever done to them? No.

I say No because Israel did nothing to them, they should be reminded who's the true architect beyond their walls of misery, and they (if you didn't guess already) are the Arab dictators

[Occhidiangela]

Not only no proof, but no clue.

The three most influencial lobby's in the US are the weapons industry, the oil industry and the jews (american israelis). (because of the huge wealth these three groups posses)
1st weapons industry: not only the weapons they can sell to the israelis (I know israel has a very large weapons industry itsself) but also the ones that via via arrive to the arab countrys and the palestinians.
I think most conflicts escalate under influence of the weapons industry, (but I have no proof of this of course)

You give your myopia away. Keep your conspiracy theories, let's talk a bit about the global arms industry.

The arms industry exists because there is a global market for arms. Someone is going to make a buck, be it Eurocopter or Boeing, be it Lockheed Martin's JSF, Mikoyan's MiG, or the Eurofighter.

Why?

Not everyone is singing kumbaya yet, sad but true. The other sad but true is that, to ensure that one's own needs are meetable, should war become a fact, a minimum warm base has to exist in case one needs to surge. To keep that minimum base viable, in a place where government subsidies are attacked with regularity, customers are found the world over. While it is probably not too far of a reach to suspect that war can yield profits to arms companies, that does not de facto prove that arms companies advocate war in order to earn a profit. They just want to make a buck.

I'd suggest that most arms companies the world over a are a lot like software companies: always out to sell the latest upgrade. War be damned, their sales pitch is: deterrence by being better equipped than you neighbor, and exploiting the fear of being on the end of a tech mismatch. I won't argue that such a mind set does not create the potential arms race in a lot of places. It is, however, the politician who chooses war, not the armament company. Check history on that score.

There is a certain irony involved in the relationship between arms, peace, deterence security, and political aims. Most arms companies are "dual use" companies: they manufacture both arms and other products these days. In theory, if a great deal of peace breaks out and people stop buying so many arms, some of those companies may be able to reasonably quickly set up new product lines in other market areas. Some won't.

Most of these companies sell to governments. The governments want the most potential bang for their dollar. They also, most often, would rather not have to pay for a war, but rather threaten with force. War itself is bloody expensive and costs a lot in lives and money. It generally disrupts trade, which cuts off revenue to governments. From a purely economic perspective, war is not a cost effective short term choice.

The more peace we have, the fewer arms companies can stay viable. However, there is always the threat of someone being violent, so one must be prepared. To be "better prepared" than the other guy is where most armaments companies make their upgrade/profit margin these days. The really big ticket items, like aircraft carriers and tanks, rarely get used, while the secondary markets for the cheaper stuff, small arms, RPG's, jeeps, trucks, is more like food: high usage rate, high turnover.

See Liberia. No big ticket items there, just low end, and effective, arms. I don't think anyone is supporting that war in the interest of making a buck.

[Feryar]

Jester spoke my mind.

And like I said earlier, it scares me how much some people only manage to see one side of a conflict. If everyone down in the Middle East thinks the same (both Israeli and Palestini) then there are no way this conflict will ever get solved, save the total annihilation of one of the parts.

Spectre, can't you see that you are exactly what you accuse the Arabs of being?
The way you describe the Palestinians in your post is probably the exact same way that their fanatical religious leaders describe the Isrealis. Justifying their own actions by placing all available guilt and blame on the other side.

I'm out of this thread. It scares me. It scares me even more than religious fanatiscism.


edit: changed "this discussion" into "this thread". This is a topic that's regularly discussed among my friends, since I go to school with both jews and palestinians. It's a neverending topic, but the attitudes in some posts in here are too much for me.