Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You ask a good question and include fair points, but your conclusion is off the mark. The reason that it's such an important conflict is not because of the levels of blood letting involved, it's because 700,000 people (1) and their descendants were robbed of their land by European/Russian exiles, were never compensated, are refused the right to return. In many cases, these are people who still have their front door keys and title deeds to their houses in Israel which were allocated to European immigrants by the Israeli Government. While it might be a relatively small war compared to others in terms of casualties, it's one of the (if not the) largest cause of stateless refugee's in the world. The countries surrounding Israel are all heavily affected, most have refugee camps full of Palestinians numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Palestinians and Israelis were both pushed into a no win situation. With their own selfish interests in mind, Great Britain promised the entire land of Israel/Paelstine to the Jews. They gained great financial support from the Jews in both world wars for this promise. They also promised the entire land to the Palestinians. They gained allies against the Turks in World War I for it.
Now bear in mind that the European Jews had all had their homes and property taken from them before Hitler tried to exterminate them. I can readily imagine a concentration camp survivor accepting a house he or she is given as fair recompense for what was stolen from them in the first place.
Most Palestinian refugees have refused compensation for their homes and lands, but if anyone should foot the bill for it, every nation that participated in Hitler's final solution should pay it. At the urging of allies Egypt, Syria and Jordan, the Palestinian refugees have stayed in refugee camps and refused to leave because they were promised that the nation of Israel would be eliminated and they're waiting for that promise to be fulfilled. The refugees are staying refugees as a form of protest as much as anything. They could have moved on with their lives decades ago and didn't.
Israel is willing to let Gaza become an independent nation. The majority of the citizens of Gaza are still hell-bent on the annihilation of the nation of Israel. How else does Hamas get elected? And with Hamas in power, there will never be peace.
The instant that I heard that the Palestinians had elected Hamas, I thought: : smack:
It amounts to an open declaration that sovereignty just isn't good enough. They want all of Israel/Palestine or they want none of it.
Quote:
The inception of the Israeli State causes a great deal of justifiable anger among those who have suffered and continue to suffer the consequences of its creation. Some people like the Palestinians themselves and surrounding Arab States who are flooded with refugee's, have suffered that directly and naturally speak with anger about it. Those not directly affected who have empathy for the Palestinians and their plight are often driven to distraction by the unwillingness of Israeli sympathizers to acknowledge the great moral injustice visited upon the Palestinian people, and this exasperation often leads people to make exaggerated remarks of the sort you identified.
Obviously, the Palestinian people got screwed and it ain't right. That does not come anywhere close to justifying the overwhelming Muslim focus on this.
For example, Turkey the nation that massacred 1.5 million Armenians and can't even be bothered to admit it, much less pay reparations or compensation for stolen Armenian property ... Turkey that invaded and currently occupies half the island nation of Cyprus and has declared the half they occupy to be a sovereign nation ... That same nation Turkey has the audacity to declare Israel a terrorist state??
Pot: "Hey kettle, you're black!!"
Where's the Muslim outrage??? We're talking about a much larger scale displacement and stealing of rightful property that ended in genocide. Why don't the Muslims seem to care about the Armenian Holocaust??
Quote:
Israel is not a bloodthirsty genocidal monster. Israel produces many great things and has many great people. However, Israel is a country built on land largely stolen from its rightful inhabitants, and Israel has not seriously committed itself to rectifying its immoral legacy with compensation to its victims or a right of return. That is why it's important.
Eoin
The sooner the Muslim world can give up and admit that Israel isn't going to go away, the sooner we can actually see real peace in the Middle East. Sure these are stolen lands. That's nothing new. People have been stealing land by conquest for as long as there have been human beings. Islam is particularly guilty of it.
The Muslims stole Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople from the Christians. These were four of the five great Christian cities. They are really only trophies of war to the Muslims. To the Christians, together with Rome, these were the 5 great sees whose archbishops constituted a circle of equals that was the highest voice of authority in ancient Christendom. So are the Muslims willing to give them back?
The Turks stole the property of the Armenians and then tried to exterminate them. Turkey has stuck their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the Armenian Holocaust, so I don't expect them to ever do the right thing there. But at the very least, they could withdraw their forces from Cyprus. Why isn't the Muslim world demanding they withdraw from Cyprus?
The conclusion I always come to is the same: Sure the Palestinians were done wrong just like countless people that came before and after them. Muslims are obsessed with the Palestinian plight mostly because the existence of Israel represents a reversal of fortunes in the Arab conquests with Islam actually losing some of their ill-gotten holy ground. It is unacceptable to Muslims primarily on the grounds of religious dogma.
When we talk about affairs as delicate as this, it's important that we use appropriate language because even a simple expression can make all the difference. For example, when you say that "a roughly equal number of Arab Jews were also kicked out [of Arab countries]" that's not a completely accurate description of what happened. There was unquestionably a huge upsurge of antisemitism in Arab countries around the time of the 1947-48 war, and in most Arab countries there were instances of killings of Jews and damage to Jewish properties and businesses. Against that backdrop, it's understandable that Jews would want to leave, I know I would. But while Jewish people had rock solid reasons for wanting to leave those countries; with the notable exception of Iraq, there weren't any deportations of Jews. Arab Governments did not round up their Jewish populations and put them on a plane.
Indeed with the exception of Iraq, Arab countries tried with varying degrees of success to prevent their Jewish populations from emigrating to Israel. One of the ways Arab Governments sought to discourage Jewish emigration was by forcing those who did emigrate, to sign over their land and property to the state of the country they were leaving. Ostensibly, this was to discourage Jewish emigration, however it would also be true to say that they wanted to profiteer on the possessions of Jews leaving the country, while simultaneously preventing that wealth from moving to Israel. When the discussion arises over compensation for Jews who fled Arab countries, the effects of this policy are what is being referred to. If the question is, "Do Mizrahi Jews who had their property confiscated deserve to be compensated for it?" Then the answer is - of course they do! However, when you say that they were kicked out, you're only really talking about Iraqi Jews. There were clear push factors pushing Mizrahi Jews to leave Arab countries, and I explained above what these were, but the distinction between what happened to Jewish and Palestinian refugee's is an important one for reasons I'll come to.
Before I do, we must also consider the pull factors acting on Jews in Arab countries. For instance, the Israeli Government went to great efforts to try and attract as many Mizrahi (Arab) Jews to Israel as they possibly could. They made travel arrangements and guaranteed housing on arrival to the immigrants. These arrangements were even supported by the US and UK, who provided transport aircraft to move those seeking to travel to Israel. The reasons that Israel was so keen to attract the Mizrahi Jews was so that they could claim this idea of a population transfer.
Your post here is a perfect example of this 'population transfer' attitude. The rough idea goes something like this: "Roughly the same number of Arab Jews fled to Israel as Palestinians who weren't allowed back to their homes in Israel - therefore, everything's fair and square and everyone's happy!"
Except not everyone is happy. With the exception of Iraq, no Arab Government consented to this idea of a population transfer. The whole idea of a population transfer was purely in the interests of Israel, so that it could strengthen its Jewish population and strengthen its legitimacy by appealing to this notion of population transfer. But population transfer idea ran completely contrary to the wishes of Arabs and Arab Governments for the same reasons.
None of this detracts from the genuine need for Jewish refugee's to be compensated, however for a fair assessment of history, one must acknowledge several key differences between the Jewish and Palestinian refugee's.
1. Israel wanted as many refugee's as possible to legitimise the idea of a population transfer.
2. As such, Jewish refugee's were helped to immigrate, and this in turn was financed by the US/UK/France.
3. Arab countries did not want any refugee's, they wanted the dispossessed Palestinians to have their land back.
4. As such, Palestinian refugee's remained in refugee camps.
Even though both sides have genuine cases for compensation, there is not an equivalence between the experience of Palestinian refugee's and Jewish refugees.
I'm afraid you might need to take a seat, whoever taught you your history has failed you. Palestine (including what is now Israel) was not sparsely inhabited before the Zionist movement showed up, it had a large and growing Arab population with small Jewish and Christian minorities. The Ottoman/British census records of Palestine are as follows(1):
If that's not enough for you, and you know who Ahad Ha'am was try this. (If you're Israeli and you don't know who Ahad Ha'am was then I recommend you find out.)
If for some reason even that isn't enough for you, then you're in need of an entire history lesson. At this link (2) is the best academic online source I've found for you covering the relevant history of Israel, edited by none other than Benny Morris. (Although he's a raging Zionist and I'm not a fan of some of his more recent anti-Palestinian outbursts, he's the perfect historian from my perspective because you really can't accuse me of any bias.)
If you can forgive me for saying, your understanding of the legal position of Palestinians is about 40 years out of date. Palestinians can not move to Jordan. Palestinian citizens who moved to Jordan prior to 1967 were granted citizenship because Jordan had effectively annexed the West Bank, but obviously this ended after the 1967 war when Israel occupied the West Bank. Jordan stopped accepting Palestinians as citizens in 1988 when it withdrew its territorial claim to the land, and it revoked the citizenship of Palestinians who did not ordinarily live in Jordan.
Your claim that the Palestinians have a 'choice' over their situation, but 'choose' to live in the conditions they do is derogatory towards the Palestinian people and I think you ought to have chosen your words more carefully.
Yeah let's just ignore all the anti-Semitism in Islamic countries. Let's ignore the anti-Semitism of the Palestinians as well. Let's ignore the fact that Jews were second class citizens in Islamic countries for centuries. Let's ignore all of that in favor of the Big Bad Blame the Zionists Narrative.
I suppose you think the Czarist pogroms were Israel's fault somehow as well?
The Muslims and Europeans hate the Jews. The Muslims hate the Jews because they have always viewed them with contempt and can't quite figure how those silly dhimmis have managed to kick their asses in over the course of the last fifty years. The Europeans hate the Jews because the Jews remind them that they have been engaged in slaughtering innocent Jews for a few millenia. Jews are supposed to be dead, not alive and doing things Europeans don't like.
I am sorry that a) you believe I am Israeli b) you have bought Palestinian (who did not coin that term until the late 1960s and were tenant farmers who did not own the land the Ottoman Empire governed) lies c) you think Zionist is an insult d) you are respectful of a group of religous fanatics who lob missles at their neighbors and whine unfair when said neighbors fight back.
The Palestinians are Muslims. They can and should go live in any one of 22 lousy, sexist Islamic nations they choose. Jews were kicked out of Islamic nations and murdered by Europeans. Now said Europeans chide them for living in a tiny little country the size of New Jersey and a) daring to defend themselves and b) not being respectful enough of people who elect Islamic terrorists to represent them.
Forget it. The Jews aren't going anywhere nor will they refuse to defend themselves when attacked. Muslims would be a lot happier if they would focus less on Jews and more on making Muslim nations places rational humans would like to live in. The Palestinians will get respect when they act like mature adults capable of living with their neighbors instead of temper tantrum throwing children, religious fanatics and adolescents engaged in juvenile fantasies about a judenrein Israel.
Yeah let's just ignore all the anti-Semitism in Islamic countries. Let's ignore the anti-Semitism of the Palestinians as well. Let's ignore the fact that Jews were second class citizens in Islamic countries for centuries. Let's ignore all of that in favor of the Big Bad Blame the Zionists Narrative.
I suppose you think the Czarist pogroms were Israel's fault somehow as well?
The Muslims and Europeans hate the Jews. The Muslims hate the Jews because they have always viewed them with contempt and can't quite figure how those silly dhimmis have managed to kick their asses in over the course of the last fifty years. The Europeans hate the Jews because the Jews remind them that they have been engaged in slaughtering innocent Jews for a few millenia. Jews are supposed to be dead, not alive and doing things Europeans don't like.
I am sorry that a) you believe I am Israeli b) you have bought Palestinian (who did not coin that term until the late 1960s and were tenant farmers who did not own the land the Ottoman Empire governed) lies c) you think Zionist is an insult d) you are respectful of a group of religous fanatics who lob missles at their neighbors and whine unfair when said neighbors fight back.
The Palestinians are Muslims. They can and should go live in any one of 22 lousy, sexist Islamic nations they choose. Jews were kicked out of Islamic nations and murdered by Europeans. Now said Europeans chide them for living in a tiny little country the size of New Jersey and a) daring to defend themselves and b) not being respectful enough of people who elect Islamic terrorists to represent them. '
Forget it. The Jews aren't going anywhere nor will they refuse to defend themselves when attacked. Muslims would be a lot happier if they would focus less on Jews and more on making Muslim nations places rational humans would like to live in. The Palestinians will get respect when they act like mature adults capable of living with their neighbors instead of temper tantrum throwing children, religious fanatics and adolescents engaged in juvenile fantasies about a judenrein Israel.
now that you ( presumabley ) have your little strop out of the way , can you actually adress the contributors well detailed points
Where's the Muslim outrage??? We're talking about a much larger scale displacement and stealing of rightful property that ended in genocide. Why don't the Muslims seem to care about the Armenian Holocaust??
The sooner the Muslim world can give up and admit that Israel isn't going to go away, the sooner we can actually see real peace in the Middle East. Sure these are stolen lands. That's nothing new. People have been stealing land by conquest for as long as there have been human beings. Islam is particularly guilty of it.
The Muslims stole Jerusalem,Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople from the Christians. These were four of the five great Christian cities. They are really only trophies of war to the Muslims. To the Christians, together with Rome, these were the 5 great sees whose archbishops constituted a circle of equals that was the highest voice of authority in ancient Christendom. So are the Muslims willing to give them back?
The Turks stole the property of the Armenians and then tried to exterminate them. Turkey has stuck their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the Armenian Holocaust, so I don't expect them to ever do the right thing there. But at the very least, they could withdraw their forces from Cyprus. Why isn't the Muslim world demanding they withdraw from Cyprus?
The conclusion I always come to is the same: Sure the Palestinians were done wrong just like countless people that came before and after them. Muslims are obsessed with the Palestinian plight mostly because the existence of Israel represents a reversal of fortunes in the Arab conquests with Islam actually losing some of their ill-gotten holy ground. It is unacceptable to Muslims primarily on the grounds of religious dogma.
Good points all the way around. It's really tribal and who represents us and who represents them. It boils down to Our tribe (The West, Judeo Christians) Versus their tribe (Arab Muslims) and each ones allies. Even though the west is hardly Christian anymore the group identity is still intact. The sides of course continuously change depending if one of your Arab brother nations attacks another (Iraq/Iran), (Iraq/Kuwait and almost SA). They may have to Ally theirself with the West to ensure thir survival. But once thats done it back to attacking the West and Israel.
Yeah let's just ignore all the anti-Semitism in Islamic countries. Let's ignore the anti-Semitism of the Palestinians as well. Let's ignore the fact that Jews were second class citizens in Islamic countries for centuries. Let's ignore all of that in favor of the Big Bad Blame the Zionists Narrative.
I suppose you think the Czarist pogroms were Israel's fault somehow as well?
Unfortunately it appears you have mis-represented every single word that I've said. Rather than ignore anti-Semitism in Islamic countries I spent about 50% of my response discussing it and sympathising with Mizrahi Jews put in that situation. Given that the entirety of your post was composed of similar mis-representations of my position, you're clearly unwilling or unable to entertain a serious discussion and I won't be wasting any more of my time responding to you. I can however take some solace that my previous response to you will be of some interest to others, even if it has been of none to you.
Goodnight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Palestinians and Israelis were both pushed into a no win situation. With their own selfish interests in mind, Great Britain promised the entire land of Israel/Paelstine to the Jews. They gained great financial support from the Jews in both world wars for this promise. They also promised the entire land to the Palestinians. They gained allies against the Turks in World War I for it.
You make many points I agree with, unfortunately it's nearing bed-time and in order that I can give a response worthy of the breadth of detail you've gone into, it'll have to wait until tomorrow!
Palestinians and Israelis were both pushed into a no win situation. With their own selfish interests in mind, Great Britain promised the entire land of Israel/Paelstine to the Jews. They gained great financial support from the Jews in both world wars for this promise. They also promised the entire land to the Palestinians. They gained allies against the Turks in World War I for it.
Now bear in mind that the European Jews had all had their homes and property taken from them before Hitler tried to exterminate them. I can readily imagine a concentration camp survivor accepting a house he or she is given as fair recompense for what was stolen from them in the first place.
Great Britain has a lot to answer for with what went on in Palestine, and indeed the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was widely interpreted by the Zionist movement as a promise for their own country. While it is no defence of the (then) British Government, this wasn't actually what the Balfour Declaration stated. What it said was (1):
Quote:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Clearly, the statement was somewhat ambiguous, deliberately so because it was a contentious issue even within the British Government. Some members of the Government wanted to see the establishment of a Jewish state, and others were not so keen but were satisfied by the caveat that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". (The idea being that a Jewish State in Palestine would most definitely prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities.)
However this ambiguity was understood (or mis-understood depending on your leanings) by the Zionist movement to mean that Britain gave Palestine to the Zionists - which in fact it didn't. Again I'll repeat, this is not a defence of Britain's actions, because the ambiguity over Britain's position was a major cause of the problem, but it's a necessary point to understanding what happened later. As more Jews emigrated to Palestine, the local Arab population became more alarmed about the flood of immigrants to their country and violence erupted across the country between 1936-39.
At this point, Britain decided to put its foot down. In 1939, the Government announced a new law. The new law (called the 1939 White Paper) said (2):
Quote:
"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."
Central to this new law was Britain's new stance that further Jewish immigration to Palestine would be highly restricted and ultimately stop. Their reasoning below:
Quote:
'His Majesty's Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [...] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East.
The British Government immediately set quota's to restrict further Jewish immigration. The sum of these quota's was that 75,000 further Jews would be permitted to move to Palestine over the 5 years until 1944, which would increase the Jewish ratio of the population to 1/3. After that, no further Jewish immigration to Palestine would be permitted without the expressed permission of the Arab majority, which in effect meant a total cessation of all Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Finally, the British Government announced their intention that Palestine be governed independently by a Government made up of both Arabs, Christians and Jews. However, before serious work on this began, the second world war broke out. After the war, Britain stuck firmly to the terms 1939 White Paper, shiploads of Jews from Europe were turned back and in some cases interned in camps on Cyprus and Malta. Britain had 100,000 troops stationed in Palestine to keep order, which to put in context is more than 2/3 the strength of the present day British army. The Zionist movement were not pleased with this outcome, because they wanted nothing less than a fully fledged Jewish State. They did not want an enclave for Jewish people in Palestine where they had to share power with the Arabs. For their part, the Arabs were not happy about the outcome either. So began inter-ethnic conflict between Jews and Arabs, and also between Jewish terrorist organisations like the Irgun/Stern Gang and the British. These terrorist organisations tried to change the will of the British Government, and force it to renounce the blockade on further Jewish immigration by a variety of underhanded means. As examples of their methods, Zionist organisations captured and executed British troops much as the Taliban attempt to do now in Afghanistan, they blew up the British embassy in Rome, they ambushed British troops and blew the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Their objective was to force the British into removing the blockade on further Jewish immigration, and for their part, the Arabs were determined that this would not happen. There were atrocities and counter-atrocities in both directions between the Arabs and the Jews during this period, with Britain in the middle trying and failing to maintain order.
This unhappy situation persisted until 1948, when a bankrupt Britain decided to withdraw from Palestine and handed control of the country over to the newly formed United Nations. It should be understood that Britain was being put under immense pressure by other Governments, particularly the United States, to remove the quota's on Jewish immigration, because it was widely felt that the holocaust justified the creation of a Jewish homeland, and news images of failed Jewish immigrants to Palestine being interned in British camps on Malta inflamed world opinion. The international pressure on Britain was so great, that there was even talk of cutting off financial support through the Marshall Plan. Thus, the British withdrew and handed power to the UN.
Once in power, the decision that the UN made to try and achieve peace was for two seperate states to be created, with the lions share of the territory going to the minority Jewish population, the remainder being left to the Arabs was mostly un-fertile land and desert. The Arabs never agreed to this dictate by the United Nations, and the rest as they say - is history.
Quote:
Most Palestinian refugees have refused compensation for their homes and lands, but if anyone should foot the bill for it, every nation that participated in Hitler's final solution should pay it. At the urging of allies Egypt, Syria and Jordan, the Palestinian refugees have stayed in refugee camps and refused to leave because they were promised that the nation of Israel would be eliminated and they're waiting for that promise to be fulfilled. The refugees are staying refugees as a form of protest as much as anything. They could have moved on with their lives decades ago and didn't.
You may not be aware of many of the facts surrounding the issues you've raised. Since 1950, almost all the countries which committed or were otherwise complicit in the holocaust have been paying compensation to the victims. For example, Germany alone has so far paid €63.2 billion to survivors of the holocaust (3). Similar schemes have been in operation for decades for victims from other Nazi occupied countries, if you look up 'holocaust compensation' on Google you'll be able to find out the specifics for each country. As a result I don't think it's appropriate that these countries should have to compensate Palestinian refugee's as they've compensated (and continue to compensate via monthly pensions) large proportions of Israel's now elderly population.
If you're arguing that the wider world (and not just Israel) has a duty to compensate the Palestinians, I'm open to that idea. At a minimum, Britain, the USA and France have had dealings with Israel in varying degrees of significance, and those dealings were in large part what enabled Israel to continue to exist in spite of the wars with the Arabs. It is not inconceivable that Israel would have been over-run, were it not for the outside intervention of these powers. As a result, I accept that compensation to the Palestinians may be due from other countries besides Israel itself.
Secondly, you claimed that the Palestinian refugee's are staying as a 'form of protest'. This simply is not the case, as roughly half of all Palestinians now live in the diaspora outside of the occupied territories. The people who had the means to leave have left. The majority of the remaining people couldn't go elsewhere even if they wanted to. Even if these people scrimped and saved enough to travel to Egypt, most countries do not accept asylum claims from Palestinians unless they can prove that they're being targeted by Israel or Hamas. (Few can) Indeed, outside the Arab League, many world Governments do not even recognise the legitimacy of the Hamas Government, and so Palestinians from Gaza cannot travel very far even if they do get a Palestinian Passport.
Quote:
Israel is willing to let Gaza become an independent nation. The majority of the citizens of Gaza are still hell-bent on the annihilation of the nation of Israel. How else does Hamas get elected? And with Hamas in power, there will never be peace.
The instant that I heard that the Palestinians had elected Hamas, I thought: : smack:
It amounts to an open declaration that sovereignty just isn't good enough. They want all of Israel/Palestine or they want none of it.
I fear you may be falling foul of one of the greatest problems the Palestinians face in their coverage by the media. The Palestinian position must be understood from the perspective that whatever peace deal emerges (whenever it emerges) will be as the result of a negotiation with the Israeli's, the Palestinians realise that they aren't in a position to dictate their terms. The starting point for Hamas negotiators is that they have had their entire country taken from them against their will, and any points beyond that form a concession made by the Palestinians towards the Israeli's.
This is not unusual in international politics, lots of countries have territorial claims on pieces of land that are under the control of somebody else. This isn't even unusual in guerilla wars either. When Britain was negotiating peace terms with the IRA, the IRA's demands were nothing less than than a complete withdrawal of all British troops and Government officials from Northern Ireland. If you strip away the references to Jihad and Allah, the position of Hamas isn't particularly out of the ordinary. Sure, their charter says that they want is a return to their homes, but in reality Hamas have offered a 20 year peace deal with the Israeli's on the condition that Palestinian refugee's have a right of return to their homes, that Jerusalem is the capital of the new Palestinian state, and that Israel withdraw to its 1967 borders. Additionally, they have offered unconditional peace terms (not time limited) if the above conditions are met and a referendum of the Palestinian people favours a permanent peace with Israel. (4)
Reasons that Hamas's offer has not met with success is that the Israeli's do not trust them. (Which is fair enough.) However by the same token, the Israeli's aren't even close to being innocent in this. Previous Israeli Governments have always balked at the idea of a right of return for Palestinian refugee's, because this would have a severe impact on the ethnic-religious makeup of Israel, compromising its identity as a Jewish State. There is no significant support inside Israel for a right of return. Furthermore, Israel has repeatedly asserted that Jerusalem will be it's capital and for the past decades the Israeli Government have been moving Jewish immigrants into occupied East Jerusalem, and doing their best to displace the Arab residents there. (5) Likewise, while Hamas asks for a withdrawal of Israel to the 1967 borders, Israel (while it did unilaterally withdraw from Gaza) has been building large numbers of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank territories that they claim as their own, and that Hamas want back. (In fairness to Hamas, the entire body of international law agrees with them.)
Therefore, when it comes to discussing who is at fault for the failures in the peace process, it's fair to say that there's a good bit of blame to go around. Hamas have done nothing to endear themselves to the Israeli's, nothing to earn their trust. But by the same token, the Israeli's are doing everything in their power - up to and including breaking international law - to make sure that Hamas's negotiating position is weakened. As an articulate chap, you will no doubt agree with me that there is plenty of blame to put on both sides for the stagnation of the peace process. However as a moral individual, you will no doubt also agree with me that it's unfair to put the bulk of the blame onto Hamas for the failure of the peace process, because while they're not a very photogenic organisation, they are not the psychopathic murderers, unable to reason that a skim-read through this forum would lead one to believe.
To break this deadlock will require international intervention, and that in turn requires both the Israeli's and Palestinians to have faith that the International Community will do what it takes to see that a negotiation comes to fruition. The United States is key to this, because US backing of Israel makes an already unbalanced conflict into a completely weighted battle between David and Goliath. (Irony noted.) The Palestinians must have confidence that the United States (and to a lesser extent the EU) are prepared to exercise sanctions, whether those be a withdrawal of grants and loans from Israel, or even economic sanctions on Israel, if the Israeli's do not comply with their obligations under international law. (i.e. no colonising East Jerusalem and the West Bank.) For their part, the Palestinians must keep to their word on maintaining peace, punishing any dissident movements in their own territory. However, this can only start with an outside intervention and a clear statement of intent from the international community to bring out the economic big guns. That is what is missing here.
Quote:
Obviously, the Palestinian people got screwed and it ain't right. That does not come anywhere close to justifying the overwhelming Muslim focus on this.
For example, Turkey the nation that massacred 1.5 million Armenians and can't even be bothered to admit it, much less pay reparations or compensation for stolen Armenian property ... Turkey that invaded and currently occupies half the island nation of Cyprus and has declared the half they occupy to be a sovereign nation ... That same nation Turkey has the audacity to declare Israel a terrorist state??
Where's the Muslim outrage??? We're talking about a much larger scale displacement and stealing of rightful property that ended in genocide. Why don't the Muslims seem to care about the Armenian Holocaust??
Part of the dilemma which I think you're facing, is that you're taking the worlds 1.25 Billion Muslims and assuming that they are a uniform group. They are not. There is a long standing enmity between the Arabs and the Turks, to ask Arabs to apologise for the crimes of the Turks would be like me asking an American to lament the British colonial rule in India or else face calls of hypocrisy. It just doesn't make any sense. The Arabs were effectively dominated by Turkey and they fought to free themselves from Turkish rule, if you're asking whether there is any criticism of Turkey by Arab's, that's like asking if there's any criticism of the English by the Scots. They do it all the time!
As for Turkey itself, I'm obviously not going to defend the Armenian Genocide or the invasion of Cyprus and I'm open to the idea that there is a degree of hypocrisy on the part the Turkish Prime Minister. However, by the same token this line of discussion is a mere observation, it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the Palestinian's position. I mean the Palestinians fought a British sponsored war to overthrow the Turks to gain their freedom, you can hardly accuse the Palestinians of any hypocrisy for failing to apologise for the acts of the people they risked their lives deposing.
Quote:
The sooner the Muslim world can give up and admit that Israel isn't going to go away, the sooner we can actually see real peace in the Middle East. Sure these are stolen lands. That's nothing new. People have been stealing land by conquest for as long as there have been human beings. Islam is particularly guilty of it.
The Muslims stole Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople from the Christians. These were four of the five great Christian cities. They are really only trophies of war to the Muslims. To the Christians, together with Rome, these were the 5 great sees whose archbishops constituted a circle of equals that was the highest voice of authority in ancient Christendom. So are the Muslims willing to give them back?
The Turks stole the property of the Armenians and then tried to exterminate them. Turkey has stuck their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the Armenian Holocaust, so I don't expect them to ever do the right thing there. But at the very least, they could withdraw their forces from Cyprus. Why isn't the Muslim world demanding they withdraw from Cyprus?
The conclusion I always come to is the same: Sure the Palestinians were done wrong just like countless people that came before and after them. Muslims are obsessed with the Palestinian plight mostly because the existence of Israel represents a reversal of fortunes in the Arab conquests with Islam actually losing some of their ill-gotten holy ground. It is unacceptable to Muslims primarily on the grounds of religious dogma.
I disagree with your conclusion. Firstly, you seem to be arguing for the notion that conquest is part and parcel of world history and that the situation in Palestine is no different. While on a point of fact I agree with you that conquest has been a historical fact, your comparisons with Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople are not equivalent to the situation in Palestine. While I'm in no way justifying the aggression of historical Muslims empires, when they invaded - they did not expel the native populations of the regions they conquered. Over time, most of the descendants of the conquered Christian nations converted to Islam and are the very people who now live in these places in the present day as Muslims. Therefore, when you ask, "are the Muslims willing to give them [the countries] back?" Your question is a little bit silly. The people who they would be giving these countries 'back' to are the very people who live there.
Secondly, you ask when 'Muslims' are going to demand the Turkish withdrawal from Cyprus. Given that the only country in the world that recognises the border between Greek/Turkish Cyprus is Turkey itself, I think it's fair to say that Muslim nations (except Turkey) already oppose the situation that exists there. Now I don't know, and I don't care to research, what the official line of every Muslim country in the world is as regards Cyprus, but I'm sure you'll agree that it is you as the claimant who has the burden of responsibility to demonstrate official Muslim apathy over the situation there. Secondly, if your intention is to try and play the hypocrisy card on the part of Muslims towards the situation in Cyprus, I draw your attention back to the fact that the Muslim world is not a homogenous block. It makes no more sense to ask an Arab to denounce Turkey than it does to ask anyone else on earth.
Finally, you seem of the opinion that this is a Muslim vs non-Muslim issue. It really isn't. While I accept that there is more sympathy within the Muslim world for the Palestinians, you do not have to be a Muslim to identify with the Palestinians. I'm an atheist of many years, I have no historical connection to Islam whatsoever, and I can readily identify with the situation the Palestinians find themselves in. I'm by no means alone here, my opinion is quite common across most of the world.
I hope this clarifies my position, if you wish to come back on any of these points please do not hesitate.
According to this German magazine article, Iran and China are the suppliers for Hamas. As long as Egypt continues to let Hamas import rockets into Gaza, Hamas will continue to have a supply of rockets to launch at Israel's civilian population.
has anyone looked at the more recent maps and noticed the fact Gaza sits on a very nice sea port area that Israel wants? I think this might explain a great deal of why they are going for an Ethnic Cleansing Looking at the map explains the reasons .. the burtality is how ever unacceptable .. ANY creature will fight when driven to the wall so rockets do not suprise me ..
Let's try to be a bit more clear on the subject of the death of children and put some responsibility where it belongs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending or supporting either side, just being realistic.
Hamas is launching missiles in populated areas where there are schools, playgrounds/parks, mosques, apartments - surrounding themselves with innocent people - women and mostly children. Why don't they move to areas to launch their missiles where there are no civilians - in particular children - who become casualties of Israel's retaliation? Is Palestine under the belief that Israel cares where their bombs land once they pinpoint where a missile has been launched? Israel sees killing one Hamas terrorist worth the life of 50 innocent people. No different that the way US saw Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis as collateral damage when they missed their target or sent a drone out and hit the wrong target, upon which the US paid those families a pittance to those families who lost loved ones for their blunder. Hamas surrounding themselves with innocent people has not deterred Israel, and won't deter Israel, but Hamas is still willing to sacrifice their own people - especially children - to the point of death.
Perhaps it has something to do with being the most densley populated openair prison on earth. The only open land is the Israeli enforced buffer zone.
has anyone looked at the more recent maps and noticed the fact Gaza sits on a very nice sea port area that Israel wants? I think this might explain a great deal of why they are going for an Ethnic Cleansing Looking at the map explains the reasons .. the burtality is how ever unacceptable .. ANY creature will fight when driven to the wall so rockets do not suprise me ..
No. It has to do with mass hysteria, and the declining morality of Israeli society. Perpetual war erodes the ethics and morals of the aggressor.
Israelis commit all sorts of mean natured acts towards these Arab peasants and gloat about it.
Just read this article from a Jew published by one of Israels's most respected newspapers
Last edited by padcrasher; 11-21-2012 at 09:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
