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.
Where we see it differently is that I think it just moves the discussion to questioning the founding of Israel, and did that displace the Palestinians. Just like in my views of China and Taiwan, or Russia and the Ukraine or Georgia, I don't see what ground is gained in compromise.
Well in the inception of the state of Israel there was also supposed to be the creation of a Palestinian state. As to who took whose land, and all that argument, it is my understanding that in the beginning, when Jews were a minority in the region that they purchased large portions of land from local Arabs in what later became the state. While they didn't purchase all of it and the issue of majority populations, the right of return, etc... are relevant, I do believe that the 1967 Blue Line is what was agreed to at least at one point by both parties.
I suspect we could spend the next month offering up examples of where both of these two groups of people have made agreements, broken them, made promises, broken them, engaged in warfare against civilian populations, and the list goes on. At what point does history owe something to one group of people or another, at some point there has to be a point in which both peoples agree to start.
Israel is faced with a similar situation as South Africa, in that the notion of being a, "Jewish" state, means it must maintain a Jewish majority in which case, Jews are losing out in sheer birth rates. Or a two state solution must be agreed upon, in which case it has been the world consensus that the 67 Blue Line be used but which it seem both Israel objects. Again, I don't recall in history where any nation successfully occupied another that one of two things didn't happen. Widespread assimilation of culture(Alexander the Great method) or complete obliteration(Ghengis Khan method).
My personal feelings is that Israel be left alone to manage her situation in however she sees fit and that the United States remove itself completely from associating with them. It is not the concern, fault, or of any use to have this relationship we current have, it is a one way street in which Uncle Sam is paying all the bills.
Not too much. Probably not that much less than you, though. Obviously any agreement would require security measures + the possibility of retalitory action in the result of continued violence if Israel kept its side of the agreement but the Palestinians didn't, or vice versa.
And who would enforce those security measures? And who would guarantee Israel's survival if she gave up her buffer zones and were then attacked AGAIN? I may not know much more than you, but I know enough to predict another Holocaust if that were to happen...
Well in the inception of the state of Israel there was also supposed to be the creation of a Palestinian state. As to who took whose land, and all that argument, it is my understanding that in the beginning, when Jews were a minority in the region that they purchased large portions of land from local Arabs in what later became the state. While they didn't purchase all of it and the issue of majority populations, the right of return, etc... are relevant, I do believe that the 1967 Blue Line is what was agreed to at least at one point by both parties.
You neglect to mention that the Arabs rejected the two-state proposal in 1948, and instead attacked Israel from all sides and were defeated.
I suspect we could spend the next month offering up examples of where both of these two groups of people have made agreements, broken them, made promises, broken them, engaged in warfare against civilian populations, and the list goes on. At what point does history owe something to one group of people or another, at some point there has to be a point in which both peoples agree to start.
Israel wants to start again now. Hamas and Hezbollah and their sponsors (Iran and Syria) want to eradicate Israel.
Israel is faced with a similar situation as South Africa, in that the notion of being a, "Jewish" state, means it must maintain a Jewish majority in which case, Jews are losing out in sheer birth rates. Or a two state solution must be agreed upon, in which case it has been the world consensus that the 67 Blue Line be used but which it seem both Israel objects. Again, I don't recall in history where any nation successfully occupied another that one of two things didn't happen. Widespread assimilation of culture(Alexander the Great method) or complete obliteration(Ghengis Khan method).
The comparison to South Africa is Jimmy Carter's simplistic analysis with its ugly overtones of racism and colonial oppression, neither of which obtains in this context, since the Jews and Arabs are racially identical and Israel is not a colonial power. Returning to the 1967 borders would effectively open Israel's entire territory to attack. Yet many question her reluctance to do so.
My personal feelings is that Israel be left alone to manage her situation in however she sees fit and that the United States remove itself completely from associating with them. It is not the concern, fault, or of any use to have this relationship we current have, it is a one way street in which Uncle Sam is paying all the bills.
Perhaps the United States should continue to act as if Israel were her staunchest ally, and the only democracy, in the Middle East, and the result of a UN action in 1948 which offered the remnants of European jewry, who had been slaughtered, gassed, and driven to the edge of extinction, a tiny strip of desert, which they were prepared to share with their Arab neighbors, until those neighbors decided to go to war. Shunning Israel would reward those who have engaged in unremitting war and possess a paralyzing addiction to revenge.
Israel certainly has an impeccable sense of timing...makes you wonder how serious they were about these peace talks ...
Israel said Tuesday it is seeking bids to build more than 300 new homes in a disputed east Jerusalem neighborhood, drawing Palestinian condemnations that the move is undermining the newly revived peace talks held last week in Annapolis, Md. A Housing Ministry spokesman said 307 units would be built in Har Homa, a Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem.
Israel certainly has an impeccable sense of timing...makes you wonder how serious they were about these peace talks ...
Kind of reminds me of Deja vu during the Roadmap to Peace bit they tried a while back. Within 24 hours of its signing in Al Aqaba, The Israeli's shelled the Gaza then later marched into Jenin.
I wish the Israeli's well but we need to find a doctor who is capable of separating the conjoined twins which is us and them or neither will find a date soon.
I find it instructive that people criticize Israel for building homes, but say not a word about Palestinians building bombs and smuggling them through tunnels into Gaza.
I guess it's all a question of lifestyle choice....
Who's refused to criticize people who smuggle bombs into Gaza? Indiscriminate shelling that kills civillians is wrong whether it comes from Hamas or the IDF. I think you're the only one on the thread with a one-sided, hero-vs.-villain attitude towards the conflict.
Who's refused to criticize people who smuggle bombs into Gaza? Indiscriminate shelling that kills civillians is wrong whether it comes from Hamas or the IDF. I think you're the only one on the thread with a one-sided, hero-vs.-villain attitude towards the conflict.
Fish, I think this is typical of the views of many. If you were to suggest that people "A" did something bad, then it is assumed by most that you support people "B". It never occurs to people that there are things that are good and bad no matter who does it. It gets old, particularly in any thread that even mentions Israel. I know on this forum I have been openly referred to as anti-Israeli, a klan member, or implied that I am Antisemitic, and I am sure a few other colorful descriptions for merely suggesting that there is more than one side to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Who's refused to criticize people who smuggle bombs into Gaza? Indiscriminate shelling that kills civillians is wrong whether it comes from Hamas or the IDF. I think you're the only one on the thread with a one-sided, hero-vs.-villain attitude towards the conflict.
I think you're the only one on the thread who believes that an accurate assessment of the facts on the ground in the Middle East constitutes a "one-sided, hero-vs-villan attitude towards the conflict."
The complaint I replied to refered to Israel's "crime" of building homes. I assume you share the attitude that decries such efforts?
Fish, I think this is typical of the views of many. If you were to suggest that people "A" did something bad, then it is assumed by most that you support people "B". It never occurs to people that there are things that are good and bad no matter who does it. It gets old, particularly in any thread that even mentions Israel. I know on this forum I have been openly referred to as anti-Israeli, a klan member, or implied that I am Antisemitic, and I am sure a few other colorful descriptions for merely suggesting that there is more than one side to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
What is "bad" about building homes?
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.
