Palestinian update

[TragicMonkey]

they have resisted the notion of leaving Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world of which the local inhabitants are almost entirely non-Israeli.

Lol. I must be reading this wrong. Does that mean Gaza has fewer Israelis, per capita, than Shanghai?


I think neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have any remaining claim to the moral high ground anymore. The behavior of both sides has been less than sterling for so long that quibbling about who started what, and what equates to what, is moot. Besides, it's irrelevant which is morally superior at this point. We live in a pragmatic world, and need a practical solution. We do not need to figure out whose fault the problem is.

 

[Drooper]

Suppose the Israelis had not been expanding into Palestinian territory since 1967. Suppose if there had been an occupation of Palestinian lands it had been a short term action with the clear purpose of defending Israel.

Do you suppose that this violence would continue to this day? I am sure that ZN thinks so. I think there is a real possibility that the Palestinans would have come to accept Israel as a fact and to begin the process of living with it. There is considerable evidence that this kind of thing happens throughout the world. Native American Indians are not running insurgencies against the US government, the native inhabitants of New Zealand and Australia are not running insurgencies against their respective current governments.

What is going on now is a slow motion colonization of what remains of Palestine by Israelis. This colonization effort is a huge drain on Israel. It spends massive amounts of money to subsidize the settlers, it spends even more money to defend them and for what purpose. What is the end game for the Israelis?

The option that was used after their "war for independence" in 1948 was to terrorize the local inhabitants through massacre and forced evacuation and then to make up nice little stories about fictional Arab leaders calling the people to leave their homes. Would today's Israelis actually pursue the same kind of option? I don't think so. But what is the end that people like Sharon are driving for? I truly don't know.

Sharon's attempt to leave Gaza suggests that he has a vision where the Palestinians are left with some areas. Clearly the more radical elements in Israel have no such idea given how they have resisted the notion of leaving Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world of which the local inhabitants are almost entirely non-Israeli.

Dave, even with my own limited reading in the area of Isaraeli history I know enough to believe that this conflict would exist regardless of the expansion of Israel under whatever means.

From the time of the very first Jewish settlement Palestinians and Arabs were attacking the settlers. And we are talking about settlers on barren land that was purchased from Palestinians or Arabs, not any occupation.

 

[Drooper]

Lol. I must be reading this wrong. Does that mean Gaza has fewer Israelis, per capita, than Shanghai?


I think neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have any remaining claim to the moral high ground anymore. The behavior of both sides has been less than sterling for so long that quibbling about who started what, and what equates to what, is moot. Besides, it's irrelevant which is morally superior at this point. We live in a pragmatic world, and need a practical solution. We do not need to figure out whose fault the problem is.

I think that puts it nicely.

The barrackers on both sides of the conflict, for example AUP and co. on this forum serve only to perpetuate the conflict.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The barrackers on both sides of the conflict, for example AUP and co. on this forum serve only to perpetuate the conflict.

My own two modest proposals for peace have been laughed at.

1) Forcible intermarriage. All Israelis must marry Palestinians, and vice versa. The next generation will have to get along.

2) Let one side draw the borders however it wants, but the other side gets to pick which piece it gets.

Option 3 is not available until we achieve extraterrestrial settlements.

 

[a_unique_person]

Don't you read? Your response is exactly my point. You believe it is a tragedy with a clear villain and a clear victim. On that I could never agree.

blah blah blah, and the ongoing terrorism with the tacit approval of the Palestinian Authority, the aggressive foreign policy of the entire Arab world, minus Egypt, the refusal of Palestinians (i.e. the loosely described leaders) to even acknowledge the right to existance of Israel on any land whatsoever in the region and the educational curriculum that warps young Palestinians into believing that Israelis and Jews are sub human and their sworn enemies also act a bit of an obstacle to any meaningful settlement don't you think??

How silly of me, of course you don't think.

You think I think that about Jews, but I don't. Did you read that letter to Cleopatra?

Oslo could well have worked, there was actually a large increase of wealth and economic interdependence growing, one of the best ways to create peace. Arafat was doing nothing to help, but that didn't really matter if the Palestinians had their increasing wealth from their own work to compensate for his inaction and corruption. This wasn't good enough, though, for the expansionist school of Israeli though, who were never going to stop creating settlement, roads and checkpoints into what is left of Palestine for the Palestinians. If things are not going badly enough, to justify the violence that distracts us from the real game, of expansion, an extremist will always be available to assasinate a PM, or walk over the temple mount. It only takes one.

(The crazy part is, most Israelis, (who happen to be Jews, btw), were more than happy to give up all the West Bank and Gaza, for peace. )

Look at the reaction to the proposal to withdraw from Gaza. The extremists are not going to stop short of their insane dream. What they don't seem to realise is that this dream will be the end of them. Many Israelis are well aware of the fact that having this military occupation is destroying them, as a nation, that what will be left will not be what they want to be. As that letter points out, many Jews leave Israel. They don't want to be a part of the madness any more. Some poor bastards from the West Bank and Gaza try to get out too, but they, if they get to Australia, for example, just end up in jail if they are caught.

And I am not perpetuating the violence. They are doing a perectly good job all by themselves.

 

[a_unique_person]

Lol. I must be reading this wrong. Does that mean Gaza has fewer Israelis, per capita, than Shanghai?


I think neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have any remaining claim to the moral high ground anymore. The behavior of both sides has been less than sterling for so long that quibbling about who started what, and what equates to what, is moot. Besides, it's irrelevant which is morally superior at this point. We live in a pragmatic world, and need a practical solution. We do not need to figure out whose fault the problem is.

Oslo was just that, and it was scuttled by extremists. Pity the poor bastards who have to live with the consequences. Why was it made to fail, well, it goes back to the reasons Israel was created in the first place and the reaction to that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Dave, even with my own limited reading in the area of Isaraeli history I know enough to believe that this conflict would exist regardless of the expansion of Israel under whatever means.

From the time of the very first Jewish settlement Palestinians and Arabs were attacking the settlers. And we are talking about settlers on barren land that was purchased from Palestinians or Arabs, not any occupation.

Because they knew what the aim of the first settlers was. As an economist, you must have some appreciation for purchases of land, that could never be sold back to Arabs. It was not just buying and selling, it was buying, never to be sold back. Even those ignorant Arabs of that time could understand the rationale behind that policy.

 

[a_unique_person]

This comment is so disingenous that it could only come from a_u_p.

when you have armed troops with all their tanks and spy planes and helicopters carrying out a military occupation, you know that you will get events such as that one. A member of the IDF empties his whole magazine into the lifeless body of a young school girl. An act that sickened some of members of his group.

So if more Palestinans die than Israelis that means the Palestinians should win the war by default?
Frankly you wouldn't know genocide if it bit you in the butt. The Palestinians had free reign Gaza and the West Bank from 1948 to 1967...yet they never created a state. The Palestinians signed treaty after treaty since 1993 yet the terrorists have never stopped. The Palestinian Authority has made promise after promise yet none of those promises have ever been fulfilled... to the point that no one - including the Arabs - believe what Arafat says anymore. The Palestinian Authority has allowed and supported terrorists to operate from within Palestinian civilian areas - putting Palestinian civilians in harms way.

No, I am just pointing out that we get the impression, from the normal news channels, that it is only Israelis dying. Much of the suffering does not get through to us. Hence, if you read about an awful bombing that kills Israeli, you can assume that about three palestinian children have died in that time.

Blame Israel all you want a_u_p. But the terror began before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza and Arafat made his mark in Jordan and Lebanon long before he arrived in Gaza to "free his people". I prefer to place the blame squarely on islamofascism and on Arafat/the Palestinian Authority which is suppose to act in a manner that commands respect and befits a government who desires the responsibility of managing a country.

The resistance began when the invasion occured. Both sides have blood on their hands.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Some interesting posts. It is strange how the Palestinians can be condemned for blowing up a cafe full of Israelis, yet when the Israeli airforce blows up a cafe full of Palestinians a lot less is made of it in many parts of the world. Ideally both groups want their heads banging together. Personally speaking, I'm not sure who holds the moral high ground - I don't think getting blown up by a suicide bomber or a guided missile is good news either way. Yet I can't help but wonder if the positions were reversed and it was a Palestinian airforce or tanks that were being used to suppress a people then a lot more would be said and done about it.

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
What is the end game for the Israelis?

The question isn't "What's the endgame for the Israelis" It's "What's the endgame period.

If you envision the "endgame" to be a two state solution with an independent Palestinian state, then the Palestinians have to play a role in creating that reality. So far they haven't.

If not a two state solution, then the "endgame" is something else. Maybe a bi-national state, or maybe the territories could become a semi-independent provence under Israeli control, or maybe a one state solution where the Palestinian-Arabs become Israeli citizens.

In part, it's because these other possibilities haven't been ruled out that there are still settlements in the territories.

 

[Mike B.]

Yet I can't help but wonder if the positions were reversed and it was a Palestinian airforce or tanks that were being used to suppress a people then a lot more would be said and done about it.

Jim Bowen

More would be said of it, because I think if the power ratio was reversed there would be real genocide with millions dying.

 

[geni]

We live in a pragmatic world, and need a practical solution.

Aprently nuking the whole reagon down to bedrock is not considered accepterble.

 

[geni]

The Palestinians had free reign Gaza and the West Bank from 1948 to 1967...yet they never created a state.

I've seen this argument before. I never want to see it again.

 

[Mycroft]

Because they knew what the aim of the first settlers was. As an economist, you must have some appreciation for purchases of land, that could never be sold back to Arabs. It was not just buying and selling, it was buying, never to be sold back. Even those ignorant Arabs of that time could understand the rationale behind that policy.

The first settlers were long before Herzl and any organized Zionist movement. They were Russian Jews fleeing pograms and expulsions in their homeland. They bought land and tried to build farms. There was no "policy" such as you speak of, though I'm sure they believed their commitment to be long-term.

Time and time again you show you're just not interested in actually learning any history.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I mean considering the difference in the type of weapons that each side possesses, a 3 to1 ratio shows incredible restraint.

I don't like your attempt to somehow mitigate what the Israelis have done by prasing them because they didn't kill more people. I mean, don't get me wrong, I often wonder why someone hasn't offed Arafat yet. But "they are so noble because they could have killed more" is a sickening argument.

A suicide bomber who blows up a cafe full of Israelis and Israelis who fire a missile at an apartment building and destroy it just to get one guy are equally vile.

 

[demon]

"Since the Sept. 29 start of the offensive, triggered by a deadly Palestinian rocket attack on an Israeli town, 105 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli army fire, including 18 under the age of 16."

What`s the problem?
Sounds like one of those "quiet periods", or "periods of relative calm" to me that are so beloved of the media.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I've seen this argument before. I never want to see it again.

Of course you don't. Because from 1948-1967 the Arab's goal was the destruction of Israel not a Palestinian state. Then the Arabs suffered yet another defeat in the six day war and lost more territory...the West Bank and Gaza. Then they changed to plan "B" ...use the Palestinians as pawns to fight their war against the jews.

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
A suicide bomber who blows up a cafe full of Israelis and Israelis who fire a missile at an apartment building and destroy it just to get one guy are equally vile.

They are not equal. There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombing a bus full of civilians and an attempt to kill the people sending the suicide bombers... who unfortuantely happen to use palestinian civilians and palestinian civilian areas for their cover and concealment.

 

[geni]

I don't like your attempt to somehow mitigate what the Israelis have done by prasing them because they didn't kill more people. I mean, don't get me wrong, I often wonder why someone hasn't offed Arafat yet. But "they are so noble because they could have killed more" is a sickening argument.

Israel tried a few times back in about the 70's

 

[geni]

Of course you don't. Because from 1948-1967 the Arab's goal was the destruction of Israel not a Palestinian state. Then the Arabs suffered yet another defeat in the six day war and lost more territory...the West Bank and Gaza. Then they changed to plan "B" ...use the Palestinians as pawns to fight their war against the jews.

Thy again zenith try again go back just a little further to see why your argument has less than zero value.

 

[Drooper]

Because they knew what the aim of the first settlers was. As an economist, you must have some appreciation for purchases of land, that could never be sold back to Arabs. It was not just buying and selling, it was buying, never to be sold back. Even those ignorant Arabs of that time could understand the rationale behind that policy.

What??!!!???

In you efforts to be an apologist for intolerence you present the most absurd arguments.