Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mosgood on August 17, 2005, 08:20:18 AM
-
Was I the only one that was shocked to see Sharon , who has been such a hardliner, actually go through with this pullout? Or for that matter, fight for the pullout at all?
-
Well most modern countries aren't accepting occupying areas belonging to other countries and building settlements on it (Nazies used term "Lebensraum").
This is one small step towards peace in middle east and I think Sharon understands it's necessary to do.
-
they won that land fair and square on the battlefield. They are using "security concernes" as an excuse to apease the palistinians.
It's pretty sad if you ask me.
-
it is a HUGE step
too bad the local/national news seems to think a hi-speed car chase deserves more air time than the history Israel is making with its pullout
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
they won that land fair and square on the battlefield.
Does that rule apply to all nations (like Germany, Japan, Iraq, NK etc.) or just Israel?
-
Nixon to China
Reagan to the USSR
Sharon to the Palistinians
What this shows is that it takes the strong to negotiate for peace.
The weak appeasers are never taken seriously enough to broker a true peace.
It takes a true warrior to hold out the hand of peace and friendship, a hand that also can wield the sword that will smit you down if you try to decieve him.
Peace is achieved through strength of arms, will and purpose. Appeasement has never achieved a lasting peace. It has only delayed the inevitable conflict.
One last thought, it is ironic that most of the major wars in the modern era was preceeded by some form of peace treaty. Let us hope that this is not the case here.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it is a HUGE step
too bad the local/national news seems to think a hi-speed car chase deserves more air time than the history Israel is making with its pullout
It is a huge step. But the Palisitians will blow it again.
Isreal can give them everything they want and hamas will still blow up women and kids.
-
It's about damn time.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
they won that land fair and square on the battlefield.
Hmmm... if my knowledge of history is correct, I believe Israel lost that land "fair and square on the battlefield" to the Roman Empire.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
One last thought, it is ironic that most of the major wars in the modern era was preceeded by some form of peace treaty. Let us hope that this is not the case here.
It's interesting that most people don't mention the washington treaty and how it affected world war II..
Washington treaty (http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h364proj/fall_00/trimborn/washington.htm)
The treaty may have prevented a war between Britian and the United States. But it also made us vulnerable when Japan started to build up arms...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... if my knowledge of history is correct, I believe Israel lost that land "fair and square on the battlefield" to the Roman Empire.
What, they cant win it back?:D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What, they cant win it back?:D
Not likely, but they can let a few powerful friends win it back for them. ;)
-
That's where we come in. You know. Team America, World Police.
National Borders in this day and age are fixed. With Kuwait, the word went out.. cross a border with an Army, yer gonna get yer bellybutton kicked.
-
Originally posted by soda72
It's interesting that most people don't mention the washington treaty and how it affected world war II..
Washington treaty (http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h364proj/fall_00/trimborn/washington.htm)
The treaty may have prevented a war between Britian and the United States. But it also made us vulnerable when Japan started to build up arms...
Thanks Soda, you always learn something on this BBS.
I always get nervous whenever some important treaty is signed. It always seems to be a harbengor of war.
-
I'm for everything possible to arrive at peace, but I don't think this Jewish evacuation will do the trick, not that I am necessarily for (or against) settlements either. In May of 1967 Israel was already at the "'67 border." So why did Egypt and allies threaten and provoke and mobilize troops, with Nasser claiming he'd crush Israel? Must be they hoped they could destroy the Israeli nation, not regain any yet-to-be lost territories.
Before June of 1967 the residents of the West Bank were under Jordanian authority, and those of Gaza under Egyptian. And the PLO was founded in 1964, when the "Palestinians" were either under Jordanian or Egyptian jurisdiction. So what exactly was the Palestinian Liberation Organization planning to regain from 1964 to 1967, exactly what lost territory? That of pre- June 1967 Israel?
After the June 1967 war Israel immediately offered to negotiate the return of territories for recognition of its basic right to exist. The Arab Khartoum response was the 3 noes - no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel. So what could Israel do?
Very few settlements in the "unoccupied territories" were initiated until after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and I think most Israelis would roll their eyes (or worse) if you told them it was for "Lebensraum." The thought after the bloody 1973 surprise attack (on Israel's most holy day, when all is shut down) was to seriously increase defensive depth for the nation. And that in the face of continued Arab rejection of direct negotiations. Even so, not too long later, Israel relinquished the Sinai in return for a cool peace with Egypt.
Sharon decided on the unilateral disengagement while Yasser Arafat was still the "Rais" (PA main man) and directing (in part anyway) the Intifada Al-Aksa. My take on that move by Sharon was to stress Arafat, by threatening to depart without negotiated settlements on issues like seaports, airports, border crossings, immigration, emigration, work permits in Israel, etc, etc. Then Arafat goes the way of all mankind, after Sharon has pushed so hard for the disengagement. In the meantime, Fatah went into disarray to some degree after Arafat's demise, and Hamas gained much popular support in Gaza. The present PA is weak, leaving Hamas a serious player. Sorry, Hamas won't be satisfied with '67 borders, nor '48 borders, nor proposed UN resolution 181 borders, nor Jewish Yeshuv community borders. So I don't see any long term peace here. Not till there is basic agreement by all parties, including Muslim clerics and their followers, that Israel of any small size has a right to exist.
Regards,
Cement
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
That's where we come in. You know. Team America, World Police.
National Borders in this day and age are fixed. With Kuwait, the word went out.. cross a border with an Army, yer gonna get yer bellybutton kicked.
Oh how some must long for the days when Might made right.
LOL:D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It is a huge step. But the Palisitians will blow it again.
Isreal can give them everything they want and hamas will still blow up women and kids.
I absolutely agree :(
-
Originally posted by Silat
I absolutely agree :(
Sad isnt it?
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
...and I think most Israelis would roll their eyes (or worse) if you told them it was for "Lebensraum."
What's your opinion?
Is Israel practising "Lebensraum" politics with their settlements in Gaza strip and Golan Heights?
-
Its a step in the right direction. But only one small step.
Actualy hacksaw1 I do agree that the nations you mention have to agree Israel's right to exist. But the same is true in reverse. Israel should recognise Palistimes right to exist. Its only fair don't you think old chap! ;)
-
I used to think the pullout was a good idea....but I still ended up with three kids.
Go figure.
-
Yep, plain and simple, Staga's correct; the description fits the definition.
Can't pass negative judgement for occupying and populating land captured in War. The Israli's are handing it back; that's something I never expected to see happen.
It appears the Israli's intended to use the territory as a bargaining chip all along now, dosen't it?
-
It's suicidal (both political and physical) way to bargain; first build settlements for thousands of "settlers" and then force them to leave their homes.
No; I don't think so.
More likely this move is indicating the chance in the course after politics realized old way didn't work.
I just hope Palestinians have learned the same lesson.
-
and if the Pals screw this chance up, maybe they should "pullout" next
-
It appears the Israli's intended to use the territory as a bargaining chip all along now, dosen't it?
No. To quote Sharon from yesterday:
"It is no secret that I, like many others, believed and hoped that we would be able to hold onto Netzarim and Kfar Darom forever"
That's not just rhetoric now, it's been Sharon's position all along.
Haaretz's settlement correspondent summed up the position as he saw it:
"We are not talking of colonialism. The morality of "settlement" after 1967, is equivalent to the morality of settling the land after 1948. Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here. The internal dispute within Israel is over what is possible within the framework of the security and international reality that the country faces."
-
Originally posted by Staga
It's suicidal (both political and physical) way to bargain; first build settlements for thousands of "settlers" and then force them to leave their homes.
No; I don't think so.
More likely this move is indicating the chance in the course after politics realized old way didn't work.
I just hope Palestinians have learned the same lesson.
Staga, yah gotta look at it from the mindset of the 'pioneers' that settled that land. From the settlers standpoint it was 'free land' to 'homestead'. No doubt they are less than charmed by having to give it up.. but again, from the perspective of the mostly penniless jewish immigrants that moved onto that land to begin with are NOT giving it up without compensation from the government are they? Betcha they're gettin a good deal.
A lotta Sheckles Changing Hands for the Occupied Lands (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050801/325/fom4i.html)
-
I hope they got better than good deal; they weren't responsible about building those settlements.
AFAIK government build those settlements and practically speaking gave apartments to settlers with some perks like Alaskan residents get from US government.
-
They populated it knowing full well the 'indians' could kill 'em.. just like any other 'pioneer'. Cost / benefit anylisis for any other 'pioneer' is iffy at best. In this situation the 'cavalry' was always close at hand, and when it came time to leave they get a big payout for being 'pioneers'.
Don't know of any other 'pioneer' group of homesteaders that got as sweet a deal as that.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... if my knowledge of history is correct, I believe Israel lost that land "fair and square on the battlefield" to the Roman Empire.
yes but did they not win it back in 1967?
Originally posted by FalconSix
Does that rule apply to all nations (like Germany, Japan, Iraq, NK etc.) or just Israel?.
Show me what land they won in war and held onto again?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Show me what land they won in war and held onto again?
They did win france and a couple of other countries fair and square on the battlefield. Why did we liberate those countries, and when we did why didn't we keep them? I mean, are we stupid or something?
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
They did win france and a couple of other countries fair and square on the battlefield. Why did we liberate those countries, and when we did why didn't we keep them? I mean, are we stupid or something?
this is my last post to you on this subject.
Step 1. Pick up a history book
Step 2. Read said history book
I will save you the trouble and summarize:
There was what we like to call a "War" and on the opposing side to the Germans was the Allies. They were a "group" of people who set out to push the Germans back....and they did. We "liberated" france" for the french people.
-
Why? We should have kept france to ourselves. We won it "fair and square" from the Germans didn't we?
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Why? We should have kept france to ourselves. We won it "fair and square" from the Germans didn't we?
no the Allied forces did....
EDIT:
DAMN I broke my promise not to respond.
-
;)
-
It's an olive branch that even the PLO can't deny. On the other hand, let's hope the would-be martyrs don't take credit for it or otherwise smell blood in the water.
Originally posted by Staga
(Nazies used term "Lebensraum").
Isn't this the second time you've used this analogy in the last few days? Are Nazi comparisons the new fad or something? Seeing it everywhere.
-
I dont know much, Im just glad Im not a religious zealot.
Those folks (religious zealots) will end up getting everyone killed.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
They did win france and a couple of other countries fair and square on the battlefield. Why did we liberate those countries, and when we did why didn't we keep them? I mean, are we stupid or something?
Good point. But I seem to remember Russia keeping a country or two after the war for a bunch of years.
Remember. like it or not "We" included the Russians. At least during the war.
Why didnt we keep France?
Too many French :D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I dont know much, Im just glad Im not a religious zealot.
Those folks (religious zealots) will end up getting everyone killed.
Religious zealots from both sides.
LOL the more I see this situation the more I wish we would have just given the Isrealies Puerto Rico.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
National Borders in this day and age are fixed. With Kuwait, the word went out.. cross a border with an Army, yer gonna get yer bellybutton kicked.
Except if it's in Africa of course.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Except if it's in Africa of course.
Or the US if you are Mexico.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Does that rule apply to all nations (like Germany, Japan, Iraq, NK etc.) or just Israel?
I musta missed the part where those countries won their wars.
Oh well, don't let a little logic spoil your ideology.
-
Nashwan got it right and his quote is good.
1948 lines are just that - cease fire lines, not borders. Israel's 1st international border is the border with Egypt from 1982. Next was the border with Jordan in 1995 and 2000 with Lebanon (marked by the UN, but Hizbulla still does not approve).
This leaves parts of the 1967 occupied territories - Gazza and Judia, inside Israel's international borders. Technically, there's no difference between land won by war in 48 and this land won by war in 67. The countries that lost these lands (Egypt & Jordan) do not want it back and they do not want it for the exact reason Israel is pulling out of them now - the Palestinians.
Israel is pulling out for the sole purpose of its security and future, not because it is immoral to occupy it. It is immoral to make the life of 3 million Palestinians miserable though, but making them Israeli citizens is equal to Israel comitting suicide as a western, democratic or jewish (what ever that means) state.
Knowing Sharon's history, he is not aiming for peace. He is thinking like a general - shortening the defense lines, pulling back vulnerable assests and personal. This is regrouping and redeployment, not an offering of peace. Practicality and common sense over idiology and righteousness - something Israel lost since 1967.
Hopfully, this will set some wheels into motion that will lead eventually to peace. Much will depend on the palestinians now.
Bozon
-
Staga,
"Lebensraum"
If you've never been to Israel, then you've never seen the wide, empty spaces in the area called the Negev. Arid, true, but other territory in Israel is arid as well, and has been made cultivatable. David Ben Gurion, leader of the Jewish Yeshuv before 1948, and first Prime Minister of newly founded Israel after 1948, hoped that Jewish immigrants would settle the Negev. This land is within the 1948 cease fire lines. It has remained relatively unsettled till this day. So, there was no need for "Lebensraum" in newly captured territories after June of 1967 or 1973, because Israel already had areas that could be settled. The settling of territories captured in 1967-1973 was for other reasons. The political left in Israel did think in terms of land as a buffer and as a bargaining chip:
• The Israeli government believed that certain settlements could serve a useful security purpose as a buffer against future attacks like the ones in 1948, 1967, 1973
• Some Israeli officials felt that building settlements, and thus creating facts on the ground, might hasten the day when the Palestinian Arabs, presumably realizing that time was not on their side, would talk peace
The political right however, hoped to hold on to captured territory permanently. The political right came to power under Menachem Begin in 1977. So prior to that, left leaning Israeli governments had already promoted settlements. Neither the left nor the right saw settlement as immoral or illegal. Indeed, the original League of Nations Mandate to Britain in 1922 permitted Jewish settlement in the territories that Israel later captured in 1967. Don't think much of the League of Nations? Sorry, that was what there was in those days.
Sharon was a disciple of Begin and for decades promoted the idea of permanently maintaining Israeli sovereignty over territory captured in 1967. He surprised many people in Israel, right and left, by declaring a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. But as Bozon states, Sharon did not do this as a sign of "peace" per se. He did it to unload Israel from direct reasonability of some 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority, established in the early 1990's as a result of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the PLO will have to deal with its population's needs, hopefully using some of the donated billion or so that Arafat stashed in his own pocket. Sharon also chose Gaza and not the West Bank, I believe for several reasons, one being that Arafat and his Fatah were not as strongly supported in Gaza as in the WB. I see Sharon's choice of Gaza was a strategic move to weaken Arafat's influence. Hamas is not great, but they don't have total control either. What are the Gazan's getting out of this? One thing for sure that they are not getting: a negotiated settlement with Israel. Maybe one will come along though.
Skydancer, please take a few moments and read this. The Jewish Yeshuv, i.e. Israel, recognized the right of a Palestinian State in November 1947 when it accepted UN Resolution 181.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm)
Best regards,
Cement
-
Skydancer, please take a few moments and read this. The Jewish Yeshuv, i.e. Israel, recognized the right of a Palestinian State in November 1947 when it accepted UN Resolution 181.
Someone (can't remember who) said that the Palestinians had never internalised the idea of a Jewish state. No matter what they said in 1988, until they accepted a Jewish state in their hearts, there would never be peace.
You can say the same about Israel and a Palestinian state. It's just as true that Jewish leaders in 1948 saw partition as a neccessary first step to a Jewish state in all of Palestine. And it's just as true that until now Israelis have not accepted a Palestinian state in their hearts.
The truth is, both sides still want it all. Hopefully, the bloodshed of the last few years has convinced both sides that they will have to settle for something less.
Neither the left nor the right saw settlement as immoral or illegal. Indeed, the original League of Nations Mandate to Britain in 1922 permitted Jewish settlement in the territories that Israel later captured in 1967. Don't think much of the League of Nations? Sorry, that was what there was in those days.
They might not have seen it as illegal, but it was, and the rest of the world saw it that way.
Using the Mandate as justification is a bit weak. The mandate expired in 1948 (47?), and anyway the mandate made clear: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"
Sharon also chose Gaza and not the West Bank, I believe for several reasons, one being that Arafat and his Fatah were not as strongly supported in Gaza as in the WB. I see Sharon's choice of Gaza was a strategic move to weaken Arafat's influence. Hamas is not great, but they don't have total control either.
This is a major mistake, that Israel has been making for 20 years or more.
I remember seeing an interview with a senior Israeli politician or diplomat in the mid 80s, after the invasion of Lebanon. It was concerning releases of Palestinian and Islamic prisoners. The Israeli position was that the Islamic prisoners would be released early, and generally would recieve favourable treatment compared to the Palestinians, who he described as permament enemies of Israel.
It struck me as folly then, because the Palestinians had a rational dispute with Israel, which could be solved by rational means, the Islamic groups had a religious dispute, which could not be solved.
A few years later Israel was actively promoting Hamas in Gaza, in order to weaken the power of the PLO.
And when the current intifada broke out, it was the PA that Israel destroyed first, and Hamas was largely ignored in the early years.
Israel stands a chance of peace with the PLO, in the same way they have achieved peace with Egypt and Jordan. They have no chance of peace with Hamas.
Peace for Israel will not come by keeping the Palestinians from forming a stable state, it will come from the Palestinians forming a strong state that can control Hamas (and will need to to avoid another war with Israel).
-
Hello Nashwan
It's just as true that Jewish leaders in 1948 saw partition as a neccessary first step to a Jewish state in all of Palestine.
You have some quotes for that?
The truth is, both sides still want it all.
Don't know about that. I see a lot of blue ribbons these days in Israel, not just orange.
They might not have seen it as illegal, but it was, and the rest of the world saw it that way.
Might be wrong, but I believe the US's policy has been to say that settlements do not promote progress to peace. I don't recall the US ever saying all settlements Israel ever initiated were illegal. I believe the US supports Israel retaining Ariel for example. The US is certainly part of the rest of the world.
It struck me as folly then, because the Palestinians had a rational dispute with Israel, which could be solved by rational means, the Islamic groups had a religious dispute, which could not be solved.
A few years later Israel was actively promoting Hamas in Gaza, in order to weaken the power of the PLO.
And when the current intifada broke out, it was the PA that Israel destroyed first, and Hamas was largely ignored in the early years.
Israel stands a chance of peace with the PLO, in the same way they have achieved peace with Egypt and Jordan. They have no chance of peace with Hamas.
I think the idea was to make the PLO cry uncle long enough to find peace. Not saying I agree with the policy.
Regards,
Cement
-
Ok I stand corrected but in reality Naswan is kind of right. Until people actualy belive in the words they are kind of meaningless.
Thanks for contributing though hacksaw1, I'm learning here!
-
It's just as true that Jewish leaders in 1948 saw partition as a neccessary first step to a Jewish state in all of Palestine.
You have some quotes for that?
Oh yes. :)
Ben Gurion:
"after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine"
(1937, quoted in The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities by Simha Flapan)
From One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate
by Tom Segev:
"Ben Gurion favoured partition. He did not accept all the details, but he saw the proposal as the first step in a plan to gradually lay claim to the entire country, on both sides of the Jordan river. "A partial Jewish state is not the end, but the begining," he explained to his son Amos, "a powerful impetus in our historic steps to redeem the land in it's entirety."
From Righteous Victims By Benny Morris:
"Weizmann and Ben-Gurion pressed for a solution based on partition. Said Weizmann: 'The Jews would be fools noi to accept it even if [the land they were allocated] were the size of a table cloth" Both saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. "No Zionist can forgo the smallest ponion of the Land of Israel," Ben-Gurion was quoted as saying. He wrote to his son Amos: "[A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning., .. Our possession is important not only for itself .. , through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .. . will serve as a very potent lever in our historical efforts to redeem the whole country.""
From The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim, quoting Menachem Begin the day after the UN voted for partition:
"The partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized... Jerusalem was and for ever will be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And forever."
There're a lot more, if you look. Ben Gurion made simnilar statements a lot in the late 30s.
How much these statements represent Zionist leader's desires, and how much concrete plans, I don't know. I suspect it was more a desire to claim the whole of Palestine than a concrete plan, but clearly they had not resigned themselves to a state in part of Palestine.
Don't know about that. I see a lot of blue ribbons these days in Israel, not just orange.
But how much of that is down to facing reality? Isn't it true that most Israelis feel the West Bank rightfully belongs to them? I think the majority of the Israeli population is ready to give up territory for peace, but how many have accepted that a Palestinian state is right, rather than just necessary for peace?
To quote Nadav Shragai again:
"Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here. The internal dispute within Israel is over what is possible within the framework of the security and international reality that the country faces."
I think you'll find a great many on the Palestinian side who are also ready to accept an Israeli state, for the same reasons, and equally I think most Palestinians believe Israel rightfully belongs to them.
In both cases people are ready to accept the existence of the other, but I don't think either side truly sees the fairness of the two state solution.
Might be wrong, but I believe the US's policy has been to say that settlements do not promote progress to peace. I don't recall the US ever saying all settlements Israel ever initiated were illegal.
From a State Department briefing for congress:
"Since the first Israeli settlements were created in the occupied territories following the June 1967 war, the United States has held that such settlements are illegal under international law"
From the Mitchell report 2001:
"The Interim Agreement provides that "the two parties view the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period." Coupled with this, the Interim Agreement's prohibition on taking steps which may prejudice permanent status negotiations denies Israel the right to continue its illegal expansionist settlement policy. In addition to the Interim Agreement, customary international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits Israel (as an occupying power) from establishing settlements in occupied territory pending an end to the conflict."
The US also voted in favour of Security Council resolution 465 (I think) which says:
"Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;"
The US has also abstained from several similar votes, rather than use it's veto.
The US might not announce it's opposition as strongly as most other countries, but it seems to be the settled view of the US government, at least until Bush's speech last year, that the settlements are illegal.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here.
You can write German instead of jew and all of a sudden you're 60 year back in the past/
-
Originally posted by straffo
You can write German instead of jew and all of a sudden you're 60 year back in the past/
what about American Indian?
-
Originally posted by straffo
You can write German instead of jew and all of a sudden you're 60 year back in the past/
Henh. There's a lotta places where that lil subtle exhange of words could be called relevant.
Untill you take into account the fact that the words don't just represent a nation, they reflect a political system that was flat out evil.
And that renders the word game moot.
-
I was not making a reference to the shoa I was more thinking of the Sudeten for example.
I didn't intended to make a parallel between the Nazi Germany and Israel.
-
Hello Nashwan,
Granted Yeshuv leaders had grand ideas before statehood. It would be more impressive if you had some public quotes of the Israeli government after the founding of the nation in 1948 that it was a stated policy to gain all the territory of Palestine, as in the PLO Charter, or the Hamas Covenant. If you do I'd be glad to read them. Don't bother with Begin after 1977. Don't bother with Gandi and tranfer.
WB rightfully belongs to Israel?
I imagine you know there are a lot of opinions about that throughout the political spectrum. I think I would agree that "rightful access" to visit lands of historical interest to the Jewish people would be universal. I'm sure you know the Jewish population of Jerusalem was put under siege and expelled in the Independence War, and there was no freedom of access to Jewish holy places. After 1967 Jews, Christians and Muslims can access holy places unless a security situation prevents.
Illegal Settlements.
I am under the opinion that the US supports Israeli retention of Ariel at least, which I am pretty sure was settled after 1967. If all is illegal, then how could there be any support. Other settlements have been called an obstacle to peace, for sure.
Like it or not, religion, even for "secular" Arab or Jew, is still some part of the picture. Biblical promises to Israel may be overridden, including by Chief Rabbis who cite Pikuah Nefesh, but to say for example that Hebron, burial place of Abraham, is off-limits to Jews, is pretty difficult to swallow. That is why I think most Israelis have some strong feelings about the West Bank (a lot less about Gaza).
Regards
Cement
-
Hacksaw; feel free to look up for reasonings or even justifying building settlements on the occupied area but the fact is Israel adopted and carried out "Lebensraum" tactics.
le·bens·raum Pronunciation (lbns-roum)
n.
1. Additional territory deemed necessary to a nation, especially Nazi Germany, for its continued existence or economic well-being.
2. Adequate space in which to live, develop, or function.
In next month we're discussing about apartheid and if every adult Israeli citizen has a right to vote.
-
Hello Staga,
Feel free to look up history resources. In 1947 the leaders of the Jewish Yeshuv agreed to the UN 181 resolution that called for Arab and Jewish states with Jerusalem as a separate entity. Arab residents of Palestine rejected it as did surrounding Arab nations. In the ensuing war atrocities were carried out by both sides. The cease fire line left the newly created Israel without access to the Old City of Jerusalem and Jewish holy places. No access was granted to Jews to visit the holy places even though that was one of the stipulations of the ceasefire.
Israeli leaders of 1967 had to deal with Arab neighbors under the leadership of Nasser who were beating the war drum. Israel responded. For "lebensraum"? Pal I can see your mind is made up. I think more along the lines of self-preservation against agressive behavior that threated throwing all Jews into the sea.
Best regards on your apartheid studies bud. You certainly are cordially invited to visit Israel and say anything you like about us or the government. Afterwards I'm sure you'd like to visit Tehran and Riyaad.
Cement
-
That was a rather good response! :lol
-
Israelis removing those that refused to evacute
I do not think the police/national guard in the states would have that much patience
-
Yea usually "Land Grabs" don't happen too often in wars when it's 3 on 1.
Of course everyone likes to re-write history to suite their idealogy.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I was not making a reference to the shoa I was more thinking of the Sudeten for example.
I didn't intended to make a parallel between the Nazi Germany and Israel.
You of course know what happened to the Germans that moved into the Sudeten after the war, yes?
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
You of course know what happened to the Germans that moved into the Sudeten after the war, yes?
;)
their touristic visa expired ?
-
Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here.
You can write German instead of jew and all of a sudden you're 60 year back in the past
straffo, this is a perfect example of taking a quote out of context and twisting the meaning around.
Nadav Shragai (who writes for Haaretz daily news paper, considered a left wing paper) actually says that Israel should NOT occupy these lands even if they think they have a right to it over the right of other peoples.
Having the rights is a principal, excersizing it is a matter of practicality. What Israel is realizing is that it is actually in its best interest NOT to claim what they think they have the right to.
You have some quotes for that?
hehe hacksaw, don't mess with Nashwan about quotes. I don't know if he is in a relevant line of work or he just happens to have the "complete book of zionist crimes" handy, but he usually has his facts straight - the selection and completeness of facts is something to argue about, as well as conclusions.
Nashwan, those quotes are from 1937. The UN voted on the state of Israel and the partitioning in 1947. There were 2 partition plans and the 1st one was less in favour of the Jewish state. Also, alot happened in those 10 years, both for the settelement in Israel and to the Jewish world population that was reduced in size by 1/3.
After 1948, the only attempt to capture land was in the Suez crisis where Israel did the dirty fighting for France and Britain (we learned not to repeat that mistake again). 1967 war was far from an expansion attempt. The common view was that Israel is about to be wiped out and the joke on the street was to remind that "the last one should remember to turn off the lights". Only in the last days of the war when the victory became evident, political pressure was put on the army to capture more land - especially the Golan hights and the rest of the territory west of the Jordan river.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
they won that land fair and square on the battlefield. They are using "security concernes" as an excuse to apease the palistinians.
It's pretty sad if you ask me.
If you use that logic you could say Iraq won Kuwait fair and square
-
Originally posted by bozon
straffo, this is a perfect example of taking a quote out of context and twisting the meaning around.
Nadav Shragai (who writes for Haaretz daily news paper, considered a left wing paper) actually says that Israel should NOT occupy these lands even if they think they have a right to it over the right of other peoples.
I plead not guilty , I had no other context than what you have seen in Nashwan post.
I was surprised to read this comming from a newspaper like Haaretz ,I was just reacting to the sentence disregarding the context I didn't had.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Having the rights is a principal, excersizing it is a matter of practicality. What Israel is realizing is that it is actually in its best interest NOT to claim what they think they have the right to.
Yes, the outside pressure usually makes people think twice.
Without the outside pressure they would have found it to be in their best interest to grab the land.
Fortunately Israel isn't big enough country to do it alone, like the germans did over 60 years back, until they began chewing on something too big to fit in their mouth.
The irony though, israeli civilians murdering palestinians like true terrorists, while they would've got well paid to leave their homes, unlike the palestinian civilians.
Someones already going berserk and they haven't even seen the slightest of what palestinians have, and they wonder why some of them are terrorizing them?
-
I think they should have expanded rather than pulled out. The PLO has been a thorn on the side of freedom from the start.
Whats next, Terran?
I am confident that the other Middle East nations will view this as a sign of weakness, so once again, because of a few liberals we have jeprodized the very freedom we have struggled to achieve.
"Pray for War"
-
" The side of freedom" ??? With respect What are you on about? Whose freedom? The palistinians obviously wouldn't agree that they were a thorn in the side of freedom would they? Your freedom? How are Palistinian Israeli conflicts affecting your freedom?honestly thats a bit of a nonsensical statement. I think we'd do well to listen to the two people in this thread who are posting about the region they live in. Its enlightening.
-
Originally posted by weasel4
I am confident that the other Middle East nations will view this as a sign of weakness, so once again, because of a few liberals we have jeprodized the very freedom we have struggled to achieve.
The next time it won't be just a little land grabbing, but a bigger one and nobody is going to give a crap to what israelis does with the land :D
Call it as an investment for the future - nobody can say they weren't trying.
-
OK Sky...... I give you a 1.5 because all of your spelling was correct. I base my "Side of freedom" statement on recent activities occuring in this region. As far as "There region" OK, if it's there region then why do "I" have to provide support, logistics, Economic Aid, Military Equipment etc, etc, etc.
I was there in 1983. Were you? Did you walk the post? Did you help clean the mess from some "Palestine who Blew himself up" after being paid?
Lets face it.....Isreal is a common enemy to many nations. America is the driving force behind much of this pullout. We say jump, they say how high. Don't get your panties in a wad over it. Just my opinion. Remember...I've seen it, protected it and will still support it. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE PULLED OUT
Lets see, the last time I heard there have been NO Israelis blowing themselves up for AL?who:aok
-
Originally posted by weasel4
I was there in 1983. Were you? Did you walk the post? Did you help clean the mess from some "Palestine who Blew himself up" after being paid?
Did you ever wonder his motives?
Did you ever wonder whats the reason behind it all?
It is easy to draw conclusions by what you see, if you don't think why that all happened.
Drawing conclusions by what you see has never been a winning tactic in the drive for peace - it's been the winning tactic in the drive for war.
Lets see, the last time I heard there have been NO Israelis blowing themselves up for AL?who:aok
Last time I heard, an israeli civilian murdered 3 palestinians.
I guess the latest news haven't yet reached you, or you just haven't paid attention.
-
In most cases as far as I can deterimine their motive is to have there picture on CNN. As well as have there family recieve $20.00 American dollars.
Maybe they should look at expansion into other mid eastern nations. With a little American know how we could have free gas Wednesdays.:lol
"How much for the little girl"
Pray for war
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Did you ever wonder his motives?
Did you ever wonder whats the reason behind it all?
I'm not the least bit interested in someone's problems when they address them with high-explosives against people trying to ride to work on a bus or trying to shop in a market. At that point they become vermin, not champions of their cause.
-
Curious as to something.
Instead of the army forcing these people out of the territories.
Why not make them the offer of paying them to leave just as they are doing now.
But give them the option to stay. But with the understanding that if they stay. They are on their own and do so at their own peril.
Question #2
Probably should have its own post but
I know its been mentioned before
At the current birth rate it s estimated the Israeli Palestinians will outnumber Jewish Israelis within the next 20-30 years.
What does Israel do when the Palestinians reach the kind of numbers where they can demand the right to one man one vote?
Kinda puts them on the horns of a dilemma
Do deny that would essentially alienate them from every democratic nation in the world. Including the US where it can easily be predicted that public support would drop like a stone as Israel would then not be seen as a free nation but an oppressive one.
But to give it would mean the end of a solely Jewish State.
What do they do?
The only answer I can see is to do as it says in Genesis and "Be Fruitful and multiply" and outbreed them and/or call out to the world for all Jews to come home.
Then eventually they would be faced witht he problem of space and/or resources. Eventually running out of space Israel would have to do what every nation does when faced with that problem. Expand. Then Israel would be seen as an expansionist aggressor.
Looks like a no win situation to me.
so what do they do?
-
Drediock..............What the heck are you talking about
Here is the solution....
Kill-em-all and let ala sort 'em out:D
-
Originally posted by VOR
I'm not the least bit interested in someone's problems when they address them with high-explosives against people trying to ride to work on a bus or trying to shop in a market. At that point they become vermin, not champions of their cause.
I would agree. But is it really the best solution to shoot a rocket into a building where the next room over there is a mother who is guilty of nothing more then feeding her child is?
While I have zero sympathy for suicide bombers who target civilians (I can accept a military or government personel as legitimate targets)
I also have zero sympathy for some of the responces Isreal has retaliated with.
-
Originally posted by weasel4
Drediock..............What the heck are you talking about
Here is the solution....
Kill-em-all and let ala sort 'em out:D
Who? The Palastinians? The Israelies? Or both?;)
-
"If you use that logic you could say Iraq won Kuwait fair and square"
well... this may be putting too fine a point on it but.. I think if your country is invaded and then you have to occupy their land during the war to win it... then you are entitled to something.
Let's say kuwait had won the war but had to occupy some iraqi land to do it...
lazs
-
EVERYONE....KILL EVERYTHING.....DESTROY LIFE AS WE KNOW IT AS WELL AS ANY DNA LEFT TO PREVENT CLONING WHICH IS A COMPLETE NEW THREAD.
-
Granted Yeshuv leaders had grand ideas before statehood. It would be more impressive if you had some public quotes of the Israeli government after the founding of the nation in 1948 that it was a stated policy to gain all the territory of Palestine, as in the PLO Charter, or the Hamas Covenant. If you do I'd be glad to read them. Don't bother with Begin after 1977. Don't bother with Gandi and tranfer.
Why not bother with Begin after 77?
The truth is, Israel's aspirations (even if not their plans) have been to enlarge the state, when presented with the opportunity to do so, they took it.
I am under the opinion that the US supports Israeli retention of Ariel at least, which I am pretty sure was settled after 1967. If all is illegal, then how could there be any support.
Realpolitik. The truth is the settlement blocks are too large to move, even the Palestinians largely accept this (and did in negotiation in 2000). The dispute in 2000 was how much land Israel would swap for the settlement blocks, the Palestinians wanted a 1:1 swap, Israel offered much less.
Like it or not, religion, even for "secular" Arab or Jew, is still some part of the picture. Biblical promises to Israel may be overridden, including by Chief Rabbis who cite Pikuah Nefesh, but to say for example that Hebron, burial place of Abraham, is off-limits to Jews, is pretty difficult to swallow. That is why I think most Israelis have some strong feelings about the West Bank (a lot less about Gaza).
Oh, I agree with you. Israelis, by and large, want to keep the West Bank. They might agree that they need to evacuate it, but there's little enthusiasm for the that. The enthusiasm is on the part of the settlers who want to keep the land, far more passionately than the moderates want to leave it.
So although the majority might favour leaving the West Bank, they do so reluctantly, whereas there is nothing reluctant about the right's desire to hold on to the territories.
I don't know if he is in a relevant line of work or he just happens to have the "complete book of zionist crimes" handy, but he usually has his facts straight - the selection and completeness of facts is something to argue about, as well as conclusions.
No big book of Zionist crimes, I'm afraid.
The selection of facts is down to the fact that I am arguing on a BB, not trying to present a balanced view. Arguing against people who's basic premise is "Jews = right, Arabs = evil child eating monsters" requires presenting facts to the contrary, not a balanced case.
Note I'm not accusing you or Hacksaw of presenting such a case, it tends to be those with less intimate knowledge of the subject who have such a black and white view.
After 1948, the only attempt to capture land was in the Suez crisis where Israel did the dirty fighting for France and Britain (we learned not to repeat that mistake again).
Israel didn't really need much persuasion, though.
There was certainly a desire by the Israeli government and military to occupy the Sinai, they were happy to join with Britain and France to that end.
1967 war was far from an expansion attempt.
No, but it wasn't the Israel = good, Egypt = bad that it's often made out to be, either.
The truth is both sides were "up for it" in 1967, and both felt they could gain from the war.
I was surprised to read this comming from a newspaper like Haaretz ,I was just reacting to the sentence disregarding the context I didn't had.
The quote from Shragai does contain the context, it's not part of a much larger passage that changes the context.
It was from a written Q&A session in Haaretz, where readers send in questions by email and a guest specialist of the week answers them.
The full question and answer was:
Q How many settlers do you think would persist in their colonialist endeavor if the Israel government simply refused to subsidize and protect them?
A We are not talking of colonialism. The morality of "settlement" after 1967, is equivalent to the morality of settling the land after 1948. Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here. The internal dispute within Israel is over what is possible within the framework of the security and international reality that the country faces.
I'm not sure if Shragai supports the pullout, his tone in reports I've read recently is deliberately neutral on the subject, but reading between the lines I think he is against it.
The point isn't support for the pullout or not, it's that he feels Israel has a right to the territories, and I suspect that is a pretty common opinion in Israel.
I was there in 1983. Were you? Did you walk the post? Did you help clean the mess from some "Palestine who Blew himself up" after being paid?
In 1983? That was Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, the Lebanese branch, and nothing to do with the Palestinians.
The first Palestinian suicide bombing, as far as I know, was in 1993, and was in response to Baruch Goldstein's massacre of Arabs at prayer.
Lets see, the last time I heard there have been NO Israelis blowing themselves up for AL?who
Off hand I can't think of any Palestinians who have, either. Al Qadea are otably absent from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, they have attempted to set up a presence in Gaza but haven't got very far.
Curious as to something.
Instead of the army forcing these people out of the territories.
Why not make them the offer of paying them to leave just as they are doing now.
But give them the option to stay. But with the understanding that if they stay. They are on their own and do so at their own peril.
Because there is no way the Israeli government could sit by whilst Palestinians and Israeli settlers fight it out, with Israelis getting shot. Public pressure in Israel would not allow it.
At the current birth rate it s estimated the Israeli Palestinians will outnumber Jewish Israelis within the next 20-30 years.
What does Israel do when the Palestinians reach the kind of numbers where they can demand the right to one man one vote?
According to some sources, Jews are already a minority in territory ruled by Israel. Arabs aren't quite a majority either, because there are other minorities present as well.
But to give it would mean the end of a solely Jewish State.
What do they do?
The only answer I can see is to do as it says in Genesis and "Be Fruitful and multiply" and outbreed them and/or call out to the world for all Jews to come home.
They've been doing that for a long time, the problem is the Palestinians breed faster.
The richer a population group is, the less children they have. Poorer groups have very large families. The Palestinians are very poor by Israeli standards (about a tenth the per capita income), Israeli Arabs are fairly poor by Israeli Jewish standards.
And the other part of this dilema is that the highest Jewish birthrates in israel are amongst the ultra orthodox Jews, who by and large don't do much army service, and mostly don't work in the private sector either, but live on large amounts of state aid.
Looks like a no win situation to me.
so what do they do?
They do what Sharon has just begun to do. Pull out of Gaza, then the West Bank. That cuts the number of Arabs in Israeli territory down to just the Israeli Arabs, who already have citizenship (and the vote, and other rights as Israeli citizens), who make up about 20% of the Israeli population.
That will ensure a Jewish majority for a very long time to come.
well... this may be putting too fine a point on it but.. I think if your country is invaded and then you have to occupy their land during the war to win it... then you are entitled to something.
You do know Israel was not invaded in 1967, don't you?
-
Some questions come to mind.
How much financial support does Israel receive from the JDL and other private US sources?
What is the current yearly amount of formal aid provided to Israel by the US Government (military and economic)?
What is current status of the economy in Israel.
What's the standard of living for a Jewish citizen, average income, comparative to US families.
And for the non jewish residents.. Palestinians, Arabs, etc.
-
Originally posted by weasel4
Lets see, the last time I heard there have been NO Israelis blowing themselves up for AL?who:aok
No... but I've heard that some are setting themselves on fire in protest of the Gaza pullout.
Give 'em some time. They'll warm up to the idea of a suicide bomber.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
No... but I've heard that some are setting themselves on fire in protest of the Gaza pullout.
Give 'em some time. They'll warm up to the idea of a suicide bomber.
Only if their religion promises 72 virgins waiting for them once they off themselves. ;)
-
I think those folks would require a different motivation than 72 virgins.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Curious as to something.
Instead of the army forcing these people out of the territories.
Why not make them the offer of paying them to leave just as they are doing now.
But give them the option to stay. But with the understanding that if they stay. They are on their own and do so at their own peril.
Very good question that has a two parts answer:
1. Those people are trouble makers. They will not be happy citizens of the Palestinian authority and this will probably end in bloodshed - no matter which side will be to blame this will not be good. Israel could not stand aside while they are being killed. The last thing this region need are more martyrs.
2. The whole point of the pullout is seperating the populations. Israel will never accept thousands of palestinians into its teritory and that is why Israel cannot demand the palestinians to accept jews who moved into their future territory. Israel is aiming for two states: a Jewish one and a Palestinian one, not two mixed states which is pointless since you can have one big mixed state if this is what you like.
Nashwan,
I hope you didn't misunderstood what I meant. I said it with the highest respect and wish that even a small fraction of the Israelis would have your knoledge of both current and historical issues. I always enjoy reading your posts, even the ones I don't agree with.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I would agree. But is it really the best solution to shoot a rocket into a building where the next room over there is a mother who is guilty of nothing more then feeding her child is?
I wasn't naming names. ;) Yes, of course the street runs both ways.
-
Originally posted by weasel4
OK Sky...... I give you a 1.5 because all of your spelling was correct. I base my "Side of freedom" statement on recent activities occuring in this region. As far as "There region" OK, if it's there region then why do "I" have to provide support, logistics, Economic Aid, Military Equipment etc, etc, etc.
I was there in 1983. Were you? Did you walk the post? Did you help clean the mess from some "Palestine who Blew himself up" after being paid?
-snip-
Lets see, the last time I heard there have been NO Israelis blowing themselves up for AL?who:aok
Those suicide bombings were by Lebanese Hezbollah , not Palestinians. I don't recall a reward fund being paid out to the families then.
The Israelis don't need to resort to such tactics. They have a very strong and capable military machine to carry out their ops. There is the occational Israeli fanatic who goes into a Palestinian area to kill as many as he can before he is killed. Their version of a suicide attack.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Only if their religion promises 72 virgins waiting for them once they off themselves. ;)
Not all suicide bombers (http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm) do it for religious purposes. Nationalism has a lot to do with it. The "virgins in the afterlife" would be wanted by grown men, not the women and children that sacrifice themselves. Keep in mind, suicide is forbidden in Islam as it is in Christianity as far as heaven is concerned.
As is the seemingly usual case, man warps his religion to fit his ideals.