Battle for Palestine

[KrazyHorse]

Cairo

I 'm not going to argue with a drunken troll, but you seem to agree, Cairo. How so? Does anybody in their right mind think that the US wouldn't win a fairly handy victory over Iraq? Yet there is still very significant opposition to any such move.

[Cairo_East]

Re: Cairo

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I 'm not going to argue with a drunken troll, but you seem to agree, Cairo. How so? Does anybody in their right mind think that the US wouldn't win a fairly handy victory over Iraq? Yet there is still very significant opposition to any such move.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic about the unintelligble, garbled comments MWHC was making. But since you asked, I do believe their would be problems in creating a goal objective and succeeding. The more agressive the goal, the less like our partners in the Middle East will support us. A weak goal will only damage our reputation. Doing nothing may damage Bush's reputation at home. He's stuck in a tough spot. I honestly can't say what he should do next. I really don't know what is the right course.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Natan
There's a reason that it was Nazis rather than Communists on trial for invading Poland.

The reason is that Communists didn´t invade Poland. And not just because it is doubtful that Stalin was a Communist. But even Stalin didn´t invade Poland.

When Poland was defeated and ceased to exist, the Soviet Union occupied some of its territory; that´s a hell of a difference. Though not for you probably, because you are lately on an 'exculpate the Nazis' trip.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Cairo

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Does anybody in their right mind think that the US wouldn't win a fairly handy victory over Iraq? Yet there is still very significant opposition to any such move.

If I was thinking Bush is going to lose, I would cheer him on, of course.

[KrazyHorse]

Damn X-posts. Cairo again

I don't see why a move against Iraq is necessary all of a sudden. I know they've broken the ceasefire wrt weapons inspectors, but this has been true since 1998 (IIRC). Iraq is almost certainly not implicated in recent events, etc. I think Bush has painted hiself into a bit of a corner here. He's gonna face real opposition from even his staunchest international supporters, and the American public wouldn't be calling for Saddam's head quite so loudly if it wasn't for some of the rhetoric he's been putting out.

[Cairo_East]

Re: Damn X-posts. Cairo again

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't see why a move against Iraq is necessary all of a sudden ... the American public wouldn't be calling for Saddam's head quite so loudly if it wasn't for some of the rhetoric he's been putting out.

I agree with you. How does he get himself out of the corner without looking like a fool? I don't think there is a way.

Actually, he can find a way to blame the democrats. He'll set a trap and the dem's will walk right into it like they always do.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


They were expelled by whom? The Romans, I suppose. By your logic, the Greeks should conquer Turkey and ethnically cleanse it -like the Zionists cleansed Palestine-, because before the Ottomans Turkey was part of the Byzantine Empire. The first who recognized Israel was Stalin. Probably no coincidence.

.

I think he's refering to when Jordan Expelled Jews from the West Bank and Jerusalem in '48.

Shortly before Invading Israel anyway.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I think he's refering to when Jordan Expelled Jews from the West Bank and Jerusalem in '48.

'Anyway, I do think that there can be just and unjust wars, it's just that in this case either both sides are in the right or neither. They both consider Palestine their home, and they've both lived there for a long time. That most of the Jews were expelled doesn't mean they can't come back.'

Honestly: Reading his quote again, I have still no idea what he was talking about.

[GeneralTacticus]

Honestly: Reading his quote again, I have still no idea what he was talking about.

Actually, I was worried I hadn't been very clear either. What I meant by 'they've both lived in Palestine for a long time' was that the Jews haven't been absent for thousands of years and then suddenly decided to come back. There has always been some kind of Jewish presence there for thousands of years. The problem (in their eyes) was that they were always a minority in the land they considered their home. The whole reason that the fighting started off in the first place was because the Jews and Arabs couldn't agree on who should have where. The U.N. allocated a quite generous portion of Palestine to the Jews, and the Arabs got understandably pissed off. They then proceeded to invade the Jewish area with the declared intent of wiping the Jews out utterly. The problem was that they failed. If they'd won, the ME would probably be a more peaceful place, but it would not have been much (if any) better off. Anyway, the Jews acted desperately to survive, causing the Arabs to act even more desperately, etc. to the point where neither side really understands the other.
CT: As to your comment that 'if you don't take a side then you're irrelevant', at least you admit whose side you're on. Personally I am on the Israeli side, but that doesn't mean I think what they're doing is right. I think their basic objective is right (i.e. the creation and survival of their own state), but I think they're going about it the wrong way. Except: it is in fact the fault of the Palestinian terrorist/freedom fighter/resistance groups (and the other Arab nations in the past) for pushing things this far. The Israelis wouldn't have thought they needed to act so violently if the Palestinians were being more reasonable.

As my comment about them being expelled, I was referring to the Romans expelling them, though I realize that was a very long time ago. However, it's not actually like they've treated the Arabs any worse than the Arabs have treated the Jews, or said they would.

The reason is that Communists didn´t invade Poland. And not just because it is doubtful that Stalin was a Communist. But even Stalin didn´t invade Poland.

WTF?? Are you saying this just because the Poles didn't fight back much against the Soviets?? Stalin sat on his hands when the Germans first invaded Poland, but when he saw how succesful the Nazis were, he got worried that he'd lose some of the territory Hitler had promised him, so he invaded. I'm not actually sure if Poland ever surrendered - anyone know?

Very different. Milosevic never started a war of aggression

What DO you call a war of agression then? Apart from the fact that there was never actually a declared war of course. When was the last time anyone ever officially declared war on anyone else? I think it was sometime in August 1945, when the USSR declared war on Japan.

They were expelled by whom? The Romans, I suppose. By your logic, the Greeks should conquer Turkey and ethnically cleanse it -like the Zionists cleansed Palestine-, because before the Ottomans Turkey was part of the Byzantine Empire.

Is there anyone left in the world who considers themselves a Byzantine? Nope. Does Turkey have any cultural significance to Greece? I doubt it. Was the Byzantine Empire even a Greek one? Only partly. It was the Eastern Roman Empire, not the Greek Empire.

The first who recognized Israel was Stalin. Probably no coincidence.

I believe Stalin was hoping is Israel would turn out communist. The US State Department was also worried about that. Anyway, what relevance does that have? The U.S. did so at the same time - in fact, I don't even know if Stalin DID recognize it first. That all? I think so.

[Eli]

A very worrying poll done among the Jewish population in Israel.

46% support transfering the Palestinians, 31% support transfering the Israeli Arabs with them.
60% said that they support encouraging the emmigration of Israeli Arabs to other countries. 61% believe that the Israeli arabs are a danger to Israel's security.
Only 24% believe that the Israeli Arabs are loyal to the Israel, comparing to 38% in the beginning of the intifada.

The question concerning Transfer is asked every year, and comparing the data shows a constant increase in the support of the idea. In 1991 38% of the Jews supported transfer to the Palestinians and 24% supported also the transfer of the Israeli Arabs.
80% oppose the Israeli Arabs to take part in fateful decisions, like deciding on the borders of Israel, comparing to 75% last year and 67% in year 2000.


72% oppose to the joining of Arabs parties to the goverment, comparing to 67% last year and 50% in the year before.

The Oslo process - 35% for, comparing to 58% last year.
Palestinian state - 49% for, comparing to 57% last year.
Only 40% support giving some Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem in case of a peace agreement, comparing to 51% last year.

49% agree to remove the settlements, except the few large blocks adjacent to Israel's 1967 borders, comparing to 55% last year.
41% says that following the Palestinian violence they are less ready for compromise, while 10% said that they are more ready to compromise/

[Imran Siddiqui]

Talk about hyperbole. 1000 Palestinians killed in 18 monthes

1000+ deaths? Hey, by definition you have a war on your hands.

And is it really hyperbole? Israel doesn't care about civilian deaths, and is in fact targetting them, it seems. How far of a streach is that from carpet bombing the place?

[Jules]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Blaming the victims -in this case the Palestinians- is not a solution, either.

'Impartiality' is not a solution, either, because in the real world it does not -and cannot- exist. The truth is: If you don´t take sides you are irrelevant. I make no secret of whose side I am standing on.

If you had read carefully, you would've noticed I was not blaming the Palestinians. Rather I was pointing the finger at you, that your gleeful efforts to enrage Israelis only aggravate tensions and confound legitimate discussion on how to create peace. To you this must seem like the proverbial weekend football match where the spectators cheer for one side at the expense of the other, and at the end of the day's bloodletting Israelis and Palestinians shake hands and go home as if nothing really bad just happened to them. Creative solutions such as region-wide economic development which leave all sides better off are expressly prohibited by the arbitrary, "winner-take-all" rules of your zero-sum game. In fact it is precisely this zero-sum mentality on both sides that prevent any kind of peaceful settlement from being achieved. Nobody wants to be the loser after all--even more so in real life. But why must there be any losers at all?

Now I've had many disagreements with the Israeli posters here, as I'm sure they can tell you. But that doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing the wrong-headedness of the other side. MOBIUS made some rather callous remarks a few months ago, and I called him on it. Jews and Palestinians alike are human beings and are equally entitled to dignity and respect. Deprive either side of that and bad things will happen to both victim and perpetrator. So I'm certainly not impartial--I side with all human beings everywhere, with whatever injustice they're suffering. Because no human being, Jew or Palestinian, is entitled to treat another human being unjustly. So you can't say that Palestinians are justified in killing Israelis because Israelis kill Palestinians, or vice versa. And so the zero-sum game approach ("one side must triumph over the other!") must inevitably give way to a never ending "cycle of violence." There lies the paradox, well-defined.

The rational solution therefore is to scrap the zero-sum ideology and emphasize the ways in which human beings can cooperate to achieve their lawfully chosen ends. Recognize that Jews and Palestinians are both victims of process. First the 1948 UN partition of Palestine and then the Cold War, which pitted Arabs (Soviet-backed) versus Israelis (US-backed), made it impossible to achieve the kind of long term Arab-Israeli cooperation necessary to economically develop the Middle East (looted by over a century of British-French colonialism). Now that the Cold War is over, we should revive the idea of economic development to finally bring justice to the Middle East--Arabs, Jews, and Palestinians equally.

The Saudi peace plan is exceptional in that it would normalize relations between Arab states and Israel. Then the diplomatic channels would exist to begin a discussion of regional economic questions. The Saudi plan is not the proverbial "final answer" of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire fame. It does not resolve every single point of conflict immediately (like babyboomer Clinton's "wet dream" of a final Middle East peace settlement). But it does create opportunities for cooperative action that didn't exist before. By taking full advantage of these opportunities and promoting regional economic development, I'm confident that in time all conflicts can be settled peacefully.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The truth is: If you don´t take sides you are irrelevant. I make no secret of whose side I am standing on.

Ah really? Im rather have my own opinion than picking sites...
By picking sites you compromise what u really thinking - turn it down to the groups opinion.
Even when your standpoint is close to other persons view there is almost always a slight diffrence.

I rarly pick sites 100%, I tend more on one than the other. Or agree on more points than I disagree.


I dont like the idea of having collective opinions

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Eli
A very worrying poll done among the Jewish population in Israel.

Interesting charts. After reading it I've some question coming in my mind.

Why do you find it worrying ? What is your opinion for each questions ?

About the non-confidence on 'Arab' Israeli. Are the fear based on fact ? Have there a lot of case were 'Arab' Israelis have attacked or plotted attack on 'non Arab' Israelis ?

[Eli]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
Why do you find it worrying ? What is your opinion for each questions ?

I oppose transfer, but I have nothing against encouraging emmigration of Israeli Arabs. I dont see them as loyal elements, but as citizens they must take part in fateful decisions.
I dont really care about whether they are in the goverment or not, mainly because this is not going to happen anyway in the near future.

I'm against the Oslo process and any final agreement with the Palestinians in the next decade.
I agree to removing isolated settlement, and the recent violence definetely hardened my opinion. A radical switch actually.

About the non-confidence on 'Arab' Israeli. Are the fear based on fact ? Have there a lot of case were 'Arab' Israelis have attacked or plotted attack on 'non Arab' Israelis ?

Yes. There was even one suicide bomber.
But most of the cases are helping to Palestinian terrorists to enter Israel and helping them to get to their target.
And of course the violent riots last year changed the Jewish opinion about them.