The israeli palestinian debate

[valade16]

[QUOTE=valade16;24600640]You are so determined to "win", aren't you? I could point to the several times I asked for specifics on how Israel is vital to our strategic security, which you've yet to answer; or repost where you said your argument wasn't predicated on what our politicians tell us we need an alliance with Israel and then twice used that as justification, then point to it and say "see, I WIN", but I'm not trying to win, or catch you saying contradictions. If I do find one I point it out in the hopes you would clarify your point, which you eventually did at which point I acknowledged it and asked a question I felt was pertinent given your response.

I don't view this as a competition to prove the other wrong, I view it as a discussion of differing opinions and the reasons behind the differences. I also find it funny you direct me to make a new thread regarding Israel's relationship to the entire middle east because it's "off-topic" yet Israel's strategic value as am ally is similarly off-topic and you chose to engage me in that. Heck, given 99% of my posts in this thread were about US-Israeli relations and its strategic benefit that the context of my last statement pertains to US-Israel relations overall? I guess I should've clarified better.

Not that matter, I can only surmise you did it in an attempt to win instead of engage in an actual discussion of the topic. I actually followed up on several things you said in an attempt to learn more on the topic, and can see both sides of the issue. In short, I valued your input, my mistake was believing the feeling was mutual...

[cabernetluver]

[QUOTE=valade16;24602079]

You are so determined to "win", aren't you? I could point to the several times I asked for specifics on how Israel is vital to our strategic security, which you've yet to answer; or repost where you said your argument wasn't predicated on what our politicians tell us we need an alliance with Israel and then twice used that as justification, then point to it and say "see, I WIN", but I'm not trying to win, or catch you saying contradictions. If I do find one I point it out in the hopes you would clarify your point, which you eventually did at which point I acknowledged it and asked a question I felt was pertinent given your response.

I don't view this as a competition to prove the other wrong, I view it as a discussion of differing opinions and the reasons behind the differences. I also find it funny you direct me to make a new thread regarding Israel's relationship to the entire middle east because it's "off-topic" yet Israel's strategic value as am ally is similarly off-topic and you chose to engage me in that. Heck, given 99% of my posts in this thread were about US-Israeli relations and its strategic benefit that the context of my last statement pertains to US-Israel relations overall? I guess I should've clarified better.

Not that matter, I can only surmise you did it in an attempt to win instead of engage in an actual discussion of the topic. I actually followed up on several things you said in an attempt to learn more on the topic, and can see both sides of the issue. In short, I valued your input, my mistake was believing the feeling was mutual...

No competition, at least not the way you mean it. There is nothing to win, no prize, not even a glow. I looked for clarification about your position, and in the end, I got it. Not so much a prize a edification.

[valade16]

[QUOTE=cabernetluver;24602613]

No competition, at least not the way you mean it. There is nothing to win, no prize, not even a glow. I looked for clarification about your position, and in the end, I got it. Not so much a prize a edification.

When looking did it ever occur to you to ask?

Regardless, though my knowledge as to how far back the conflict specifically between the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as it pertains to Palestinian freedom goes, is incorrect as it doesn't extend as far back as I thought, my basic premise still holds. Rather than 50+ years we have 24 years of failure to negotiate a resolution as intermediaries.

Does your opinion rest on the idea that 24 years is not enough time to invest in this endeavor?

[stephkyle7]

actually i d have to redress some of the ideas here.
Jews and arabs have always been at odds.
there was little problem when jews were in a huge minority.under 5 % before 1910.
Most if not all of the problems began with the fall of the Ottman empire...around 100 years ago. So I would recomend further investigation into the issue.

When transJordan was formed, one of the very first things they did was deport all jews.
All of what is now Isarael and the west bank and gaza, was supposed to be the jewish state.The people there didnt want to be marginalized by Jewish rule.
thats why Ive said money is the real issue.It wasnt about religion or ethnicicty its about power and resources.

[nastynice]

My primary disagreement is the idea that the people on the West Bank and Gaza, are "virtually imprisoned". My disagreement is based on their actual ability to completely change their relationship with Israel by accepting the current and future state of Israel at their border (side note, Israel is not even on their maps), and work towards a mutually beneficial relationship. This is not even in the vocabulary of Hamas. Now, don't take this as a blame free, get out of jail free, fill in your own terms, that Israel is blameless. But Israel is not the subject of your prisoner metaphor.

Once that acceptance is actually made, and the leader or leaders (my opinion is right now, a lack of coherent leadership is in and of itself a problem, in that one group represents Gaza, another group represents the West Bank) sits down with the Prime Minister (I tend to think it will not be Bebe) then matters will actually cease to look like a virtual prison. Why? Because it will be in both sides best interest.

If you or I were sent to prison, we don't have the key to get out. This is not the case there.

You are saying that the displaced palestinians should just accept that they have been kicked out of their homes and lost their possessions, and should just accept that israel has taken control of their possession? While I agree that maybe the best thing for their future is to just accept what has happened, but do you understand that there is a REASON that they do not accept the state of Israel as is? If I DO understand you correctly, this is absolute bs, and I don't get how anyone can trick themselves into believing so.

[nastynice]

This is just historically inaccurate. For the first part of Israels existence, the people referred to as Palestinians were essentially being shuffled from one Arab country to another. The discordant behavior, from Israels point of view, through the early 1970's were with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Minor contributors were Saudi Arabia, Kuait, Iraq, with Lebanon entering the fray in the early 70's.

At about the time of the early 70's the PLO also became a player. Without making this a huge history lesson, the first real uprising (the First Intifada) was in the late 80's (I think 1987, but I am sure it was the late 80's). So, the current conflict really is not 50+ years, it is about half that.

This is just amazing. You say that the Palestinians were just being shuffled from one arab country to another, as though its no big deal. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of these people went to other countries as refugees? I'm assuming you know what a refugee means.

How can you possibly sit here and point out someone else's historical inaccuracies and in the very same post say this conflict is only from the 80's? As I've posted, palestinian exodus from the 40's. I mean that is just such basic information which you are completely misinformed on.

[Labgrownmangoat]

My primary disagreement is the idea that the people on the West Bank and Gaza, are "virtually imprisoned". My disagreement is based on their actual ability to completely change their relationship with Israel by accepting the current and future state of Israel at their border (side note, Israel is not even on their maps), and work towards a mutually beneficial relationship. This is not even in the vocabulary of Hamas. Now, don't take this as a blame free, get out of jail free, fill in your own terms, that Israel is blameless. But Israel is not the subject of your prisoner metaphor.

Once that acceptance is actually made, and the leader or leaders (my opinion is right now, a lack of coherent leadership is in and of itself a problem, in that one group represents Gaza, another group represents the West Bank) sits down with the Prime Minister (I tend to think it will not be Bebe) then matters will actually cease to look like a virtual prison. Why? Because it will be in both sides best interest.

If you or I were sent to prison, we don't have the key to get out. This is not the case there.

So you take three quarter of my house and all I have to do to live in peace in the spare bathroom and garage is stop protesting your seizure? Sounds fair. I'll comment further later.

[The Schmooze]

It's not like a situation where Palestinians are just bitter about something that happened decades ago...this is a daily and ongoing organized system of oppression. Settlements keep increasing, and the latest protests were based on large part to an Israeli soldier shooting an unarmed 13-year old Palestinian kid playing soccer.

[cabernetluver]

You are saying that the displaced palestinians should just accept that they have been kicked out of their homes and lost their possessions, and should just accept that israel has taken control of their possession? While I agree that maybe the best thing for their future is to just accept what has happened, but do you understand that there is a REASON that they do not accept the state of Israel as is? If I DO understand you correctly, this is absolute bs, and I don't get how anyone can trick themselves into believing so.

This is just amazing. You say that the Palestinians were just being shuffled from one arab country to another, as though its no big deal. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of these people went to other countries as refugees? I'm assuming you know what a refugee means.

How can you possibly sit here and point out someone else's historical inaccuracies and in the very same post say this conflict is only from the 80's? As I've posted, palestinian exodus from the 40's. I mean that is just such basic information which you are completely misinformed on.

So you take three quarter of my house and all I have to do to live in peace in the spare bathroom and garage is stop protesting your seizure? Sounds fair. I'll comment further later.

To Nasty

You failed to read the context of what I wrote which was about the military engagements of Israel. I was not making any statement about the plight of the people, I was pointing out that the military engagements in the first half of Israels existence was not with those people. You have a problem with the history of military engagement, when things were occurring, voice it.

Secondly, the people who you are saying were kicked out, is not a view that is universally shared. Not only is the number of refugees widely disputed, the reason they left is equally disputed, and whose fault is also in dispute. Beyond that, more is in dispute. I am being completely objective to say it is in dispute. We can argue about those things, but what we cannot argue about is that there is a dispute.

I can site sources for any point of view I care to give. Each has its own distinct perspective.

What is not in dispute is after they left, they were in fact being moved by Arab governments. You can argue why, but not the fact.

Given that the diaspora you are referencing happened from 1947-1949, and this is where we are now, nothing you wrote was in contradiction to what I wrote. As far as your "REASON", I guess you have a point, if and only if, you would justify all Native Americans having a "REASON" to take armed action against those of us who are not of their nation. And while you are at it, I guess all Jews have "REASON" to take armed action against Germany, and back to the Middle East, given the Crusades, we should justify anything that is brought to Europe, the Turks should worry, both from Armenia and Iraq etc. So tell me, assuming you are not a Native American, and you are living in North America, exactly what reparations are you personally going to give what ever Native American nation occupied the area you are presently occupying?

We are where we are. Almost all of the Palestinians were not alive when the genesis of this occurred. They have to start from here, not there.

To Lab,

See all I wrote to Nasty, answer that, and then recognize, none of the Palestinians under the age of 80 owned these houses you are writing about, and I find that argument to be so totally lacking in logic, that I won't entertain it. Each side argues who was where first. Let's just agree that is an argument that has no winner.

[nastynice]

To Nasty

You failed to read the context of what I wrote which was about the military engagements of Israel. I was not making any statement about the plight of the people, I was pointing out that the military engagements in the first half of Israels existence was not with those people. You have a problem with the history of military engagement, when things were occurring, voice it.

Not sure what ur saying exactly. Israel has had military engagement since the day it was created, before that even actually.

Secondly, the people who you are saying were kicked out, is not a view that is universally shared. Not only is the number of refugees widely disputed, the reason they left is equally disputed, and whose fault is also in dispute. Beyond that, more is in dispute. I am being completely objective to say it is in dispute. We can argue about those things, but what we cannot argue about is that there is a dispute.

I can site sources for any point of view I care to give. Each has its own distinct perspective.

I find that hard to believe. The proof is right in front of our face. However, I want to try and stay open minded about this, I definitely would be interested in taking look at these other points of views and see what facts they are based upon. Please share links if you have

What is not in dispute is after they left, they were in fact being moved by Arab governments. You can argue why, but not the fact.

What difference does this make? It is hard for countries to take on such numbers of refugees, countries shuffling camps and sometimes even completely closing down their border is something that happens even to this day.

Given that the diaspora you are referencing happened from 1947-1949, and this is where we are now, nothing you wrote was in contradiction to what I wrote. As far as your "REASON", I guess you have a point, if and only if, you would justify all Native Americans having a "REASON" to take armed action against those of us who are not of their nation. And while you are at it, I guess all Jews have "REASON" to take armed action against Germany, and back to the Middle East, given the Crusades, we should justify anything that is brought to Europe, the Turks should worry, both from Armenia and Iraq etc. So tell me, assuming you are not a Native American, and you are living in North America, exactly what reparations are you personally going to give what ever Native American nation occupied the area you are presently occupying?

Its funny you mention Germany. If nations around the world felt they wanted to build a homeland for Jews, then does it not make sense they carve their state out of Germany? How the hell did Palestine, a country thousands of miles away, become the country which has to pay the consequence for the actions of the Europeans against the Jews? What role did Palestine play in the holocaust?

If you want to turn back the hands of time, well HELL YES the native americans had every reason to take armed action against those who are not of their country. How could anyone disagree? What took place was a genocide.

If you're talking present day, then I'm sorry, you're just spewing nonsense. Going with the logic you are trying to use, then let's say I come to your house and put a gun to your head and tell you to sign the papers over to me, and you do it, should I expect you to then just accept what has happened and move on with your life? I may have misunderstood, but it seems as though you are saying once someone has been wronged, they should just go with it and accept it?

So if instead of kicking the non jewish palestinians out, they killed them instead, are you saying everyone should accept it since the only people who were directly affected by it are no longer here to protest what was done them, and only them, first hand?

We are where we are. Almost all of the Palestinians were not alive when the genesis of this occurred. They have to start from here, not there.

To Lab,

See all I wrote to Nasty, answer that, and then recognize, none of the Palestinians under the age of 80 owned these houses you are writing about, and I find that argument to be so totally lacking in logic, that I won't entertain it. Each side argues who was where first. Let's just agree that is an argument that has no winner.

Here's the thing, you say almost no one here present day has owned those houses, but fail to realize that the refugees who did own them had children who were born into their present conditions of extreme poverty BECAUSE of their parents being kicked out of their houses. Their houses still stand there, and attempts have been made to return those people back to their houses, but this was something never accepted by the gov't of Israel. So it makes no sense to expect them to start from here rather than there. Their entire lives, their entire suffering is based on those particular actions.

[cabernetluver]

To Nasty,

To sum up what I got from your post, you are unaware of a dispute over why they left, how many left etc.

You are giving a right of inheritance to all Palestinians, but not the other groups.

You have stated that I am so stupid that I don't understand where children come from.

Seems to me, from your condescending point of view, you are wasting your time writing to me because in your view, I have no understanding of history, sociology, biology, and psychology.

Maybe we would just be better off me going my ignorant way and you writing to people who you do think have a basic understanding of these things.

[stephkyle7]

Guys, the factual accounts of this issue are everywhere for the reading...It seems to me again we are a victim of being an instant gratification society, as well as enormously polarized.

As we know , Biblically, the area we are talking about is directly spelled out in the Bible as
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...tmOwZOsabtSkLQ

now, up to the year 570 ad or ce if you prefer, jews and muslims and christians all followed the teachings of the Hebrew bible more or less, they all beleived in Adam and eve and abraham etc...1st christianity sprouted from the hebrew religion, then the muslim faith came about in 570.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...gCWRGvSH_r_ezQ

But presumptuously, they are all followers of the same GOD.
The point being that for all intents and purposes, they are all the same people.They are all descendants of the same brothers and sisters.
By a far greater degree then a philosophical perspective that we all came from the same genetic lineage, they are only about 1500 years removed from literally being brothers and sisters.

Now, The exacts whys and hows of Hebrew flight from "the promised land" are also available but sufficit to say that they did infact for many reasons spread out and left The ancient lands.IMO, it is the same dynamic we see in the US cities, with the people of wealth moving out to the suburbs.

The oldest families held the most wealth, so they were the ones to leave for the house on the hills, Since neither christianity, nor Muslim faith came about for quite some time they were not around for the resulting splits in the one common faith.
they were already in the hamptons, or Irivine to continue drawing the analogy.
So they retained the Jewish faith in its "purity".

Now over time the Promised lands were fought over and yanked back and forth by outside forces, but in the end the muslims/arabs won becasue for the most part they were the 'inner city" folk who had no where to go,Unlike in The U.S. where the ethnic cleansing of the Indians was rather easy because by the time they began the genocide, defined borders along with the oceans providing no escape,left them no where to go, in the Middle east, they would simply drift in and out like the tides...there was no way to really control the population.
when defeated, they simply repopulated the ranks for a generation and they were back for more.
all This time, their Hebrew brothers were going through a europeanization.they were in effect becoming "white"
It doesnt take as long as youd probably imagine for more recessive genes to fall dormant to More dominant traits.
NOW we had a REAL problem.These brothers and sisters didnt look all that much like Brotheres and sisters anymore.

With the rise of the Ottoman empire the Turks became the new ruling power in a part of the world that was still a little more than donkeys and carts.The Turks were Muslims, but up to that point it had been the Romans in charge.

http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4...e_result_group

Now until 313 A.D. the Romans pracaticed
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://g...i2TNGZOSZw7QMw
a varying degree of religious paganism
after which Constantine converted the Empire to Christianity.
so The area in question went from Hebrew old testamnet, to Christianity, to muslim and then back and forth between christianity, and muslim throughout the crusades,
But the whole time you had Jews, christians and Muslims all living there.

After the defeat of The Turks in WW1, the allies split the ottoman empire, which was very much closely the borders of the old Roman empire, in a way to try and prevent the region from ever emerging once again as a world power.
Remember, 1st the Romans, Then The Turks, basically where the Giant in that cornewr of the world and they made the rules, so when they carved up the empire they did it with Political intentions, not to please the people living there so this is what they did.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...SYtgv8LMWQo4Tw
Now scroll down and you will see in the above link, some of the intentional problems they created.The ethnic Kurds.
they split up into several different countries to deny them a single power base, the Arab Iraqis, they Blocked from the ocean, by chopping off Kuwait as a seperate country.
They put three different religious sects together in a the new country of Lebanon, and they fought like cats and dogs for almost 30 years.
The House Of Saud was put in power over the region now Known as Saudi Arabia becasue at that time they were the known wealth of Oil in the region, so ensuring that the oil supply was never threatened was the most imporatant aspect of the process.

and in the Palestine region they gave a portion back to Egypt (the sinai penninsula) and created Trans Jordan and Israel.
this was before WW2.
Now the idea of Israel was to be the jewish homeland, and Jordan was to be the palestinian homeland.
with the onset of WW2 and the holocoust, the region was flooded with now White" jews.
the palestinians accepted Pagan rule, they accepted christian Rule, but that was becasue in that form of Empirical governance they only wanted taxes from them, they didnt interfere with the day to day.
Now with the new large, ethnic and religious majority, that was wealthy as well, the problem became what the problem ALWAYS IS.

PEOPLE WITH POWER AND MONEY DONT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE WITH NEITHER.
IT IS ROMNEYS 47% DOCTRINE, AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN SINCE CURRENCY WAS FICITCIOUSLY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR!!

It is neither the Jews fault ,who fealt that they were just coming home after a long trip abroad, nor the Palestianians fault who wered to poor to go anywhere, it is not the divergence of their faith which is VIRTUALLY THE SAME FAITH, THEY BOTH SHARE EAT KOSHER,THEY BOTH WORSHIP THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AS DO CHRISTIANS.
they all got along fine for a time, the problems start when we start deciding who gets what...that is always the problem.
Until we can mitigate the inherent greed in the Capitalistic Society, and force the "winners" to give a crap about the "losers" we will never see an end to their problems
Or for that matter ours....class dissmissed.

[nastynice]

To Nasty,

To sum up what I got from your post, you are unaware of a dispute over why they left, how many left etc.

You are giving a right of inheritance to all Palestinians, but not the other groups.

You have stated that I am so stupid that I don't understand where children come from.

Seems to me, from your condescending point of view, you are wasting your time writing to me because in your view, I have no understanding of history, sociology, biology, and psychology.

Maybe we would just be better off me going my ignorant way and you writing to people who you do think have a basic understanding of these things.

No no, definite miscommunication. I do think you have an understanding of the subjects mentioned, I do believe however you are misinformed on particular events. If I came across as condescending then my true apologies, maybe I do get a little over passionate at times and I'll try n keep that in check.

If I seem to lack a basic understanding of the events I would like for you to clear that up for me. I'm just a person who can go off of what I've read and seen, if these sources are inaccurate I'd definitely want to be made aware of it.

To clear one thing up, I do not give only the Palestinians the right of inheritance. It doesn't matter what race, religion, or nationality someone is, they ALL have the right to their own property. Since over a 100 years ago all religions existed in the area, and they all have the right to. The problem is, from my understanding, Israel wanted to create a Jewish state and since all religions were present they decided to ethnically cleanse out the non Jews in order to have a Jewish majority in their state. From my understanding, this is the reason they continue to displace and occupy. This is a problem, these types of actions should not be accepted by anyone, regardless of who is doing the cleansing and who is being cleansed.

I'm not sure what ur saying about the Palestinian children. Earlier you had said that only Palestinians over 80 were directly affected by the exodus, so I pointed out that the current generation is indeed also heavily affcted as their entire lives are the way they are base on the fact that, to my understanding, their Parents were turned refugee

[cabernetluver]

No no, definite miscommunication.

Okay, let's start fresh. Pick one and only one point, and we can see discuss it. Your choice.

I am a great believer in taking things one thing at a time, and since we started off with a communication problem, maybe first we try keeping it focused.

[statquo]

even though im well aware of nationalist and religious overtures, ive always thought that the simplest solution is a one state solution, with three autonomous regions, west bank, gaza strip and israel, with jerusalem as everyones capital, open movement for everyone. if you live in a settlement in the west bank, you're a citizen of the west bank. everyones part of unified security force to defend the single state, though responsibility for each region could be up to its own government, somewhat like what the kurds operate in iraq. have a single term rotating head of state, one palestinian, one israeli. the head of state acts like a governor general, like in canada, doesnt have any specific powers, but essentially is there to maintain the integrity of the single state. refugess can settle wherever they want and become a citizen of whatever region they choose.

pretty much a pipe dream but they both want the same thing, so they mays well just share it instead of trying to slice it all up.