Gaza Strip

[Archmonarch]

Your arguement is that the Gaza Strip was taken from Egypt, so we should get it to terrorists?

 

How does that make any sense?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Though I personally am agnostic, my family is Jewish. I say that not to expose a non-existent bias, but in the hope that this will garner your attention and, possibly, understanding.

 

I do not like terrorists; I make that clear now. I find their tactics deplorable and their callous disregard for life criminal. However, to encapsulate Palestinians as a race of terrorists is a gross generalization. There are extremists among every creed, however most are simply people, no better and no worse.

 

The Middle East has a great many problems, due most to interreligious conflict. There have been mistakes made on all sides. I admit to feeling a greater comraderie for Israeli civilians, not because of a common heritage, but due to the greater abundance of civilian casualties within my purview. I do not deny, however, that there have been many deaths in the other camp.

 

Aeschylus once said, "In war, truth is the first casualty." I could not agree with him more. There are two sides to every issue. Though one may seem at first glance more appealing or sympathetic, always ask questions. In the end, the truth serves everyone well, while war merely injures.

 

This might be slightly juxtaposed, but in the words of Einstein, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'd disagree.  They know that we're going to have bases in Iraq, which they clearly don't want.  And they're not particularly concerned about building a strong nation.  Iraq is another one of those states cobbled together by outsiders, with three distinct ethnic groups that I honestly don't see living peacefully together.  The problem with the constitution is a good indication of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With the possible exception of Japan, pretty much every state in the world is cobbled together out of different ethnic groups, and most of them by outsiders, too. The solution to this is politics, an arena where differences can be aired and compromises reached in peace. If the 27+ ethno-linguistic groups of South Africa can live together peacefully, so can the Iraqis. The insurgents' crime (one of them, anyway) is that they are disrupting politics and peaceful co-existence, and putting off the day when Iraq returns to normality.

I'd happily defend Israel if Israel had been there all along, but the fact of the matter is it's a made-up state that was plopped down in the midst of a group of other states who don't particularly like it.  Arab nations in the region view Israel's existence as an act of war, rightly or wrongly, and wholly illegal.  The UN did indeed approve Israel's formation, but it was the Americans and the British who set the whole thing up.  The Arabs have, from the beginning, been opposed to Israel. 

Israel has no greater or lesser right to exist than Palestine or any other state in the Middle East, and both the Israelis and the Arab States should try to deal with that fact. The Israelis are indeed only one of a number of ethnic groups that have shared, and competed for, the territory that is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. We are now moving to a situation where the state of Israel is recognising that a state of Palestine should exist, and slowly fewer Palestinians are demanding that Israel cease to exist. Surely that's progress? The priority now is to create a viable Palestinian State, as it is only when a Palestinian State exists and formally recognises the existence of an Israeli State that lasting peace is achievable.

[Commissar]

But that's our definition.  In the Islamic world a freedom fighter can even be one who practices their Holy Jihad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's an argument over semantics. The dictionary defines "justified" one way, but people have different opinions about what is and is not justified.

 

If someone is fighting an oppressive government by killing civilians, are they a terrorist or a freedom fighter? And, for that matter, our earlier points about bombing cities in World War II becomes relevant; we were targeting civilians. Does that make us terrorists?

[jaguars4ever]

But that's our definition.  In the Islamic world a freedom fighter can even be one who practices their Holy Jihad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can look at a glass of water as say its half empty or half full. Our definitions are irrelevant to the Muslim mindset, as they're not constrained by our point of view - and have their own variation in perception.

 

How can you argue that our definiton is right whilst theirs is wrong?

[LoneWolf16]

But that's our definition.  In the Islamic world a freedom fighter can even be one who practices their Holy Jihad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can look at a glass of water as say its half empty or half full. Our definitions are irrelevant to the Muslim mindset, as they're not constrained by our point of view - and have their own variation in perception.

 

How can you argue that our definiton is right whilst theirs is wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed.

[Laozi]

And the fact that you only see one set of victims in this strikes me as a bit short sighted, while intentional or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said Palestine has a right to be upset. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

You however only see one set of victims and repeatedly said Palestine has a right, and that the Israeli people are terrorists simply for living in their lands.

 

And you called me a racist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well for one my mother is Jewish, and by Jewish tradition I'm sure you know what that makes me, so I'm not particuliar hateful against jewish people, just some of their "dishes".

 

I really agree with you that the suicide bombings are a terrible thing. I just don't see actions where innocent people are dying any differently just because one guy had a uniform and the latest equipment of death, and another had a bomb. Also not everyone who wants Israel out believes "terrorism" is the way to go. Peace is suppose to be the harvest of war, but theres no hope of it here, for whatever the reason. And the only way that it couyld be achieved is if you try working the situation a different way. Happy people usually don't commit atrocities, and people are usually happier when they don't have to fight for the necessities.

 

I can't really say that I've had fun arguing about this, but I've been given somethings I will ponder. Now I must sleep, goodnight EnderWiggens, Eru, Jags, Lonewolf, and everyone else

[jaguars4ever]

Take it easy Laozi, my friend.

[LoneWolf16]

Goodnight. Sleep well.

[Atreides]

To the Palestinians, both the (relatively) moderate and the extreme, the Gaza pullout is just the beginning. The admin is claiming it as the result of their political prowess while the extremists are claiming it as victory and validation from their campaigns of "agression".

 

The Palestinians won't be happy till they have EVERYTHING, including the whole of Jerusalem as the capital of their country which (surprise surprise) Israel is very reluctant to give. If you think the Gaza pullout will solve most problems very soon, that's highly unlikely.

 

Actually with the extremists gaining popularity because of their "victory" things might actually get ugly when you have people thinking that violence brought around progress.

 

Plus, if you're saying non-military random targeting civ-terrorists is relatively ok, don't be too disappointed if the extremist Israelis start pulling the same **** on the Palestinians or their own Israeli government. Will people say it's the fault of the Palestinians for stirring up the extremist Israelis then? Probably not.

[SteveThaiBinh]

There is an attempt underway at the United Nations to create a universally-agreed definition of terrorism, as the absence of one has long been a problem for international law. This link gives a bit more information. You cannot just take a definition from an English dictionary and expect it to apply to and be accepted by the entire world. These things have to be discussed and agreed, and the only place to do this at the moment is the UN. It's ironic that while Kofi Annan is trying to push this definition through to make anti-terrorist co-operation easier, he's being attacked and undermined by the American Right.

[jaguars4ever]

Good link Steve.

[EnderAndrew]

Heh.  Well, as to your first argument...just because the dim Teutonic woods of northern Europe are the birthplace of my ancestors doesn't mean I have a right to claim parts of Germany for my own state.

Yet Muslims argue they have more of a historical claim to the land than Palestine. Futhermore, arguing who had a claim to the land even 50 years ago is a matter of historical claim.

 

Currently the world government recognizes Israel as a nation, and recognizes the Israeli people having a right to live there, yet people would defend terrorism and murdering civilians as being justified due to historical claims to land.

 

And yes, the Jews have long been persecuted, which is why I wonder at the stupidity of having them set up shop right in the midst of one of their primary persecutors.  Solution?  Don't have one.  I'd have said give them something in Africa, though, since nobody really seems to care about that region.

I've asked several times what the correct solution is to post-WW2. No one has presented a better one. I've outright asked you and you keep dodging the issue.

 

Israel isn't being punished.  Israel is finally moving out of territory that doesn't belong to it.  Simple as that.

How does Palestine own the land that you say belongs to Egypt?

 

Russia took over Eastern Europe in the same time period saying that when twenty million people died, they had a right to form a buffer zone to defend themselves against those that fought against them. People said okay.

 

But if Israel is attacked by invaders, and the invaders lose ground in the conflict one could certainly argue that Israel is entitled to the spoils of a war they didn't even start.

[LoneWolf16]

Didn't he suggest Africa?

[Commissar]

Heh.  Well, as to your first argument...just because the dim Teutonic woods of northern Europe are the birthplace of my ancestors doesn't mean I have a right to claim parts of Germany for my own state.

Yet Muslims argue they have more of a historical claim to the land than Palestine. Futhermore, arguing who had a claim to the land even 50 years ago is a matter of historical claim.

 

Currently the world government recognizes Israel as a nation, and recognizes the Israeli people having a right to live there, yet people would defend terrorism and murdering civilians as being justified due to historical claims to land.

 

And yes, the Jews have long been persecuted, which is why I wonder at the stupidity of having them set up shop right in the midst of one of their primary persecutors.  Solution?  Don't have one.  I'd have said give them something in Africa, though, since nobody really seems to care about that region.

I've asked several times what the correct solution is to post-WW2. No one has presented a better one. I've outright asked you and you keep dodging the issue.

 

Israel isn't being punished.  Israel is finally moving out of territory that doesn't belong to it.  Simple as that.

How does Palestine own the land that you say belongs to Egypt?

 

Russia took over Eastern Europe in the same time period saying that when twenty million people died, they had a right to form a buffer zone to defend themselves against those that fought against them. People said okay.

 

But if Israel is attacked by invaders, and the invaders lose ground in the conflict one could certainly argue that Israel is entitled to the spoils of a war they didn't even start.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm a bit confused about your Russia statement; at first I thought you were talking about the formation of the USSR, but that took place prior to World War II, which is when twenty million Russians were killed.

 

If you're talking about the formation of the Warsaw Pact, Russia did essentially take over Eastern Europe, though technically those countries maintained sovereignty - in the legal definition. Moscow controlled them, but they were their own states.

 

And everybody kind of objected to that, but we didn't really have the power to stop them from doing it. We weren't going to risk another world war just to keep Poland out of Russian hands. Certainly not noble, but there you go.

 

And we say Israel isn't entitled to the "spoils of war" because it just simply isn't. As I've stated and stated, the Gaza strip is overwhelmingly Palestinian; those Palestinians do not want to be under the control of the Israeli government. And the Israeli government has now said it doesn't want them under its control, either.

 

That's one thing you're forgetting. Israel decided to do this, in the hopes of bringing about peace in the region. Despite what someone earlier said about this just being the beginning of Palestianian territory takeover, I don't think it will be.

[Commissar]

Didn't he suggest Africa?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did.

[LoneWolf16]

Didn't he suggest Africa?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there you go, Ender.

[jaguars4ever]

Didn't he suggest Africa?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there you go, Ender.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[LoneWolf16]

Didn't he suggest Africa?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there you go, Ender.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[SteveThaiBinh]

I've asked several times what the correct solution is to post-WW2.  No one has presented a better one.  I've outright asked you and you keep dodging the issue.

Neither we nor the post-WW2 powers can meaningfully do that. The Jews (soon to be Israelis) chose the place where they wanted to settle, and as they had historically as much right, no more and no less, as anyone else, that was their decision. What they didn't have the right to do was to throw people out of their homes in order to establish their state, deny that anyone else had a legitimate claim to the land, and disenfranchise an entire people.

 

There was too much Israeli propaganda about, declaring that this was The Promised Land given by God to the Jews, ignoring the very real claims of the people already living there. You can argue that an aggressive approach was justified in the context of Arab hostility, but nevertheless it took us further away from a solution to all this. If 'God' (fate?) gave this land to the Israelis, he also gave them the Palestinians to share it with.

[EnderAndrew]

I do not like terrorists; I make that clear now. I find their tactics deplorable and their callous disregard for life criminal. However, to encapsulate Palestinians as a race of terrorists is a gross generalization. There are extremists among every creed, however most are simply people, no better and no worse.

The government gives money to and supports terrorism. They have made claims that if Israel makes concessions that they will crack down on terrorism, insinuating that they can control how much terrorism occurs. They have not done as such.

 

Futhermore, despite the media often portraying the Israeli people being in the wrong, I never never once heard a single sentiment out of Palestine seeking peace. All too often I hear people vocally speak out in Palestine saying they wish to see all Jews dead.

 

On the 17th, and the Gaza Strip was being cleared out, Palestinians were carrying signs that said "Jerusalem Next". On 9/11, children danced in the street welcoming the death of innocent Americans. Children do not celebrate death unless they are raised in a society that revels the death of others.

 

The Middle East has a great many problems, due most to interreligious conflict. There have been mistakes made on all sides. I admit to feeling a greater comraderie for Israeli civilians, not because of a common heritage, but due to the greater abundance of civilian casualties within my purview. I do not deny, however, that there have been many deaths in the other camp.

The "civilian" casualties on the Palestinian side have been suspected terrorists. If you can't attack terrorists because they don't wear military uniforms, then what response do you have to terrorism?

 

Name one time Israel bombed a school. I can name countless times Palestine bombed a school.

 

Aeschylus once said, "In war, truth is the first casualty." I could not agree with him more. There are two sides to every issue. Though one may seem at first glance more appealing or sympathetic, always ask questions. In the end, the truth serves everyone well, while war merely injures.

With this logic, Israel is clearly the victim. They were attacked before Israel was a nation. Jews were slaughtered in the lands that are now Israel, and outside as well. People will argue that Israel has no right to the Gaza Strip, yet in that conflict Israel was attacked by Egypt first and defended themself.

 

This might be slightly juxtaposed, but in the words of Einstein, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe your quote is dead on.

[EnderAndrew]

There was too much Israeli propaganda about, declaring that this was The Promised Land given by God to the Jews, ignoring the very real claims of the people already living there.  You can argue that an aggressive approach was justified in the context of Arab hostility, but nevertheless it took us further away from a solution to all this.  If 'God' (fate?) gave this land to the Israelis, he also gave them the Palestinians to share it with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe that hostility of throwing Palestinians out of their homes was a reaction to:

 

A - Jews being slaughtered in that area already.

B - Palestine openly saying they would refuse to comply with England or the UN.

 

People forget that England technically had sovereign control over the area at the time.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The government gives money to and supports terrorism.  They have made claims that if Israel makes concessions that they will crack down on terrorism, insinuating that they can control how much terrorism occurs.  They have not done as such.

The Palestinian Authority's power has been weakened by direct Israeli attacks destroying infrastructure, and also weakened morally by Israel's flouting of the peace accords and the failure of the Oslo peace process. You can argue that the Palestinians were as much to blame for that as the Israelis, but that doesn't alter the point. The Palestinian Authority is not powerful enough, in terms of manpower or moral authority within the Palestinian community, to 'crack down' on the terrorists, and Israel is at least partly to blame for that fact.

Futhermore, despite the media often portraying the Israeli people being in the wrong, I never never once heard a single sentiment out of Palestine seeking peace.  All too often I hear people vocally speak out in Palestine saying they wish to see all Jews dead.

You're listening to the wrong media. I hear both Palestinian and Israeli voices for peace a lot.

On the 17th, and the Gaza Strip was being cleared out, Palestinians were carrying signs that said "Jerusalem Next".

And why not? Or are you assuming that 'Jerusalem next' means 'Jerusalem next by violent means' simply because it's a Palestinian holding the sign? The Palestinians have a legitimate case for Jerusalum being part of a future Palestinian state.

With this logic, Israel is clearly the victim.  They were attacked before Israel was a nation.  Jews were slaughtered in the lands that are now Israel, and outside as well.  People will argue that Israel has no right to the Gaza Strip, yet in that conflict Israel was attacked by Egypt first and defended themself.

Being attacked by an aggressor does not give you the right to the territory of the aggressor, nor to the territory of a third party that sided with the aggressor. It just creates more problems. Look at the bitterness caused in France by the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Maybe that hostility of throwing Palestinians out of their homes was a reaction to:

 

A - Jews being slaughtered in that area already.

B - Palestine openly saying they would refuse to comply with England or the UN.

 

People forget that England technically had sovereign control over the area at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you're not seeking to offer the deaths of Jews elsewhere as a justification for what happened. It's a cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you're saying that it's perhaps understandable, though not justified, then I might agree with you; but then, Israel has never admitted that, because it would mean acknowledging that the evictees had a right to return to their homes.

 

No, the UK hasn't forgotten its role in all of this, which is why our government agonises over the issue and our having let both sides down, and works so hard to find a solution. Yet others condemn us for seeking 'peace in the Middle East' rather than just condemning the terrorists and leaving it at that.

[EnderAndrew]

The Palestinian Authority's power has been weakened by direct Israeli attacks destroying infrastructure, and also weakened morally by Israel's flouting of the peace accords and the failure of the Oslo peace process.  You can argue that the Palestinians were as much to blame for that as the Israelis, but that doesn't alter the point.  The Palestinian Authority is not powerful enough, in terms of manpower or moral authority within the Palestinian community, to 'crack down' on the terrorists, and Israel is at least partly to blame for that fact.

Then why give up the Gaza Strip is Palestine can't crack down on terrorism? They've asked for countless concessions over the years and never held up their end of the bargain anyway.

 

And I though Bush's policy was that if your harbor and support terrorism, that we will hold you accountable. Why does this not apply to Palestine?

 

You're listening to the wrong media.  I hear both Palestinian and Israeli voices for peace a lot.

The only person I've seen mention peace was Yassar Arafat, and all the while he funded terrorism. Lies don't count.

And why not?  Or are you assuming that 'Jerusalem next' means 'Jerusalem next by violent means' simply because it's a Palestinian holding the sign?  The Palestinians have a legitimate case for Jerusalum being part of a future Palestinian state.

The Gaza Strip was taken by force, and they said Jerusalem next. The tactics to get the Gaza Strip were terrorism, and the Israeli military removing Israeli people by force.

 

Why wouldn't I assume when they say Jersualem next they are implying they want the exact same thing to happen to Jerusalem.

 

Jerusalem is the finest example of how the Jews have demonstated peace, diplomacy and patience. I can't believe anyone would suggest the Jews give up their crown jewel to appease terrorists.

 

Next, the US should move out of New York because it MIGHT make terrorists happy.

Being attacked by an aggressor does not give you the right to the territory of the aggressor, nor to the territory of a third party that sided with the aggressor.  It just creates more problems.  Look at the bitterness caused in France by the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.

You said truth is the first casualty. I said "by this logic". And the extension of this logic says the Israel was victim to the first casualties.

[EnderAndrew]

I hope you're not seeking to offer the deaths of Jews elsewhere as a justification for what happened.  It's a cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right.  If you're saying that it's perhaps understandable, though not justified, then I might agree with you; but then, Israel has never admitted that, because it would mean acknowledging that the evictees had a right to return to their homes.

I didn't say it was right. I said it was perhaps the reason it happened. But people killed Jews for being Jews in that area as well, and Palestine did refuse to cooperate. The UN and UK made their decisions, and those decisions had to be upheld.

No, the UK hasn't forgotten its role in all of this, which is why our government agonises over the issue and our having let both sides down, and works so hard to find a solution.  Yet others condemn us for seeking 'peace in the Middle East' rather than just condeming the terrorists and leaving it at that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd say well over 90% of the Europeans I've spoken to are very much Pro-Palestine and don't care for Israel in the least. I've also been told that anti-semitism is very common in Europe.