Sympathies in favor of Israel or Palestine?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The area of Palestine was under control of caliphates and various other kingdoms or empires, true. And Player is right that the Russian pogroms or Holocaust doesn't give them the right to supplant the people who were living there for centuries.

Plus, Ray, you also seem to be missing the point where David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of the new Israel, had admitted to stealing their land. There's not really a question there.

And don't even start with the Balfour Declaration. That was just for looks, to appease the likes of Chaim Weizmann, so the British could protect their interests until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Meanwhile people like T.E. Lawrence were bribing the local warlords with gold which was promised to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration in no way grants the Jews anything, as it was a face-saving strategy.

-TG

[2dimes]

I'm pretty nuetral but...

Now why would I choose the side God is against? Israel of course.

So your sympathies are in favour of Palestine?

[Woodruff]

Israel to me seems to fit all of the hallmarks of an abused-child who has grown up to continue abusing others as a grown adult.

An interesting point.

[jay_a2j]

I'm pretty nuetral but...

Now why would I choose the side God is against? Israel of course.

So your sympathies are in favour of Palestine?

Mmmmmm no.

[Army of GOD]

Yea, Islam has no Christian/Jewish roots at all...didn't you know that 3quarters???

[2dimes]

So your sympathies are in favour of Palestine?

Mmmmmm no.

I supose if you don't believe they are going to get a beat down no need to feel bad for them then.

Don't mind me I believe God's son came by and said,

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

I think he was talking to people much like the ones that are in Israel. Is it possible the people of Palistine may be both neighbor and enemy, perhaps.

[Ray Rider]

There has never been a nation by the name of "Palestine." "Palestine" is a term used to describe an indefinite area of land which includes modern-day Israel.

This is technically true. There were, instead tribes and the tribes were structured in ways not exactly parallel to western countries. However, there were people who lived there and their land was taken because they were not white and Jewish.

Due to cultural ties and nationalistic sentiment combined with persecution, hundreds of thousands of Jews fled to Israel and for the same reasons hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled from the area. Israel absorbed the cost of their refugees and integrated them into society, while neighboring Arab nations forced many of the Arab refugees to remain in camps, perpetuating the problem.

Hundreds and thousands of Jews fled to Israel because of the Holocaust, but did that tragedy givet hem the right to steal Palestinien land? And to steal it even today?

I was actually talking about the estimated 900,000 Jews who fled Arab nations due to, as I said, cultural ties, nationalistic sentiment, and persecution. They were subsequently integrated into the nation without any aid from the UN.

I'm not sure what you and Tailgunner mean about Israel "stealing” the land. Ben-Gurion said that they had taken the land from the Arabs, and the Arabs viewed it as being stolen. You seem to be assuming a lot from a single statement. That land had been taken by the allies from the Ottomans in World War I and afterwards was handed over to the administration of the British until in 1947 when the UN partitioned it into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. When the Jews declared independence in 1948, Egypt, the newly-formed Arab state of Transjordan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded and were repulsed by the Israeli army of 60,000 troops (with only 19,000 fully armed and prepared for war).* Later on, Israel gained more land during the war of 1967 when it launched a full-scale assault in response to Egypt denying Israel access to the Suez (which would constitute an act of war, Israel had explicitly stated in 1957 and reiterated May of 1967); the signing of defense pacts between most of the Arab nations which was followed by amassing roughly 250,000 troops** on all sides of Israel; the daily threats by neighboring leaders and state-run media; and the escalating terrorist attacks against Israel (41 in 1966 and 37 already in the first four months of '67). Oh, and as a side note, "Between 1967, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and 1987, when the first intifada erupted, those two territories were one of the fastest-growing economies on earth. GDP surged 30 percent a year for a decade, the Arab population nearly tripled, six new universities were launched, and Arab longevity jumped from 43 years to 74."

Btw, a little while back I read Michael B. Oren's Six Days of War and found it quite fascinating; I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Israeli view of the war. I have read many historical books, and this would rate near the top in terms of penmanship: he is excellent at expressing information and nitty-gritty details in a gripping, intriguing fashion. I would also be interested to read an Arab's view on the war, if someone here could recommend a good book.

Also, I am not saying that Israel's behavior of the Arabs has been impeccable. There have definitely been mistakes made; however judging from Israel's actions during its brief existence in modern history, I do believe that those were mistakes and not the norm. In contrast, it is easy to spot in neighboring nations numerous instances of ongoing barbaric practices such as genocide (Gadaffi), real segregation (especially against women), religious persecution, forced female genital mutilation, rampant corruption, punishments of stoning or chopping off hands, encouragement of known terrorist organizations, etc. Yes Israel has it's problems which should not be ignored, but while there has been condemnations of Israel for a range of issues, the world has been giving other much more serious instances of it a blind eye. A very obvious and almost laughable instance of this is the UN Human Rights Council which produces a nearly endless barrage of resolutions against Israel, while only expressing "deep concern" about the atrocities which were happening in Sudan. It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation.

*Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, p. 629
**Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, p. 149

[2dimes]

Jay, I don't think the current generation is going about returning to Israel the right way just yet. Once they choose to return to the Father I certainly won't have sympathy because even if they would be persicuted. Especially by mere men. They will be doing the right thing and it will be a joy to them. If anything you should be jealous. Check out acts again. you'll read where they are doing the right thing then get thrown in Jail, beaten and what ever else then they don't go complain about it. They rejoice to be counted worthy of getting a beating.

[Symmetry]

Also, I am not saying that Israel's behavior of the Arabs has been impeccable. There have definitely been mistakes made; however judging from Israel's actions during its brief existence in modern history, I do believe that those were mistakes and not the norm. In contrast, it is easy to spot in neighboring nations numerous instances of ongoing barbaric practices such as genocide (Gadaffi), real segregation (especially against women), religious persecution, forced female genital mutilation, rampant corruption, punishments of stoning or chopping off hands, encouragement of known terrorist organizations, etc. Yes Israel has it's problems which should not be ignored, but while there has been condemnations of Israel for a range of issues, the world has been giving other much more serious instances of it a blind eye. A very obvious and almost laughable instance of this is the UN Human Rights Council which produces a nearly endless barrage of resolutions against Israel, while only expressing "deep concern" about the atrocities which were happening in Sudan. It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation.

This is a line of argument that I've been thinking a lot about recently. On the one hand, the UN Human Rights Council is clearly a joke. On the other hand, there are huge logical flaws in arguing for condemnation of other nation's abuses as a way of excusing the abuses of another. I guess these split into two lines for me:

1) Accusing a person, or a group, of hypocrisy is a cheap ad hominem way of avoiding the substance of the accusation.

2) I'm not sure Israel's moral position would be greatly strengthened if it was lumped in with other human rights abusers. The argument itself seems to admit that something bad is happening, but other nations are doing worse.

[BigBallinStalin]

The situation has no solution unless one group can completely annihilate the other.

(see: American Indians, and notice the lack of disharmony over the years from eliminating them)

I disagree completely. The anhilation option would actually cause the most disharmony, how much warfare was there in the west? How many long term problems has the US inherited as a result? regardless the natives weren't eliminated. There is no need for one side to be annihilated, a solution can be found based on mutual respect and recognition of each others validity. I think Israel has been the one least willing to bend in that respect.

Hey, over the long-run, things are great regarding the US's past genocide. It was cheaply taken care of. If native Americans' growth rates weren't inhibited, then they'd have a larger political base to express their discontent or maybe even launch some kind of civil war or at least unrest.

For Israeli and Palestine, mutual respect and recognition aren't even achievable. And if they were, then what? "I recognize that as your land, but it's also my land as well." That goes no where.

The lines aren't clearly drawn, and neither side has a legitimate enough claim compared to the other's claim to overcome this impasse. There's no solution to the Situation, other than the one involving a fervent beatdown of the other group. I'm not in support of that, but there's no way out of this situation.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's suppose Israel drops the siege on Gaza, and stops oppressing Palestinians through security checks and house raids for illicit materials. Then what?

Then Hamas has free reign to build up. They'll gather larger missiles and arm their local militias, and eventually launch a larger war on Israel.

What's the optimum level of "oppression" to prevent Hamas from achieving its anti-Israel goals?

[Genghis Khant]

Israel to me seems to fit all of the hallmarks of an abused-child who has grown up to continue abusing others as a grown adult.

An interesting point.

And a fair observation.

Let's suppose Israel drops the siege on Gaza, and stops oppressing Palestinians through security checks and house raids for illicit materials. Then what?

Then they can tear down the exclusion wall, which is completely within the West bank. They can stop their ruthless and aggressive land-grabbing policies. They can do many things, but most of all, they can stop using their iron-age superstitions to justify their "right" to be there in the first place.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I don't think the current generation is going about returning to Israel the right way just yet. Once they choose to return to the Father I certainly won't have sympathy because even if they would be persicuted. Especially by mere men. They will be doing the right thing and it will be a joy to them. If anything you should be jealous. Check out acts again. you'll read where they are doing the right thing then get thrown in Jail, beaten and what ever else then they don't go complain about it. They rejoice to be counted worthy of getting a beating.

Yeah, I think we are seeing the question from 2 different angles. I'm looking at it as, "Who do you believe has claim to the land of Israel." Because it was given to the Jews by God Himself, the Palestinian claim that it's their land is moot. They have been fighting over land and my sympathies in this matter lie with the Jews. Do I want the Palestinians to turn to Christ? Absolutely. I would be overjoyed if the "Godless Heathens" here at CC would do the same!

[jefjef]

Let's suppose Israel drops the siege on Gaza, and stops oppressing Palestinians through security checks and house raids for illicit materials. Then what?

Then they can tear down the exclusion wall, which is completely within the West bank. They can stop their ruthless and aggressive land-grabbing policies. They can do many things, but most of all, they can stop using their iron-age superstitions to justify their "right" to be there in the first place.

Interesting conversation going on.

Has the world already forgotten why Israel was created? The fact that their neighbors do not want them to exist. The fact that Palestinians have a long history of ruthlessly conducting cowardly acts of terrorism. Several other countries in the region funds terrorism against Israel and they would wipe them off the map if they thought they could get away with it.

Much of what Israel does is for national security and survival.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's suppose Israel drops the siege on Gaza, and stops oppressing Palestinians through security checks and house raids for illicit materials. Then what?

Then they can tear down the exclusion wall, which is completely within the West bank. They can stop their ruthless and aggressive land-grabbing policies. They can do many things, but most of all, they can stop using their iron-age superstitions to justify their "right" to be there in the first place.

They could, but to those in the Israeli government, the long-term benefits of settlement expansion outweigh the benefits of looking good on TV, letting non-Israelis live there, and lending more support to the Palestinian's claim on the land by not having Israelis live there.

[greenoaks]

Israel should execute all Palestinian males taller than a wagon wheel

There'd be no dispute if Ghengis Khan was in charge

[Baron Von PWN]

The situation has no solution unless one group can completely annihilate the other.

(see: American Indians, and notice the lack of disharmony over the years from eliminating them)

I disagree completely. The anhilation option would actually cause the most disharmony, how much warfare was there in the west? How many long term problems has the US inherited as a result? regardless the natives weren't eliminated. There is no need for one side to be annihilated, a solution can be found based on mutual respect and recognition of each others validity. I think Israel has been the one least willing to bend in that respect.

Hey, over the long-run, things are great regarding the US's past genocide. It was cheaply taken care of. If native Americans' growth rates weren't inhibited, then they'd have a larger political base to express their discontent or maybe even launch some kind of civil war or at least unrest.

For Israeli and Palestine, mutual respect and recognition aren't even achievable. And if they were, then what? "I recognize that as your land, but it's also my land as well." That goes no where.

The lines aren't clearly drawn, and neither side has a legitimate enough claim compared to the other's claim to overcome this impasse. There's no solution to the Situation, other than the one involving a fervent beatdown of the other group. I'm not in support of that, but there's no way out of this situation.

Why not? bitter enemies have done it in the past, look at France and Germany, France and the Uk, Austria and Serbia. By mutual recognition I meant there needs to be some delineating of territory. They need to establish permanent borders both sides recognize. Due to some recently released documents on wikileaks we know the Palestinians were willing to go a long way, Israel not so much.

[PLAYER57832]

Let's suppose Israel drops the siege on Gaza, and stops oppressing Palestinians through security checks and house raids for illicit materials. Then what?

Then they can tear down the exclusion wall, which is completely within the West bank. They can stop their ruthless and aggressive land-grabbing policies. They can do many things, but most of all, they can stop using their iron-age superstitions to justify their "right" to be there in the first place.

Interesting conversation going on.

Has the world already forgotten why Israel was created? The fact that their neighbors do not want them to exist.

I see, so you think they should have just quietly and peacefully handed their land over to the settlers without a fight? Is that how you would act if someone came to take your home? If so.. I am sure plenty of people would just love to know where you live!

The fact that Palestinians have a long history of ruthlessly conducting cowardly acts of terrorism.

Interesting definitions here. Israel takes people's houses, land, refuses to allow Palestinien the ability to freely run businesses, conduct commerce freely. They build up a HUGE army, very well funded, very well supported and yet the ones you call "evil terrorists" are those using rocks and home-made bombs to defend their homes?

Several other countries in the region funds terrorism against Israel and they would wipe them off the map if they thought they could get away with it.

As opposed to Israel, supported by the US, Europe, etc.?

Much of what Israel does is for national security and survival.

The same is true for Palestine. However, because they were just "poor herders" and farmers/orchard growers and Europe had this nasty problem of what to do with all those displaced Jews... Israel was created and funded and supported, while anything Palestinien was conveniently ignored. After all, no one was really REALATED to them!

[BigBallinStalin]

The situation has no solution unless one group can completely annihilate the other.

(see: American Indians, and notice the lack of disharmony over the years from eliminating them)

I disagree completely. The anhilation option would actually cause the most disharmony, how much warfare was there in the west? How many long term problems has the US inherited as a result? regardless the natives weren't eliminated. There is no need for one side to be annihilated, a solution can be found based on mutual respect and recognition of each others validity. I think Israel has been the one least willing to bend in that respect.

Hey, over the long-run, things are great regarding the US's past genocide. It was cheaply taken care of. If native Americans' growth rates weren't inhibited, then they'd have a larger political base to express their discontent or maybe even launch some kind of civil war or at least unrest.

For Israeli and Palestine, mutual respect and recognition aren't even achievable. And if they were, then what? "I recognize that as your land, but it's also my land as well." That goes no where.

The lines aren't clearly drawn, and neither side has a legitimate enough claim compared to the other's claim to overcome this impasse. There's no solution to the Situation, other than the one involving a fervent beatdown of the other group. I'm not in support of that, but there's no way out of this situation.

Why not? bitter enemies have done it in the past, look at France and Germany, France and the Uk, Austria and Serbia. By mutual recognition I meant there needs to be some delineating of territory. They need to establish permanent borders both sides recognize. Due to some recently released documents on wikileaks we know the Palestinians were willing to go a long way, Israel not so much.

Those peoples have fought against each other and with each other over centuries and centuries of conflict. Their present-day borders were determined by centuries of bloodshed. The battle is just beginning in Israel and Palestine.

It also helps that those countries were all Christian, and for most of those countries' histories, they operated during a time when it was easier to commit and to avoid punitive measures from "war crimes" than it is today, so the times faced by the Israelis and Palestinians are vastly different. The Situation is unique.

One of the main reasons why Israel doesn't have to sue for peace is because their war efforts are largely funded by the US, so there's no real need for them to end the conflict. The Palestinians receive funding through various means that's more difficult for them to receive than for the Isrealis to receive funding. This puts the Palestinians in a position where they can't as effectively wage war in order to have their demands met.

The problem with the wikileaks is that the Palestinians may be willing to do so, but there's no way of really knowing because it may just be rhetoric in order to garner popular opinion and money from others. And if it mostly wasn't, then such diplomatic rhetoric may have been said by various figureheads who may not be representative of each Palestinian territory, or who may not really be in any position to garner peace (like Arafat as the decades wore on). Also, the Hamas have been operating separately from the other Palestinian territories, which further complicates negotiations for peace.

In my opinion, another reason why the the Israeli government is unwilling to settle on permanent borders is because it currently finds itself in the position where at an acceptable cost, it can further expand the legitimacy of its land claims by funding more and more settlements outside of Israel's 1948 or 1967 borders. What this does it make the stronger case that the Palestinians can't be given land X because there's too many Isrealis living there, and those Israelis would be mistreated by a Palestinian-ruled government.

[jefjef]

I see, so you think they should have just quietly and peacefully handed their land over to the settlers without a fight?

Settlers? The region has been home to Jews for Centuries. They were already there. Jordon and part of Syria were also created from that region. The Palestinians weren't left homeless with no where to be or no country.

Interesting definitions here. Israel takes people's houses, land, refuses to allow Palestinien the ability to freely run businesses, conduct commerce freely. They build up a HUGE army, very well funded, very well supported and yet the ones you call "evil terrorists" are those using rocks and home-made bombs to defend their homes?

Israel has a HUGE army? huh. Yes strapping bombs on childrens backs to blow up buses full of children and women is COWARDLY TERRORISM.

As opposed to Israel, supported by the US, Europe, etc.?

You don't see Israel trying to obliterate/conquer Egypt, Jordon, Syria, etc...

Much of what Israel does is for national security and survival.

The same is true for Palestine.

No. MUCH of what they do is for the destruction of Israel and Judaism.

And no I am not Jewish and to my knowledge only related thru Adam and Eve.

On a side note:

~ PLO ~
According to a 1993 report by the British National Criminal Intelligence Service, the PLO was "the richest of all terrorist organizations", with $8–$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "donations, extortion, payoffs, illegal arms dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc." The Daily Telegraph reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.

[Genghis Khant]

Some might say that using tanks, helicopter gunships & guided missiles against civilian targets in Gaza, and then stopping humanitarian aid from reaching them is both cowardly and an act of terrorism.

[jefjef]

Some might say that using tanks, helicopter gunships & guided missiles against civilian targets in Gaza, and then stopping humanitarian aid from reaching them is both cowardly and an act of terrorism.

Fatah + PLO + Hezbollah + ......

[Genghis Khant]

And while we're talking about Gaza, how can we expect democracy to flourish in the Middle East when the democratically elected Hamas party is declared a terrorist organisation and the will of the people disregarded? What sort of example does this set? Instead, we should be asking why it is that a group with such extreme views can gain so much popular support from ordinary civilians. Moderate parties like Fatah just get bullied & ignored by the Israelis, while UN sanctions - supported by the vast majority of its members - are constantly vetoed by the USA. Is this democracy?

[comic boy]

In political terms I lean slightly towards Israel though I suspect that historical guilt plays a part in this . In humanitarian terms I sympathise with those Palestinians who have grown up in refugee camps and have known nothing but hate, this however is not solely the fault of Israel as certain Arab countries have used the refugees as pawns in my opinion.
My father lived in Israel for a while in the eighties and was deeply affected by meeting hollocaust victims , consequently he has always supported Israel but had little time for the new generation whom he considered unpleasantly driven , given this I suspect Radiojakes point to be pretty valid.

[PLAYER57832]

It also helps that those countries were all Christian

You do realize that this is not true? The reason the old Yugoslavia broke up was religion.. conflict between Muslims and Christians, don't you???? And that religious difference is a big part of why it has gone on so long...