Why Israel Should Not Exist

It amazes me the pro-Israeli spin our media has on the whole situation. You'd think there'd be SOME sympathy for people living in fear, basically in martial law, with many of their children malnurished, and their parents unable to work, under the oppression of an occupying force, in order to find a FEW "terrorists". I guess that's fair that hundereds of thousands of Palestinians should have to be terrorised by the Isreali state in order to find a few hundered, or even thousand radicals. The whole situation is ridiculous and I think the U.S. needs to strongly re-think it's stand on BLINDLY supporting any act of aggression by Israel.

But it's not all Israel's fault either. None of the neighboring Arab States want to take in the refugees. I do feel bad for the Palestinians. It's a shame that these people are being manipulated by a few leaders. However, I do support a creation of a Palestine. Apparently so does GWB.

 

I highly doubt if we'll EVER see Bush's "plans" (does he even really have one?} for a Palestinian state put into effect. Again, he wants Arafat out (even though his people ELECTED him into office) so Bush can have a weaker puppet in power (like in Iraqi, IMO) and ultimately serve U.S. interests in the region, and NOT Palestinians.

 

Of course the Israeli's and the U.S. media would probably have us believe that the 10 year old throwing rocks was a "known terrorist".

Agreed Ferelwookie. That action was totally out of line. This type of nonsense really hurts Israel's image. Being pro-Israel, I cringe whenever they fuel the fire with this type of action. It makes them so much harder to support.

It amazes me the pro-Israeli spin our media has on the whole situation. You'd think there'd be SOME sympathy for people living in fear, basically in martial law, with many of their children malnurished, and their parents unable to work, under the oppression of an occupying force, in order to find a FEW "terrorists". I guess that's fair that hundereds of thousands of Palestinians should have to be terrorised by the Isreali state in order to find a few hundered, or even thousand radicals. The whole situation is ridiculous and I think the U.S. needs to strongly re-think it's stand on BLINDLY supporting any act of aggression by Israel.

Actually, the media, which is quite leftist, and the leftists in america are actually far more pro-palestinian than pro-Israel. If you watch the world news broadcasts usually shown in the US at 6:30 pm EDT daily, almost twice as much time is dedicated to the suffering of palestinians as to injured israelis. Back when the last string of bombings/retaliations took place, ABC news w/Peter Jennings began with a 7-minute segment on the palestinians and their misery, how the Israeli army was oppressing them and living conditions were terrible. And I feel for them. I really do. No-one should have to go through that.
The same day there had also been a major bombing in Tel Aviv in which 26 people were killed. That got 2 minutes. The show then went to commercial break, and came back to domestic issues. At the end of the broadcast w/recap, Jennings stated "to recap, the palestinians are suffering". Not a mention of Israel.

I have witnessed the above happen almost constantly whenever Israel and Palestinians have been in the news. There have been segments about the psychological effect of the occupation on palestinian children, with no mention of the same effect of terrorism on Israeli children. My local newspaper, the philadelphia inquirer, is under boycott by many jewish philadelphians for refusing to label suicide bombers as such, instead calling them 'activists'. A recent issue of time had an enormous story profiling Palestinian misery in the refugee camps that was almost 10 pages long. A similar article on Israel came just afterward, on a single page.

In newsweek this week, nelson mandela blasts the US for its Iraq policy, claiming that Israel being allowed to possess WOMD but Iraq not has to do with Iraq being 'black' and Israel 'white'. Quite a racist position, IMHO, from a self-proclaimed human rights advocate.

You get my point. How the media treats the situation, any situation, is really all about point of view.

Peace,

V-03

 

I don't know. I watch and read a lot of news from a lot of different sources...But the U.S. p.o.v. always seems to be Pro-Israeli, while the rest of the world tends to lean (correctly IMO...but that's another thread!) towards the Palestian's side.

Currently, I lived about 100 miles from Detroit, which has THE largest Arab population in the U.S., and there, anti-Israeli sentiment is quite high from what I've seen and heard.

Personally, I find it hard to sympathize with the Israeli's, as they've not allowed Palestine to have a true state, military, or hope for economic improvement in the future. Occupying and oppressing will not end fanatisim, IMO, and will only create more desparation and more hopeless young people will be deluded into giving their lives (which is all they have) to "hurt" the state terrorism of Israel.

I TRY to be impartial on this topic, but find it immpossible. When I see American made tanks and weapons in Palestinian streets, being used against stone-throwing civilians who are not allowed to leave their homes...I kind of have to take the Palestinian's "side". I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction. It's just the conclusion I've come to after reading up on this issue.

 

Personally, I find it hard to sympathize with the Israeli's, as they've not allowed Palestine to have a true state, military, or hope for economic improvement in the future. Occupying and oppressing will not end fanatisim, IMO, and will only create more desparation and more hopeless young people will be deluded into giving their lives (which is all they have) to "hurt" the state terrorism of Israel.

It would help if Hamas and the like stopped the bombings. The problem here in part is that the terrorist groups think that after Israel withdraws, they will get a free month of unanswered suicide bombings, then everyone can talk peace. Both sides contribute to the circle; that's why it remains a circle. I personally find engaging in discussion of 'who started it' or 'who should blink first' to be a waste of time. They're both right, and they're both wrong.

As far as allowing the palestinians to have a military, well, that bugs me a little bit. Not because they shouldn't have the means to defend themselves, but because of the potential alliances they could form. What if the military of a new palestinian state decided to form an alliance with Iraq, and they came over and built a base in the west bank? That situation would be intolerable, and Israel would certainly not allow it. It goes to show just how complicated this issue really is.

I TRY to be impartial on this topic, but find it immpossible. When I see American made tanks and weapons in Palestinian streets, being used against stone-throwing civilians who are not allowed to leave their homes...I kind of have to take the Palestinian's "side". I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction. It's just the conclusion I've come to after reading up on this issue.

Depends on your point of view. I come from a highly jewish area, and when I and people I know see palestinians getting on buses and blowing themselves up, or detonating bombs in restaurants on holy days or shooting at children in settlements, I kind of have to take the Israeli "side". It's the conclusion I've come to.

You see, it's not about taking sides. The time for that is long past. It doesn't matter who started it or whatever. Yeah, Israel is committing crimes. So are the palestinians. I have stated this over and over, but I would have so much more respect for them if they protested peacefully instead of this nonsense. Israel would HAVE to acquiesce to sit-ins, peaceful protests and the like, because it would have no choice. It's easy to respond to violence with violence.

Look, the whole situation stinks. I do wish Bush would be a little more involved in the peace process.

Peace,

V-03

 

Sorry to jump in late, but AJA's comment was grossly incorrect:
"There was a little more behind the thinking involved in the creation of a Jewish state than simple "reparations" for the Holocaust"

Not quite, mate. As it actually happened, the United Kingdom had been trying to find a Zionist homeland since 1902. They had been offered the Northern Territory in Australia, as well as Somalia, IIRC. THe move for a Jewish state HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOLOCAUST. It had been in planning for decades before 1947 and the only thing the Holocaust did was sway the vote in their favour. In fact, Jewish migration to Palestine had been encouraged since the late 1920's, and they composed a significant proportion of the population there. Britain had already decided to hand Palestine over, but was swayed when the Middle East was re-divided again after the second war.
Following 1947, the only declared war in the history of the UN was fought - the 1948 war on Israel by neighboring states. No other conflict has been a declared war - it being illegal after all.
The problem lies with both sides not being willing to concede the other's legitimacy. Both have a claim to the land, both must realize each other as equals. Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. If they can't get along, put the UN in there and make them get along.

E_S

 

Like it or hate it, Israel does exist. The only way that will change is if the terrorists succeed in gaining weapons of mass destruction, or the Arab states band together again to attack it.

Israel has the right to exist in peace; so does a Palestinian state. But, the Bible spells things out, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

IMHO, groups like Hamas won't let Israel alone even with a Palestinian state. Arafat rejected a sweeping peace proposal at Oslo several years ago, one that gave the PLO nearly everything it had sought. HE is the reason for the uprising that has claimed many lives on both sides.

 

I agree with you that the whole situation stinks. But, I wouldn't equate the majority of Palestinians with Hamaas or terrorisim. That would be like saying the Israeli PEOPLE are evil because their GOVERNMENT violates the rights of hundrereds of thousands of Palastinians. Same goes for the U.S. Our leaders are pigheaded fools who couldn't care less about "global security" IMO, and only care about how the U.S. can profit from each situation. This, however does not make most U.S. CITIZENS "evil"...it makes them politcally apathetic IMO.

Blaming "Palestinaians" for terrorisim, is almost like blaming U.S. citizens for Sept. 11th. After all, many of these p.o.s's were within (and some sleeper cells STILL are) our borders years before the attacks.

I'd like to see Bush do something also, but I think we all know, no matter what "side" of the issue we're on, that he's only paying lip-service to the topic, rather than actively DOING SOMETHING about it.

 

I agree with you that the whole situation stinks. But, I wouldn't equate the majority of Palestinians with Hamaas or terrorisim. That would be like saying the Israeli PEOPLE are evil because their GOVERNMENT violates the rights of hundrereds of thousands of Palastinians. Same goes for the U.S. Our leaders are pigheaded fools who couldn't care less about "global security" IMO, and only care about how the U.S. can profit from each situation. This, however does not make most U.S. CITIZENS "evil"...it makes them politcally apathetic IMO.

Blaming "Palestinaians" for terrorisim, is almost like blaming U.S. citizens for Sept. 11th. After all, many of these p.o.s's were within (and some sleeper cells STILL are) our borders years before the attacks.

I don't equate all citizens with terrorism. When I say "Israelis" or "palestinians", I am referring specifically to governments and terrorist groups, not people in general. It just saves me typing time .

Hope that clears it up.

Israel has the right to exist in peace; so does a Palestinian state. But, the Bible spells things out, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Uh, ok. I assume you are referring to Revelation? Doesn't there have to be a rapture first? And God defending Israel from her enemies in the north? Looks like their enemies are in the east.

Oops.


Peace,

V-03

 

I wasn't implying that you PERSONALLY, were suggesting that average Palestinians (like that 10 year old) were all terrorists. I'm just saying I think the U.S. media often seems to paint that picture.

I could go into the Book of Revealations and possible interrpretations, but I really don't care enough about religion to do so. Needless to say, if you are suggesting that the end is nigh according to the bible, a GREAT deal of events still have to take place as prophecized...Including, "apparent peace" throughout the world THEN the coming of the false prophet, leading people astry, THEN the second coming and judgement. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I don't see "peace" in ANY form coming to the middle east or the world ANY time soon!

 

Arafat was a damn terrorist though. Remember 1972 Olympics Massacre in Germany? Splinter cell of his al-Fatah group.

E_S

 

Hey Ferelwookie-

I was responding to SouthernJedi's post on the whole rapture thing .

Peace,

V-03

 

Palestinians do not seem to want peace. They want to drive Israelites into the sea. They want them dead.

 

Extremists want Israel, out, not all palestinians are extremists. Most are just like you and I. They want a life in peace where they can work, raise their kids and live a nice life.

 

LUH That's a very unbiased view of things. [eye-roll]

I think we all have to agree that BOTH sides are pretty screwed up. Also, "Palestinains" don't ALL want Jews dead, just like not all "Jews" want all Palestinains dead.

Personally, what I see on my t.v. right now and read about is a few militants blowing themselves up, while the vast majority of decent Palestinians are forced to live under martial law and THEIR villages are occupied by Israeli TROOPS.

One could make a historical claim that the terrorities that the Jews now occupy (and took after '67) is NOT their original "homeland" and many scholars would tell you that that their ancient kingdom had completly different borders from what they now have. Much of the land they occupy DID belong to the Palastinians centuries before the Jews encroached on this.

Despite my "pro" Palastine stanse, I CAN see the average Israeli citizen's side. While I feel that their GOVERNMENT and MILITARY is totally wrong in how they are handling things, the average citizen shouldn't have to worry about getting on a bus either. Unfortunately, SOME Palastinians feel so powerless and hopeless they are willing to commit cowardly acts such as this. BOTH sides are too stubborn and full of their own zeal to ever truly attempt to resolve this conflict in any peaceful manner. Having tanks shooting at children who are throwing rocks, certainly doesn't help to "ease tensions" though. The whole thing stinks and I don't EVER see this mess ending, outside of a cataclysmic war. Honestly.

 

From the World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 10 (1990):

"In 1947, the UN proposed dividing the region in an arab state and a jewish state. On May 14, 1948, the nation of Israel officially came into being. The surrounding arab nations immediately attacked the new state...Israel has remained technically at war with its Arab neighbors throughout its history."

This is going to be a long post as it is, so I will not write a history lesson on all the wars, but in a nutshell, the arabs attacked Israel, who would've shared Jerusalem from the start, and attacked them again in 1967. Please check your facts.

I know the facts. the UN exceeded its mandate here and made a poor decision in any case. The Arabs who lived in the area had the right to determine their own future, but the UN chose to legitimate a foreign invasion which was already basically in process in the waves of Zionist immigration.

Which generous peace proposals are you referring to? The ones which for decades have demanded Israeli withdrawal to an eight-mile-wide stretch that is nearly indefensible or the ones from Hamas and Islamic Jihad who tell the Israelis they can live there in an islamic state under islamic law.

any plan which allows Israel to continue to exist in some form and recognizes its legitimacy is very, very generous.

The saudi plan is a great example, and an impressive effort, but the plan Barak proposed was just as good.

no, it wasn't. the Israeli patches of control were both strategically placed in such a way that they compromised Palestinian security, and Israel included a security clause that denied the Palestinians full control of their own airspace and gave Israel permission to invade when they felt that their security was threatened (i.e. at will) while curtailing Palestinian military developments. it also denied the right of return, which is crucial and cannot really be up for debate.

So what does arafat do? He says "NO, we want ALL of jerusalem", goes home, and starts the first intifadeh. Two years later, fed up with the violence, Israel votes in the hard-liner Sharon, whose eye-for-eye strategy has helped perpetuate a violent cycle that Arafat is just as responsible for starting.

the current intifadeh was actually triggered by Sharon going to a disputed site during a really tense time and shooting his mouth off about Israeli sovereignty. he tossed the spark in the powderkeg. i have no doubt that he knew exactly what he would be causing, and did it to make conditions favorable for his return to power.

Arafat tried to contain the violence. however, Israeli retaliations made it impossible for him to do so without appearing to become an Israeli lapdog and a collaborator, and, moreover, cut the PA forces to ribbons so he didn't really have any forces to enforce the peace with, so he stopped trying and eventually, begrudingly, gradually, threw himself back into the war which he tried to avoid fighting. the Israelis left him with no choice. they kept attacking and making unreasonable demands and escalating the violence. if he didn't take a stand, his followers would desert him for Hamas. if he stood up to the Israeli aggression, he would be excoriated for supporting terrorism. what was he supposed to do?

please don't interpret this as me defending Arafat's character. he wanted to go the peaceful route with Israel because it allowed him to maintain power and legitimacy in the West (he does love those state dinners) and because he's dying and he wants to wrap up his legacy while he can. what respect he has managed to get on the global stage has been for ending the first intifadeh and become the leader of a legitimate government. there was no chance he wanted to throw that away.

people don't understand that Arafat was the best friend that Israel had between the Gulf War and the current intifadeh. yes, that's kind of sad, but he's not a radical, nor is he someone who is agitating against Israel and stirring up trouble among his people. he represents the extremely pro-Isr

 

Extremists want Israel, out, not all palestinians are extremists. Most are just like you and I. They want a life in peace where they can work, raise their kids and live a nice life.

yes, absolutely, but not at the expense of being prisoners in an Israeli-occupied puppet state. this is why normal, everyday people and not just religious fanatics are now joining the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade and becoming suicide bombers. the situation is just that intolerable and terrorism the only weapon at hand. i probably would in their position, and i daresay you would too.

in fact, Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister and decorated military veteran, when asked what he would do if he had been born a Palestinian, responded that he would join one of the terror organizations and take up the struggle. he knows terrorism as well as anyone, and he's fought it most of his adult life, but he still understands and seems to respect on some level where the Palestinians are coming from and why terror is the only weapon they have.

 

Very good and informative posts dizfactor.

Like I've said before, I cannot condone the violence on either side's part. I just happen to feel (after much reading and what I think to be objective thinking) that the Palestinians are oppressed and they are "fighting" on an uneven playing field. Still, I believe that BOTH sides are just continuing this cycle of violence and suffering. Someone has to be man enough to stand up and truly work for peace. I don't believe EITHER side has really even tried, and just have paid lip-service to peace, while still encouraging violence with the other hand, IMO.

 

Diz-In their posistion I would take on the military, I would not attack and kill civilians. That is what makes those taking up bombs so deplorable. I do not care what the situation is, intentionally killing civilians in never justified. There's no excuse and no sympathy if they're just as bad or worse than their oppressors. It's that simple.

 

Exactly, tenor.

There is no excuse, none, zero, zilch, for targeting civilians.

 

I think that is one point we can all agree on.

 

I agree with tenorjedi. If they want to be suicide bombers that badly, pick a military target.

 

Yo, diz, the UN didn't exceed it's mandate. Why? Because Palestine was British territory.

E_S

 

Rebecca. Suicide bombers aren't the ONLY ones killing civilians. The Israeli military has killed more than 4 times the amount of Palestinian citizens in the past 5 years than all bombers combined.

Like I said before, BOTH sides are in the wrong and should not target non-terrorists and civilians.

 

I agree with that definately.

How about this:

End the settlements towards Jericho, declare a Palestinian state with free and open elections, and declare Jerusalem an International Protectorate under U.N. protection? The whole city, not just parts.