What about the atrocities against Israeli people? Why do you choose to neglect that? What about all the suicide attacks? I don't want to hear the bullcrap about how these people are oppressed or whatever, that doesn't give them the right to go onto a school bus and blow themselves up. The point is, both sides have committed atrocities. b****ing about what happened in the past will only lead to more bloodshed. Your post is backwards-oriented instead of looking toward the future.
Most of them never had the land to begin with. Only Palestinians are allowed to pass refugee status on to their children. In every other conflict, the children born to refugees are just members of their new societies. In a few years, every Palestinian refugee will have been born to that status, making Right-of-Return a bit of a misnomer.
How did I neglect atrocities against Isreali people? I was responding to Francis2001's, or whatever his name is, complete dismissal of any sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. His post implicated that only the Palestinians were at fault and they should get over it because 50 years was enough time. And no, just because some Palestinians commit acts of agression shouldn't take away value for the cause of their people. You are supporting him in his sentiment that Isreal should just be let off the hook for their atrocities? Then I would say that your post is "backwards-oriented instead of looking toward the future."
Comments like these justify a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. They have clearly stated that their goal is to wipe Israel of the world map. Thus, it would be a defensive action for Israel to strike with lethal force against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Maybe you missed the part in my original post where I said there had already been enough suffering on BOTH sides. I was trying to point out that the Arab world places so much blame on the Israelis when they have done virtually NOTHING to truly help the Palestinians flourish as individuals and as a society.
Something about "Manifest Destiny" or "Promised Land", which was put into aggressive action when Jews in Europe were being slaughtered like sheep, so since the Jewish people knew they would be safer among fellow Semites, (they historically have been more welcome in the Middle East than in Europe, so they didn't expect things to change), many European Jewish leaders thought to themselves, "We must get out of this crazy continent, they just can't get over that 2000-year old murder case".
Sure, and then Iran retaliates by targeting ISrael's own nuclear facilities (they have said as much), and we would have a nice nuclear holocaust on our hands
Under that reasoning then Israel should've never been created since the idea of a Jewish homeland is a total misnomer since most of the settlers of Israel ancestors hadn't lived there for almost 2000 years.
This is easy to say if you're on the side that owns the land, though. But imagine if you switched the places of the Palestinians and Israelis. While the tactics might be different, do you think Israelis would stop fighting to get control of that land again? I doubt it, unfortunately.
I think it's humorous how anytime there's any evidence of change in the Middle East (Libya, Saudi elections, etc), you hail it as success of the Bush policies no matter if these changes started before Bush ever came to office. Yet, you don't credit Bush's policies that changed public opinion in Iran as resulting in the election of a radical leader in a nation that was electing moderates in their previous elections. Bush is trying to re-shape the Middle East. This guy is partially the result of his invading their neighbors.
Tigermission touched on this but to follow up his point historically Jews have been treated much better by Muslims than by Christians so policies have a lot to do with why Israel has been under scrutiny than just that they are Jews. The fact that now that many Muslims have become anti-Semitic has to do with that Israel defines itself as a Jewish State and is overwhelmingly Jewish. If Israel had been created as say a Gypsy state then we would probably be discussing why Arabs and other Muslims seem prejudiced against Gypsies.
oh yeah take someone's land away and give it to another group.....that really solves problems... ........(there were tribes(Jewish) living there before this... who were living in peace...talk about creating a problem.
Historically, Jews and Muslims always lived with one another with little friction for nearly a thousand yeras (at least when compared to how the Eurpoeans treated them), until 1948 that is. Anyways, people need to understand the difference between Zionism and Judaism; the former is a secular political movement, the latter is a religion.
Not if Israel is taking out their facilities before Iran can build a bomb. I think the statements demonstrate why Iran can not be allowed to develop nukes - it's a nation with an agenda to wipe out another country - it's not a responsible nation-state. They would be likely to use them against Israel or hand them to terrorists. It's just not a risk the world can take.
No disrespect, but that's the silliest logic in the world, and the sad thing is I keep hearing it from people over and over again. Any country in the world that has nukes would NEVER pass 'em along to some non-state actor that would use it and then have it traced back to them, resulting in their total annihilation. The Iranians have don't have a history of aggression like Iraq did, their leadership is only interested in staying in power, and they're certainly not going to risk total nuclear annihilation by using nukes against the Israelis or someone else...unless of course nukes were used against them first. The best way to handle Iran is through MAD-type of strategy (or 'balance of terror' as they say): we tell them they make a move against Israel, and the reaction will be a nuclear attack against them by the U.S., not just Israel. As for Iran not having nukes, that's besides the point. The Iranians have very accurate long-range missiles, have Hezbollah on the northern border of Israel (which is armed to the teeth), and can target ISraeli nuclear installations with their missiles, which would cause massive damage that's comparable to a radioactive bomb. In other words, I don't think either the Iranians or the Israelis will do something stupid anytime soon. In fact, if anything, the Israelis might be emboldened by the US presence in Iraq and think that they will get away with aerial strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, which would be very difficult to do and is not guaranteed to effectively destroy Iran's nuclear capacity. As I said, it's a no win situation for all sides involved, and I could only hope that we, the Israelis, and the Iranians don't have leaders who would make such rash decisions that would result in destruction and havoc in the region.
