I hate to say this but some level of separation is needed between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I am not saying that Israeli Arabs should be treated as second class citizens but that Israel proper, pre-1967 borders, should be separated from the West Bank and Gaza. In that sense I don't think a security wall is a bad idea but in exchange Israel should give up control, economic blockades and other resources in those areas. I understand security is the biggest issue to Israelis but they will never have lasting security until the Palestinians have a chance to build up their own economy and society. That can't happen until Israel gives up its control of those territories.
The Palestinians would fudge it up and then blame it on the Israelis. And then launch rockets. Or missiles. Or suicide bombers.
That's easy to say. But when looking at history, ISrael has broken nearly ever single agreement it's signed in the peace process during the past 15-20 years even when the Palestinians have gone years living up to their agreements. Like I said before, one side would have to be big enough to not take the bait when the other side pushes them into breaking any agreement. Both sides should just do what is right, and not let extremists from the other side dictate the policy.
This is true, but is basically a false equivalence. It is the Israelis who first took the land from the native inhabitants and oppressed them. It is the Israelis who have put into place a system that is like apartheid or at best like Mississippi before the Civil Rights Movement as the original article documents. It is completely unrealistic to expect those who are occupied or so actively currently discrimated against not to fight back or feel poorly toward their oppressors. However, as we saw in recent American history, once the oppressors change their actions and the groups start to interact, attitudes start to improve on both sides. PS: Many of the potential Palestinian Gandhis languish in Israeli jails or have been deported but the day is coming.
How are you comparing this to the America? Israel was formed in 1948 after the Holocaust. The other area that was considered for the Jewish people was Uganda. The land of Israel/Palestine has many 'native inhabitants' not just Palestinians. Just like America had different tribes of Native Americans. They did not oppress them, until the Palestinians started there terrorist attacks starting in the 60s. They actually worked side-by-side before this never-ending wave of terrorist attacks happen. Don't make claims that are not true. The Israeli nor the Palestinian people are bad, but because of years of bad blood between the two it makes it harder than just one oppressing the other.
Zionism as a movement long predates the founding of Israel. Also many of the early Zionist engaged in terrorist attacks against the British so it wasn't like the Palestinians invented terrorism.
I agree that neither side is bad or good. But there were Palestinians oppressed the minute they were forced to leave their homes so the world could raze their homes and build a new Israel there
You're wrong again. Palestinians were oppressed prior to that and Israel used terrorist attacks on civilian hotels prior to the Palestinian terrorism. Also it wasn't quite never ending waves of terrorist attacks. There have been periods of over a year where the Palestinians didn't attack and tried the agreed upon peace measures, but Israel broke their word, and the terrorist attacks started up again. I will say that there is never an excuse for terrorism. Palestinians hurt their chances for peace when they do it. It doesn't matter what kind of oppressive, illegal, and prejudiced things Israel does, terrorism isn't the answer from the Palestinians.
Israel became a state in 1948 after the British left and partitioned the land and the UN admitted them. Jewish settlement started in the 19th century, when it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Most of what would become Israel's founders studied the Turkish language and Ottoman law, believing they would be Ottoman subjects for the rest of their lives. The Holocaust may have helped Jewish immigration after WW2, and it may have played a role in the UN vote, but it's historically inaccurate to claim that the Holocaust was the birthplace of the zionist movement. If anything, if any historical event gave birth to the zionist movment, it was the trial of Alfred Dreyfus. The Ottoman officials had no issue with Jewish immigration, but you can be damn sure the local Arab and Druze and Bedouin populations weren't too thrilled. Those early zionists wanted to settle in Jaffa, but no one wanted them there, so they build a village next to it...Tel Aviv in 1909. Real estate squabbles happened as soon as people arrived in the late 19th century. Life back then was under under-policed Ottoman rule in a province of little interest to the clerks in Constantinople other than the Old City of Jersualem and maybe Jaffa, which was an important port. When the British took over in 1920 they had their hands full breaking up riots and trying to prevent real-estate feuds that often ended up with dead civillians...on both sides. As for land seizures, it IS pretty one-sided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_villages_depopulated_during_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict History is not terribly accommodating to either the official Israeli or Palestinian narratives of the last 100 years. Those narratives also have seen some mission creep, especially when the historical facts don't match up perfectly with nationalist ambitions. Years ago, Abbas wrote a dissertation premised on Holocaust denial, while many right-wingers in the Knesset still argue that the 700K Palestinians who left in 1948, often in whole villages, simply all did so voluntarily. Both of these things are offensive but guess which one was apologized for and renounced and which one is a source of public policy? I don't think any group of people in this world are "good" or "bad." Both have their official narratives and neither is keen to recognize the weakness in their own or the truth in the other's. And that's because it's political suicide.
Many urged violence, but the oppressors are not dumb and they are perhaps even more threatened by those who would lead non-violence who they are also urgent to encarcerate.. BTW the First Intifada or was the second was non-violent for quite a while but opposed violently by the Israelis.
Thank you for stating the truth!!!! I have said it before and will say it again, if the Palestinians laid down their arms today there would be peace and in short order two states. If Israel laid down their arms today they would be driven into the Mediterranean sea. A poll like this is conducted just to make the Jewish people look bad. Some people are really gullible and believe all the anti-Israel propaganda.
except this ignore the history when Palestinians agreed to a peace settlement, lived by it's conditions including no terrorist attacks, and Israel didn't live by the conditions and continued building settlements, and oppressing the Palestinians. If you'd like to ignore that part of recent history you can. But it doesn't make it true.
Israel and the Jews have always accepted Muslims (they have offered them their own country many times). It is Palestine and the Muslims who always respond with a 'river of blood'. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_ZY8m0cm1oY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> A simple example would be the Peel Commission. Which broke PAlestine into 80% for the Muslims and 20% for the Jews. The Jews accepted this.
Too bad this was already shown in this very thread to be false, but it isn't surprising that you haven't been paying attention or are unable to comprehend this.
The quote you cite though says: [rquoter]The Twentieth Zionist Congress in Zurich (3-16 August 1937) announced "that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted, [but wished] to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine". [10][/rquoter] Which contradicts that they actually accepted that proposal. I am willing to agree that in principle they might've but your own quote shows in practice they rejected the Peel proposal.
i don't think it is funny at all. labels are cop-out, weak-minded ways of avoiding compromise. the jews and palestinians could work it out if thay wanted too. same thing here, in the good old us of a. gareeeeeeeeeedy evil demons govern, meanwile the middle to lower classes getting ****ed.
