They didn't 'force' anything, they created the partition. If the Israelis had not defended themselves, there would be no Israel today. There is a nation there now, and the UN will not 'invade' it to force a settlement.
Exactly. As long as there are terrorist bombings against Israel, they can use that as an excuse to steal more land, put up more settlements, build more security fences etc. And you are correct about it strengthening the current govt. As long as people feel they are at war, they want a war like govt.
There is a video of the place being stockpiled with weapons and used as a training ground. Syria said its an old video and that the camp has been abandoned for 10 years. THERE IS PROOF THAT IT IS OR ATLEAST ONCE WAS A TERRORIST TRAINING CAMP. Following the attack, there have been reports of destroyed weapons found in the debris. Again, Israel did not attack Syrian troops. And why would Syria openly admit that it was a terror camp or atleast a weapons cache for terrorists?
Germany was once the breeding ground for NAZi's and mass murders, but you cant go and bomb them a number of years later saying that they were the reason that all this hatred is going on now? the place israel bombed USED TO BE a camp, its been abandoned for 10 years, how do not know there was an old poor couple living in there, and especially since no terrorists or weapons were found there it isnt justified.
You act as if there has been a huge investigation on this already. I'm not saying 100% that it was being used, but you can't say 100% that it was abandoned. Syria is known to be a breedingground for terrorists and many countries can prove this with their intelligence. Unless you have access to classified information, you are just as knowledgable as everybody else.
Ok, facts: 1) The partition was not going to be 'forced' on the Middle East. The UN was not going to defend the Jewish partition against the Arab attack. So explain your use of 'force'; 2) Palestine was not a nation. All of the Middle East was carved into nations by the Europeans or Turks. Most, if not all, of the existing borders of the Middle East have little or no historical meaning; 3) The partition's intent was to create 2 nations. A small Jewish one and a larger Arab one. For whatever reason (and there were many), the Arabs did not want a Jewish nation and sought to destroy it immediately. That early violence (some initiated by both sides) gave early Zionists the opportunity to expand Israel beyond the partition. So the early UN partition was not intended to 'take away' anything from the local Arabs, only give the Jews who were living there their own nation. As we now, the Arabs would have none of that, and in fact, many of the Jews were not going to be satisfied with the partition since 'Israel' as defined in the partition would find survival quite difficult.
if it wasnt forced on them, then why would anybody agree on giving up land or territory, that is what most wars are based on what are u blabbing about. no historical meaning???? if there was no historical meanings to the middle east would there be a need for 2 wars in 3 years against the middle east (afganistan, and iraq) all of africa was carved into nations by europeans, are you saying that if the jews were given a part of nigera or morroco it would be justified because they dont have HISTORICAL significance. ur just saying might makes right, and we all know how wrong that is arrite michigan has a very high population of arabs, if the arabs were being exterminated, would you create a smaller arabia in michigan. and also give them acces to 3 other states for future attacks and what not, and also split up the capital while your at it.???? i think not. then why is it fair in palestine. because thats exactly what hapened
well if israel would have proved it that yes it is a terrorist camp then they had justified their attacks, but as u said no one can say it was100% terrorist camp, and u cant attack another country without 100% correct information, that just escalates tensions
i certainly agree that terrorism has done nothing for palestinians except gotten them more restrictions, more oppression, more death and destruction. but one thing is for sure, it kept them in the public's mind and got them to the negotiation table as a legitimate, de facto power. alternatively, every time the dalai lama tries to TRAVEL to a different country, china tries (usually successfully) to blocks him (applies diplomatic pressure to refuse visas). and he can forget about making political speeches. there was a huge furor this past year when dalai lama travelled to the US and actually met Pres. Bush briefly. this would never have been possible under clinton, and certainly is not possible with current european govts. we won't even start with poor african countries at the mercy of the U.N. (and China's veto). this is the best nonviolence can do. people may talk to you, but only a few people, and only in a few places, and only about certain topics. dalai lama is viewed as a spiritual leader, a nonviolence advocate, etc. but he is rarely treated as the political leader of an oppressed nation, as he should be. and he never will be. as for south africa, the blacks under apartheid continued to suffer for decades during the sanctions years. and however much i respect nelson mandela, it was only F.W. de Klerk's big big heart that got blacks their rights. nonviolence never changed the typical white africaners' minds. we hear all the time about the eruption of violence over injustices. but how often do you hear about causes not supported by violence? how many of you care enough about india's horrendous caste system and the plight of their untouchables? how many of you even know about it? how many of you care about the poverty facing most indigenous peoples in south america or the horrendous conditions facing workers in the diamond/gold mines in africa or the sweatshops in asia? care enough to do something about it? no. the success of nonviolence is nearly always the exception rather than the rule. i point to another example. israel herself is certainly not an advocate of nonviolence. how did israel commemorate the holocaust? by flying f-15s over auschwitz-birkenau and placing 200 IDF soldiers in the camps as a sign of military might, ignoring protests of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum, which considered the gesture entirely inappropriate for a place of sorrow, mourning, reflection, and silence. their message: if israel existed, the jews would NEVER have passively accepted their fate (not to say all of them did, but MOST of them), but would FIGHT to the last man to save their own. i'll list various types of political conflicts/resistance between nations/groups, in order of the disparity between the power between the parties which promotes it. Demanders Strong 1) Protest and Acquiescence 2) Threat of unilateral action and Compliance 3) Threat of collective action and compliance Parity 4) Negotiated settlement 5) War 6) Arbitrated settlement Demanders Weak 7) Political movement/lobbies (free speech, assembly allowed; political and economic power present) 8) Terrorism (political, military power absent) 9) Nonviolence (political and military and economic power absent) We see examples of these everyday in international relations. But you will find that terrorism is usually the recourse of desperate people who have no other ways to achieve their goals. And only with the failure of terrorism will people resort to nonviolence, the least effective choice for people who have no other choices. not condoning it, but just putting terrorism into context.
Originally posted by adeelsiddiqui if it wasnt forced on them, then why would anybody agree on giving up land or territory, that is what most wars are based on It was not going to be forced on them by the UN. Remember... that's what we were discussing. The UN forcing a resolution. what are u blabbing about. no historical meaning???? if there was no historical meanings to the middle east would there be a need for 2 wars in 3 years against the middle east (afganistan, and iraq) all of africa was carved into nations by europeans, are you saying that if the jews were given a part of nigera or morroco it would be justified because they dont have HISTORICAL significance. ur just saying might makes right, and we all know how wrong that is First, if you want respect here you better damn well return it in kind. Did you consider that maybe you are not fully comprhending the discourse? Try reading responses in the context that they were written, and you might understand things better. You said that there was a 'Palestine there' and that 'the whole world forced ISRAEL inside of it'. I'm trying to take you back a step, and ask you what was Palestine? I'm saying that the national borders of the middle east have little historical meaning. Palestine was defined as a region within the Ottoman Empire. The British/UN tried to discern the best partition between existing Jewish and Arab communities. It's not like there was a Palestinian nation with well defined borders. The larger part of the Palestine region actually became Jordan. Further, as I previously mentioned, no one was prepared to 'enforce' this partition on the Arabs. It was created, then what ensued was beyond anything envisioned by the partitioners. As far as I'm aware, NO nations defended the nascent Jewish State. arrite michigan has a very high population of arabs, if the arabs were being exterminated, would you create a smaller arabia in michigan. and also give them acces to 3 other states for future attacks and what not, and also split up the capital while your at it.???? i think not. then why is it fair in palestine. because thats exactly what hapened Wow, quite a leap there. We were discussing your desire for the UN to somehow impose a resolution on the two parties. I said that was not realistic, not viable. You have now taken a leap in logic to assume we are discussing whether the Palestinian Arabs were screwed 55 years ago?
i apologize for any disrespect to any of you all. but just letting some frustrations out. and none of us has to agree with each other... alll i was saying is that eventhough palestine did not have definite borders it still has the right to its statehood, and no country can take that awayfrom it. esp not UK. which just gives the jews a huge chunk of a country and expects everything to fall into place, it doesnt work like that. another point... you never heard of the arabs doing anything to the jews before israel was made a country, then why is it that there had to be a country for the jews. i mean not taht ther is anything wrong with it, if england wanted to give them a piece of land for settling it should have given it part of london. not another country that it had forcefully taken over
Originally posted by adeelsiddiqui i apologize for any disrespect to any of you all. but just letting some frustrations out. and none of us has to agree with each other... It was just the 'blabbering' thing. No problem. alll i was saying is that eventhough palestine did not have definite borders it still has the right to its statehood, and no country can take that awayfrom it. esp not UK. which just gives the jews a huge chunk of a country and expects everything to fall into place, it doesnt work like that. I understand and agree to a point (I'm not certain how confident Britain was that things would fall into place). Again, my responses were in the context of the UN enforcing a resolution. another point... you never heard of the arabs doing anything to the jews before israel was made a country, then why is it that there had to be a country for the jews. i mean not taht ther is anything wrong with it, if england wanted to give them a piece of land for settling it should have given it part of london. not another country that it had forcefully taken over Well, that's a mighty big topic, with a lot of ills from both sides. I believe there were examples of Arab anti-Jewish behaviour long before the partition. There are also examples of them acting more like the cousins they are, going back to when both peoples occupied Jerusalem during the crusades, and were slaughtered side by side by the crusaders. Anyway, it's difficult to go back to the time of the partition and decipher all of the events of the time. Do I think the Palestinians got screwed? Yeah, to some extent, I'm sure they did. But also, Jews were living there at the time of the Partition. Should they have there own country? Why not? Was it equitable? Did the Palestinians bring any of the injustices upon themselves with their own or other Arabs' actions? We could write a book, or many, on all of the angles which would certainly derail this thread. But your questions are valid, and you are most welcome to start a new thread.
Lil you are correct about Israel not getting their way by non-violence. In fact Israel was born from, and it's first leaders were terrorists. That doesn't mean that the Palestinians should use violence. Back to S. Africa... Yes they did suffer for years after they gave up using violence as the cheif means to win their rights. Nobody said the process is immediate or it would be easy. In fact I bet if the Palestinians did give up violence, Israel would do everything it could to provoke violence from them. It's fine to discount Mandela if you wish but it's wrong to claim that only the whim of DeKlerk was responsible for the end of Apartheid. There was pressure, and people such as Mandela, Tutu, and scores of others as well as sanctions helped bring about the end of Apartheid. To remove those factors as contributing and give the sole responsiblity to DeKlerk's big heart isn't accurate or fair to all those who also worked toward ending apartheid. India ending British Colonialism is another example of Non-violence working. But putting non-violence aside, and only attacking military targets would be a start in the right direction.
i totally agree that attacking civilians is a horrendous way to fight for any cause, and one that is certainly often counterproductive. that aside, i would also like to point out that in sufficient numbers it does represent an effective means to reduce the morale of the enemy population. why did the U.S. conduct the Doolittle Raids on Japan early in the Pacific War? to show that America was capable of dealing damage to Japan proper. and that act shook both the Japanese military and people. why did the U.S. use carpet bombing techniques against cities in Japan, Germany, Vietnam, etc.? because they reasoned that the devastation inflicted on these enemies through "total war" would break their wills to fight. were these acts morally suspect? perhaps. but was the logic faulty? i doubt it. why did israel pull out of lebanon? because the resistance, often terror, put up by hizbollah, was so damn effective and killed so many israelis that the israeli people finally gave up. of course there are exceptions. during the battle of britain, german bombers attacked british cities/civilians as well, and the effect was to strengthen british resolve. and i think that's closer to the cases of both israel and palestine. i think the west has come a long way since ww2. we've evolved to a kinder, gentler way of fighting wars. and this has been aided politically by a populace more educated in terms of human rights and war crimes, and technologically by smart weapons capable of targeting with great precision. american and israeli soldiers are particularly blessed, by their high standard of training, professionalism, and equipment (perhaps the best in the world?). yet when you look at the arab countries, many of these same sociopolitical, technological, and military advances simply have not taken place. they're still fighting wars like it's 1945. what i mean is that the terrorist groups DO attack military units when they can. but usually, they lack the training and OPPORTUNITY to do so. the israeli army is trained to minimise casualties taken through sporadic disorganised resistance. their tanks are designed to be virtually indestructible to mines and rpgs. their footsoldiers are equiped with the world's finest protective gear. their counter-sniper tactics are the world's best. their operational tactics involve lightning raids and quickly setting up defensive perimeters around their objectives, minimising transit times during which units are most vulnerable. and they use Apaches when most palestinians have only AKs... if i were hamas, and most of my soldiers are guys and girls i find off the street, would i throw them against an army like this? but we're basically saying that if you cannot resist and fight wars OUR way, you're not permitted to fight wars at all. you may only engage our strengths, while our weaknesses are off limits. our enemies aren't idiots. why should they play by OUR rules? the failure of saddam's army i bet will be the last time this decade any country engages the US in a straight-up frontal war. it doesn't take a genius to see that guerilla war and terrorism are far easier ways to strike at america. 200 million dollars bought iraq 5-6 jet fighters which did squat during the war. the same 200 million bought OBL worldwide notoriety and cost the americans tens of billions in damage. i doubt that the palestinians actually PREFER to blow themselves up. i think they'd much rather fight the israeli army in a conventional way, while minimising losses to their own. maybe we ought to give them apaches, abrams, artillery, cruise missiles, f-16s, etc. so they can fight "the right way"?
I understand the reasonings behind the Palestinians fighting the way they do. But it still holds that because you can't go head to head with a country militarily it's ok to target their civilians. If the goal is to hurt the people of Israel, and make them scared and angry, then the goal has been achieved. But if the goal is to win statehood and better conditions for the Palestinians the goal has not been. I don't think the goal should be people must die. If it can't be the military or govt. that die then it will be the civilians.
well-spoken! it's been terrific discussion this issue with you and i've enjoyed it immensely. thanks! i think 30 years of occupation with no hope in sight has created a desperation among palestinians which makes them all too ready to believe that violence and terror is the only way to statehood. i frankly don't know whether it's their hatred, their desire for vengeance, or the perceived failure of all other nonviolent methods which made them this way. maybe it's a little of all three. but i do sense is that their desperation and readiness to employ terror has spread beyong their borders, and have been emulated across the middle east, on an ever larger scale, and with american lives at risk. this trend needs to be stopped, and its source lies in the discontent of palestinians with their current situation. and if they cannot hit our govt or military, then they'll lash out at whomever they can reach. right or wrong, that's unfortunately civilians like you and me by default.
i think a simple analogy may work here. when we try to topple a rogue regime. we consider several avenues: 1) diplomatic pressure 2) war 3) induced regime change 4) sanctions the first three all target the govt and military of the rogue state. but when they fail, we automatically switch to sanctions. and sanctions target civilians. our reasoning is that the sanctions may convince the people in the state that their govt needs changing and destabilise the regime that way, or that the govts will be considerate of the public good and reverse their rogue policies. the result of sanctions are quite similar to terrorism. you have a worsened way of life, lower living and health standards, and often suffering and death among civilians. not through bombs or spectacular killings, but through the invisible hand of economics, which can be equally deadly. civilians have always been, and continues to be, fair game in international politics. it's sad and unfortunate. i personally wish these megalomaniacal leaders would get into a ring and slug it out themselves or that we can change rogue regimes at the press of a button. but there's no denying that they're just doing what we do too, targeting civilians. america has incredible economic clout. and embargoes we place on nations are usually very effective. in fact, america in the past has shown a preference for using sanctions OVER the use of military force. will we ever stop using sanctions and trade embargoes? i doubt it.
