I think it is universally accepted that the Palestinians want to exterminate the Israelis. Sharon is the textbook definition of a hawk. If not for political pressure from the rest of the world that has kept Shron from exerting more military might against their enemies, civilian or otherwise.
I can honestly say if I were Palestinian, I wouldn't blow myself up, but I would rebel. By rebel I mean shooting at gaurds with AK-47's, and I would not act peacefully, because Jew's (Maybe christians too)would still settle even though peace talks are going on.
Azadre, I understand the passion, and I might rebel violently if they started arresting family memebers who've committed no crime too. However, that would be pointless, and would be a no-win situation. Again if by unified peaceful protests they could blockade new settlements, lay down in front of bulldozers and all that type of thing, it would do more good than firing AK-47's.
This is where we disagree. Peaceful protests would be met with armed enforcement. I must reiterate that this seems eerily similar to the Catholics in Northern Ireland.
I agree...but only in outcome, I think. Peaceful protests would not be met with trust in Israel because they've yet to SEE peaceful protests. They see "protests" ripping through children on school buses...they see "protests" conveniently placed around outside cafes...when you target civilians, you can't expect to be able to say, "ok..we're just gonna gather here and protest peacefully this time...we promise." We all hope they would be afforded those rights...but keep in mind that even the rights of Americans to gather and protest aren't absolute rights.
Peaceful protest didn't work in Ireland (another religiously charged situation) when it was tried at the beginning of the British occupation. Why would this be any different? Why do you think that peaceful protest wouldn't have been met with violence if tried at the very beginning? You have to understand that when the state of Israel was formed its settlers had been released from concentration camps and weren't real open to being resisted at all.
I believe that peaceful protests would be met by armed retaliation from Israel, and Palestinians would die. But they are dying anyway. However I think they would be really dying for a great cause. They would be true martyrs. Of course they'd have to make sure all of it was captured on video and distrubeted to news agencies around the world. People in the U.S. were largely not in favor of the U.S. civil rights movement until they saw the footage of protestors being brutalized, having police dogs attack them etc. Now Israel can claim they are doing what they are doing because of terrorism. People can sympathize with Israel who is suffering from terrorism. If, however, they weren't suffering from terrorism but peaceful protest which disrupted their econmy, and responded with brutality, The U.S. wouldn't be able to still support them, nations around the world would get very serious about demanding change, and perhaps the U.N. would step in if things didn't change. Yes Palestinians would be brutalized, and very likely killed. But that's not a change from what's happening now. The only difference would be that no one could claim it was a reaction to terrorism, and the brutality would be evident and undenyable to law makers and politicians in the U.S. Of course this all just speculation. Maybe after peaceful protests Israel would just immediately remove settlements, allow opportunity for palestinians etc. Maybe they could skip the brutality step of the scenario.
You and I have pretty different views of Israels' stance and place in the world from the outset....I don't know for sure it wouldn't have been met with violence...but I know for a fact that it's been made nearly impossible right now. They have a police state for a reason...they spend tons and tons of money and other resources securing their citizens for a reason...I don't think the settlers of Israel were looking to take out holocaust agression on anyone...they were attacked pretty quickly, though. And they geared up and defended themselves. damn it refman...i'm trying to get some work done! stop talking to me!!
Since marrying into a Jewish family I have taken it upon myself to familiarize myself with the history. I may not always have the best information...but I think I've got it down. If somebody busted into your house during dinner and told you to gather your stuff because you're moving you might want to bust a cap too. That's basically what happened. Why should they have reacted any differently than you would? Well then close your $@#%& browser and get to work man!!
They may not have been looking to take out any agression but they were breaking international law and treaties, and being paid to do so by the Israeli govt. The settlers also moved out people who were already there in order to move in. It's like saying that when settlers kicked American Indians out of their land and then moved in, they were attacked right away.
Israel WON the war...THEY WON !!! They get to dictate to the losers...get it ? GOOD !!! The palastinian people are NOT helping their cause by killing civilians. All they are doing is painting a big ole red target on themselves, and the rest of the world will watch as more and more of them die for their cause. Pathetic. DaDakota
The same could have been said about Milosevic over the Albanians. But yet we're not ok with what he was doing. I guess if you just lie down and let a regime kill off your people THEN we get to come to their aid.
I don't want this to degrade to a who's right and who's wrong in the ME again, but your analogy is weak. Milosevic was not attacked by his neighbors at the prompting of the Albanians.
The White Man won against the Amercian Indians. They moved the American Indians off of their own land and onto reservations. The killed off entire families etc. Because they won, that doesn't make it right. The initial war the Israelis won wasn't against the Palestinians but against other Arab Nations. And actually you are wrong about the winners that get to dictate to the losers. There are geneva conventions and agreements that dictate to all parties what can and can not be done. "In accordance with a number of resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council and by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which reflect the view of the international community, the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem. This Convention, ratified by Israel in 1951, remains fully applicable and relevant in the current context of violence. As an Occupying Power, Israel is also bound by other customary rules relating to occupation, expressed in the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907. " "In general terms, the Fourth Geneva Convention protects the civilian population of occupied territories against abuses on the part of an Occupying Power, in particular by ensuring that it is not discriminated against, that it is protected against all forms of violence, and that despite occupation and war it is allowed to live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with its own laws, culture and traditions. While humanitarian law confers certain rights on the Occupying Power, it also imposes limits on the scope of its powers. Being only a temporary administrator of occupied territory, the Occupying Power must not interfere with its original economic and social structures, organization, legal system or demography. It must ensure the protection, security and welfare of the population living under occupation. This also implies allowing the normal development of the territory, if the occupation lasts for a prolonged period of time." "More precisely, the Fourth Geneva Convention sets out rules aimed at safeguarding the dignity and physical integrity of persons living under occupation, including detainees. It prohibits all forms of physical and mental ill-treatment and coercion, collective punishment, and reprisals against protected persons or property. It also prohibits the transfer of parts of the Occupying Power's civilian population into the occupied territory, forcible transfer or deportation of protected persons from the occupied territory, and destruction of real or personal property, except when such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." I agree that terrorism against civilians is wrong, and that's not the way for the Palestinians to acheive their goals. But because Israel won doesn't make them right. They are in clear violation of numerous resolutions and treaties.
