You forgot to put the UK on there. They are also a popular choice, as well as Germany. There is no country called Palestine nor has there ever been one in known history. Please remove "Palestine" from the poll to reflect this fact. Palestinians currently occupy various parts of the land which is administered by Israel. The portion of land which some refer to as Palestine (i.e. west bank + gaza) in fact is under the administration of Israel and neither of them are countries. These territories have respresentatives which were selected by election campaigns largely in the control of the eventual winners, so even as representatives they are suspect. Furthermore, even being PalestinIAN is a misleading concept. There is no country, therefore there is no passport or citizenship. These people are culturally and ethnically Palestianian, and to place their "nationality" alongside American and Israeli is inaccurate and insulting to the reader because they do not have a country or a passport issued by that country, and the United States is the country which is blocking that possibility. Many Palestianians hold Israeli nationality for this same reason (I believe 30% of Israel). Blaming Palestine is the equivalent of blaming Native India. These places don't exist - they were just expected to exist at some point in history. Palestinians don't live in mythical fantasy land. They all live in Israel. There is no patch of land outside the control of the government of Israel which Palestinians can call Palestine or "home". It's for this reason that the Israeli government decides on the appropriateness of settlement activities - because those lands remain under the administration of the Israeli government. West Bank and Gaza are both surrounded by and administered by Israel. Gaza is totally blockaded by a giant wall, and west bankers live in constant fear of the violent extremist Israelis aka settlers. I am not saying these things to piss off the pro-palestinians. I'm mentioning these things because they are sometimes conventiently ignored. These facts are necessary to ensure that palestinians are treated objectively. For example, it is critical to this discussion that Palestinians have no Palestine, yet Palestine is listed on the poll. I hope that the numbers re WHO IS PROVIDING THE ARMS AND MONEY ON A SCHEDULED BASIS FOR THIS CONFLICT TO CONTINUE have been mentioned. But the most important thing of all... is that this is not a conflict at all. In the future we will look back at this mess and wonder how we were led to believe that this is a conflict rather than it being one super-country shooting a fish in a barrel.
that land has been owned by several governing powers, Britian, ottoman empire, etc. There was a mixed population of Jews and muslims, christians. Before the formation of Israel, I don't think there was a significant religious/land backclash there was today. Why is it okay for Israel to be the bully that they are? Why are Jews more entitled to the land than the other people and other groups who had lived there historically with the Jews for several hundreds of years?
There's no way I can choose any of these in good conscience. It's a mess created by a long comedy of errors, and every party involved has their own agenda, which is the case of politicians is carefully crafting enough consensus to remain in power. If Abbas and Netanyahu were to negotiate a lasting peace treaty and recognize a two state solution tomorrow with anything that resembled what the UN and the West expect, both would probably be lynched. Sir Jackie: Yes there are some total nutter Muslim clerics spouting anti-Semetic incitement, but it cuts both ways. There are plenty of Jewish clerics in Israel that are just as engaged in incitement and stuck in the Middle Ages, and their influence is growing, especially within the army and settler movement, which is frightening to people who live here. Yet, as much as it might surprise people, Israelis as a whole are far more tolerant of Islam in their communities than in Western Europe or the US. Islam is no more a "problem" than Judaism or Christianity. The conflict is largely over security, national identity, real estate, all of which are legit concerns for both parties and the duplicitous dance of politicians, which is an unfortunate reality. The US is really powerless to do much, and the best contribution it has given the situation is helping the PA build an infrastructure and modern security force (which is continues to do). I don't blame them. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, there are many commitments they are obligated to honor, which all have done, but they are toothless to force a solution. All three have certainly tried but like all politicians, they are at the mercy of their own electorates to make a tough decision. Palestinians are fractured politically. REALLY fractured. There is an entire spectrum of political thought going on from classic communists, to fundamentalist religion, to western-educated democrats, but since the Second Intifada, the people have largely moved towards non-violent resistance and the world doesn't give them enough credit for that. Yet the rockets keep falling on Sderot, and no politician in Israel will be in power very long if they don't respond in some way. So Gaza remains under siege, the West Bank under occupation, and a lot of targeted killing and outpost building goes on in the name of security. Two thirds of (Jewish) Israelis support the end of it all, but only if there is a guarantee of security. There is no leader Palestinian leader with enough political capital to do that, other than maybe Marwan Bargouti, and he's serving 5 consecutive life sentences for being the architect of the Second Intifada and is considered one of, if not the most notorious terrorist in Israeli prison. Even that is complex. Bargouti is a former peace activist, and in his dispatches from prison as we speak, is calling for a Third Intifada and a unified revolt, albeit one without violence. How that will go is anyone's guess, but I imagine it will quickly get out of control when the IDF goes to quell it all. In any case the two state solution is dying, and people are getting used to that idea. It's easy to blame the settler project for it, but there are more factors than just that. But as long as the status quo is seen as the least painful and most beneficial to Israel, the right will struggle to maintain it. If there is any hope from the Israeli side, it is coming from the right, where many are admitting (quietly) that the occupation is immoral and the situation is something no one will able to maintain for much longer. The solutions offered so far are non-starters, as very few will address the Palestinian right of return for refugees, but there does seem to be some change happening.
My neighbor has a dog that takes dumps in my yard every morning for the last 3 years. I have been calling for the slaughter of him and his family (dog included) since day one. Just saying.........
Iran is one of the main sources for weapons smuggled into Palestine. The same Iran that you desperately try to defend and which you would like to have nuclear weapons.
Yes you are absolutely correct that Iran sends a lot of weapons into the area, but there is no country called Palestine so please stop referring to this mythical country. It creates a false image of justice and makes the reader forget that those people are being actively and openly denied a country by UN powers. So, shall we list countries by proportion of how much weapons they send into Israel (which includes West Bank and Gaza ofcourse)? I have a list which not only shows the participants, but also how much by value they are injecting in terms of weapons. We COULD just take Israel's ~ 200 nukes + deployment systems and say that it costs more than Iran can dream of ever smuggling into Israel, but since we are talking about Islam ofcourse I shall seek more evidence and rely on israel's non-declaration of these weapons of mass destruction to ignore them for this exercise. That would be fair.
Mathloom, what exactly do you think would happen if the Palestinians had all of Israel's weapons tomorrow, and the Israelis had none?
Also for the record, yes I would like Iran to seek nuclear weapons if there are already nuclear weapons in the region. It is the only defense, and it has been mandated by the presence of other weapons of mass destruction and the seemingly unconditional support of the supplier of these weapons. If there were nu such weapons in the region, I would be actively against iran seeking any weapons at all.
It is not useful at all to the thread because your example would not be similar enough to the circumstances of Israel's power (to date) to draw a any comparison whatsoever. In fact, I am certain you knew that before you asked. FYI, I believe that if aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall the circumstances and facts were identical, then their actions would be identical.
So you are first evading a truthful answer to the question, and then you admit that the outrage against Israel is unjustified because the Palestinians would act exactly the same way if they were in the same situation. Interesting. I happen to think that what would happen to the Israelis would be much worse than what is happening to the Palestinians. But since you already concede that if the roles were reversed, the outcome would be the same, how can you justify your anger and hate against Israel?
hahahaha riiiiiiiight. Have fun derailing, and as I offered in the other thread, if you want to talk about me then start a thread about me.
Your stupid hypotheticals are stupid. What exactly do you think would happen if the Palestinians had Superman, and the Israelis had Jesus?
That's all you can say because you got exposed. If, as you say, the actions of the Palestinians were exactly the same if the roles were reversed, then your anger and hate against Israel is unjustified. You lack the moral superiority you keep claiming.
Dear Dubious, What if Israel had bananas and Palestinians had cucumbers, but the only cucumber peeler was in Taiwan? Answer carefully, your reputation depends on it.
Someone who works for a dictatorship, who wants an old man to live in fear for the rest of his life over a few cartoons and who wants Iran, a country with a lunatic as its head of government, to get nuclear weapons, is trying to claim moral superiority over the only democratic government in his region. Priceless.
I'm not taking sides between you two, but flipping the realities into some hypothetical supposition isn't a useful debate. It serves no point. Take the Palestinian question out of the world situation and we have no idea how a million other factors would have turned.
I disagree about the hypothetical. It is at the core of the argument of those who so vehemently criticize Israel that they claim moral superiority over Israel, which implies that they think Israel "are the bad guys"/"are to blame", which is also what this thread is about. However, if one concedes that the other side would act at least exactly the same way, given the same circumstances, can you then put 100 % of the blame on those whom you blame (again, which is the question posed by the thread and its poll)? I say you can't, because then those whom you blame are either not morally inferior to the other side, so why blame them, or a victim of circumstance just as much as the other side, so why blame them. That is the point of the hypothetical. It does serve a point.
the point it serves is only to exacerbate the blame game. it is less important to come to a conclusion as to who is most culpable as it is to solve the problem. hypotheticals won't do that.
