Let Me Get This Straight

[Reffo]

Israel Has to stop it's attack on Gaza because the people of Gaza are suffering
But Hamas has the right to continue attacking Israeli civilians till the occupation ends..

And what, according to Hamas, is the occupation? ANswer: The land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (the Mediterranean), in other words, it includes Israel proper!

Would any country accept such a proposition? That it's own citizens are fair game until such time as their country would cease to exist and that in the meanwhile, they have no right to defend themselves?

[bararallu]

I think you got it :).

Pathetic isn't it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/).

[varian]

... it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/).

Oh the love; I can just feel 'it.'

[Reffo]

Israel has to respect Hamas because they were democratically elected by the Palestinian people..
Hamas does not have to respect the Israeli government, even though they too were democratically elected by the Israeli people..

Oh but wait, I forgot ... the reason why Hamas need not respect the Israeli government ... or the Israeli people for that matter ... is because they are all occuppiers and so long as Israel exists Hamas has a right to fight them till they would manage to kill or expel most Jews from "Palestine" (which in their language includes Israel proper).

Did some people say that Israel could, if it wanted to, negotiate with Hamas like Britain successfully negotiated with the IRA? I didn't know that the IRA professed the same extreme aims towards Britain as Hamas professes towards Israel. Maybe Israel could learn something from Britain? Or maybe, just maybe, people should expect Hamas to learn from the IRA instead?

In any case, it's a moot point. My information is that Hamas would NOT be willing to negotiate face to face directly with Israelis. At best, they are willing to negotiate indirectly, through intermediaries and the most that they are willing to offer Israel is to temporarily stop terrorising and killing Israeli civilians in exchange for a lifting of the blocade which hampers their efforts to bring in more advanced weapons of terror.

Critics of Israel, one of you, please tell me if I am wrong .... to me at least, that is NOT negotiation, that is EXTORTION! And if you disagree, then try this thought experiment: What would you say if Israel would adopt the same approach of threatening unprovoked violence unless it gets what it wants? We know the answer to that (don't we?) seeing that you are so critical of Israel even when it just responds to violence rather than initiates it..

[Toadstool46]

It IS just that simple..

[Justcurious]

I just happened to see a talk show yesterday with Israelis and Palestinians discussing. I think one thing became clear: it is typical of the people in the area to show their attitude and not to show any sign of inferiority. And as long as the attitudes are unchanged, the situation goes on and on...

[Reffo]

I just happened to see a talk show yesterday with Israelis and Palestinians discussing. I think one thing became clear: it is typical of the people in the area to show their attitude and not to show any sign of inferiority. And as long as the attitudes are unchanged, the situation goes on and on... Nice platitude, now can you be a bit more specific? Can you tell us what "sign of inferiority" should Israel show in your opinion?

Personally, I thought that Israel has shown a lot of restraint before this crisis in Gaza, it put up with thousands of rockets raining down on it's civilians and nobody seemed to care about that. Why do you think that was so Justcurious?

[varian]

... put up with thousands of rockets raining down on it's civilians and nobody seemed to care about that. ...

Someone get the "rule" book out. How many rockets are allowed to be fired at a country before it is officially an act of WAR ???

...

(IsraelNN.com)- Gaza terrorists escalated attacks on the western Negev Tuesday, pushing to 10,046 the number of mortar and rocket attacks the past eight years. The IDF spotted and hit one rocket-launching cell. ...

... More than 225 attacks were registered in the past six weeks, and the Sderot Media Center reported that 7,000 mortars and rockets have been fired since Israel executed the "Disengagement" program in the summer of 2005.The government expelled more than 7,000 Jewish residents of Gush Katif and northern Gaza, withdrew all military personnel and surrendered control of the Philadelphi Route, which includes the Rafiah area used to smuggle explosives and weapons into Gaza. ...

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/12/number-of-rockets-fired-at-israel-tops-10000.html

...

Anyone got that yet? What does the "rule" book say about this???

[Reffo]

Someone get the "rule" book out. How many rockets are allowed to be fired at a country before it is officially an act of WAR ???It depends ....

If it's Israelis who fire it at Arabs, in retaliation, even a few rockets will cause the Arab street, the Muslim world, some sections of the media and the UN to go ballistic and perform hystrionics... (It does not take the current level of attack in Gaza to set them off!).
If attacks occur in western countries or against westerners, by Arabs or Muslims, there is some outrage but the Arab apologists soon come out in force and smooth it over relatively quickly..
If 1400 civilians get killed in a war between Russia and Georgia, the media makes every effort to report it in sober terms and in the interest of impartial reporting, if anything they understate the number of civilian deaths. For the UN of course, "Mum is the word", they just stay quiet.. they don't want to further aggravate the Russian bear.
If some stray dogs get killed by some louts, the animal liberationists cause some stir..
If thousands of women and children get hacked to death by their enemies somewhere in Africa, the world sheds a tear or two after the event, they wave their arms about and exhibit some signs of guilt for not preventing it, then they duly forget about it till it happens again..
If some Arabs murder, torture and maim other Arabs in the thousands, it gets reported in the back of the news, people say ho hum and they move on..
If Israeli civilians get blown up in their buses or thousands of rockets are lobbed at them by Arab fanatics, the usual suspects mutter some cursory disapproval (which they don't really mean) and say: "Yes but..." and Israel could have avoided this by showing more "Signs of inferiority"

[Mil]

Posted by Justcurious:

I just happened to see a talk show yesterday with Israelis and Palestinians discussing. I think one thing became clear: it is typical of the people in the area to show their attitude and not to show any sign of inferiority. And as long as the attitudes are unchanged, the situation goes on and on...

So when will Finns drop the "superiority" thing and admit to horrible atrocities they committed a few decades back?

[KiwiWriter]

Israel Has to stop it's attack on Gaza because the people of Gaza are suffering
But Hamas has the right to continue attacking Israeli civilians till the occupation ends..

And what, according to Hamas, is the occupation? ANswer: The land between the river (Jordan) and the sea (the Mediterranean), in other words, it includes Israel proper!

Would any country accept such a proposition? That it's own citizens are fair game until such time as their country would cease to exist and that in the meanwhile, they have no right to defend themselves?

And of course the liberal left call that "fair"

[Justcurious]

Nice platitude, now can you be a bit more specific? Can you tell us what "sign of inferiority" should Israel show in your opinion?

Personally, I thought that Israel has shown a lot of restraint before this crisis in Gaza, it put up with thousands of rockets raining down on it's civilians and nobody seemed to care about that. Why do you think that was so Justcurious?

In the debate I saw it became clear that the Israelis and the Palestinians always want to show they are in the right mode. An outsider like myself can no way show what you say in the first sentence. And why should I?

[Kiwi]

Hello,

Please bear with me while I try to express my opinion on this specific conflict, as well as the situation as a whole. Unfortunately I'm going to have to describe myself, in order that you might understand where I'm coming from more clearly.

I'm 17, a high school student, and I live in New Zealand (good to see, I'm not the only NZer on this forum). I've never spoken face-to-face with a Jew, a Muslim, an Israeli, or a Palestinian, although I have tried to communicate with all of the above groups online. I've also never travelled outside the South Pacific; I haven't experienced the situation personally, nor have any of my family members and friends been killed in suicide bombings, rocket blasts, or by the Israeli military as human shields for Hamas fighters.

Accordingly, many of my beliefs aren't graced with outstanding knowledge, first-hand experience, or a bird's eye view of the conflict. However, due to the same reasons, my beliefs are also absolutely free of prejudice, bias, and any other reason that might predetermine what my thoughts would be. Everything I say on this forum will be my honest opinion, and I'll always be changing my views as I'm exposed to different perspectives and new facts. Nothing I say will be with the intent of causing insult or offense, and I hope you can all appreciate this.

Now, here's what I think.

As a staunch advocate of nonviolence on both a personal and state level, my core belief is that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist, with equal liberties, living in peace. I think this can only be achieved with a one-state solution, in which Muslims and Jews would live side by side together. This can only happen naturally, not as the result of any international arrangement. Neither side can be forced to respect, let alone befriend and live with, those whom they have fought for so many decades, or millennia if you look at it that way. Only when history and land disputes are put aside will there be any hope of this happening.

Please don't judge me too harshly for what I'm about to say. This history of transgressions, insults, violence, and numberless dead, has to be left behind in order to progress. Countless wars have been fought throughout history over past grievances; whether they be the murder of one's ancestors by another's, the forceful taking of land in the name of race and religion, or the particular results of a previous war. For events such as the holocaust, and the death marches of Muslims and Christians following WWI, no word in English exists to fully describe the needless loss of innocent human life. We must remember these events of course, but we must remember them with regret. We must learn from these horrendous acts of hate and revenge, rather than dwell on them as sources of our own hatred.

I apologise for rambling like this, I'll try to be more specific now. The way I see it, both Israelis and Palestinians (including Hamas) believe that what they are doing is right. Israel has a right to protect its people from harm at the hands of terrorists. You could also say that Hamas has a right to protect its own people from harm in what many Palestinians perceive to be an occupation dedicated to the systematic removal of their race from Israel. Unfortunately, neither side is really preventing harm to innocents, as much as they try.

If Israel responds to a rocket blast which killed 20 civilians, by itself killing Hamas and (accidentally) non-Hamas Palestinians, this can only mean more Palestinian families who grow to despise Israel. The children growing up, whose innocent fathers are killed in collateral damage, will be another generation which learns to hate Israel. This applies equally to both sides; if your parents are killed by a Hamas suicide bomber while they're visiting a restaurant, it would be challenging not to regard all Palestinians with contempt.

What I'm trying to say is that the morally superior side in this conflict will be able to find forgiveness, to act with humility in the face of nationalist-fueled brutality, to make an effort not to insult or injure those who have opposed them for so long. Only when we learn to forgive may we live in peace. I'm sure you'll all have substantial arguments to what I've said, but I can't make a good point without seeing these arguments, so please fire away.

[Reffo]

In the debate I saw it became clear that the Israelis and the Palestinians always want to show they are in the right mode.And I suppose that when you observe debates between other people who are at war with one another each side tries to show that their own side is not in the right mode?

An outsider like myself can no way show what you say in the first sentence. And why should I?No problems, I can understand why you can't show it but seeing that you made the generalised statement, I do reserve the right to ask you for specifics and to explain what you mean. Don't you think that's fair?

[Justcurious]

And I suppose that when you observe debates between other people who are at war with one another each side tries to show that their own side is not in the right mode?

No problems, I can understand why you can't show it but seeing that you made the generalised statement, I do reserve the right to ask you for specifics and to explain what you mean. Don't you think that's fair?

Clearing up difficult questions is ok. No reason to be offended.

[Reffo]

Welcome Kiwi

I will try to respond to your main points:

As a staunch advocate of nonviolence on both a personal and state levelI think that most Israelis share your belief that violence and war are not the best answer. However, history has shown that if a state is confronted by an enemy whose leaders DO believe in violence and who manage to brainwash their people that it IS SO, then there is no other choice for the other party but to defend itself. The Jews of all people have learned this lesson through bitter experience. For 2000 years they have turned the other cheek and NEVER responded with violence. And what was the result? Suffering which climaxed in the holocaust.

my core belief is that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist, with equal liberties, living in peace. I think this can only be achieved with a one-state solution, in which Muslims and Jews would live side by side together.I don't agree. A one state solution would be a recipee for disaster. Just look at what happened elsewhere in the world where people who had historical enmity towards one another were forced into an artificial single state solution, it never ended well. Here are just a few examples (I probably forgot some others):

Rwanda
The Balkans
Lebanon
Cheslovakia

Three of the above four places ended up with major violence and even genocide. Only Cheslovakia ended up breaking up in a civilized and relatively orderly way. But the fact is that it too broke up and the experiment didn't work.

This can only happen naturally, not as the result of any international arrangement. Neither side can be forced to respect, let alone befriend and live with, those whom they have fought for so many decades, or millennia if you look at it that way. Only when history and land disputes are put aside will there be any hope of this happening.OK, let's accept that as a future possibility but it definitely is NOT for this generation to decide.

Please don't judge me too harshly for what I'm about to say.Personally, I won't I welcome intelligent debate, the opportunity to impart facts to a young person and I promise to listen with an open mind (I hope I still have that in me :)).

This history of transgressions, insults, violence, and numberless dead, has to be left behind in order to progress.Agreed but that will only happen if BOTH sides give up the use of violence as a means of getting their point across and resort to talking and compromising. But unfortunately the Palestinian Arabs have never accepted such a proposition (I am not saying all of them, I am saying that a significan number of them and unfortunately they were the ones who were able to set the agenda.

Countless wars have been fought throughout history over past grievances; whether they be the murder of one's ancestors by another's, the forceful taking of land in the name of race and religion, or the particular results of a previous war. For events such as the holocaust, and the death marches of Muslims and Christians following WWI, no word in English exists to fully describe the needless loss of innocent human life. We must remember these events of course, but we must remember them with regret. We must learn from these horrendous acts of hate and revenge, rather than dwell on them as sources of our own hatred.Let's not generalise Kiwi. In a nutshell, the Middle East wars were fought, and I suspect that this is still the fundamental reason today, because the Arab people considered all of historic palestine as Arab land. The jews on the other hand were willing to share the land and have a two state solution but of course they were not willing to give up their natural right to have self determination especially since Jews lived in what is now Israel even longer than Arabs. So, when they were attacked by Palestinian Arabs and their neighbouring Arab allies, the Jews defended themselves.

I apologise for rambling like this, I'll try to be more specific now. The way I see it, both Israelis and Palestinians (including Hamas) believe that what they are doing is right. Israel has a right to protect its people from harm at the hands of terrorists. You could also say that Hamas has a right to protect its own people from harm in what many Palestinians perceive to be an occupation dedicated to the systematic removal of their race from Israel. Unfortunately, neither side is really preventing harm to innocents, as much as they try.Actually, the Palestinian Arabs were given several chances by their Jewish neighbours to form their own state.

First in 1948 when the Jews accepted the UN partition plan
between 1948 and 1967 they could have formed an independent Arab Palestinian state in the west Bank and Gaza when Egypt and Jordan controlled those territories. But they chose not to do so and they chose to try to conquer Israel instead.
After 1967, Israel offered to return the WB and Gaza, but not Jerusalem, to Arab control in exchange for a peace deal. But the Arabs rejected the offer out of hand.
In 2000 Ehud Barak, who was then Israel's prime minister, offered to return 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, a 3% offset for the parts of the WB that Israel proposed to keep and the sharing of Jerusalem as a capital. All Israel wanted in exchange was recognition and a formal peace deal. And yet again this was rejected.

Doesn't that tell a story? To me it means that as recently as 2000, the Arabs sstill did not want to sign a formal peace deal because that would have meant them having to give up their aspiration of destroying Israel.

If Israel responds to a rocket blast which killed 20 civilians, by itself killing Hamas and (accidentally) non-Hamas Palestinians, this can only mean more Palestinian families who grow to despise Israel. The children growing up, whose innocent fathers are killed in collateral damage, will be another generation which learns to hate Israel. This applies equally to both sides; if your parents are killed by a Hamas suicide bomber while they're visiting a restaurant, it would be challenging not to regard all Palestinians with contempt.Forgive me Kiwi but it is not appropriate to put both sides under the same umbrella. If one side uses violence, even if it is relatively low level but persistent, the other side has no choice but to respond. Sure, talking should be the first resort but what if the other side does not respond to that? Should a state like Israel be required to just tolerate the murder of it's citizens? Israel tried talking, Israel tried restraint, Israel even tried unilateral withdrawals but nothing worked. In the face of that, no other country would have responded any differently than Israel to the continuous provocations by it's enemies.

What I'm trying to say is that the morally superior side in this conflict will be able to find forgiveness, to act with humility in the face of nationalist-fueled brutality, to make an effort not to insult or injure those who have opposed them for so long. Only when we learn to forgive may we live in peace. I'm sure you'll all have substantial arguments to what I've said, but I can't make a good point without seeing these arguments, so please fire away.What you are saying is right and indeed there has been an example of that already when Sadat made his overture to Israel. He found the Israelis receptive and a peace deal was concluded.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons why this hasn't yet happened with the Palestinian Arabs:

The people have been brainwashed and radicalised for far too long
They lacked a courageous leader who would be prepared to reverse the years of brainwashing.

Of course, item 2 is by far the more important precondition for reversing the rot. But I am not all that optimistic in the short to medium term because even if such a leader would emerge, in all likelihood he would be assassinated by extremists who for now seem to sway a big proportion of the People.

However, I am more optimistic in the longer term. Why? Because sooner or later the people will tire of war and they will be forced to reconsider their past ways. As strange as it seems though, I think that the current Gaza war may actually help to bring about such change because it has caused real suffering. I am not being callous when I say that but to me it seems obvious. After all, it took two world wars for the western world to wake up how futile war is.

[Reffo]

No problems, I can understand why you can't show it but seeing that you made the generalised statement, I do reserve the right to ask you for specifics and to explain what you mean. Don't you think that's fair?
Clearing up difficult questions is ok. No reason to be offended.I hope not and I am not offended either.

In the debate I saw it became clear that the Israelis and the Palestinians always want to show they are in the right mode.
And I suppose that when you observe debates between other people who are at war with one another each side tries to show that their own side is not in the right mode?I hope you realise that my response above was with my tongue firmly in my cheek and I hope you are not offended by that either?

[Justcurious]

Reffo, no problems. I make sarcastic statements myself and they are not always understood. This happened particularly on the Ummah forum.

[pizza4theidf]

Reffo, no problems. I make sarcastic statements myself and they are not always understood. This happened particularly on the Ummah forum.

It's not just you.

All my statements were sarcastic and yet very few people seem to have realised. It can't be both of us - it could just be that people here are really stupid.

[bararallu]

It's not just you.

All my statements were sarcastic and yet very few people seem to have realised. It can't be both of us - it could just be that people here are really stupid.

Or that you are a pandering dolt who cant even keep subterfuge up for 5 posts before being called out. pathetic. With enemies like you, we can definitely relax.

[CanDo]

Welcome Kiwi

I will try to respond to your main points:



Kiwi is just another kid, with grandiose, idealistic, impractical, dreamworld ideas which never fit actual, real circumstances. Those like Kiwi NEVER study the history of a conflict, they only have simplistic ideas.

Notice, when faced by solid facts, such as you presented, he disappears? Probably off to play video games where this peacenik spends his days pretending to kill others. :rolleyes:

[Kiwi]

Kiwi is just another kid, with grandiose, idealistic, impractical, dreamworld ideas which never fit actual, real circumstances. Those like Kiwi NEVER study the history of a conflict, they only have simplistic ideas.

Notice, when faced by solid facts, such as you presented, he disappears? Probably off to play video games where this peacenik spends his days pretending to kill others.

I'm in the process of making a reply. I would like to be able to support my arguments with facts, as you say I should.

[CanDo]

Well...... shut my mouth! You returned. I assumed that you just wanted to "hit and run" like so many others.

My apology for falsely characterizing you for not returning.

Now to wait for your reply, to see if you have an open mind, capable of understanding the complexities of Middle East Muslim/Arab racism, religious intolerance, minority persecution and violence.

[Yala]

I'm only sorry I missed all the fun. I'm on West Coast time unlike most of the forum. I'm sure he is patting himself on the back for posting a Pal flag on here while smashing some windows at the anti-Israel rallies with his ISM buddies. He is really helping Palestine! :lol:

If only people who cared about Palestine would go there and build a school or a road or volunteer to teach children not to hate. Much better to break a window in a synagogue in Chicago or throw a molotov cocktail at a synagogue in Paris, or smash a policeman's head in NYC or do a Muslim prayer in front of a church in Italy. That's really going to help their "cause."