settlements are one of the principal reasons of palestinian frustration

[takeo]

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1020943245196

[sitruc37diesel]

What is the reason for these settlements?

[Mike_Blackburn]

The "settlements" are in Yesha, (the land that some call Gaza, Judea, Samaria,), this is, historically, Jewish land.
In the '67 war against the arab hordes, Israel reconquered this land.
If you look at a map of the mid-east you will see that Israel is very small in comparison to the arab countries.
Israel needs to have land for her people to live in and grow.
If the borders were returned to pre '67, Israel would only be twelve miles wide.

[Belgium@EU]

Yeah, but that's not the Palestinian problem. What if the US would say: we need more land. Let's take some from Canada and claim it ours, with brutal force.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU
Yeah, but that's not the Palestinian problem. What if the US would say: we need more land. Let's take some from Canada and claim it ours, with brutal force.

I agree, "living space" is the excuse used by the Nazis when they started their conquering spree.

Now, as for "historically" (quote from mike), the vast majority of Jews living today in Israel are sons and grandsons of immigrants. This means that the Jewish population is relatively new to the country (relative to the Arab population).

Now, while Jews do have a historical claim 2,500 years old, this DOES NOT give them the right to forcefully take land from the indigenous population. Whoever owns the land through legal purchase - is the land's owner.
When the Zionist movement was founded and Jews started immigratring to the land of Israel, they used this method (purchase) to acquire land from the Arabs. By the time of the foundation of the independant state of Israel, 600,000 Jews wre living in the land, 90% of them immigrants. They all found a place to live under the sun without evicting a single person.

For some unknown reason (pure hatred?), the arab nations and Palestinians were not content with the presence of the new state and initiated a war against it - that's where all the problems that we face today began: occupied territories, refugees, terror attacks, etc.

However, Belgium@EU and takeo, if we agree on "settlements are one of the principal reasons of palestinian frustration"
we must also agree on two other issues:

1. Frustration cannot justify the initiation of violent campaign. The second Intifadah is a planned Palestinian reaction to the failure of Camp David summit. regardless of the reasons for the failure, Arafat's strategy is "if you cannot negotiate it - fight for it" Israel MUST NOT support such a strategy by unilateral actions. Arafat and the Palestinians must learn they cannot gain political achivements with the use of violence.

2. "Palestinian right of return is THE principal reasons of Israeli frustration" - You cannot turn the wheel of time backwards. Israel is a Jewish state and must remain so. It cannot alow the entrance of Palestinians to its territory becasue this means it will compromise its Jewish nature.

[takeo]

thanks blackburn for being so honest. This kind of nazist ideology is, according to me, the principle reason for the conquest of those territories gained after israel started the war of 1967, not security.

Sharonbm, i agree totally with you that the war in 1948 was a big mistake, yet as you said yourself, it is better not to evict nobody, a lost war is still no reason to deny refugees who fled the war the right to return because their leaders lost the war. This is illegal and a war-crime and a big mistake as well for which israel is still paying. Israel will remain a jewish state even if mosr refugees would return (they won't, only a minority if some reasonable compromise is elaborated, which israel refuses untill today), israel would still have a Jewish majority and be primarily (but not purely, which is not necessary unless you are a nazi) a Jewish country.

Palestinians, faced with so much problems and with occupation and colonisation, had the right to start the armed struggle according to me, certainly the first intifadeh. And if israel refused to make any real negociation in camp david (which was a proposal to leave or to take, no negociation) it is understandable that Pal frustration grew, especially as oslo had been boycotted by people as netanyahu and colonies never stopped to be build. don't forget that israeli colonies and occupation are supported by violence as well, on the israeli side.

I agree with your views on the colonies

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU
Yeah, but that's not the Palestinian problem. What if the US would say: we need more land. Let's take some from Canada and claim it ours, with brutal force.


Because, you blockhead, that border dispute was settled 150 years ago. "54-40 or fight" was a campaign slogan in 1844. That election was won by James K. Polk. The dispute which could have lead to war with England, was settled at the 49th parallel in 1846. Polk was the architect of Manifest Destiny, A kind of mutation of the Monroe Doctrine which expanded greatly the size of the US; adding Texas, California, the Oregon territories. And before you go all ignorant on me, the Mexican war was settled in 1848 whereby the Mexicans ceeded California and New Mexico to the US for 15 million dollars. It would be 4 more years before the Gadsen purchase rounded out the border between Arizona and Mexico. In the meantime California was made a state.

When the US thought it could use Alaska it bought it from the Tzar for ~6 million dollars. It was called Seward's folly because no one thought it had any value whatsoever.

Prior to that of course in 1803 it bought Louisiana from the French which effectively tripled the size of the US at that time.

[sharonbn]

takeo,

You give a textbook example of Palestinian inflexibilily and unwillingness to compromise and incapability to consider Israel's security and national needs.

Palestinian official demand for right of return, as presented in Camp David, was for the return of 1.5 Million refugees to pre-67 Israel over a period of 10 years (150,000 anually). Given the present natural growth of the Arabs - in 2020, Israel would no longer have a Jewish majority.
Israel agreed to accept a total of 10,000 refugees for humane reasons such as family reunion. Israel suggested other solutions (monatery compansation, relocation to Palestinian state, etc.)

As I said before - the Palestinian main line of thinking is "everything should return 100% to pre-67 situation". Everything - borders, people, homes - Everything.
The Palestinians *TOTALLY* disregard all developments that occured in the last 35 years. This is an unrealistic line of thinking that cuases the inflexibility of Palestinian diplomacy and the frustration of Israelis.

Israel will never *ever* accept Palestinian refugees in mass numbers inside its pre-67 territory. This is an absolute red line that can never be crossed. Israelis do not want Palestinians as citizens of the Zionist state of Israel. If this is racism - so be it.
Until Palestinians realise that time cannot be turned back - there will never be peace between the two nations.
I choose to live on my sword then to let my country be ran down by Palestinians.

I cannot accept and I am appalled by your justification of the Palestinian terror attacks.
Palestinians are "facing so much problems"? then they should come up with creative new solutions for moving ahead with the peace negotiations. That's what they *should* do. given their narrow, unrealistic, infelxible line of thinking, maybe that's too much to ask.

Even if you decide to start an "armed struggle" you can still retain a human face:
If the Palestinians targeted millitary targets - I would think differently.
If the Palestinians targeted targets in the occupied territories (claiming they are fighting for their land) - I would think differently.

I try and try and cannot see ANY justifications for terror attacks in Jerusalem city center, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Haifa, etc. deliberately targeting defenseless civillians. By doing these actions, the Palestinians are destroying the justification of their cause.

If you say that Palestinians "facing so much problems" is a good enough justification for you - then we do not share the same moral standards. I have no common ground to start a civilized discussion with you.



As for the reasons for the 1967 war: a historical reminder:

1. Gammel Abed Naser - Egyptian president closed the Tiran straits to ships bound to Eilat seaport on Apr 67. This efectively closed Israel's access to the red sea. This act constitues a de-facto declaration of war - according to UN charter.

2. The same Egyptian president evicted the UN forces occupying Sinai desert since 1957, and moved three armed divisions to within firing range of the Israeli border.

3. On May 67, Egypt and Syria signed a military protection pact. In practical terms, the pact allowed Egyptian and Syrian generals to plan a joint strike against Israel.

4. Syrian harassements of Israeli settlements along the sea of Gallilee increased dramatically on Apr-May 67.

Giving the above circumstances, Israeli government came to the conclusion that a joint Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel was imminenet.
Israel decided launched a preemptive strike.

[Vic]

Originally posted by sharonbn
I try and try and cannot see ANY justifications for terror attacks in Jerusalem city center, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Haifa, etc. deliberately targeting defenseless civillians. By doing these actions, the Palestinians are destroying the justification of their cause.
I'm sorry to say so, but not in everyone's eyes. In my part of the world such attacks do help to promote the Palestinians' issues and positions.



As for the reasons for the 1967 war: a historical reminder:

1. Gammel Abed Naser - Egyptian president closed the Tiran straits to ships bound to Eilat seaport on Apr 67. This efectively closed Israel's access to the red sea. This act constitues a de-facto declaration of war - according to UN charter.

2. The same Egyptian president evicted the UN forces occupying Sinai desert since 1957, and moved three armed divisions to within firing range of the Israeli border.

3. On May 67, Egypt and Syria signed a military protection pact. In practical terms, the pact allowed Egyptian and Syrian generals to plan a joint strike against Israel.

4. Syrian harassements of Israeli settlements along the sea of Gallilee increased dramatically on Apr-May 67.

Giving the above circumstances, Israeli government came to the conclusion that a joint Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel was imminenet.
Israel decided launched a preemptive strike.
What you write basically supports the theory that the war of 1967 was not a defensive war in the formal sense.

[sitruc37diesel]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Israel will never *ever* accept Palestinian refugees in mass numbers inside its pre-67 territory. This is an absolute red line that can never be crossed. Israelis do not want Palestinians as citizens of the Zionist state of Israel. If this is racism - so be it.
Until Palestinians realise that time cannot be turned back - there will never be peace between the two nations.
I choose to live on my sword then to let my country be ran down by Palestinians.
[/B]

Huh?

You're right. That is definitely racist and/or religionist. (is "religionist" a word?)

Unless somebody contradicts you soon, my support of Israel is greatly reduced. That's just F'ed up if Israel is a religion-based state masquerading as if it's the 51st state of the USA. In your view, the Bill of Rights wouldn't fly there.

Europe certainly found out the hard and bloody way that a religion-based state just screws up religion for everybody except those getting rich and powerful off it. The first guy who translated the Bible into English (William Tyndale) was killed for it. Wonderful stuff.

I hope and pray (and believe) that the majority of Israelis do not agree with you that their country should be one based on prejudice.

And if you "choose to live on" your "sword" then it would appear that you value the lives of innocent Israelis more than the lives of innocent Palestinians. If you and others are willing to KILL to keep Palestinians out of Israel . . . ****. that's just ****ed up.

Would you keep Eskimos out of Israel too?
Would you keep Samoans out of Israel?
Would you keep Finns out of Israel?
Would you keep Malaysians out if Israel?
How about Apaches?
How about Basques?
How about Buddhists?
How about Laplanders?
How about Australian Aboriginies?
How about Peruvians?
How about Texans?
How about Tibetans?
How about [insert name of religion or ethnic group here] ?

Here in North America, after much struggle, lots of people from diverse locations around the globe have gradually figured out how to live in peace. Ideally it should be that way everywhere. Granted, most Islamic countries (and apparently Israel in your opinion) aren't there yet. But progess is being made.

[Mediocrates]

America is 84% Christian, 60% white and 90% English speaking.

Israel is the Jewish state. If you can't get comfortable with that then by all means go bang your head on the wall and think warm thoughts of violent multiculturalism.

[Mediocrates]

"What you write basically supports the theory that the war of 1967 was not a defensive war in the formal sense."


Politics is not algebra if it were then any country in war that loses more people than the other side would be by your equation the winner. What kind of blockheadedness is it that someone has to be killed off to justify self defense.

Good thing you don't work in a battered womens' shelter.

[sitruc37diesel]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
America is 84% Christian, 60% white and 90% English speaking.

Israel is the Jewish state. If you can't get comfortable with that then by all means go bang your head on the wall and think warm thoughts of violent multiculturalism.

America is not a Christian state. America is not a white state. America is, however, an English speaking state, but that's a reasonable request that's almost always accomodated without complaint.

I don't think there are no Christian states anymore. There are Islamic states, but they're recognized as such and looked down upon for it. The US supports Israel vehemently in popular opinion, militarily, and financially.

That in this day in age, Israel apparently wants to be ethnically/religiouslyy pure bothers the snot out of me. Americans look down upon Islamic states that try to be purely Islamic. Americans support Israel because they think that Israel is a modern free country in a sea of violent prejudicial Islamic countries.

I'm not talking about enforcing multiculturalism. I just think that ideally restrictions should not be placed upon people based solely on their religion or genes. (race)

[cerulean]

Originally posted by sitruc37diesel


That in this day in age, Israel apparently wants to be ethnically/religiouslyy pure bothers the snot out of me. Americans look down upon Islamic states that try to be purely Islamic. Americans support Israel because they think that Israel is a modern free country in a sea of violent prejudicial Islamic countries.

I'm not talking about enforcing multiculturalism. I just think that ideally restrictions should not be placed upon people based solely on their religion or genes. (race)

Israel is about 20-25% Arab. Hardly a model of religious purity. Furthermore, Israel has allowed considerable family reunification of outside Arabs to join their families in Israel, although the program has been curtailed lately due to abuse.

The Law of Return (to simplify) allows many non-Jews in. A large minority of the Russian emigrants are not Jewish.

Israel admitted a number of Kosovar refugees (Muslims), despite being a tiny country with limited resources and the need to spend much on them on fighting terrorism.

By providing refuge for Jews from all over the world, Israel was able to absorb hundreds of thousands of Jews who were expelled from Arab lands in the aftermath of the 1948 war. Israel is doing way more than its share, proportionally, than any other country to aid refugees.

[Mediocrates]

not pure but a jewish state all the same...

Look where I live there are blue laws so you can't shop, including shop for a car on Sundays. That's a Baptist inspired law enforced for all. There are no bars and liquor sales are strictly controlled. That's a Baptist law. There is no gambling, mo lotteries, no bingo. That's a Baptist law. Well ok so I live in the Bible Belt, but their religious beliefs are written into law and enforced for all. This is what is meant by a Jewish state. Now certainly there is friction today between religious Jews and secular Jews about those very points but there is at least there is some basis for negotiation - and since most Israelis are secular or weakly religious anyway it's not, as it seems to appear to outsiders a simple issue of religious hegemony in Israel. It's never been a case of "Orthodox or you leave the country". But in so far as there is a common ground for all Jews to agree on and those things are applied equally for all Israelis - that is the kind of Jewish state we're talking about.

Next time you can't buy beer at the grocery store after midnight on Satuday tell me about the racist repressive policies of Christian America.

[cerulean]

Would you keep Eskimos out of Israel too?
Would you keep Samoans out of Israel?
Would you keep Finns out of Israel?
Would you keep Malaysians out if Israel?
How about Apaches?
How about Basques?
How about Buddhists?
How about Laplanders?
How about Australian Aboriginies?
How about Peruvians?
How about Texans?
How about Tibetans?
How about [insert name of religion or ethnic group here] ?

All of these can go to Israel, provided they meet ONE of the following criteria:

They are Jewish by birth.
They convert.
They are married to Jews.
Meet some set of other requirements (a limited option).

Any of the above are possible for the persons mentioned.

[takeo]

Those criteria are indeed pure racism, and makes israel a racist state, so the un-conference dubbed by you as "anti-semitic" was right all the way.
A country in a modern democrratic society can refuse or allow people on ground of citizenship and territory they/their family or ancestors were born, NOT race. Australia did this immigration policy untill the 70's untill the high court ruled against those racist immigration-policy. In Israel it is even worse because only one race is allowed AND people born in the country and living there for generations are not allowed based upon ther race/religion. This makes israel a racist nation, no doubt about that.

Another fact is the religion, in any modern Western European state religion and state are separated, and all religions have the same status. The last country in western Europe to have a state-religion that could influence laws was Spain, untill it changed from fascism to democracy in the 80's. Today the US and Europe are questioning Russia because it tries to impose Russian orthodoxy as the state-religion...
in a country were not all people are Jewish (and not all Jewish people are religious) it is not democratic to impose jewish-religious laws to the whole nation. this reminds me of fundamentalist states in islam-countries, even in Turkey Islam has no different status than other religions are no laws are inspired by Islam. So all those pro-zionist people (and people supporting the Christian majority in the states) should think twice before attacking all Arabs to be "fundamentalists"!

OK, israel has a law of return, but this only ammplies for maybe less than 1% of the etnic cleansed people. of course BS, it will not make israel less racist in the eyes of the world. By the way in most arab countries jews were not evicted, they went themselves(ok, they were not treated well since 1948), many Egptian Jews as late as the 60's, and in Morocco and Tunisia still many Jews are living.

"Politics is not algebra if it were then any country in war that loses more people than the other side would be by your equation the winner. What kind of blockheadedness is it that someone has to be killed off to justify self defense. "

ANYONE who launched the first strikes for whatever reason STARTED the war, i hope we will not have to discuss again about this obvious fact. By the way many more palestinians and Arabs were killed than Israeli in both 1967 and 1973 (a war the Arabs started).

[takeo]

Sharonbm,


"You give a textbook example of Palestinian inflexibilily and unwillingness to compromise and incapability to consider Israel's security and national needs. "

No, in your last post YOU just gave an example of israeli inflexibility to discuss the refugee-problem. Palestinians don't ask ALL the refugees to come back, as that would bring the jewish majority in problem, altough they have the right to do so according to international laws and UN-resolutions.
You show an incapability to consider the palestinian problems and national needs ( refugees are high on the palestinian problem list)

"Palestinian official demand for right of return, as presented in Camp David, was for the return of 1.5 Million refugees to pre-67 Israel over a period of 10 years (150,000 anually). Given the present natural growth of the Arabs - in 2020, Israel would no longer have a Jewish majority.
Israel agreed to accept a total of 10,000 refugees for humane reasons such as family reunion. Israel suggested other solutions (monatery compansation, relocation to Palestinian state, etc.) "

10000 is the same as zero, peanuts and laughable. if israel was recently able to take in more than 1 million of russians, what does mean 1.5 palestinians spread over a period of 10 years? (even more considered the huge importance for achieving peace) 1.5 million palestinians more doesn't mean a palestinian majority, not even at a very high birthrate (nobody by the way is prohibiting jews to have more children as well, and for sure there will come more jewish immigrants to israel in the near future when peace is established) and not even in 50 years. The israeli economy needs them, as prooven by the influx of foreigners from low-wage countries.

"As I said before - the Palestinian main line of thinking is "everything should return 100% to pre-67 situation". Everything - borders, people, homes - Everything.
The Palestinians *TOTALLY* disregard all developments that occured in the last 35 years. This is an unrealistic line of thinking that cuases the inflexibility of Palestinian diplomacy and the frustration of Israelis. "

No, that's absolutely their right to do so. Israel already took more than 70 % of the original historical palestine, the palestinians have the right to claim what was illegally occupied, they have strong international and judicial backing for doing so. The right is with them in this matter. However palestinians are more reasonable and flexible than most israeli ("jerusalem will eternally be the undivided capital of Israel", blabla) , even if they have full rights to ask back ALL as you claim, they are prepared to discuss some border issues, some areas can be given to israel on the conditon that some parts of israel would go to palestine in return. They are also prepared to discuss about the Jewish Holy sites and neighbourhoods in the Palestinian part of jerusalem.


"Israel will never *ever* accept Palestinian refugees in mass numbers inside its pre-67 territory. This is an absolute red line that can never be crossed. Israelis do not want Palestinians as citizens of the Zionist state of Israel. If this is racism - so be it. "

Yes, it is, and if this is the red line than your unreasonable racist views will be responsible for many more years of bloodshet and war, don't complain to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Until Palestinians realise that time cannot be turned back - there will never be peace between the two nations.
I choose to live on my sword then to let my country be ran down by Palestinians. "

israel will not be run down by 1.5 million palestinians (by the way that's still a minority among all the etnic cleansed palestinians, more or less 4 million of them), but if you prefere to live in an state with as few possible palestinians as possible, than you will have to live on your sword for a very long time to come because of your inflexible views.

"I cannot accept and I am appalled by your justification of the Palestinian terror attacks.
Palestinians are "facing so much problems"? then they should come up with creative new solutions for moving ahead with the peace negotiations. That's what they *should* do. given their narrow, unrealistic, infelxible line of thinking, maybe that's too much to ask. "

they have proposed many creative new solutions, some of them mentioned by yourself. But israel is not flexible to use your own words, they don't care about un-resolutions and international laws and they are not prepared to do major concessions. (as the palestinians did by recognising israel and not demanding anymore the right of return of all refugees)
israel used terror too, many times, the occupation is a terror of more than 25 years, and building settlements happened with military force. The palestinian violence is just a legitimate answer to this and israeli refusal to negociate.

"Even if you decide to start an "armed struggle" you can still retain a human face:
If the Palestinians targeted millitary targets - I would think differently.
If the Palestinians targeted targets in the occupied territories (claiming they are fighting for their land) - I would think differently. "

aha, here i agree with you, as you know i am very much against targetting unarmed civilians inside israel, those people are not responsible and can not be ion purpose ncluded in the war, in fact targetting them is without any doubt a war-crime (as well as targetting palestinian civilians). However those assaults are mostly conducted by palestinian extremist groups who do not represent the PA nor the palestinian people. However i agree they could do more to stop this, but this is difficult facing the current slaughter against palestinians, to persuade palestinians to stop attacking civilians. Fanatism and years of injustice brings fanatism on the other side as well.

"I try and try and cannot see ANY justifications for terror attacks in Jerusalem city center, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Haifa, etc. deliberately targeting defenseless civillians. By doing these actions, the Palestinians are destroying the justification of their cause. "

I agree

"If you say that Palestinians "facing so much problems" is a good enough justification for you - then we do not share the same moral standards. I have no common ground to start a civilized discussion with you. "

It is a justification for a war against the occupation-force and colonisers(and responsible politicians), not against an entire people.



"As for the reasons for the 1967 war: a historical reminder:

1. Gammel Abed Naser - Egyptian president closed the Tiran straits to ships bound to Eilat seaport on Apr 67. This efectively closed Israel's access to the red sea. This act constitues a de-facto declaration of war - according to UN charter. "

no, this is not a justified reason for war i think. could you show me where this is stated in the UN-charter? if it would be than iraq has the right to attack the us and the israeli closure of palestinian cities is a reason for war too. Israel could negociate this problem in the un-security council and search a solution.

"2. The same Egyptian president evicted the UN forces occupying Sinai desert since 1957, and moved three armed divisions to within firing range of the Israeli border. "

this is their right to do so within their own borders, north korea has not the right to attack the us because 50000 us-troops are near its border and sometimes mobilised for "exercice". Maybe Egypt knew an israeli strike was coming, and this could also be the reason for the Egyptian-syrian PROTECTION pact.


"Giving the above circumstances, Israeli government came to the conclusion that a joint Egyptian-Syrian attack on Israel was imminenet.
Israel decided launched a preemptive strike."

They could have waited and prepared for war, it would have spared israel a lot of international condamnation.
israel could "come to the conclusion" but this is no reason for war, only for preparing the defense-forces and mobilising the country.
Every country that attacks first is considered the aggressor.
What's more it is a common tactic also used by hitler and Japan to start an offensive war because "the other site is preparing for war"