quote: Police reported rioting in Neve Dekalim, the largest of the settlements, around the time troops closed the crossings. At one point, about 300 people were involved, police said. But the situation was reported to be calm by 2:30 a.m. Monday.
In the southern Gaza settlement of Kfar Darom and the central settlement of Netzarim, police said Palestinian militants were shooting at settlers who remain.
While many settlers express religious fervor and a belief that Gaza is part of the historic Jewish homeland, some secular Israelis expressing nationalist sentiment have come to fight the pullout.
One of their chief arguments: That leaving Gaza after years of terrorist attacks by Palestinian militant groups will only reward terrorism and lead to similar tactics by groups wanting to destroy Israel.
In a news conference Saturday, senior Hamas member Ismail Haniyye called the withdrawal a "retreat" and said it was "a result of resistance and our people's sacrifice."
"It is evidence that resistance is able to achieve our national goals," he said.
Judging from what the Hamas guy said, I'd say the argument that the pullout looks like a victory for the terrorists has some merit. However, considering the territory is still occupied lands, I don't think they should have settled there to begin with.
I was hoping it'd be peaceful, and no one has been hurt yet. I hope it stays that way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pictures from the prayer rally (at the Wall) on the 11th: Link Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What are they praying for? For the withdrawel to be peaceful? For the conflict to finally be over? For victory?
Or all for their own reasons?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I didn't do a survey. But I think all of the above.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wasn't sure if it was an organized rally for the specific purpose of praying for one thing, or if it was just an in general prayer thing.
Never been there, don't know the rules. Sorry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, it was an organized rally. But I don't know how it was publicized -- and in fact, I would imagine that it was publicized by a number of different groups, with different agendas.
To me, that's part of what made it so beautiful. Looking at those picture I see people in orange, and people who are just there to pray for peace -- in whatever form it takes.
But they were all there to beseech the heavens for peace, and so many that not only was the Kotel and the plaza filled, so were all the places above that look down upon it, and streets in every direction. On that day, the politics of whether the pullout is wrong or right were set aside, and all joined together to pray for peace, in our time, in our land.
May our prayers be answered.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Amen...for there, and for here in the US.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Lyhawn, these territories were obtained 38 years ago, and according to international agreements Israel was committed to withdraw from territories some day in the future, and not from the territories - hence there was nothing wrong in settling there.
Hopefully this will involve a minimal amount of violence.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's been 140 years now, when is the US going to pull out of the occupied territories in the south?
Yankees shouldn't be settling down there anyway.
Pix
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
quote: Hopefully this will involve a minimal amount of violence.
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Though I wish it were different.
My dad listens to Reshet Bet on his computer all day long, now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Beanny - The area is still considered occupied by the international community, and most especially by the Palestinians. Regardless of what is right and wrong, it seems silly to settle an area that is considered to be contested. It would have been far more prudent to wait until the matter was settled before moving in, thus, their complaints seem built on a foundation of misguided actions.
And define the difference in "Israel was committed to withdraw from territories some day in the future, and not from the territories "
Why is "from" and "the" in bold?
Pixiest -
Which territories do you mean? Technically, all of the USA is seized territory from some group or another, or are you just referring to the states below the Mason Dixon, post Civil War?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyrhawn: I'm refering to the occupied states of the Confederacy. After all, they were seized in a war so that makes them occupied territories. And given that the North started the war by refusing to remove garrisons in the newly independant South, they have less of a claim on them than Israel has on Gaza which was seized in a war they did not start.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Incredibly different circumstances, I'm not even sure if the two are comparable.
The war between the north and the south was a war of saving the union/independence and also to free the slaves (for some).
The six-day war was Israel's pre-emptive strike on Egypt which erupted into an all out (though short lived) war, at the end of which Israel seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip. The war was certainly a nice excuse to seize the West Bank from Jordan.
As far as the validity of their claim, it's really a moot point. The point is, it seems rather stupid to me to send 8,500 settlers into a land of extremely pissed off, hostile Palestinians which out number them by well over a million. The Palestinians, who weren't participants in the war that stole what they consider to be their land, don't care about the validity of Israel's claim to own the territory it stole, all they know is that they were displaced from their home land and want it back.
That's another reason by the way, that the two wars, Civil and Six Day, don't match up.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Really, your painfully obvious anti-Israel bias is colouring your judgement. How on earth do you conclude that "preserving the Union" is a legitimate reason for seizing and occupying territory in a war, while fighting for the very survival of a Jewish homeland is not? The only difference is that the first is mantra that has been pounded into the American psyche like a quasi-religious dogma for generations.
The territories that Israel seized were strategically necessary for its survival among the surrounding hostile Arab nations. The creation of Jewish settlements in the area were a means to cement their control over those areas that were vital to its survival.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Lyhawn, I don't know how much research you've done on the 1967 war, but you obviously got some critical points wrong. Yes, Israel started the war, but the only alternative is that several months later (who knows, maybe even weeks) it would already have been forced into war, and under worse conditions. Elaboration:
The Syrians - were constantly attacking Israeli territories, including civilians, including Israeli forces guarding its solemn source of drinking water - Lake Kinnereth, depriving Israel from rights stated in 1949 and 1955. Do you know haw far away was the Syrian Border from the Lake? Make a guess. 10 miles? Nah, less. 8 miles? Less, this isn't Eminem. Try again...nope, wrong again. The length was 10 meters. Israel HAD to expand its border near the Lake because otherwise its source of water and citizens living near it would be in constant danger. Moreover, the Syrians attempted to channel the Jordan river to the Yarmuch in Jordan. Look at the map, and you’ll see that this means cutting down the Lake’s water supply. Israeli forces terminated the action, but it took a very long time.
The Egyptians – well, there's just too much for one post. I'll try and make this short: 1. Moving almost all of is forces into Sinai and demanding the UN forces leave at once. This is a brutal violation of the 1956 international agreements. Look at a map and see how close it is. 2. Closing all ways into the Red Sea, therefore disconnecting Israel from the Pacific - the Isthmus of Tiran and the Suez Canal. Any Israeli transportation or any ships/planes going to Israel are captured by the Egyptians. 3. The Egyptian President (yeah right..."elections" in Egypt...) himself declaring that if Israel wants war - then "Ahalan veSahalan", and he'll crush the Israelis like bugs, or something of the sort. 4. According to “The Czech Deal”, between Egypt and the USSR, Egypt re
Jordan, since 1948, did not fulfill their part of the agreements – lots of problems of movement around Jerusalem, which usually ended with the deaths of armed forces of both sides, and of Israeli citizens. Here’s an anecdote, not sure if it’s true or not: an old lady lived in the vertical street to the border between Jordan and Israel. She put her false teeth in a glass of water on the window, and the glass fell to the street…it took several hours of negotiation until the Israeli were allowed to pick up the teeth.
Jordan, Egypt and Syria signed on a military pact. The power struggle between Arab countries was increasing, meaning each country wanted to prove they were “meaner” to Israel than the other.
Jordan’s army became submitted to an Egyptian General in case of war. This means a substantial threat pf invasion from the east.
Both Israel and the US tried to solve problems diplomatically. It didn’t work.
So a war started. And it was a war of survival.
And now, about the Palestinians being victims of the conquest of other Arab countries and the Israelis. I’ll tell you a secret – they became refugees without the help of anyone. In 1947 it was decided that two states shall stand in Palestine-Country-of-Israel – a Jewish one and an Arab one. The Jewish part – 55% of the land, and the Palestinians – 45%. I’m not saying that eventually the Palestinians should never have any territories of their own, but like I’ve said several times in this forum – but they said “it’s all or nothing“ and got zoot. And when they had opportunities later, they foolishly overruled them, elected murderous madmen like Yasser Arafat, believing that one day the will manage to wipe out Israel from its Jews and establish one Palestinian state on all of Israel’s territory. So yeah, in order to maintain peace, Israel must disengage from the Gaza strip, and from PART of the West Bank. But that’s only because there is no way on the long run to stop terror. But true peace won’t exist for a long time. Decades is my optimist guess.
It’s interesting that people are so eager to blame Israel for conquest while these lands are legally ours, and yet never mention the Brits in Falkland Island, which has nothing to do with them.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
And I'll second dh - the settlements were vital for survival. The Gaza strip is controversial, but the West Bank - to risky to leave. If we leave, then like I said - only parts of it. And it will take a long time before we Israel can do that, you can see how the terrorists are so merry about their success.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Japan said the same thing when it seized Siberia, and when it seized Manchuria. Yet for some reason those whiney Chinese seemed to have a problem with it. Can't imagine why.
And no, I'm not a real big fan of Israel a lot of the time.
Following the Civil War however, there was a period of reconstruction in which the north helped to rebuild the south. Where are the Israelis helping out the Palestinians? To which some would argue, the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, so they couldn't offer the help if they wanted to (which they don't). Well, what do you expect, you're living on what they consider to be their lands.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Israel isn't seriously threatened by anyone in the region. They have modern weapons, financed by the West, and the US would never let an Arab power around them invade or cut off their supplies/water/food whatever. That excuse worked in 67 maybe, but it doesn't work now.
The Israelis didn't much seem to care about what happened to the millions of Palestinians who suffer as a result of their actions, thus, I'm not inclined to care very much for the woe of Israel.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Japan had expansionist imperial ambitions. Israel has, since it's creation, been fighting for its very survival. If you don't see the difference there, or if you can't even recognize the formidable restraint that Israel has shown towards the people who have been ruthlessly attacking it, one might wonder whether you are really evaluating the situation in good faith.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Oh my.
Israel is no longer seriously threatened by anyone in the region because they took action to ensure they wouldn't be by occupying and annexing strategic territories that would ensure their security, including Gaza and the West Bank. If they let these territories go to the Palestinian Arabs, they would be threatened again, now wouldn't they?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, not really; they'd never allow a military buildup there, and they've ensured a supply of oil, which was a large part of the motive for territory seizure.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Don't you think it's a tad bit easier to prevent a military buildup in a particular location if you have a certain measure of control over the area?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe the terms they're pulling out under give them significant observatory ability.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
The big trouble will start in 23 hours' time. But that's only this wave. The guys up in Samaria are far more fanatical - mostly the scum of the fascists. Frankly? I have no sympathy for them (the fascist bastards amongst them), and if they are forced to be pulled out by their ears - they deserve it.
If East Jerusalem is to be under question - then the trouble really begins. That's when the real civil war will start. That day seems closer and closer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Holy crap. Fugu, you and I at least partially agree on something. It's amazing.
And by the way, if you listened to what Japan was actually saying when they were expanding, it was that the west was cutting off their resources, and they wouldn't survive without them, thus they attacked to get them. My point isn't to call Israel expansionist, it's that people tend to say whatever they need or want to say to get what they want.
Either way, I don't for a moment believe that giving the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians would make Israel more unsafe than it already is. There is no military in the area that could challenge them. If anyone started to buildup, they would probably destroy them, or exert pressure to get them to stop.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
But it won't necessarily make Israel safer. The one thing it may do is stop extremism in "Religious Zionism", which reached peaks no less serious than Islam extremists.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
And by the way, if you want the best coverage - go to <www.haaretzdaily.com>.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Israel isn't seriously threatened by anyone in the region.
All you have to do is look at a map of the Middle East to realize naive of a statement that is.
quote: and the US would never let an Arab power around them invade or cut off their supplies/water/food whatever.
Which is of course why Israel has been invaded by Arab powers since 1967, right? Ignoring history is not going to work here.
Whose land is Israel occupying? The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never allocated to either Jordan, Egypt, nor any other Arab country or group and yet its Jordan and Egypt they were taken away from in a war that the Arabs started. Yes, technically, Israel launched the first strike, but they did so because the Mossad picked up intelligence (that proved to be correct) that said Egypt was going to invade Israel and they were in the process getting Jordan, Syria, and others to go along. To argue that Israel attacked first is the equivalent of saying the United States initiated the war with Germany in 1917 even after the Zimmerman Telegram was intercepted.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
The territories are not annexed though, that's the key point. Neither Gaza, NOR THE WEST BANK. Israel doesn't want them annexed - lest Palestinians gain voting rights. And why would our corrupt, bigoted government want that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not naive. Israel has a ton of Western made weapons, and they are arguably the most highly trained military force in the region. Perhaps only Saudi Arabia has the military power to seriously challenge them, but with a major US base sitting on their door step, it wouldn't take much chatter from Washington to stifle any serious discussion of attack.
If the US can decimate the Iraqi army in 1990, an Iraqi army and air force which was also arguably one of the best in the Middle East, without any real substantial loss, I don't really fear for Israel's chances at warfare anywhere in the region. And you can bet as soon as anyone crosses a border there will be US planes in the air flying to bomb the crap out of them.
To say nothing of the fact that few in the world doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons. And given how trigger happy they are, I don't doubt they'd use them.
The IDF decimated its opponents in the Six day war, and stopped Egypt from making any progress in the Sinai in the "war of attrition" between 68-70. They also won fairly handily in the October war in 73.
Who has seriously challenged the existance of Israel recently?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: To say nothing of the fact that few in the world doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons. And given how trigger happy they are, I don't doubt they'd use them.
Sure, who would Israel use nuclear bombs on? It makes no sense unless it's a nation as far away as North Korea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Turkey could take 'em, but Turkey has no particular interest in doing so.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Yeah, well, fist let's hope the US and Israel remain allies, then talk about Turkey.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pro-Israel lobbys are too strong in the US for them not to be allies. And despite the fact that I dislike a great deal of the things the Israeli government does, Israel is the only real stable, free democracy over there, and I think we should support them.
Why wouldn't they bomb Cairo? or Damascus? They wouldn't face any serious risk of fallout.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Israel is taking all steps nessasary to maintain their national security without going overboard, all the more power to them.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Israel is the only real stable, free democracy over there
Cyprus.
quote: Why wouldn't they bomb Cairo? or Damascus?
With NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Are you insane?! And Sid, any more power to Israel can be problematic. Despite being a powerful nation in the area, despite powerful military and state-of-the-art technology (sometimes even surpassing the US's), there's far more to it. Remember that this nation is almost falling apart socially, and the "almost" can be scrapped off the board soon, if this situation continues.
The economical, educational and social stati in Israel are simply depressing. I'm lucky to be (at least for now) on the safe side of the line. But don't think that Israel is using its powr wisely. The nation is being undermined from several points of view, and we're talking big-time trouble here.
Money and power is wasted here. The pullout is a waste of money; sure, it's necessary, but if those fascist twats didn't force us t spend so much money on them, if the settlements hadn't received money underneath the table, maybe we'd finally have a little to spend on hospitals, so pipes won't be rusty and food will be clean; so schools will have room to seat all the students.
Power is wasted here. The press doesn't give you the real picture; and I'm not talking about the States alone, I mean locally. When a 15 year-old boy stabs several girls (long story) and the police is proven inefficient, unwilling to listen and ignorant - it gets 500 words in the most serious paper (Haaretz) at most. But all sorts of useless politicians saying big words get the headlines. For crying out loud, except for one serious paper (Haaretz), the rest are like comic books.
Just to give you a bit of flavour, Sid. You're good-willed, sure, I greatly appreciate your will to help the "goodies", but I'm sorry to inform you it's not really so.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Good night. May I see you in the morning.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If they were seriously threatened, no, I wouldn't be surprised if they used nukes. If it came down to "them or us" I think for sure they would use them.
As for the internal strife in Israel. I don't know what to say to that. Why don't we hear about that more often?
Would you say that trouble comes more from Israel doing this to itself? or someone doing it to them?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The outside influence is that so many countries (both in the Middle East and elsewhere) take the official position that Jews have no right to exist. It's really a combination of factors.
I take issue with you saying Jews, rather than Israel. I think a grand majority of the people of the world don't have a problem with Jews existing. As far back as Mohammed, Islam hasn't had a problem with another believer in the god of Abraham. Despite the rhetoric of many, there is a big difference between a Jew and an Israeli.
And who has any idea on what the command and control structure is for the release of Israeli nukes? Who has the authority to release them to the discretion of field commanders? Who is to say that in the event of an emergency or a panic, one of those commanders won't launch a nuke when it isn't really needed? Of the declared nuclear powers, we have an idea as to what the control apparatus is to their nukes. And we know how much to be concerned, where to push, where to worry. But Israel is a loose canon, a wild card, and that is very dangerous to the stability of the region.
Edit: Yes I realize now (after rereading my post) that it's probably a bit naive to say that most Muslims don't want to get rid of all the jews, but I think it's extremely overboard to say that that many people want to get rid of all Jews, when you should have said Israel.
[ August 15, 2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But they aren't going after Jews everywhere. Jews in America, and Western Europe are much easier targets than in Israel.
The fact that they go after them in Israel should give some credence to them being more Anti-Israeli rather than automatically Anti-Semite.
And you said Islamic extremists, which most everyone admits are the minority of Muslims, whereas you made it seem before that the entire middle east as a whole, as well as other nations, want all Jews everywhere eliminated. I think that's extreme hyperbole.
I'm not saying that there isn't anti-semitism in the world, there is. But I don't think it is as widespread as you make it sound.
Anti-Israel doesn't automatically mean Anti-Semite.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I was reading about Israel the other day (my girlfriend is jewish, so she gave me some stuff she had) and something was kind of confusing. So after all the stuff that happened in europe, a bunch of jews decided they wanted to go back to their "homeland", so they went to Palestine, and then settled there, and then they wanted an Israeli state, and they eventually got one, and yada yada yada, here we are today. My question is, why would they have even gone there to begin with if they knew it was going to stir things up, and why did they want an Israeli state, rather than just living in the country as it was? Obviously I'm lacking certain aspects of the story here, and I'm not prepared to take sides on the issues, as to me, it seems that both sides are equally responsible for any conflict today. But, were there any other reasons other than the religious ones for the jews wanting to go to palestine? I mean, if a bunch of people came into my country, then decided they wanted to take more than half of it and declare it their state, I don't know how I'd feel. I've heard the "they had no where else to go" argument, but it seems like there has to be something more to it all. And please, keep the responses bias free, I'd rather get an objective explanation. thx
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd like to hear that explanation too. I've read it in text books, but never from an Israeli.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then why not attack them in the US, it'd be a lot easier.
As far as the WTC, that to me comes off as a crackpot theory. I could rattle off a half dozen right now. New York is a fairly liberal city full of crime and sin, they might have attacked it as a symbol of US areligiousness, they might have attacked it because it was a symbol of US power, of US financial power, to get at the American Psyche, or becuase it was the largest target they could hit that would cause that much damage and create that good of a news bite for them.
There are a hundred different theories on why they chose that spot. But how many Jews are in the Pentagon, which was also attacked, in the White House and the Capitol Building where the third plane was heading?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's exactly why it'd be easier. America, despite the 9/11 still has a big case of "it won't happen to me" going on. Many, I'd say the majority of us, don't actually expect we personally will get attacked.
Buying weapons here is as easy as it is to get them on the in an open air bazaar in Mogadishu. If a hundred Islamic militants got into the country, again, not hard, and each went on a rampage they could kill more Jews in America in a day, than have been killed in Israel in the last year.
And it wouldn't be hard at all.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: My question is, why would they have even gone there to begin with if they knew it was going to stir things up, and why did they want an Israeli state, rather than just living in the country as it was?
In the 1880s and the following decades, settlers came here to mostly unsettled sand-land, and started building colonies. They did not want to stir things up with the Arabs, and many of them got along pretty well as late as the 40s. Also, remember that WWI had much effect.
quote: But, were there any other reasons other than the religious ones for the jews wanting to go to palestine?
The Zionists were actually the secular ones. The religious were opposed to speaking Hebrew and settling the land of Israel. Of course, the patriotic and nationalistic ideology slowly changed as more religious people came here after the Holocaust, and after 1967, when Religious-Zionism (a very controversial and obscure term) went to settle the lands recently conquered - it started growing more fascistically extremist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Can you expand on that? In depth if possible. I'm honestly, and seriously curious to hear the short history (that of the foundation of Israel in the last 50 years or so, and an even shorter history of the period before that) from an Israeli, as opposed to a google search or from my history book.
I only know what I read in America. I'd love to hear a conflicting argument from someone on the other side of the argument in Israel about Gaza and Israel, but I don't know how may Israelis we have on Hatrack, and I'm not knowledgable enough to host the debate.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I know almost nothing about Israel and Palestine. I've visited once and spent time in both "regions" (plus a bit in Jordan).
I have to say this:
1) Most of the Israelis I met wanted peace with the Palestinians. Only a couple voiced any animosity toward the Arabs and, at that, it was mostly over things like the temple area (which has an ancient mosque built on top of the even more ancient temple). There were a couple of older folks who said things like "they have the whole Arab world to go to, why can't they just leave" in reference to the Palestinians. But that wasn't really a common sentiment I heard expressed.
2) The Palestinians I met also wanted Peace. They hated Arafat and his cronies and thought Hamas were a bunch of lunatics. They wanted to go to school, work and earn money. Unfortunately, they harbored a lot of resentment toward Israel over things like the settlements, the road blocks, the closures, their 2nd class status, and the way their businesses were continuously ruined by all of the above. Since I saw the effects of this first hand (The town I staid in was completely shut down for two days because of a clash between nearby settlers (who were passing out a flyer with Mohammed's face on the body of a pig -- rather inciteful) and the rock throwing incident that came after it. The other thing that the Palestinians I met had against the Israelis was their practice of bulldozing the houses of anyone they even suspected of being in league with the terrorists. Since they apparently did this on flimsy evidence, and it personally affected many people in and around Hebron, it became kind of a sore point. Everyone knew someone who had lost a home for nothing. And they were serious. I mean, one guy's father spent a year in jail on suspicion of harboring terrorists, and he was a flipping chicken farmer. They let him go. No trial...ever. Just a year of his life and his house destroyed.
So...there's an element of abuse of power in how Israel has dealt with the Palestinians that, I think, has made me less sympathetic toward the government and the military there.
I loved the people.
I met a group on a kibbutz. I was taken there by my Palestinian friend. He used to work for them. It was like family to both sides. They really loved each other. In a way I couldn't have imagined before that trip.
And I just have to say, the governments on both sides have been so terrible that I imagine it's only because the vast majority of people want peace that there is any peace there at all.
IMHO.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
1) Did you go and speak to settlers while you were visiting Israel? Just like in the Palestinian world, you have fanatics on the Jwish side. They usually settle in specific settlements, and become even more extremist there - from what I know.
2) Remember that the Hammas started off by offering food, shelter and education from the poor; they didn't get support for nothing.
Oh, and mind you, I wouldn't call what I was living in a year ago peace, and I wouldn't call the current fighting peace either. But that's just me.
[ August 17, 2005, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Before I start: Lyrhawn – I was aggravated by your posts, yet it was impolite and disrespectful to phrase my response in the way I did, so I apologize. Another thing: my first post in this thread, which you asked about, meant that Israel was committed to withdraw from some of the territories, and not all of the territories.
You know what really pisses me off? The 10-14 year-olds throwing stones at soldiers, screaming at them, calling them Nazis… What do they know about ideology?! Someone ought to give them a nice spanking first! Their parents were foolish educators, and now, even those who will eventually agree to go at their own will, cannot control their children’s impulses. Even worse – the parents who ordered their children to walk like Jews being sent to Auschwitz, with their hands raised and wearing star-shaped patches. HOW DARE THEY?! The settlers cry because they leave their homes, their community, everything they’ve built and created. But had they agreed earlier on to evacuate, it could have been done much more conveniently, and maybe they could have founded new settlements in the Galilee!
The only people I feel compassion for now, are the soldiers. A fair number of them is religious, educated to believe that leaving the settlements equals betraying their country and God. Now their ideals stand to trial. Understand, that according to religion, no government is above God, and the government decision has no meaning to fundamentalists. Moreover, soldiers have to evacuate their childhood friends. So many men crying…
I hope that this move was worth it. Yes, the terrorists are sure that it’s their victory, but they can’t fight us forever. Some day, this era of terror and murder of the innocents will end, just like the Inquisition ceased to exist, just like World War II ended – this will have an end as well. And terrorists won’t brainwash their children to murder, so Israeli soldiers won’t have to kill terrorists, whose children will remain hopeless orphans, whose only hope of salvation will be to kill and revenge, and become terrorists themselves. The barriers in the territories are essential for the safety of the lives of Israeli citizens, but being there corrupts the souls of our soldiers.
Oi, this gives me a headache. Let’s all be indifferent. To copacabana, mes amigos!
[ August 18, 2005, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Beanny ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I watched some footage of the pullout last night. The Palestinians had their usual collection of dorks spouting off about Zionists, however I thought the settlers use of children to confront the soldiers was not cool.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Wow. That was the shortest and most accurate examination I ever heard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was watching some of the footage on CNN earlier today and yesterday. I had to turn it off fairly soon after I started watching. There's only so many crying soldiers and people you can watch before it drains you emotionally.
I think it's for the best that they are leaving, but I wish they didn't have to go through the anguish they are suffering.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What's crazy is that it all seems to pretty much be for nothing. All the Palestinians interviewed effectively said,"Well, it's a nice first step, but they still hold the West Bank." The West Bank holding 250,000 people and being much more built up than Gaza, I just don't see how Israel can pull out. So, if the 9,000 people being kicked out of their homes isn't going to achieve peace, and the Palestinians are just going to continue to be angry until they get everything that they want, what's the point?
Someone else last night mentioned that the real problem isn't land, it's that the Jews and the Palestinians are going to have to learn to live together or they'll forever be at war. I think this is true.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I have a few questions, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
It is now ILLEGAL for an Israeli to live in Gaza. ILLEGAL by Israel's law or illegal by Palestinian law?
Is it Illegal for a Jew to live, own land, buy land, build a synagogue or work in Palestine?
Is it Illegal for a Muslim to live, own land, buy land, buidl a synagogue or work in Israel?
Can Jews legally cross over to Palestine when they wish? Can Palesinian Muslims cross over to Israel?
And my biggest "what if"?
What if Israel decided to treat Jerusalem the same to NON-Jews (or at least Muslims as they seem to be the ones they have the problems with) as Muslims treat Mecca AND Medina to NON-Muslims?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's illegal for Israelis to live in Gaza based on the recent disengagement plan put forth by Sharon, so I'd guess it's illegal on both sides.
Palestinian Muslims can only cross into Israel if they are issues a work permit, which more often than not are revoked and the border is closed to workers.
As for acceptance, to adam613 - Most Palestinians know that there will be an Israeli state, and most, the grand majority, accept that. They don't expect everyone in Israel to pack up and leave, the whole "Drive them into the ocean" mentality hasn't been the main dominating force of their minds for years.
But what they fear now is that the Israelis are trying to drive THEM into the sea. They have nothing, they don't want everything, they want something. Israelis have everything, and to Palestinians it doesn't look like they want to give up anything. How would that effect your mentality?
I'm still confused as to why everyone refers to the occupation as "illegal" in quotations. What makes it legal or illegal to people here? The UN thinks it's illegal, or so say resolutions calling on them to pull out.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Lyrhawn, so you support the rise of the Native American to drive all White, Blacks and Orientals off the continent?
I say they get your house first.
This was a joke BTW.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
I think it's mighty unfair of you to call them 'contested territories' without mentioning where the contention came from.
quote:As far back as Mohammed, Islam hasn't had a problem with another believer in the god of Abraham. Despite the rhetoric of many, there is a big difference between a Jew and an Israeli.
Are you serious? Have you ever examined even a bit of the history of Islam? Look at the status to which People of the Book are relegated, and tell me again that Islam has no problem with other People of the Book.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I just want to say a few things, since I don't want to open up a whole thing about the legalities - which, mind you, I can do very well - but it's too tiring. And I'll be quite obscene here. Feel free to tell me to censor it later, but I've got to get this out in the first place.
EDIT: I'll only be able to censor it when I wake up. Good night (my time).
[anger]
I just want to state that when those teenage wretched bastards call the soldiers Nazis - aside from begging me to slam a knife through their throats - they are being so ****ing stupid that I can't even stand watching them. I can stand stupidity, sure, but not this human-right-depriving arrogance by those sons of bitches.
"They are pulling us out of the house like dogs", cried one woman (that crying was phoney, mind you). Hey, you know why? BECAUSE YOU'RE A DAMN ****ING BITCH! Don't you go comparing the evacuation to Birkenau. Don't start talking about how you remember the gas chambers, you stupid 25-year old. You don't know how it was, and neither do I - so stop the damn pretence. Stop being a ****ing phoney.
Hey, and while we're at it - STFU! You've had two years to protest. That's over, now shut your wretched mouth and comply with the law. You've been biting, kicking and screaming at soldiers who're just the messengers. You've been garrisoning in a synagogue and what you've been doing there has been illegal by Israeli law, unethical in so many by international cultural norms, and desacrational by fundamentalist Jewish law (which you must be, judging by your "stated ideological belief"). You have the right to STFU - anything you say can and will be used against you and your kind of people by me.
And don't you ****ING DARE call those soldiers Nazis. Tell your son, your daughter, and all their Samarian ****ing friends to do the same. My 86 year-old grandmother doesn't need to suffer all this shit and relive everything just because you feel the right to make some faked-up ****ing protest that's irrational and inappropriate and too late. She doesn't need to have you making all sorts of obscene speeches that want the rest of the rational world spit in your jackal face. The irony is that you are the fascist, right-wing extremist. You're more like the Nazis than I. You're more like the Nazis than almost all of the soldiers. You, you little bitch, are one little, arrogant, zealous piece of shit.
You've been living on our taxes for 38 years, you've been sticking your tongue up the government's arse getting out of the army service illegally, and you've been living like the Lord of the Land. If you learned anything from the Holocaust - which you, as you seem to state, know all about - it's that who once was an oligarch is next the underdog.
It's your turn now, bitch. I'm sick of your arrogance, so if you don't put your nose back down you're begging for a punch. So stop fake-crying about being deprived of privileges; if it were up so me - you'd have never been this fanatical and out of prison. You'd be in the shackles, jackal.
Oh, one last thing: orange? That's so unoriginal.
[/anger]
Jonathan
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
CStroman-
quote:Lyrhawn, so you support the rise of the Native American to drive all White, Blacks and Orientals off the continent?
Well, good luck to them. It's what, 50,000 against 300 million? On the other hand, we aren't denying the rights of the Indians to live on the lands they are currently on. Did we make mistake over the last 200 years? Yes, I don't think anyone with even a passing knowledge of America's Native American policy of the past 200 years would deny that. But we made amends, or at least we attempted to. The indoctrination schools that attempted to stamp out their way of life are over. The evangelicals roming the plains aren't government backed anymore (if they are allowed there at all, I don't know).
We realized we were wrong, we tried to fix it. I have a small amount of Native American blood in me, but I'm also distantly related to John Smith (yes, the real John Smith at the Jamestown colony). We deal with the situation we are in now, and we try to fix it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
quote:Are you serious? Have you ever examined even a bit of the history of Islam? Look at the status to which People of the Book are relegated, and tell me again that Islam has no problem with other People of the Book.
Apparently more than you have. I may not have worded what I said correctly, I didn't mean to imply that no Muslim anywhere has ever had a problem with Christianity or Judaism, or that it's always been supported by all the religious icons of the faith, but historically, Islamic ruled empires have been far kinder to Christians and Jews when they have been conquered than with conquered peoples of other faiths. There's a reason there aren't many Zoroastrians around today, even though it was at one time the dominant faith of what is today Iran.
Religions have become far more polarized in the last three hundred years than they ever were even during the time of the Crusades. Christians were far more ferverent in their attempts to convert people of other faiths to their ways than Muslims were. Muslims, many times, and even before Muslims, Arabs in general (discounting the Assyrians) were usually pretty good about letting the people they conquered continue to practice their faith, because they worshipped the God of Abraham.
If Islam were that much against the faith of Judaism, then why and how does it exist today? Islam was the dominant military force in the all of the holy lands for almost a thousands years, and still Christians and a large Jewish minority thrived and worshipped their faiths. This is long before mass migrations of Jews to Europe.
I think you are speaking more from ignorance than I am. Either that or you are focusing entirely on recent history, and not the entire history.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
adam -
quote: The illegal occupation refers to that land which was taken in 1967, because the UN says it's illegal
Well, I think it's more than just the UN saying it's illegal. What makes it legal? Might makes right? They took and and the Palestinians can't take it back so legally it's theirs? They want it, so they get it?
I don't get the arguments I've seen thus far on what Israel still needs the territories it seized in 67. I'm okay with them having everything they took before then. And I think the Palestinians, in the long run, would probably accept it too, if it meant long term stability.
Other than that, we seem to agree on much of the other stuff.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Depending on whose history you believe, the lands that are now Israel proper (not only the disputed territories captured in 1967) were peaceful before the creation of the Israeli state by the British and US.
I don't know how true that is, but it does appear that Rakeesh has a point about Arabs and Jews living peacefully side by side for a long time before WWII. Or at least showing some measure of tolerance and acceptance toward one another.
Part of the problem, however, is that the situation of Jews throughout Europe was untenable and the particular horrors of WWII that rested almost uniquely on the Jews of Europe made it plain that something needed to be done. (I almost uniquely because the Germans also gave the similar treatment to Gypsies, homosexuals and retarded individuals, but the Jews were the prime target.)
So...in the context of not believing that segregated enclaves in Europe were tenable, that a Jewish state within the borders of Europe would not be tolerated, and that the ancestral homeland was in the region then referred to as Palestine, the Brits and Americans worked out a plan. In that plan, they explicitly left unsettled the so called "Palestinian Question."
What they did was right a horrible wrong by perpetrating another one.
And in so doing, they destroyed what peaceful "balance" there was in the region.
It also did something wonderful for the Jews of the world.
I'm not sure how much better a war-weary Allied command could have done. The tendency at the time was to think globally -- brokering entire countries' populations into this or that "camp." They weren't even capable of thinking of the long term consequences of those actions, I don't believe. Or, if they were thinking of them, they lacked the will go do much about it.
In that context, Israel became a country and created a vast sea of resentment in the Arab world, plus sowed the seeds for discord between the Palestinians and the Jews in Israel.
I think the only people who can solve this are the people of Israel and Palestine. They first need an overwhelming majority in favor of peace. On both sides. Then they need leaders who are going to commit to peace and who have and retain the backing of the people. Once that type of leaderhip is in place, they need stability, not new reformation of governments every time the wind changes.
Then...they need time.
Sadly, a portion of both populations need to get old and die. For some, at least, the wounds will not heal and, really, who can blame them? But there are those among them who cannot and will never accept peace. And eventually they will die. In their place, one hopes, younger generations will grow up either with a commitment to peace, or if nothing so passionate, maybe with apathy toward war and hate.
To make this happen, however, the provocation and recruitment to hatred has to stop. Retaliation has to be no longer acceptable.
And I think both countries' people are not quite there yet.
Jonathan...your post was tough to read. I'm so sorry your country is having such a hard time. And I'm sorry there is such pain there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interestingly enough, while I do think the UN is a very valuable organization with many important roles, I also think it is a very bad failure at being a world government.
I don't think the UN has the proper structure to be able to legislate international criminality.
I do think what Israel did in that case was wrong, though.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613:
quote:I don't get the arguments I've seen thus far on what Israel still needs the territories it seized in 67. I'm okay with them having everything they took before then. And I think the Palestinians, in the long run, would probably accept it too, if it meant long term stability.
Israel certainly did need the territories in 1967 for strategical reasons. Those reasons aren't really valid anymore.
Some of them still have importance like the Old City in Jerusalem. And by the way, the reason those territories are illegal to settle in is not because the UN said so, but because all the people had to leave the Gaza Strip (and Northern Samaria) by law. The problem by those teritories is simply that Israel is settling them before they are annexed - for 38 years.
So there are limitations on that, and certain "unregistered" settlements are illegal, and do not qualify for various reasons.
JH
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I watched some footage of the pullout last night. The Palestinians had their usual collection of dorks spouting off about Zionists, however I thought the settlers use of children to confront the soldiers was not cool.
I found that very disturbing, as well.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Israel is no longer seriously threatened by anyone in the region because they took action to ensure they wouldn't be by occupying and annexing strategic territories that would ensure their security, including Gaza and the West Bank. If they let these territories go to the Palestinian Arabs, they would be threatened again, now wouldn't they?
Would Israel feel better about withdrawing if they were allowed to join NATO? Or, at the very least, sign a clearly-worded mutual defense treaty with the United States and Great Britain?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Beren, experience has taught Israel that while they can (sometimes) rely upon their allies for weapons, when the chips are down they can only rely on their own people.
So, no. NATO membership or the like will reassure little or not at all.
And for the record, while I think the Holocaust references by settlers are offensive, obnoxious, and useless, I think this pullout is WORSE than useless, and will make things worse.
*sigh* Not that I would at all mind being proven wrong . . .
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Beren, experience has taught Israel that while they can (sometimes) rely upon their allies for weapons, when the chips are down they can only rely on their own people.
That's sad but not unexpected.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And for the record, while I think the Holocaust references by settlers are offensive, obnoxious, and useless, I think this pullout is WORSE than useless, and will make things worse.
*sigh* Not that I would at all mind being proven wrong . . .
I also think that the Holocaust and pogrom references that I have seen made by the settlers are very obnoxious and an insult to people who actually went through these things. What the Gaza settlers are experiencing has very little in common with a pogrom or the Holocaust.
I do hope the pullout will make a difference, but over the years I have become quite pessimistic about the possibility that there will ever be a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
I apologize, I was not specific enough. You're right that Islam has been kinder towards Judaism than many Christian empires have been.
But by no means does that mean 'they don't have a problem with it', either. If you were a Jew in an Islamic state back in the day, you had to pay-literally-for it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Lyrhawn I was joking about the Native American thing.
That aside, your view of Islam very much appears to be tainted by large amounts of Political Correctness.
Islam very much as been since the end of it's creation a Militaristic religion. The only NON-Militaristic means of it's establishment happened during the very early years of Muhammed's Prophetship. When his teachings were rejected and not accepted his ministry turned military and it has been ever since then.
The politically correct term used today is "United" when speaking of the Arabian peninsula and Muhammed's effect on it. We are afraid today to use the term that also describes it as "Ethnic Cleansing".
And I highly recommend anyone research fully the spread of Islam to Africa, especially Egypt, Ethiopia, Spain, Turkey for sure, India, Afghanistan/Pakistan and Indonesia and the attempted Islamization of Italy, Cyprus and Greece and the so called "Bloodless" TWO year siege of Jerusalem and conquering of Jordan and Syria.
If you give a pass to Islam's History you really have to give a pass to the Conquest/Colonization of the Americas as they are pretty much the same.
Also keep in mind that the Military Islamization (not prosylited conversion) of Italy is still an unfulfilled prophecy of Islam that is considered the official duty of Muslims to fulfill (as was Turkey and Jerusalem).
All 3 major religions have checkered pasts in their establishments and spreading. Islam appears to the the one currently has is having the hardest time making the final transition to 20th century thinking on many fronts. Particularly because there are small percentage but sizable group (in the 10's of millions) who believe and act/support the military installation of a world Islamic Caliphate and the fulfillment of any outstanding military Muhammed prophecies. Also unfortunately you have a "lay member" Islamic majority that is theologically afraid to oppose their view. This is due in large part to the abundance of Muhammedic writings teachings and history affirming such beliefs and scarce to none in how to deal specifically with MUSLIMS that claim to do this in the name of Islam that others may disagree with. There is no official leader or interpreter of Islam outlined which leads to this allowance (as does in other religions).
It's this internal struggle within Islam (with no end in sight) that the world has to decide wether to stand back and let them work out and NOT react to it's effects which spill out and affect the NON-Muslim world or whether to take an active role in determining the future direction in the world that Islam takes (if that is possible).
Islam is pretty much like all religions. Don't let Dr. Badawi or Karen Armstrong put a PC spin on it.
Mithraism and Zoroastrian teachings as well as the small but ancient Mandaens are worthy of research as well. Awsome ancient history on an almost microscopic scale.
Also please read and weith the "Pact of Omar".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wasn't so much trying to defend Islam, as I was trying to place it with Christianity on the scale of militarism. Christian conquerers, especially since the end of Muslim power, have descended on every continent on the planet, and in many cases have actively proselytized and committed genocide.
Muslims are no better, but neither are they any worse. But since they have yet to come to grips with how their religion should play out in a 21st century world, they are viewed as the most violent of the three major religions.
Jews too were a militaristic people at one point in history. The land we think of as Israel now was ruled by another people (several actually) before the Isarelites arrived and conquered it for themselves.
Painting Islam as a religion of violence, compared to the passive relgions of Christianity and Judaism is misleading, and dangerously so I think. They pasts of all the world's major relgions are steeped in militaristic ventures and attitudes. Islam is no exception, but neither is it the worst offender.
Christians, historically, have been far less tolerant of other religions living in their midsts than Muslims have been.
Don't mistake my posts as trying to whitewash the history of Islam, that isn't my attempt. I'm merely attempting to temper all the posts I see on here that unfairly misinform on Islam's history.
I wish Zoroastrianism hadn't been systematically eradicated, the area would be far more peaceful now if it hadn't been.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I agree with pretty much all of your post.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I feel the need to repeat something that has seemingly been ignored over and over again. In 1948 there was no "Palestinian question" because there were no Palestinian people, it wasn't a term created until after 1967 and prior to that those people were simply Arabs living in Egypt, Jordan, or Israel without citizenship in any of those countries. In 1967 Israel did not take land from the Palestinians or even from those aforementioned Arabs. Israel did occupy land that was formerly illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt. They also took over control of the Golan Heights from Syria, but its Syria that wants that land back, not the Palestinians.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
newfoundlogic -
Technically they weren't Arabs living in Israel, as before the Balfour thing, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years. And Palestine isn't a new term, it's a very very old term that was readopted to name the people that inhabit the area once inhabited by the Philistines, who were there before the Israelites I might add.
If the land was illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan then whose land was it? Before Israel was created, all those people were still living there. Was it just wild, unclaimed land that a couple million random Arabs happened to inhabit?
Either way, isn't this argument rather a moot point? The Palestinians, or 'random Arabs' if you prefer, are there, and they aren't going anywhere else. If you want to make the point just for the sake of being correct, alright, but it doesn't really have much bearing on what is to be done now, does it?
We can split hairs over history until the end of time if we want. But before the end of time comes, we still have Palestinians, and Israelis, living on a small strip of land, struggling to exist. Understanding history helps us understand the current problem, but more often than not, history is used as a method to accuse one party or the other as being the greater offender, rather than being used as an engine to achieve understanding.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Deciding for whom one should have sympathy depends in large part upon an understanding of history.
It is worthwhile to understand that just as there hasn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years, there hasn't been a Palestine, either. Until-like Israel-very recently.
Your post about Islam, Lyrhawn, most definitely made the implication that Islam was better at treating Jews than other religions, and that they didn't have a problem with Jews (that second part you stated plainly). BUt now we shouldn't 'split hairs' about history?
And anyway, history only plays a part in things. Palestinians and those who support them have made Israel's position nearly impossible. They have successfully forced Israel to submit to terrorism, with the blindingly obvious reaction that terrorists will (rightly) claim responsibility for the submission.
My sympathy lies with the Israelis over the Palestinians because while I recognize the Palestinians are oppressed, impoverished, and without much hope, many other populations have dealt with that-and worse-without murdering lots of kids and old people and cheering about it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Honestly, I think you'd find that from the year one until today, the religion of the region of the world that treated jews best, longest, would be Islam. They had a very long, very successful period where jews were treated pretty darn well, whereas Europe didn't have even that until the late twentieth century.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Technically they weren't Arabs living in Israel, as before the Balfour thing, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years.
From 1948 until 1967 they were and that is the time period I was referring to.
quote: And Palestine isn't a new term, it's a very very old term that was readopted to name the people that inhabit the area once inhabited by the Philistines, who were there before the Israelites I might add.
I never said "Palestine" was a new term, I said "Palestinian people" was a new term. Palestine was the name the Romans gave Israel as essentially punishment for the revolts. This is why the Arabs living in Palestine weren't considered Palestinians anymore than the Jews or Christians living their until after 1967 when they decided to create a brand new national identity.
quote: If the land was illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan then whose land was it? Before Israel was created, all those people were still living there. Was it just wild, unclaimed land that a couple million random Arabs happened to inhabit?
The UN in 1948 divided Britian's mandate for the land called Palestine into two sections with Jerusalem to become an international city. Israel accepted the proposal while Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries invaded and seized the land was allocated to either what would have been international Jerusalem, Israel, or the new Arab state. I don't see how people can be willing to call Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan Heights illegal, but be willing to call what Egypt and Jordan were doing just as illegal.
quote: Either way, isn't this argument rather a moot point? The Palestinians, or 'random Arabs' if you prefer, are there, and they aren't going anywhere else. If you want to make the point just for the sake of being correct, alright, but it doesn't really have much bearing on what is to be done now, does it?
Its not moot, because it has a direct impact on any historical claim the "Palestinians" can make on the land. If you want to argue that it doesn't matter whether they have a historical claim to the land, but that since they are living their they deserve their own nation, that's fine, but then you have to accept that Israel should have a bit more say over their own borders and how they go about withdrawing the land since in reality they're the only country with any real legitimate claim to the land at the present time.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Um...I think some people need to go back and read the documents about the creation of Israel. Hmm...the word "Palestine" appears. And, oops, there were people living there! I figure if Americans can be called that by virtue of living and having been born in America, Palestinians could be called that by virtue of living and having been born in America. But hey, why take my word for it?
To all those who try hard to believe there were no such people as Palestinians before 1948, I gues the problem is where did all those refugees come from? Gosh, it's all right there. And the UN, realizing it might've made some mistakes, starts urging the fledgling state to recognize PROPERTY RIGHTS of the displaced people. Wow...pretty impressive for a bunch of folks who don't exist and couldn't have actually lived there.
I don't mind if people want to buy into the false history of their nation (or of any nation they happen to love and support). We all do it. But at least realize that the possibility exists that 30 seconds of checking on the Internet might prove you false.
I have a lot of problems with the Palestinians, but their claims to legitimacy aren't among them.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
This is where I get annoyed, because you're not listening and reading the whole post. Yes there was a Palestine. That name was created by the Romans about 2000 years ago. The problem with the whole "Palestinian indentity" is that prior to 1967 Palestinians didn't refer to the Arabs living there any more than it referred to the Jews are Christians living their. The Palestinian national identity was not created until a Jewish nation occupied the lands that Egypt and Jordan formally occupied.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Quoting a section selected partly at random from the 1948 document:
quote:1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
nfl, sorry I annoyed you.
You seemed to be rewriting history without reference to the actual documentation available freely online. I guess I got a little annoyed myself.
Given that the UN documents from 1948 refer to both an Arab state and a Jewish state, it appears pretty clear that the intention WAS to create both simultaneously. And to impart the rule of government and law to the region, including property rights which before that time were apparently not disputed.
The deal is that people were living there and had lived there for many generations. You seem to want to imply that Jordan and Egypt cooked up a scheme to create property claims for people who were actually residents of those countries, not of what was called "Palestine."
The fact that there were refugees, that the UN was urging recognition of their right of return, and of property rights seems to argue against your version of events.
Maybe I'm missing something in your posts, but you seemed to be trying to deny that anyone other than Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs were living in the region just prior to 1948's resolutions were put in place.
If that's the case, you are wrong.
If you were making a different point, I didn't quite understand what it was and I'd be willing to read an explanation of what your real point was if you'd care to make one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fugu,
You may well be right. There's certainly a compelling case to be made for that. But first it's, "Islam has no problem with Jews," then it's, "Islam is better than everyone else at treating Jews fairly," etc.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Palestinians have, I'd say, more a claim to where they are now than the Israelis do. I hear the biblical claim, that it's their land because of all their holy places, except Islam has the same claim. I hear the historical claim, that Israel was there before, and it's the land of their ancestors, except so were the ancestors of Arabs living there now, and as the Israelites haven't been there for a thousand years, and only emigrated there in the last 100, I give more credence to the people who have actually been living there for the last few hundred years.
As far as legality goes, the Palestinians have the exact same legal right to exist as a state as Israel does.
I personally give preference to the Palestinians, for the reasons you stated earlier Rakeesh. I don't accept that just because others have suffered in povery before, the Palestinians should be content with it as well. That's bullshit. Do I think they should be murdering women and children? No, of course not. But I don't think the Israelis have done much of anything recently (short of the pullout) to help the Palestinian people, and they are rightfully angry about that.
Also, in my opinion it's hard to claim moral superiority for the Israelis when in response to the killing of women and children, they go and kill Palestinian women and children. Just because they use tanks and F-16s doesn't make it right. Or bulldozing suspected terrorists homes with no trial or any resemblence of the rule of law. Or murdering children who throw rocks at Israeli tanks and soldiers.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lyrhawn, the Jewish diaspora didn't end up with a land devoid of Jews. They didn't just immigrate in the last 100 years.
Since prior to written history of the region (depending on when you believe the Torah was written) there have been Jews in what is now Palestine. Continuously.
There have been other people there too.
The cycle of violence and retribution among the Jews and Palestinians is tough to watch. It's hard to say which atrocity was in response to which prior atrocity at this point. The bottom line is that some day they will decide together that there's a better way and it will end. Or...one side or the other (or both) will be wiped out.
What I pray for is a Ghandi to be born on both sides simultaneously.
Wouldn't that be great?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Ghandi was killed three years ago by a Palestinian. Isn't that ironic...
(I am speaking, of course, about Rhab`am Ze'evi who was nicknamed "Ghandi".)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's horrible.
I mean, how many Ghandis does a culture get?
Cr@p.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
One a blue-cheesed moon.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
What I don't understand is why the European nations--especailly Germany and Great Britain, which are the most responsible for the mess in Israel--aren't held accountable to do more in that region to solve its problems.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Who would tell them?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I wanted to say the UN or the US, but that's just a fantasy isn't it?
Maybe we should've attached more conditions to the Marshall Plan.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Why would Germany and Great Britain be held responsible? Britain should be held responsible more critically for Africa, and why are you blaming Germany? For the Nazi regime?
If so, you'd be surprised at what Nazis' grandsons and granddaughters do - they come here, to Israel, and help the old Holocause survivors.
But it's a different government now, why blame it?
[ August 21, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
I agree that originally the Palestinians had a better claim to the land...even though most governments that 'represent' Palestinians nearby didn't much care beforehand.
I did not say the Palestinians should be content with their lot, which is clearly intolerable and unjust.
But I don't care much that Israel hasn't been as helpful as they could be to the Palestinians. I don't care that the Palestinians original claim was greater. The Palestinians pretty much pissed any support they could've had from me-not that it matters much-when they decided that terrorism and the targetted murder of civilians was a viable way to redress their grievance.
Not only because it's abhorrent, but because it's stupid.
Israelis aren't the ones who send troops into busses, malls, restaurants, and crowded streets to blow up civvies. Israelis aren't the ones cheering in the streets when Palestinian children are killed by the Israeli military. Israelis aren't the ones who decided Yasser Arafat should be their leader for so long. Israelis aren't the ones who decided that the path to a solution to their problem needed to be painted with the blood of innocent civilians. You know how I know the Israelis should get my sympathy over the Palestinians? Because the norm for Israeli civilian casualties is when Palestinian terrorists (or those allied with them) do things like shooting rockets into houses with women and children in them, and then hide in their own neighborhoods.
The people who made those decisions were Palestinians, Lyrhawn. Not Israelis. My point in bringing up other oppressed populations was to demonstrate that this disgusting response is not inevitible.
Being oppressed doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And yet, the estimates I've seen put the total number of Palestinian civilians killed as several times the number of Israeli civilians killed.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Sure - the IDF is very discriminatory, it has killed "suspicious" Palestinians in the same way that a Londoner might look with suspicion at a dark-skinned person with Middle-Eastrn facial features, and it [the IDF] oppresses some of them [Palestinians]. But Major R., who killed a 13 y.o. Palestinian girl (deliberately), was imprisoned extremely quickly. While I'm not saying that the IDF is overly humane, it discriminates Palestinians - after all - it does not launch rockets to destroy a neighbourhood and openly supports an ideology of complete Palestinian annihilation.
Especially not out in the open.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:The Palestinians pretty much pissed any support they could've had from me
I'll be honest, I feel pretty much the same about both sides. I can't bring myself to defend one side or the other in these debates because both are so overwhelmingly wrong.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
... And both sides have to work on it, whichever may be "righter" or "wronger".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
Yes, their terrorism is stupid, and it does nothing to further their cause. So far as I'm concerned though, your argument is semantic. When Israel launches missiles into an APARTMENT COMPLEX they KNOW is full of families, just because they want to take out ONE guy, they can hardly be surprised when there are casualties. So I'm sorry, but your fine degrees of which people are more bloodthirsty or inhumane seem incredibly arbitrary to me.
Why have so many more Palestinian civilians died than Israeli? I fully expect you to come back with either the "it's their own fault" defense, or the "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time" defense. Both are crap, sorry to say.
Every day I hear about something else that moves them toward peace, and then I hear there was another suicide attack, I lose a little more support given from myself to the Palestinian cause. But I'm not as blinded as you are to what the Israelis have done, or haven't done, for the Palestinians, and for that matter, themselves.
If the majority of Palestinians came out tomorrow and yelled "PEACE" at the top of their lungs, but one crazy bomber took out a busload of people in Tel Aviv, the Israeli military would still launch a blood missile attack, or tank attack, or some kind of attack on the terrorist group that supported it. A dozen innocent people would be killed, and they'd probably miss the leader they were aiming for.
Every argument you make against Palestine and for Israel can be turned right back around and used the other way.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: If the majority of Palestinians came out tomorrow and yelled "PEACE" at the top of their lungs, but one crazy bomber took out a busload of people in Tel Aviv, the Israeli military would still launch a blood missile attack, or tank attack, or some kind of attack on the terrorist group that supported it. A dozen innocent people would be killed, and they'd probably miss the leader they were aiming for.
You have absolutely no idea of what is going on here. Your ignorance is shining through. You're speculating.
The IDF, for a start off, would break in to Gaza and hunt the people down individually in such a case. That is even if there would be an attempt of hunting them down. And that's assuming an impossible situation in which the simple people would want peace so powerfully that they would scream it out but not hunt down the terrorists.
Another thing: the IDF does not miss the people they're hunting for. They get them and another 117 people, but they get them. So you get that, and please be a little more careful about your elaborate speculations.
quote: Every argument you make against Palestine and for Israel can be turned right back around and used the other way.
In 1929 the local Arabs, who became "Palestinians" later on, atarted attacking the Jews in Hebron who were, mind you, very friendly with the locals. Some extremist group came and butchered the Jews. There was no provocation on the Jews' side "justifying" that for years before. Nothing "justifying" such a response.
So no, not everything can be turned the other way. Neither on this side, nor the other side.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
JH...
There is one distinction worth making, though. The attacks on Palestinians are largely carried out by the government that supposedly rules them (until the recent creation of the PA as a supposedly quasi-autonomous governing entity) whereas the attacks by Palestinians on Jews have been largely the acts of a lunatic fringe with varying degrees of support from within the Palestinian populace in general.
I think its absolutely insane for the Israeli government to expect anyone to control the terrorists when they couldn't do it with superior weapons. Figuring that Palestinians are going to rat out the Hammas members in their midst is ignoring two very important things: 1) Collaborators are killed and their families become pariahs. 2) Israel (the government) hasn't given the average Palestianian much reason to suspect that turning informer is going to be rewarded.
I think the problem is that things REALLY need to change in the hearts and minds of everyone. And the rule of law has to become the standard, not the exception.
And, retaliation needs to stop for good.
Unfortunately, I see that the religions include extremists bent on destruction, and the governments on both sides are too bloody-minded to have that be a reality any time soon.
(btw, Jesus was a lot like Ghandi too... the people in power engineered his death rather than lose control of the local government)
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
quote:Ghandi was killed three years ago by a Palestinian. Isn't that ironic...
Named Ghandi not for his ideology but because of a costume he wore in Purim (a Jewish holiday) as a kid.
Ghandi was a right-wing extremist, and nasty on personal terms: my grandmother grew up with him and said that he was always a cruel bully, hitting kids smaller than him, and ripping flies' wings off while they were still alive and tying them to his pencil so they would drag it like horses with a carriage.
However, he contibuted a lot to Israel and devoted his life to the country in the way he believed to be true, and he did not commit in person any crime against innocents. I'll credit him for that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fugu,
Yes, you're quite correct. More Palestinian civilians are dead than are Israeli, and I know there are arguments that mean they are the more greatly wronged party, but I don't agree with those arguments. Because the Israelis don't murder civilians just to be murdering civilians.
I'd like to see a report, Lyrhawn, of when the last time it was that Israel launched missiles into an apartment complex full of families to kill one terrorist.
If you can do so, well then I can just point out that while such is not the norm for Israelis, it is commonplace for Palestinians.
quote:Why have so many more Palestinian civilians died than Israeli? I fully expect you to come back with either the "it's their own fault" defense, or the "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time" defense. Both are crap, sorry to say.
Thanks, but I don't need you to make my statements for me. So many more Palestinian civilians have died than Israelis because Israel is hampered by having to respond with a conventional military force, which cannot be as surgical in its avoidance of civilian casualties as can the Palestinians in their targetting of civilians. Also because of their perhaps incorrect unwillingness to do nothing in response to terrorism from a military standpoint-which is what you'd apparently prefer, because that's about the only way they could avoid civilian death in their conflict.
I'm not 'blinded' by what the Palestinians have done. Like you, I support one side more than another. Just 'more'. That doesn't mean I sign on the dotted line or anything.
And as for your fantasy...let's bring it back to reality. First of all, the majority of Palestinians don't yell things like that. What they're yelling is things like, "Death to Israel!" And after they've yelled that and another busload is murdered, well then they'd be cheering that in the streets too. And then when the IDF comes in, like JH says, they'd throw stones and bottles and shoot at and throw molotov cocktails at the troops.
So no, I'm sorry, not every argument I'm using can be 'turned around the other way'. Palestinians have decided to endorse or at least permit the deliberate, targetted murder of exclusively civilian targets to achieve their goals. Israel has not. Thus Israel has more of my support. Motive means something to me, but I realize it is just 'semantics' to some.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As in neither group of people are the majority carrying out the killings, I tend to care little for reasons. Most of the people killed by the Israeli military weren't terrorists. Most of the people killed by the Palestinian terrorists weren't Israeli military. The notion on both sides is that it is acceptable to kill among the large population of non-combatants, regardless of any "intent" behind their efforts.
And even considering the reasons for carrying out the killings -- the notion that an institution killing more civilians than the terrorists it attempts to flush out because it doesn't care enough to choose methods that, while less sure, preserve civilian lives isn't just as wrong as those terrorists frightens me.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Why would Germany and Great Britain be held responsible? Britain should be held responsible more critically about Africa, and why are you blaming Germani? For the Nazi regime?
If so, you'd be surprised at what Nazis' grandsons and granddaughters do - they come here, to Israel, and help the old Holocause survivors.
But it's a different government now, why blame it?
Why is Great Britain responsible?
quote:In an interview with a British magazine, the New Statesman, Mr Straw spoke of quite serious mistakes made, especially during the last decades of the empire.
He said the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine - and the contradictory assurances given to Palestinians, were not entirely honourable.
"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one," he said. BBC
As for Germany, I was under the impression that the Holocaust was one of the main motivations for the large wave of Jewish immigration to Israel in the 1940s and 50s.
In fact, you once stated that:
quote:The Scroll of Independence, Tom, says that the nation of Israel is a Jewish nation, and a nation of the Jewish people - refugees of the Holocaust;
The German government does pay reparations to Holocaust victims (although not always voluntarily and not always without the threat of litigation). Therefore, it is recognized that Germany is still responsible for its actions in WWII.
[ August 21, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Expanding a bit: I think your point would hold more weight if Israel looked like it was taking serious efforts to minimize civilian casualties over the years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Name a method that both apprehends and kills terrorists yet minimizes civilian casualties, fugu. Please. The terrorists go out of their way to shield themselves with civilians. They strike from civilian neighborhoods and return there.
I think the fact that Israel-the one with all the guns and tanks-hasn't killed vastly more civilians than it has is indicator enough that, unlike Palestinians, it cares at least a little about preventing civilian death.
And that Israel cares at all when its own innocent children are being targetted just because they're innocent children-not because some Israeli general is at Career Day at school-is a pretty weighty point to me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Most of the people killed by the Israeli military weren't terrorists.
Isn't it factual that the Israeli military does not intentionally kill Palestinian innocents, that most of the civilian deaths are accidental? That the terrorists and their supporters intentionally hide themselves in the middle of civilians?
Isn't it also true that the terrorists intentionally kill innocent civilians?
edit: Wow, it's like I don't read the whole thread or something before posting. :/
[ August 21, 2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with you, Storm Saxon (*gasp!* ). But I think they're taking issue with the choice of words, 'accidental'.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That terrorists hide themselves among civilians does not reduce the Israeli military's moral responsibility towards those civilians.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I'd like to see a report, Lyrhawn, of when the last time it was that Israel launched missiles into an apartment complex full of families to kill one terrorist.
It happened once, I remember, and it was regarded as such a vile move (17 killed) and the [then] head of the airforce, who's now the Marshall, is still hated for it. Ever since then they assasinated pople in person (destroying Rantisi's car, for instance - not blowing up his building).
quote: The German government does pay reparations to Holocaust victims (although not always voluntarily and not always without the threat of litigation). Therefore, it is recognized that Germany is still responsible for its actions in WWII.
True, but remember that it was a German-initiated move. The government or whoever felt bad for what the previous regime did, but by no means was it responsible for the predecessor's actions!
quote: Ghandi was a right-wing extremist, and nasty on personal terms: my grandmother grew up with him and said that he was always a cruel bully, hitting kids smaller than him, and ripping flies' wings off while they were still alive and tying them to his pencil so they would drag it like horses with a carriage.
Vicious, as he was in the army, but such perception! How could he grab those flies so rapidly?
The bottom line is that neither side is perfect; Lyrhawn is a little too affected by the media (in my opinion) - both sides are vastly different and incomparable; and now that Israel is out of the territories, finally Jewish fanaticism might be significantly down and both sides can start controlling themselves - going towards peace in the long term.
But Israel is only one of the frontiers...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do not think they have a moral responsibility to those civilians greater than they do towards their own citizens.
After all, terrorists often hide themselves among civilians with the collusion of those civilians-who could anonymously turn them in, as well-although to be fair not without some danger to themselves.
I don't think Israel's moral responsibility includes, "Do nothing if it will result in civilian death." I mean, it's a cliched and often horribly used statement, but by doing so, terrorists win. Because terrorists are always willing to sacrifice civilian life in exchange for their goals, in a one-for-one trade.
Israel has to do something, or else the people who mastermind suicide bombings will return to do it again.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Those civilians use Israel's infrastructure, live on land Israel protects, and work in Israeli businesses. They are for intents and purposes Israeli nationals.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: They are for intents and purposes Israeli nationals.
Except for about 5 million, you're right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Israel protects that land from them, and from those who act in their name, fugu.
Posted by Sister Annie (Member # 8480) on :
Regardless of your slant on the issue, this slideshow from LeMonde is pretty moving.
Personally, I find the images of Israeli tanks bulldozing their own settlements in the name of peace pretty admirable and awe-inspiring.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I don't know about you, Annie, but I'm not awe-inspired by destroying a settlement that the locals set on fire before they evacuated - in front of 18 year-olds' faces.
But hey, that's just me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Rakeesh, Israel protects that land from the few terrorists among them. Most of them just live there and are protected.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apparently my point was missed, though I blame myself for not articulating it well enough. My point was not that the majority of Palestinians in fact would come out tomorrow, my point was about Israel's response. Fringe crazies kill innocent Israelis and Israel's government feels forced to reply in kind every time, and thus the cycle of violence continues.
And my apologies JH, I was referring to the current argument over Palestine vs. Israel and who has more right to be there, and who does more or less or what not to further or ruin the cause of peace. If you want to go back in time, then yes, you can find arguments on both sides that cannot be used for the other. I guess I was speaking in more of generalities and not specifics, in which case nothing would be reversible.
Rakeesh -
It's hard not to reply vehemently to your replies, as yours are so vehement themselves. But anyway, as JH stated, Israel has done, at least once, as I claimed. Not that it matters, because you never really cared if I could prove it or not, you just wanted to be able to call me a liar. But that's fine.
quote:So no, I'm sorry, not every argument I'm using can be 'turned around the other way'. Palestinians have decided to endorse or at least permit the deliberate, targetted murder of exclusively civilian targets to achieve their goals. Israel has not. Thus Israel has more of my support. Motive means something to me, but I realize it is just 'semantics' to some.
You say Palestinians have endorse or permit. Again I really want to know what you personally would do. You don't have the power to stop them yourself, so you what, support the Palestinian Authority? Well, if the IDF can't stop the terrorists, the PA wouldn't have a chance at regulating a rowdy soccer match. So then what? What is your solution Rakeesh? You don't seem to care about the Palestinians all that much. You refer to them as if one terrorist represents the entire people. As if Bush represented all of America, which I'm sure half of America resents.
I don't live in a fantasy land, and I'm not as ignorant as you think, though I freely admit I don't know as much as I could about the situation, but I doubt it's that much less than most people here.
quote: I think the fact that Israel-the one with all the guns and tanks-hasn't killed vastly more civilians than it has is indicator enough that, unlike Palestinians, it cares at least a little about preventing civilian death.
And what is that based on? Where are your figures on what an army who didn't care would do in the way of civilian casualties? You're creating arbitrary, fictional amounts to make what has already happened sound reasonable, or at least excusable.
You're not so thinly accusing me of supporting Palestinians and terrorism, and all that they do, while being blind to the evil that comes out of their cause. I'm not. You however seem the opposite, you're supporting Israel, and seemingly defend Israel on every issue, regardless of what that issue is, so long as you don't end up supporting the other side of the argument.
quote: Lyrhawn is a little too affected by the media
Perhaps, but what other outlets for information are there? I look on the internet, I read TIME magazine, I watch CNN, in other words, I try to stay informed. But short of actually flying to Gaza, what do you think I should do to stay informed on the subject?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm at a loss.
I got through today praying silently for the situation there to be the start of something better for everyone in the region, and, by extension, a lesson for the entire world.
I have nothing left but prayer.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why, what happened?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...basically, I just am worried. From what I heard, they've left the most difficult settlements for last. And the confrontations are getting worse. Apparently today (earlier today) the protesters threw stuff at the military, including some flammable liquids. I don't know if that's true, but it just sounds like things are not going to be as peaceful as I hope.
And then, there's the question of what Israel expects once the pullout is complete. Will one bad action by a small group of Palestinians make Israel react violently with LESS restraint because the risk of local retaliation is less?
I'm just worrying a lot.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Apparently today (earlier today) the protesters threw stuff at the military, including some flammable liquids. I don't know if that's true, but it just sounds like things are not going to be as peaceful as I hope.
They've been doing that from Day One at Neveh Dekalim.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
By the way: the guy "in charge" of that vandalism was a 15 year-old.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
And what's so surprising? They're not called "youth of the hills" for nothing. For the past ten years they've been doing whatever they wanted to.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ignoring history is not going to work here.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)