chairman bill wrote:A people, dispossessed of their land, coralled into ever diminishing areas, subject to embargo & collective punishment...

Yes, but enough about the Jews already - what about the Palestinians?

What makes me sick is I pay taxes that are used to pay to escalate this mess. That fact leaves a very very bad taste in my mouth.

Steve wrote:What makes me sick is I pay taxes that are used to pay to escalate this mess. That fact leaves a very very bad taste in my mouth.

Assuming your flag is the country you are actually from, how so if you don't mind me asking?

I live in California as a NZ citizen with an alien registration.

Strontium Dog wrote:

chairman bill wrote:A people, dispossessed of their land, coralled into ever diminishing areas, subject to embargo & collective punishment...

Yes, but enough about the Jews already - what about the Palestinians?

It is like so many people ignore history to hyperfocus on this whole notion that Israel is displacing land...

When Israel was created this was what was created:



The UN partition created borders based on existing Jewish settlements and existing Arab settlements with the notion that like an EU sort of thing borders would be open for peaceful migration. That didn't happen. As soon as British rule ended, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the new Arab State attacked Israel. Israel survived. The aftermath? The newly created Israel captured land via combat. That is how people historically conquered and acquired land and to say it is unethical or displacing people is well quite ironic considering all of us here are living in countries ruled by governments that exist via displacing other people. Even Amnivore's Irish example is not 100% accurate because the Irish of today are not the same as the Irish before the fall of the Roman Empire. Lots of Viking raids, massive migrations, etc.

So Israel acquired new land, Egypt occupied Gaza, and Jordon occupied West Bank. So out of the Palestinians who fled their homes...despite Israel willing to grant them citizenship and equal rights many went to Jordon. Did Jordon welcome them with arms out wide as brothers? Did Jordan say we sympathize with you and so here share our land like the West Bank? Nope. So in response the Palestinian Liberation Organization under Arafat attacked Jordan and began a brief civil war that resulted in the death of thousands of Palestinians....

Meanwhile back in Israel, Egypt reached across the isle to make peace with Israel. What does Israel do? Agrees and hands back the entire Sinei peninsula, a land rich in oil and larger than Israel itself. Israel wanted peace more than land and oil. Meanwhile those Palestinians under Arafat immediately flock into Israel via the West Bank and what do they do? Launch suicide bombers into crowded Israeli areas. Israel responds by implementing massive checkpoints and restrictions on travel from the West Bank into Israel. Those restrictions were a response to the Palestinians resorting to terrorism to destroy Israel.

You see unlike other terrorist groups fighting for independence among them say the American colonists, they are not just fighting to have Israel leave their land and let them live in peace independantly. They are fighting to annihilate Israel. If Israel were to cease fighting today and make the ultimatum that no matter what happens they will not fight anymore, it is with certainty that Israel will be attacked and attacked some more.

But if Israel was capable of brokering peace with Egypt and gave Egypt back its land, why can we not expect the same from Israel in regards to the Palestinian people. Israel has said they would support the formation of a Palestinian state....but two things need to happen: The Palestinian people need to recognize Israel as an official country something the current Palestinian leadership does not and the violence against Israel needs to stop. Once those conditions are met than peace can be brokered and Israel would be willing to give back land, open its borders, lessen the checkpoints, etc.

The fact that people assume this ground invasion is like some spur of the moment thing is confusing to me. Israel is bombed and attacked several times a month on average. Israeli soldiers and civilians are killed several times a month by Palestinian opposition. Not freedom fighters, they aren't fighting for their freedom, they are fighting to rid the world of the Jewish state.

Furthermore, Israel is willing to grant equal rights to Palestinians. Considering Palestinians can actually be openly gay in Israel one of the most progressive countries for gay rights in the world, considering Palestinians can have freedom of association, the press, speech in Israel, where they cannot under Hamas, it seems strange and foreign that they would rather live in a Israel-free world and live under an Islamo-fascist society than make an effort to amend things with Israel and start anew? This is why I find the situation incomprehensibly one-sided on Israel's behalf. Sure Israel could lessen its restrictions and give back land it took back in 67, etc. but what guarantees does Israel have that it would do any good? The Palestinian leadership has made it clear it doesn't care for the lands Israel took in 67. That's just icing on the cake. The leadership wants Israel gone and Palestine returned to Ottoman Empire standards. Something which is just simply unreasonable at this time in history.

The root though is that Palestine simply sees no reason to accept Israel's landgrab. You're right that this is historically how most nations were created, but it's not something that is acceptable anymore. Just like we sanctioned Saddam Hussein for annexing Kuwait, we need to sanction Israel for occupying the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem.

Thanks for telling us on behalf of the Palestinians how great It Is to live In Israel, among the other telling Insights Will. I'm sure you're right, if only the Palestinians leaders acknowledged the state of Israel they would definitely start giving land back and would put an immediate stop to all that military occupation and oppression.

Israel are all about peace and equality, they can't get enough of the stuff. Put In the same position as Palestine and I'm sure they'd do all the things you have put forward today. Great analysis, A+. Do we still do orsen awards?

Arjan Dirkse wrote:The root though is that Palestine simply sees no reason to accept Israel's landgrab. You're right that this is historically how most nations were created, but it's not something that is acceptable anymore. Just like we sanctioned Saddam Hussein for annexing Kuwait, we need to sanction Israel for occupying the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem.

Accept the problem is Kuwait was its own sovereign nation. West Bank was occupied by Palestinians, then Jordanians, and now Israelis. West Bank has not ever been its own sovereign nation so the same sanctions that applied to Hussein or say Putin in Ukraine (which the west has been slow in handling) would not equally apply to the situation in the West Bank unless the West Bank was made its own nation. But that would be rather hard to do considering it doesn't have just one nationality group comprising it. Furthermore it just shows the uselessness of international law. If the US and Israel disagree with the rest of the UN, the rest of the UN flabberghastedly bleats like a goat but with no real effect.

Morally you have to see Palestine pre-1948 as its own thing. It isn't technically a sovereign nation, it is a nation in a transition to becoming one, just like other colonial places, like India, Vietnam or Indonesia were. Would it have worked to send the Jews to Indonesia? No; not because the Dutch who were in charge there didn't want it, but because the Indonesians, the people actually living there, wouldn't have it. They are not a sovereign nation, but they are the people living there; it is therefore their land in every moral and ethical sense, and theirs to determine its future.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:The root though is that Palestine simply sees no reason to accept Israel's landgrab. You're right that this is historically how most nations were created, but it's not something that is acceptable anymore. Just like we sanctioned Saddam Hussein for annexing Kuwait, we need to sanction Israel for occupying the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem.

Why do people think that because Europeans decided they were done being imperialistic the rest of the world thinks the same thing???

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Morally you have to see Palestine pre-1948 as its own thing. It isn't technically a sovereign nation, it is a nation in a transition to becoming one, just like other colonial places, like India, Vietnam or Indonesia were. Would it have worked to send the Jews to Indonesia? No; not because the Dutch who were in charge there didn't want it, but because the Indonesians, the people actually living there, wouldn't have it. They are not a sovereign nation, but they are the people living there; it is therefore their land in every moral and ethical sense, and theirs to determine its future.

Morals apply to nations? Since when have nations ever been acting morally in the sense you seem to be alluding to in this post?

Acetone wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Morally you have to see Palestine pre-1948 as its own thing. It isn't technically a sovereign nation, it is a nation in a transition to becoming one, just like other colonial places, like India, Vietnam or Indonesia were. Would it have worked to send the Jews to Indonesia? No; not because the Dutch who were in charge there didn't want it, but because the Indonesians, the people actually living there, wouldn't have it. They are not a sovereign nation, but they are the people living there; it is therefore their land in every moral and ethical sense, and theirs to determine its future.

Morals apply to nations? Since when have nations ever been acting morally in the sense you seem to be alluding to in this post?

I am not sure there is an alternative that makes any sense.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Acetone wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Morally you have to see Palestine pre-1948 as its own thing. It isn't technically a sovereign nation, it is a nation in a transition to becoming one, just like other colonial places, like India, Vietnam or Indonesia were. Would it have worked to send the Jews to Indonesia? No; not because the Dutch who were in charge there didn't want it, but because the Indonesians, the people actually living there, wouldn't have it. They are not a sovereign nation, but they are the people living there; it is therefore their land in every moral and ethical sense, and theirs to determine its future.

Morals apply to nations? Since when have nations ever been acting morally in the sense you seem to be alluding to in this post?

I am not sure there is an alternative that makes any sense.

Typically I would say I'm a moral relativist in that morals are completely subjective. For nations though I would argue they are amoral. Morals do not exist for nations.

I guess it would make sense that we can judge nations, subjectively, on whatever morals we want... but to the actual thing which is the nation it doesn't really mean anything, unless there is force behind that judgement. The nation acts purely in its own interests always.

That's just the way it is. So the Jews didn't get put in Indonesia because it would have been immoral,they weren't put there because it wasn't in the best interest of all the nations involved.

For instance, you might see something and think 'that would be wrong to do' even though it is in your best interest and decide to not do it. Without anything forcing you to. You would say a nation would act similarly? I don't think so. It requires force. Whether that comes from within the nation (Ie. uprising against something) or from the outside (Ie. sanctions or war).

Obviously you're free to disagree but I think what actually happens in the real world is more important than what you think should happen in the real world.

What's happening in the real world in regard to Israel is that we are letting the situation to continue to exist but preventing it from completing. We tell Israel they shouldn't go full out balls to the wall take over land but we don't tell them to stop what they're doing except in extreme circumstances.

This creates an insanely horrible situation for the Palestinians because we are forcing them to exist in perpetual war with Israel even though given the strength disparity it should have been done long ago. It's either we force Israel to stop all this non-sense or we don't. It benefits Israel entirely to keep this going because if they stop they may face retribution and if they go too far they may face too much international outcry. Nothing moral about it. Israel as a nation doesn't care if you think what they are doing is wrong. Funnily enough Palestine doesn't really care either, unless it means such a judgement is gonna carry force behind it to help them fight Israel...

Enough of this half-half bullshit, I think it's gone on long enough.

Indeed, if peace negotiations go like these debates, no wonder they cant produce deals. Tit for tat. Two tats remain in scriptures.

Acetone wrote:It's either we force Israel to stop all this non-sense or we don't.

That's a moral choice though, right?

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Acetone wrote:It's either we force Israel to stop all this non-sense or we don't.

That's a moral choice though, right?

Nope not for the nation.

The citizens of a nation could want that nation to stop Israel this carries a force, necessarily... but it's not the only thing happening. Even if the nation were to act on the outcry of its citizens that doesn't mean that the nation is moral.

Actually, I may even change that statement... because I excluded the middle ground. It may very well be that all these people crying about morals are creating so much force in a nation that it is about the same as some external forces (such as strategic importance of Israel or its allies or the fact that if you sanction Israel you may face sanctions from other nations... who knows) that it is making the situation right now, of perpetual war, the best decision for the nations to allow exist.

You could be right, but I don't think cynicism is all that healthy. Even if it is how things work a lot of the time, it doesnt mean we should accept it.'

In the end, diplomacy needs to take into consideration the concerns of all concerned.