by willhud9 wrote:
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.
This sanitised version leaves out the facts that after the Balfour Declaration Zionists were increasingly allowed to move to the British mandate of Palestine, that when the numbers moving there and the tensions created by them this led to the Arab Revolt, forcing the British to restrict migration - leading to violent Zionist terrorist activities against the British and Arab communities.
Thus by the time 'independence' was granted there was a very violent well organised terrorist Zionist community, and the nature of the British withdrawal was sufficiently disorganised that the Zionists were able to aquire the strategic infrastructure leaving the Arabs with a choice of accepting a defacto Zionist state or trying to abolish it before it became powerful. They failed - the rest is history.
The concept behind the British Mandate when first formed after the first world war was to administer the lands of the former Turkish empire until such time as they were ready for self determination and self government - not to gerrymander the population according to their liking.
Therin lies the problem of trying to use history to justify current predjuduces - one simply chooses ones starting point.
