Middle East - Balanced discussion

Discussion in 'Politics' started by freealways, May 11, 2003.


  1. Optional, I'm talking historically, like about the time of the creation of Israel; the displacement of their people (800,000!); the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem (hell, the whole of Jerusalem). How the hell are the Palestinians to blame for any of that, apart from losing the war?

    I don't condone the terror activities that the PLO began to resort to circa the 70s, but surely it's understandable, given that they could see absolutely no other option, isn't it?

    How about the Israelis starting to actually DO something for a change?
    I hear all this BS talked about how the Palestinians were made generous offers that Arafat rejected. Well, geezus, how the hell anyone can call an offer that doesn't include the right of return of the refugees -- a universally declared right; that doesn't hand back ALL the occupied territories; that doesn't include at the very least a sharing of East Jerusalem, be called a fair offer? (Not to mention the continued existence of the Jewish settlements which contravenes the Geneva convention.)

    Geez, it's not like the Palestinians haven't got damn legitimate reasons to be thoroughly pissed.
     
    #31     May 13, 2003
  2. The Jews will argue that they have claim from thousands of years ago, as do the Palestinians make their own claims. It never stops, never will unless they both learn the beauty of their respective religions which are all about peace and love, not war.

    They are both to blame, no innocent victims here.

    An no, terrorism wasn't condoned by great men of the past who were actually deeply religious in nature.....and in their deeds.

    This is the 21st century, isn't it?

    If possible, imagine talking to Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Jesus about the need for terrorism, in the face of persecution. Imagine how far you would get in convincing them two wrongs make a right, that violence is justified by the Palestinians.
     
    #32     May 14, 2003

  3. In 1000 years, Palestinian calls for a "right to return" are going to sound pretty lame too.

    But it hasn't been 1000 years yet, it's only but 50; not even close to long enough for Palestinians to magically "forget" their ties to the land.

    So, let me ask you, on what basis, apart from religious can you give any validity to Jewish claims to Palestine whatsoever?

    Tell me Optional, explain to me, how in the world, by what mysterious logic, do you claim that "both" are to blame, that the Palestinians are somehow at fault for being robbed of their land, expelled from their ancestral birthplaces?
     
    #33     May 14, 2003
  4. Both are to blame because they are both fighting, killing, committing acts of terrorism in the name of religion.

    People fighting over holy lands in the name of religion, both sides are to blame.
     
    #34     May 14, 2003

  5. Typical Optional response.


    Dude, I was talking about historically who the blame rests with. And it rests SQUARELY on the shoulders of the Jews (and the British). Very, very simple.

    If you want to talk about today, well, damn, I STILL aportion the greater part of the blame to Israel for it's complete and utter lack of response to the status of refugees, it's obstinate persistence with settling Jews on the occupied territories and it's refusal to negotiate on the status of Jerusalem.

    According to Optional, though, if you come and steal my house and I fight to get it back, we are both to blame. Wonderful.

    And come off it, it's hardly about "holy lands" for the Palestinians; it was their HOME, the land they were born and lived in that they aren't allowed to return to, their land that is under the occupation of an alien force. Geez, if you are gonna bring religion into, again, blame the Jews. They didn't HAVE to settle on Palestine, a land where only a handful Jews actually lived; why didn't they pick Poland or Russia, where millions of Jews lived, and try to carve out a state there?
     
    #35     May 14, 2003
  6. So much for a balanced discussion on the issues.

    You have your ideals, I have mine. Mine don't include supporting either Israel or the Palestinians. They are both to blame, and neither deserve to live in the Holy Lands the way they behave.
     
    #36     May 14, 2003
  7. You might have your ideals, but since you refuse to explain on what basis you adopted them, I can only imagine you are being entirely irrational about the whole thing.

    And if you're going to start talking about the land actually being "Holy", then forget it. I can't see how a "balanced" discussion could possily emerge from that minefield.
     
    #37     May 14, 2003

  8. You would try to be political without understanding the nature of the "religious" minefield.

    You of all people, a devout communist, should not so easily dismiss the grip that religion has on both sides of this issue.

    I guarantee you, this is 100% a religious issue.
     
    #38     May 14, 2003

  9. You "guarantee" it do you? LOL. I'm always suspicious when people claim to know something yet don't actually provide any evidence or argument to substantiate it.

    How about doing some reading on the issue and then talking about it?

    Anyway, let's say that religion plays a part -- how big a part? According to you, 100%.
    So, that would meant that Palestinian refugees wanting to return home is a RELIGIOUS issue huh? (I wonder, do you even know what a Palestinian refugee is?)
    Palestinians wanting sovereignty over ALL of the occupied territories is a RELIGIOUS issue huh? (I wonder, do you even know what the occupied territories are?)

    It's probably fair to say that Palestinian demands for an East Jerusalem capital contain religious elements, but there is certainly also a political aspect to it, no doubt. (On the same not, Israeli annexation of what was meant to be an International city (according to the UN resolution) also has a religious context.)

    PS - cute line, but I'm no communist, much less a devout one.
     
    #39     May 14, 2003
  10. You "don't condone" yet you say it is "surely understandable".

    Alfonso, it is time to cease trying to make your case. "Balanced discussion"? There is nothing "balanced" at all about your arguments. They are clearly anti-semitic, and historically inaccurate. I should not even attempt to persuade you with facts. Because facts have been ignored by your side of the argument essentially since the day Islam came to be.

    But just not to walk in, shut the door in your face and leave, I will say this. There were Jews in what is now Israel always. They too were displaced, returned, displaced, returned etc.

    There were also Arabs in that region for thousands of years. However, there was never a "Palestinian" anywhere on the planet until 1948. When the term came about as a further excuse for the Arab world to "drive Israel into the sea".

    Some ARABS were displaced, yes. But the vast majority left willingly because they were promised that the Jews would be massacred and then they could return to their homeland and have it all. It did not work out that way. And these "Palestinian" refugees, who were promised a swift Arab victory, were hung out to dry by their fellow Arabs. They were NOT accepted into their neighboring Arab countries. So they became refugees among their "own people". In other words, they were put into camps and not permitted to assimilate into Egypt, Syria, Jordan (which was supposed to be "Palestine") or Lebanon. The countries that bordered Israel. The "Palestinian" issue became essentially an excuse to keep the hatred of the Jews and their independent state alive.

    In 1967, Israel was again attacked on all fronts, just as they were in 1948. This time, Israel retained conquered land, as had every nation in every war in all of history. In 1973, the Arabs gave it another shot. (They also had an unsuccessful campaign in 1956.... A whole world full of Islamic French soldiers?) But in the interest of pursuing peace, Isreal returned the Sinai to Egypt and has tried to return essentially to the "green line". But they have not because, as has been pointed out, in this thread, and demonstrated to the world, Arafat does not want peace.

    As Optional said, this is not about politics. It is not about land. It is about religious intolerance and hatred that goes back around 700 years. It is a sad fact that really it is a family feud that has grown into a potential planet ending threat. If the religious views are to be taken seriously, (and of course, they are by those that fight this never ending war), it is because Abraham had two sons by two wives, and that just didn't go down well with each other's side of the family tree.

    So it's about Muslims and Jews being enemies. The Arab world cannot tolerate the existence of Israel. further, it gives the Arabs (who have plenty of infighting going on amongst themselves) a fine common enemy. And beyond the Arab world, as in Iran, there is also hatred for Israel. No political threat. No Persians displaced from "Palestine". Just hatred of the Jews. Official Muslim policy. Says so right in the Koran.

    Arafat claims to have been born in Jerusalem. But the fact is, his own history is pretty murky. Conveniently. But there seems to be convincing evidence that Arafat is indeed of Egyptian heritage. But the place of the man's birth is really irrelevant. He is the leader of the PLO....oops, I mean the PA, and represents all the "oppressed Palestinians" that the rest of the Arab and Islamic world sympathizes with so deeply. As long as they don't have to take them in.

    The answer is clear. I said this before in a debate with Traderfut2000. If the Arabs put down their arms, there will be no more war in the Middle East. If the Israelis put down their arms, there will be no more Israel in the Middle East.

    Israel stands ready to return the Golan, and the West Bank. And Gaza. Some settlements are too entrenched to just dismantle and abandon overnight. Because this conflict has just gone on too damn long. But eventually, the Israelis know that they need to retreat to the "green line". But they will never yield to terrorism. And the terrorists (really those who sponsor them) know this. Keeping the hatred alive serves the regimes of Israel's neighbors safe from their own people. How can the Saudis (for example) waste their time hating their own leadership when their hatred for Israel is so consuming? Same with all the Arab nations. What did Iraq under Saddam have in common with Iran other than hatred for Israel? Or with Syria? Or any of them. Every one of these Arab countries are led by dictators. Only Israel is a democracy in that part of the world (with questionable and basically insignificant exceptions like Kuwait and Qatar, and some other tiny countries that do not have armies or predominantly poor and uneducated populations).

    Peace with Israel is just plain unhealthy for the Royal families and hatred is very profitable. Even Arafat is a billionaire by most accounts.

    You do NOT see old Yasser putting on his white disco suit, going for a nice shave, looking sharp and strapping any explosives to his own body. Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers. Yet he did not risk his own hide (or even those of his own troops.....hatred for sale. Good return on investment).

    The Arabs (or Palestinians if you prefer the term) who stayed in Israel have enjoyed freedom, prosperity (until recently...now the Fatah has swept them away financially along with the rest of the Israelis), and the right to vote and participate in and be represented in the government (which is pretty extraordinary considering Israel is a technically a theocracy). I also believe that Isreal is the only country in the Middle East in which Islamic woman are permitted to vote.

    However, none of what I have said means a damn thing in the end. Because indeed, hell will freeze over before there can be a peace where there is no motivation for it. And again, business has been good for the Royal families and the dictators keeping the status quo.

    Maybe if there is a chance that Iraq can develop into a democracy, and democracy catches on, then the concept of peace may see it's time. But as it is now, it's just bad business.

    But there is a chance. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was the "competition" for the PLO. They tried to import communism. Didn't go over too well (for obvious reasons). Maybe now, a democratic "competitive" movement will have a chance to make some inroads. Meanwhile, some Arabs have to be scratching their heads while sitting in the shade of their masters oil rigs, and at least thinking about why Israel has been able to generate domestic product in such areas as technology, biotech, pharmaceuticals, etc. There ain't no oil in Isreal. And there isn't any in Syria either. Or Jordan. Or Lebanon. So maybe.......

    Maybe, Peace (some day)
    RS
     
    #40     May 14, 2003