Palestinians / Arab / Israeli Misc Thread

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I'm neutral and I think the ideal endgame should be a single state where Israelis and Palestinians alike can live together, if not in perfect harmony, at least without blowing each other up..

A one state solution does nothing to solve alleged problems between Israeli and Palestinians!
If you could ask all parties concerned the rational ones would say 2 states.
Teh irrational ones would not recognize the Palestinians right to a home nor would they recognize Israel`s right to live in peace!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Where is the choice of just being neutral because you think both of the fundamentalist wingnuts who run both shows suck? To infer that only pro-Israeli leaning people could be neutral sucks. What rational person would takes sides in that mess anyhow?

so do you consider your stance to be part of the solution or part of the problem?
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Does that ad mention that far more Palestinians have been killed in recent years than Israelis?

I would assume it does not.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: mect
Then the Arabs lost it to the European nations who took it for the Jews.

No they didn't, check the docutments:

The Palestine Mandate

....

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

A small minorty of Jews who wanted to build an eithic nationalist homeland within Palestine got the British to agree to those conditions. They didn't agree to anything aproaching what has happened since then.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I'm neutral and I think the ideal endgame should be a single state where Israelis and Palestinians alike can live together, if not in perfect harmony, at least without blowing each other up..

A one state solution does nothing to solve alleged problems between Israeli and Palestinians!
If you could ask all parties concerned the rational ones would say 2 states.
Teh irrational ones would not recognize the Palestinians right to a home nor would they recognize Israel`s right to live in peace!!

But if there's a single state then you can't possibly have this problem between israelis and Palestinians because there would be no such things, only Israelistinians (or Palisrealites). All the disputes over land could be settled in court, like civilized people do, instead of this blowing each other up nonsense.

But shit, if like you say the rational elements of both sides agreed to a two state solution, I'd be all over that as well. Anything has to be better than the current situation.


edit: Completely unrelated, this forum has funny avatar options :)
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Where is the choice of just being neutral because you think both of the fundamentalist wingnuts who run both shows suck? To infer that only pro-Israeli leaning people could be neutral sucks. What rational person would takes sides in that mess anyhow?

so do you consider your stance to be part of the solution or part of the problem?

Are you asking my view of irrational fundamentalist people on both sides? Yes, they are part of the problem.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
1
0
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I'm neutral and I think the ideal endgame should be a single state where Israelis and Palestinians alike can live together, if not in perfect harmony, at least without blowing each other up..

A one state solution does nothing to solve alleged problems between Israeli and Palestinians!
If you could ask all parties concerned the rational ones would say 2 states.
Teh irrational ones would not recognize the Palestinians right to a home nor would they recognize Israel`s right to live in peace!!

But if there's a single state then you can't possibly have this problem between israelis and Palestinians because there would be no such things, only Israelistinians (or Palisrealites). All the disputes over land could be settled in court, like civilized people do, instead of this blowing each other up nonsense.

But shit, if like you say the rational elements of both sides agreed to a two state solution, I'd be all over that as well. Anything has to be better than the current situation.

A one-state solution, I believe, would not work for generations. Consider that even with a two-state solution, both parties would be looking over their shoulder.

Two states--two or three generations of peace and mutual respect to let the crazy fucksticks on both sides to die off--and go from there.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: mect
Then the Arabs lost it to the European nations who took it for the Jews.

No they didn't, check the docutments:

The Palestine Mandate

....

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

A small minorty of Jews who wanted to build an eithic nationalist homeland within Palestine got the British to agree to those conditions. They didn't agree to anything aproaching what has happened since then.

What do you mean, no they didn't? Is Israel currently controlled by the Jews or not? I was not making any statement about motivations, whether or not people have followed original intents, or anything else other than the Jews currently occupy and govern Israel. According to the quote, the Jews back in the 30's should have been content to leave the land in the hands of the Arabs. If we then apply that quote to today, the same principle should apply. Since Gandhi recommended that anything that transpired previously held no bearing to whom the land should rightfully belong, anything that occurred in the interim should similarly be ignored. Whether they agreed to what has happened holds no bearing. The Jews control the land. Therefore, it should be left to them. Now, this might not be what he was actually saying, as it is difficult to really tell how to apply his thoughts to today from a few paragraphs. That is why I made the final statement in my original post, how long does a country need to possess a land taken by force before we simply let it be? Some people would probably be in favor of all Caucasians being forced to leave the Americas, or at least completely turn over the government to the native Americans. Some people think Israel should be returned to the Arabs. We definitely thought the Iraqi's should be kicked out of Kuwait in the 90's.

Also, I'm not saying that I this is what I think should happen. I'm just saying that if you apply the quote presented to today's situation, and not that of 1938, it would seem that this would be the interpretation. "The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Arabs wherever they are born and bred". Now some argue that the this is really all the Arabs want. And if that is the case, then I agree that the Arabs within Israel should be treated as equal citizens. But it seemed like the message the OP was presenting was that we should be returning Israel to the Arabs. Maybe it was just that it was a mistake to take in the first place, which I agree with.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Based on the media I've pretty much just overheard, I'd always assumed Israel had an undisputed chunk of land, Palestine had an undisputed chunk of land and they fought over two small chunks of land that were in dispute.

Yeah, that is certainly how mainstream media shamelessly portrays it.

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
So did Israel or anyone else ever hand over money for those two pieces anytime in the past?

No, there was never any Louisiana purchase type deal or anything like that. Just private ownership of various plots as well as publicly held territory like our national park lands and such. Much of the Israeli settlements are built on the latter, however:

More than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land that was temporarily seized by military order for "security purposes," according to a report by the Civil Administration that is being published here for the first time.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html

As you can see, this is not conflict of two nations fighting over disputed land, but one nation colonizing land of the other, with civilian settlers protected by military occupation.

Here is collection of articles about those settlements, from another Israeli human rights group:

http://kibush.co.il/datapage.asp?lang=1%20§ion=6
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
Holy Shit!

PJ, RichardE and Common Courtesy better get on the phone and dial in the credit card numbers! Who the hell paid for this ad? The bush admin? What a friggen joke? How many died of rockets? I think you'd have worse chances driving in LA!

Christ on a fucken busted crutch don't we give them enough of our tax money in weapons? Now they want you to call in 50 bucks so you can slap that we support Israel sticker on your bumper? Sheesh!!!!!!!!

What a joke!

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
First of all, I agree with GrGr, a two State solution is unlikely to be viable, because each side might then seek to cannibalize the other.

The immediate prehistory of the British Mandate over Palestine prior to 1948 is not basically in dispute, but after the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 by the UN, there is the Jewish version, the Arab, version, and the Palestinian version, and the various versions of the European colonial exploiters of the entire mid-east so we might as well add in the USA also. Because even if Israel is basically without oil, its still all about Arab oil, and for an exploiter, creating conflict and distension through the formation of buffer client states, creates a wedge to exploit.

But we do know two things. (1) The original intent of the UN formation of the State of Israel was to provide a dumping ground of Jewish refugees from WW2, and they were not numerically strong enough to do anything but to other wise to equally share the land with indigenous Palestinian population. And if the original intent of the UN had been followed, Israel could have been a more secular State granting equal rights to both Jews and Palestinians. The initial wrong was mainly Arab, as they instead massed their armies determined to push the Jews into the Sea. Sadly, other than the humiliation factor of it all, the Arab armies were disorganized and incompetent, and the Jews were organized, and prevailed. And then in an ultimate initial injustice, the Arabs retired to lick their wounds without a loss of territory, and the the palestinians
were the ones who were robbed of their rights to the land within the original State of Israel as a collective guilt punishment for the sins of Arabs. (2) The Palestinians were then herded into subhuman concentration camps, and later Israel greatly expanded its territory in the 1967 war. Since then, mainly the USA, has built up Israeli military hegemony to a point that they are almost unassailable and everyone tries to write their own biased history.

In other words, the American and European colonial exploiters of Arab oil have won and everyone else in the region has basically lost. The Arabs are super unhappy, the Palestinians are totally screwed, the Jews of Israel have only military hegemony to fend off 100's of millions of angry Arabs, and due to the fact that the Jewish faith is an exclusive and not evangelistic religion that seeks converts, seven or so million Jews are not enough to even hold the land they have. And with no common purpose with anyone else in the region, they will in the end lose.

And that is my end analysis, Israel has the potential to be a valued part of the neighborhood by granting more equal rights to indigenous Arabs and Palestinians, with the latter being the most important to assimilate. Sadly, the trend line is anything but. At various times Israel has flurted with doing the visionary thing, but selfishness has always won, and settler parties and extremists on all sides drive moderates out of the political process.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
Holy Shit!

PJ, RichardE and Common Courtesy better get on the phone and dial in the credit card numbers! Who the hell paid for this ad? The bush admin? What a friggen joke? How many died of rockets? I think you'd have worse chances driving in LA!

Christ on a fucken busted crutch don't we give them enough of our tax money in weapons? Now they want you to call in 50 bucks so you can slap that we support Israel sticker on your bumper? Sheesh!!!!!!!!

What a joke!

You send your money to "Kill Innocent Jews today!" coalition yet?


Still remember your support of Hamas using civilians as human shields, what a joke you can be at times :laugh:
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: mect
What do you mean, no they didn't?

I mean the Palestinians still hold right to the West Bank and Gaza , where 4,000,000 Palestinians are currently held under Israeli military control as 500,000 Israeli settlers and growing continue to colonize the West Bank. My comment wasn't in regard to what happened long ago, but rather fact that the colonization of Palestinian land which Gandhi condemned over 70 years ago continues to this day. That is what this conflict is about, Israel effectively destroying any chance of Palestinians ever realizing their right to sovereignty on what little of their own homeland they have yet to cede their right to.

 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Shows what joo's truely love the most......Money!
Thats the real reason this problem is yet be resolved....they are milking it for every red cent they can bleed it for; like a poor little lamb with olive oil and bitter herbs and kosher salt!! lambs are cute' pigs are not! eat bacon not lamb!
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
Holy Shit!

PJ, RichardE and Common Courtesy better get on the phone and dial in the credit card numbers! Who the hell paid for this ad? The bush admin? What a friggen joke? How many died of rockets? I think you'd have worse chances driving in LA!

Christ on a fucken busted crutch don't we give them enough of our tax money in weapons? Now they want you to call in 50 bucks so you can slap that we support Israel sticker on your bumper? Sheesh!!!!!!!!

What a joke!

lol
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: ericlp
Holy Shit!

PJ, RichardE and Common Courtesy better get on the phone and dial in the credit card numbers! Who the hell paid for this ad? The bush admin? What a friggen joke? How many died of rockets? I think you'd have worse chances driving in LA!

Christ on a fucken busted crutch don't we give them enough of our tax money in weapons? Now they want you to call in 50 bucks so you can slap that we support Israel sticker on your bumper? Sheesh!!!!!!!!

What a joke!

This post is full of fail. Would you like me to make a list?
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
they do better with some russian hookers shakin' their ware's and stuff for coin!
the place(yidenon) is full of russian mail order brides, skanky and troweled out!
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: mect
So, based on what this quote is stating, the Arabs should now just be content with the established borders and let the Jews have Israel. My understanding of what he is saying is that borders have changed throughout history, and we shouldn't identify any country as someone's "homeland". At one point, the Jews lost Israel through war. Then the Arabs lost it to the European nations who took it for the Jews. I'm not stating anything about who had the land first, simply that at one time, the Jews had it, at another, the Arabs. Currently, the Jews have it. So based on Gandhi's statement, it would seem that would mean the Arabs should simply be content with the way things are, that there is no point looking back in history to try to reestablish land to those who have the right to them. The problem with this statement is, how long ago does a section of land have to be forcefully taken by a country before those who lost it should simply relinquish their claim? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Maybe I haven't thought about this enough, but I just don't see anything profound in what Gandhi is saying here.

Ohhhh it ain't over baby till the whistle blows.....you know what i'm sayin!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I'm neutral and I think the ideal endgame should be a single state where Israelis and Palestinians alike can live together, if not in perfect harmony, at least without blowing each other up..

How do you plan to solve the Jewish refusal to allow Palastenians to become a majority, which they would, in their democratic country, and therevy gain control of the government?
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0


Here is the full letter that Ghandi wrote. I have bolded some very important parts. Ghandi had a way with words, but he wasn't very wise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which many inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?

Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness.

Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Musalmans or the Hindus, though, as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all the one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment . And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the god fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

It is hardly necessary for me to point out that it is easier for the Jews than for the Czechs to follow my prescription. And they have in the Indian satyagraha campaign in South Africa an exact parallel. There the Indians occupied precisely the same place that the Jews occupy in Germany. The persecution had also a religious tinge. President Kruger used to say that the white Christians were the chosen of God and Indians were inferior beings created to serve the whites. A fundamental clause in the Transvaal constitution was that there should be no equality between the whites and colored races including Asia tics. There too the Indians were consigned to ghettos described as locations. The other disabilities were almost of the same type as those of the Jews in Germany. The Indians, a mere handful, resorted to satyagraha without any backing from the world outside or the Indian Government. Indeed the British officials tried to dissuade the satyagrahis (soldiers of non-violence) from their contemplated step. World opinion and the Indian Government came to their aid after eight years of fighting. And that too was by way of diplomatic pressure not of a threat of war.

But the Jews of Germany can offer satyagraha under infinitely better auspices than Indians of South Africa. The Jews are a compact, homogeneous community in Germany. they are far more gifted than the Indians of South Africa. And they have organized world opinion behind them. I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in nonviolent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope. And what has today become a degrading man-hunt can be turned in to a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. It will be then a truly religious resistance offered against the godless fury of dehumanized man. The German Jews will score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted that latter to an appreciation of human dignity. They will have rendered service to fellow-Germans and proved their title to be the real Germans as against those who are today dragging, however unknowingly, the German name into the mire.

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown in to the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in the their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every country is their home including Palestine, not by aggression but by loving service. A Jewish friend has sent me a book called The Jewish Contribution to Civilization by Cecil Roth. It gives a record of what the Jews have done to enrich the word's Literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine, agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jews can refuse to be treated as the outcaste of the West, to be despised or patronized. He can command the attention and respect of the world by being man, the chosen creation of God, instead of being man who is fast sinking to the brute and forsaken by God. They can add to their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action
(November 1938) [/quote][/quote]

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
(Edited out due to mod request) I mean you have to be the most ignorant fool on this board, even as pro-Israel as I am I understand why the Palestinians feel the way they do but just don't really care due to a number of reasons, you on the other hand have no idea about the other side and I'm pretty sure you just sit there and post links from Pro-Palestine blogs on ATOT. 9/10 of the threads you start begin a flame war in the title. So why don't you grow up a little bit, hell there are a ton of pro palestine people here who argue actual points about Palestine instead of "omg they killed 300 people!" That you seem to be going off on, yet you could care less about the Israel civilians that died, your a warmonger who is bloodthirsty like everyone else just on a different side.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I do not see this conflict ending until one of the two parties is expelled from the region entirely. Even if they form two distinct states, there are too many local and international elements who will encourage and support future attacks against Israel. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as nations like Iran, will never stop their crusade to remove Israel from the ME -- never.
 

AreaCode7O7

Senior member
Mar 6, 2005
931
1
0
Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Where is the choice of just being neutral because you think both of the fundamentalist wingnuts who run both shows suck? To infer that only pro-Israeli leaning people could be neutral sucks. What rational person would takes sides in that mess anyhow?

That's not what the first choice states. The first choice is two choices rolled into one (neutral OR pro-Israel). They are grouped together because neither group's opinion matters in the poll based on what I wanted to know.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This is the same idiot Dhimmi that told Jews to sit tight and non violence as Mein Kampf was coming to fruition..made Jews an all to easy kill for those fascists.