Rockets, Mortars keep falling on Israeli cities

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When Israel was carved out of the British mandate in 1948, it had a basic choice, it could provide equal government for both indigenous Palestinians and Jews, or it could favor Jews and expel its Palestinians.

We can see that Israel choose the path of pigs, and here we are 60 years later with the same basic tactics. The more brutal the Israeli repression, the stronger the Palestinian and Arab resistance becomes, why should we be at all surprised at a rerun of the same ole same ole.

You make it sound as though the Arabs' and the Palestinians' attempts to slaughter all of the Jews during all of the wars they started has nothing to do with any of that. It's amazing just how benevolent Israel is because many other people and nations would have just wiped the Arabs off the map without any remorse or second-thoughts.

 

[kylebisme]

It sounds to me like Lemon law understands that the Palestinians were being run out of the region before the Arab nations ever declared war on Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

Granted, I can understand how you might not be aware of such facts, considering you just explained that your understanding of the conflict is derived from a work of fiction.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It sounds to me like Lemon law understands that the Palestinians were being run out of the region before the Arab nations ever declared war on Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

Granted, I can understand how you might not be aware of such facts, considering you just explained that your understanding of the conflict is derived from a work of fiction.

Perhaps the Plan Dalet was a plan worked out to prepare for the contingency of an Arab invasion and/or an attempt by the Palestinians to inflict genocide on the Jews? Perhaps the Palestinians were already attacking Jewish settlements? Is it possible that the Plan Dalet has been taken completely out of context? Taken in context it seems rather reasonable--gain control of the land and expel hostile forces. (Duh; seems like basic military strategy.) I wonder what kinds of "plans" the Arabs and Palestinians had--perhaps outright genocide?

What's amazing is that Jews and Israel have been far, far more benevolent to the Palestinians and the Arabs than a great many other nations would have been yet the Israelis are still accused of being the barbarians. (Imagine what the Soviets, Chinese, other Arab nations, or perhaps even World War II generation Americans would have done in a similar situation.)

I certainly don't regard The Haj as being a historical document, but based on my understanding of the historical facts it does a great job of encapsulating the Palestinian and Arab mentality in regards to the Jews and Israel. Show me some sort of evidence to the contrary (that the book is not an accurate portrayal of the Arab/Islamic mentality). Given that context, I find the novel, which is actually rather sympathetic to peaceful Palestinians, very worthwhile. Perhaps you should read it.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It sounds to me like Lemon law understands that the Palestinians were being run out of the region before the Arab nations ever declared war on Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

Granted, I can understand how you might not be aware of such facts, considering you just explained that your understanding of the conflict is derived from a work of fiction.

So you're linking to a contingency plan, that called for preemptively taking measures against population that will side with Arab nations during an attack?
In case you don't see it yourself, that plan was never realized. Large Arab population still lives inside Israel, as Israeli citizens. Oh, and that attack they were talking about? Arabs didn't disappoint and really did attack Israel

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Perhaps the Plan Dalet was a plan worked out to prepare for the contingency of an Arab invasion and/or an attempt by the Palestinians to inflict genocide on the Jews? Perhaps the Palestinians were already attacking Jewish settlements? Is it possible that the Plan Dalet has been taken completely out of context? Taken in context it seems rather reasonable--gain control of the land and expel hostile forces. (Duh; seems like basic military strategy.) I wonder what kinds of "plans" the Arabs and Palestinians had--perhaps outright genocide?

Plan Dalet drove out entier populations of regions on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides of the U.N. Partion plan, notable examples of the latter being Jaffa and Acre.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What's amazing is that Jews and Israel have been far, far more benevolent to the Palestinians and the Arabs than a great many other nations would have been yet the Israelis are still accused of being the barbarians. (Imagine what the Soviets, Chinese, other Arab nations, or perhaps even World War II generation Americans would have done in a similar situation.)

Imagine if some faction of World War II Americans saught to establish an state for themselves in some portion of Europe, by driving out the vast majority of the indigenous population and colonizing the land with American settlers. How do you suppose Europeans, and the world at large, would have reacted to that?

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I certainly don't regard The Haj as being a historical document, but based on my understanding of the historical facts it does a great job of encapsulating the Palestinian and Arab mentality in regards to the Jews and Israel. Show me some sort of evidence to the contrary (that the book is not an accurate portrayal of the Arab/Islamic mentality). Given that context, I find the novel, which is actually rather sympathetic to peaceful Palestinians, very worthwhile. Perhaps you should read it.

The lacking understanding of the historical facts you have presented, along with the review I read on Amazon after you first recomended it, has done nothing to pique my intrest. Here is some snips:

"We Arabs are the worst. . . ." That is the theme of this crude propaganda-novel by the author of Exodus, which traces the Palestinian-refugee problem up through 1956 - blaming 100 percent of it on the British and the Arabs (Arab greed, decadence, laziness, backwardness, bestiality, etc.), putting the case into the mouths of a few relatively "good".

...

In sum: a dreary, ugly lecture/ novel - sure to attract an audience, but likely to embarrass all but the most unthinking Jewish readers.

http://www.amazon.com/Haj-Leon-Uris/dp/0553248642

Besides, being dyslectic I'm a rather slow reader, and hence prefer to stick to non-fiction for my reading material.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
So you're linking to a contingency plan, that called for preemptively taking measures against population that will side with Arab nations during an attack?
In case you don't see it yourself, that plan was never realized. Large Arab population still lives inside Israel, as Israeli citizens.

The plan wasn't completed, but it was successful in displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from areas on both sides of the partition plan, before the Arab states declared war on Israel. If the Arabs had been the ones to carry out such plans instead, out of fear of Israeli attack, surely you wouldn't be attempting to excuse their actions as "a contingency plan", eh?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

The plan wasn't completed, but it was successful in displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from areas on both sides of the partition plan, before the Arab states declared war on Israel. If the Arabs had been the ones to carry out such plans instead, out of fear of Israeli attack, surely you wouldn't be attempting to excuse their actions as "a contingency plan", eh?

Many Palestinians were displaced voluntarily at the request of the Arab nations.

Also, the number of hundreds of thousands seems to be s slight stretch for the 1948 error.

The bare facts is that the Arabs have been attacking Israel since '48.
Everytime that they try, they have had their tails handed to them and end up going to the UN crying for protection. And they promise to behave themselves.

Rinse and repeat.

Up through the '73 conflict, Israel has been the underdog in terms of equipment. but no one sanctioned the Arabs for what they did.

What is the benefit of Israel taking the Arabs promises seriously without concrete action on the Arab part.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Many Palestinians were displaced voluntarily at the request of the Arab nations.

I've heard that claim made before, but have yet to see any proof. However, surely the Israeli forces ransacking the region alone provided more than enough cause for the population to flee regardless of any outside requests.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Also, the number of hundreds of thousands seems to be s slight stretch for the 1948 error.

More than 400,000 prior to the Arab nations declaring war on Israel, 199 localities emptied, some outright destroyed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...Palestinian_localities

And yeah, that was very large part of the population in the 1948 era.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The bare facts is that the Arabs have been attacking Israel since '48.

Yeah, that was right after Israel displaced the of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians you apparently weren't previously aware of.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Everytime that they try, they have had their tails handed to them and end up going to the UN crying for protection. And they promise to behave themselves.

Rinse and repeat.

Up through the '73 conflict, Israel has been the underdog in terms of equipment.

Israel has always been far better prepared for war, as is blatantly evidenced by the results.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What is the benefit of Israel taking the Arabs promises seriously without concrete action on the Arab part.

A resolution to end this conflict would be a great benefit to the vast majority, Jews and Arabs alike. The only ones who refuse to see that benefit are those who would rather Israel keeps denying any Arab promises and persist in taking the Palestinians land instead.

 

[Lemon law]

For a what its worth, chapter, 1,023,009 of the 60 year Israeli, palestinian Arab conflict is about to unfold. As Israeli is again about the invade Gaza as an all but certain done deal. Just waiting for better weather.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...6DFAtMSlv7JuGeJQ.s0NUE

As long as we realize the innocent will be punished while the guilty escape, we can hardly wait for the next chapter of more of the same.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: cobalt
Can we just say a prayer and turn the whole place into glass already. It would solve tons of problems.

nice sig:thumbsup:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Many Palestinians were displaced voluntarily at the request of the Arab nations.

I've heard that claim made before, but have yet to see any proof. However, surely the Israeli forces ransacking the region alone provided more than enough cause for the population to flee regardless of any outside requests.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Also, the number of hundreds of thousands seems to be s slight stretch for the 1948 error.

More than 400,000 prior to the Arab nations declaring war on Israel, 199 localities emptied, some outright destroyed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...Palestinian_localities

And yeah, that was very large part of the population in the 1948 era.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The bare facts is that the Arabs have been attacking Israel since '48.

Yeah, that was right after Israel displaced the of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians you apparently weren't previously aware of.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Everytime that they try, they have had their tails handed to them and end up going to the UN crying for protection. And they promise to behave themselves.

Rinse and repeat.

Up through the '73 conflict, Israel has been the underdog in terms of equipment.

Israel has always been far better prepared for war, as is blatantly evidenced by the results.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What is the benefit of Israel taking the Arabs promises seriously without concrete action on the Arab part.

A resolution to end this conflict would be a great benefit to the vast majority, Jews and Arabs alike. The only ones who refuse to see that benefit are those who would rather Israel keeps denying any Arab promises and persist in taking the Palestinians land instead.

actually your facts are misleading and just plain wrong---
Prior to 1948 there were more than 400,000 refugees before the British mandate ended

The key word being british Mandate .....


Then you say -- Yeah, that was right after Israel displaced the of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians you apparently weren't previously aware of.

That is not even the reason the Arabs went to war with Israel.........
You also do not understand that when Israel became a Nation they told the people occupying the land they did NOt have to leave, but could leave if they so desired.


Also you fail to mention that those arabs who were displaced were nOT welcome by other arab countries.

Your facts are so skewered that there really is no hope trying to persuade or even get you to address these issues with an open mind.


Sure you addressed what Common Courtesy had to say but not with anything factual.
Most of the time anybody who would use wikipedia as a source of "accurate" infor ,mation has no clue at all!!

Peace!!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Prior to 1948 there were more than 400,000 refugees before the British mandate ended

The key word being british Mandate .....

What are you on about here? The more than 400,000 refugees figure is up to 13 May 1948, days before the Arab nations declared war on Israel, as I said.

As for the Britsh mandate, they had notified the U.N. that they would be out by 1 August 1948, but they mostly had retreated from the chaos well before:

Within the framework for the expansion of Jewish territory foreseen by Plan Dalet, the forces of Haganah, Palmach and Irgun intended to conquer mixed zones. Whether ethnic cleansing was the intention, encouraged, or merely accepted, Palestinian society was shaken. Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre fell, resulting in the flight of more than 250,000 Palestinians.[44]


The British had, at that time, essentially withdrawn their troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...e_Mandate_and_1948_War

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Then you say -- Yeah, that was right after Israel displaced the of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians you apparently weren't previously aware of.

That is not even the reason the Arabs went to war with Israel.........

I'll defer to the King of Jordan at the time for this one:

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

Read that, and feel free to try and make your argument that the the war was about anything but.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You also do not understand that when Israel became a Nation they told the people occupying the land they did NOt have to leave, but could leave if they so desired.

You are in denial of the fact that they ran out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Most of the time anybody who would use wikipedia as a source of "accurate" infor ,mation has no clue at all!!

The sorces for the facts I site are listed on the pages I linked, Wiki simply compiles them and makes for easy access. If you have any reason to dispute the information I provided, please share it.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Somehow arguments over Israel always degenerate back to the core issue of "Should Israel be allowed to exist". Well, as a non-orthodox, completely atheist Jew, I can say I don't care about any historical claims for Palestine. I don't believe in the "promised land" and I might even add that personally, establishing a country right THERE was, at the very least, not too reasonable.

HOWEVER -

Israel is already there. Just like USA is there (hey, someone lived on that land, too!) and like Australia is there. Israel is not going to go away, and is a fact - a fact even Jordan, the country from the article above, realized and accepted. Once people like TheSnowman stop questioning its very existence and instead focus on how to make things better from here, life would be much better in the Middle East. Hamas, unlike Fatah, never accepted or acknowledged Israel; if your opponent doesn't approve of your being, there is very little you could do to bridge gaps.

Once the Palestinians figure out they lost the struggle, and that there's a new reality around them, only then will they come to the negotiation table. Unfortunately, with each passing year, the Palestinians are drifing away from acknowledging their defeat, and that process can mostly be blamed on the Islamization of their society. They would rather be dead than defeated - and the results can be seen daily.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Once people like TheSnowman stop questioning its very existence ...

How in the world did you come up with this nonsense? I don't deny Israel's right to exist by any means, what I take issue with is Israel's continuing colonization of what little land the Palestinians still hold claim to.

Apparently, you think the Palestinians should part with their homeland just because Israel has always had the power to take what they want, but that is no excuse for mischaracterizing my position here.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Everytime that they try, they have had their tails handed to them and end up going to the UN crying for protection. And they promise to behave themselves.

Rinse and repeat.

Up through the '73 conflict, Israel has been the underdog in terms of equipment.

Israel has always been far better prepared for war, as is blatantly evidenced by the results.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What is the benefit of Israel taking the Arabs promises seriously without concrete action on the Arab part.

A resolution to end this conflict would be a great benefit to the vast majority, Jews and Arabs alike. The only ones who refuse to see that benefit are those who would rather Israel keeps denying any Arab promises and persist in taking the Palestinians land instead.

Israel had the most to lose, not that they were better prepared. When their backs were to the wall, the fought back. They knew that to loose was extermination.


I will agree to the last item. Eliminate the radicals that do not want peace and there is a chance.

 

[wwswimming]

3 more history books written by Jewish authors ~

First, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.

Chaitkin's father was one of the Jewish elders who sat on the tribunals after WW2 in which some of the war criminals were tried.

if you're concerned about attacks on Jewish people - and innocent civilians in general - you should know about the Bush's role in WW2 Germany.

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

George Bush, the Un-Authorized Biography

"Chapter - II - The Hitler Project

Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.@s1 "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"The Israel Lobby", by John Mearsheimer.

http://books.google.com/books?...ult&resnum=3&ct=result

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-L...n-Policy/dp/0374177724

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", by Ilan Pappe - Israeli author and academic

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-C...3/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

 

[gingermeggs]

I believe the situation is going to get much worse and this credit crunch will be the catalyst, as America slowly starts to relieve itselfs of big brother duties over Israel. Also the chance of Palestinian people killers gaining nuclear devises, only small in size and setting up a sequenced denotation which could level the place, this comes as Pakistan becomes instable enough to be cooperative to the Palestinian fundamentalists and the ability of foreign support both financial and on the popular level for Israel wanes.
Israel has the 4th biggest military in the world, people that want peace don't do this stuff.
Looking at the past, Israel hasn't complied with most of the UN-mandates made over its take over of palestine and is yet to be sanctioned for such non-compliance. The real reason the West wanted the state of Israel was to have a key strategic position in the oil rich middle east. It has caused the death of millions of innocent people on all sides and to expect people to forget about it is naive in the extreme. Same as the Iraq war or the deposing of the ottoman turks in the region the main motivation has always been resource control. The humanitarian "story" has and always will be a sales pitch of that simple fact- supply and demand.
Now I don't support any religious extremism, but it makes a great tool for the powerful to manipulate the outcomes of their business interests, economies and maintained hold on power in the world.
As for the hypothetical "invasions"- Israelites, were not the original inhabitants of that patch of dirt (wholely or holey) and the people that gave them an area and protection from the Egyptians, would turn in their graves to know what has happen since those times.
Extremes of religion go hand in hand with extremes of ideology and you create all the propaganda to support your objectives with "a good story", but at the end of the day you can't kill truth completely.
The only difference between Palestinians, red Indians and aboriginals in Australia is their not stone age man, so tend to put up a bigger fight. As for the Jews in Europe over the last thousand years, you would of thought they have learned the lessons required to be peaceful in a land that once welcomed them with open arms, as they say their older brother in the O.T.
But that area used to be well treed and fertile land , look at it now its the earths greatest pre-industrial age environmental catastrophe- remove the trees you lose the rain, the animals and the worth of living on such land.
As freddy mercury said "this world could be heaven for everyone".
Ps- not I am NOT GAY! lol!

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Once people like TheSnowman stop questioning its very existence ...

How in the world did you come up with this nonsense? I don't deny Israel's right to exist by any means, what I take issue with is Israel's continuing colonization of what little land the Palestinians still hold claim to.

Apparently, you think the Palestinians should part with their homeland just because Israel has always had the power to take what they want, but that is no excuse for mischaracterizing my position here.

OK, then I apologize if I misinterpreted your position. If viable peace can be achieved, there are very few Israelis who wouldn't like to give the Palestinians the territories of '67 (after minor adjustments, dictated by urban realities mostly). The trouble is the Israeli public, after 14 years of hell (since the first Oslo agreement), no longer believe that will subdue the Palestinian aggression.

Back in the 90's, Israel had governments far, far into the left. After signing these agreements with the Palestinians and granting them autonomy, Israel got nothing but troubles for 14 years. Even Meretz, a party set far in into the left, calls for military handling for Hamas. Who would have thought - those are the same people that would have blocked Israeli tanks with their own body if this has happened 10 years ago.

You could segment the Israeli public opinion into three eras:

1) The era of peace - Around 94, until 2001 or so. During this time, most people really did believe peace can be made, despite two suicide bombers in Israeli cities nearly every week. Economical growth in the Palestinian Authority rocketed (highest in the world for that time, in fact). Then, seemingly out of nowhere, came the 2nd Intifiada, dragging the area back to violent conflict.

2) The era of separation - From 2002 onwards, the Israeli public begged its leaders to let go of Gaza and West bank - leave them to their own devices. They do no good anyway. Not too long after retreating from Gaza, Hamas seized control, armed itself heavily and began firing rockets into Israel (after all, the physical separation means there's very little they can do besides).

3) The era of despair - What the public is facing now. Everyone, from all sides of the map, calls for military action, becasue those Terrorists just won't let go. Instead of building their own country in the areas they have, they chosen to drag both sides into oblivion. The trouble is, the average Palestinian loses much more from this than the Israeli.

Two honest questions, please reply with honest answers:

1) Do you think the Israeli public is genuinely interested in annexing Gaza and the West Bank?
2) Do you think the dispute only revolves around land?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Israel has the 4th biggest military in the world, people that want peace don't do this stuff.

Yes, because Israel was never attacked by anyone. When was the last time ISRAEL started a war, unprovoked?

The real reason the West wanted the state of Israel was to have a key strategic position in the oil rich middle east.

Many in the West didn't want Israel, and the US hasn't been too friendly up until 1967 or so. Before that, US didn't sell any arms to Israel. The oil argument is ridiculous once you realize:

1. Oil wasn't nearly in demand as it is today;
2. Iran was extremely friendly to the West

 

[gingermeggs]

the city of Jerusalem is the biggest issue, they believe their man took off to heaven, there- never mind 72 virgins after, I reckon he had 72 before he when up like a roman candle, they are called shia(desendent of muhomed and co') and they are the nuttest of the fruits( funny saddam was anti-shia) and very little different to zionists.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Israel has the 4th biggest military in the world, people that want peace don't do this stuff.

Yes, because Israel was never attacked by anyone. When was the last time ISRAEL started a war, unprovoked?

The real reason the West wanted the state of Israel was to have a key strategic position in the oil rich middle east.

Many in the West didn't want Israel, and the US hasn't been too friendly up until 1967 or so. Before that, US didn't sell any arms to Israel. The oil argument is ridiculous once you realize:

1. Oil wasn't nearly in demand as it is today;
2. Iran was extremely friendly to the West

yes but the future demand was evident even then.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
I believe the situation is going to get much worse and this credit crunch will be the catalyst, as America slowly starts to relieve itselfs of big brother duties over Israel. Also the chance of Palestinian people killers gaining nuclear devises, only small in size and setting up a sequenced denotation which could level the place, this comes as Pakistan becomes instable enough to be cooperative to the Palestinian fundamentalists and the ability of foreign support both financial and on the popular level for Israel wanes.
Israel has the 4th biggest military in the world, people that want peace don't do this stuff.
Looking at the past, Israel hasn't complied with most of the UN-mandates made over its take over of palestine and is yet to be sanctioned for such non-compliance. The real reason the West wanted the state of Israel was to have a key strategic position in the oil rich middle east.

:thumbsup:

Wow, someone understands & is not afraid of history !

When was the last time ISRAEL started a war, unprovoked?

i don't know the last time. i do know the first time - 1948. that's when they destroyed 400 Palestinian villages.

long before the Palestinians started strapping dynamite to their bodies.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

When was the last time ISRAEL started a war, unprovoked?

i don't know the last time. i do know the first time - 1948. that's when they destroyed 400 Palestinian villages.

long before the Palestinians started strapping dynamite to their bodies.

From Wikipedia:

The British mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May, but Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence on 14 May. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the United States, the Soviet Union, and many other countries.

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

Looks like the Palestinians were upset and started the war from here.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
A resolution to end this conflict would be a great benefit to the vast majority, Jews and Arabs alike. The only ones who refuse to see that benefit are those who would rather Israel keeps denying any Arab promises and persist in taking the Palestinians land instead.

Israel had the most to lose, not that they were better prepared. When their backs were to the wall, the fought back. They knew that to loose was extermination.

Their backs weren't to the wall when they were ransacking Palestinian localities on both sides of the U.N. patition, prior to the Arab states declaring war on them in 1948.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
I will agree to the last item. Eliminate the radicals that do not want peace and there is a chance.

I doubt you realize it, but you just adminted that you are standing in the way of peace. See the bold above.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The trouble is the Israeli public, after 14 years of hell (since the first Oslo agreement), no longer believe that will subdue the Palestinian aggression.

Only because they've been mislead to believe it is something other than Israel's conquest of Palestinian land which started this conflict in the first place.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Back in the 90's, Israel had governments far, far into the left. After signing these agreements with the Palestinians and granting them autonomy, Israel got nothing but troubles for 14 years.

The Palestinians got limited autonomy, and Israel got something then too, they kept adding to their settlements in the West Bank.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
1) The era of peace - Around 94, until 2001 or so. During this time, most people really did believe peace can be made, despite two suicide bombers in Israeli cities nearly every week.

You are mistaken here, there wasn't anywhere close to two a week:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...ism/TerrorAttacks.html

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Instead of building their own country in the areas they have, they chosen to drag both sides into oblivion.

They don't have the area to build their own country, what little land they do still hold is divided up into cantons by Israeli settlers and military. Check a map:

http://www.peaceways.net/westbank_en.jpg

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Two honest questions, please reply with honest answers:

1) Do you think the Israeli public is genuinely interested in annexing Gaza and the West Bank?
2) Do you think the dispute only revolves around land?

1) No, not the Israeli public in general, but a small yet resourceful faction of Israelis continue to colonize the West Bank anyway.

2) There are many factors, but the conquest of Palestinian land is the heart of this conflict.

And please note that I have no reason to be anything besides honest here. I don't have a vested interest in either side of this conflict, but rather only in seeing it resolved so that both Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
From Wikipedia:

The British mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May, but Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence on 14 May. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the United States, the Soviet Union, and many other countries.

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Jordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

Looks like the Palestinians were upset and started the war from here.

That was directly following Israel's displacement of over 400,000 Palestinians which I mentioned previously. How could anyone rightly expect them to have been anything less than upset after that?

 

[Lemon law]

Quite Frankly, the behavior of all sides, be its the Israelis, the Palestinians, the British, or the various surrounding Arab nations around and before the formation of the State of Israel is and was disgusting, so making the case that any of the sides held any sort of moral high ground over the others is a dishonest fools errand.

And its also somewhat ironic the the precursor for the events leading up to the formation of the State of Israel was Hitler's rampant hatred of Jews as almost 100% of European jews were displaced and a large fraction of those were killed for the fact of heredity. And then, rather than European nations owning up and repatriating its own Jewish refugees, they got the idea that they could dump them all on the Arabs who were in almost no way responsible for the events leading up to WW2.

The only thing an honest man can see in the 60 years since 1948, is that the State of Israel is the big winner, and the Palestinian people are the big losers. Becoming third class citizens in the land of their own birth. Ironically, the same fate the various Jewish groups in Europe shared as Hitler rose to power.

And while the State of Israel enjoys good press in the USA, its certainly does not share basic American values like separation of Church and State, equal opportunity for all, equal protection under the law, as we demonize various Muslim countries for similar values.

In a better possible history, the State of Israel could have equally governed both Palestinians and Jews, and instead now conducts its self in a totally segregated society much like the old Jim Crow South or the old apartheid South Africa. And only Israeli military hegemony keeps the whole mess viable.

Like all struggles, there will be a final resolution, but its looks further away now than it did in 1948.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And while the State of Israel enjoys good press in the USA, its certainly does not share basic American values like separation of Church and State, equal opportunity for all, equal protection under the law, as we demonize various Muslim countries for similar values.

Big words. Any facts to back it up? How about the approximately 1.3 million Israeli-Arabs, who are Israeli citizens? Those could be classified as "Palestinian" too. Some of them even join the Israeli army, imagine that.

Obviously, you could find thousands of hardcore leftists and "new historians" who say they get 2nd class treatment, but then the same people also usually argue US white elite mistreats minorities. So lets count those people out for a while.

In a better possible history, the State of Israel could have equally governed both Palestinians and Jews, and instead now conducts its self in a totally segregated society much like the old Jim Crow South or the old apartheid South Africa. And only Israeli military hegemony keeps the whole mess viable.

Israel wants nothing with those people. No one in Israel is mad enough to want control over this population, unless absolutely required to by security concerns (such as rockets being fired from their territories, rings a bell?).

So try to understand that there are TWO societies. One society is within the borders of Israel, and comprised of Jews, Arabs and some Christians. The OTHER society, OUTSIDE the borders of Israel, is the Palestinians. They are not Israeli citizens whatsoever. You can shout "2nd class citizens" for all that you like, but these people have nothing to do with Israel.

By the way, ever wondered why Egypt keeps its border with Gaza strip closed? Just some food for thought.