Originally posted by: Giscardo
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Shanti
Well, I'd have to say intentionally targeting civilians is worse than accidentally killing civilians when targeting a terrorist.
Seems obvious to me.
You are still talking about it being Palestinian land that is occupied by Israelis. You completely ignored my point. Maybe it's Israeli land that they have taken back after the Palestinians stole it. After all, the Jews were there first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true but the Jews left the land and stayed away from the land for quite a long period of time. IMO after a certain amount of time they lose claims to the land after a few centuries of not occupying it.
So, say hypothetically, Native Americans suddently aquiered some great force and took back portions of America, would that be OK? After all, they were here first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was being sarcastic.
But I would expect you to agree that the Native Americans should be given back all their land. Isn't that your point? That it used to be the homes of Palestinians and the Jews stole it from them. Well this used to be the homes of Native Americans. What difference does it make how long ago it was. I was simply saying you can make that point in either direction. Just depends on how far back in history you go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should the native american be given back their land? There isn't a right answer to this question. "Right" depends on what your ends are. Sure European settlers took over the land and it became theirs. That wasn't "right" in my eyes, but it happened. Sure at this point Americans could give the land back to the Native Americans but they would be giving away with the land a large amount of resources and infrastructure that was not there when the previous generations of Native Americans owned the land. If one were to really have the good of all in mind, then both the Native Americans and the Americans would agree to put the past aside and share the land. But that is an ideal world, which will never exist.
No that's not my point. Whether it is right or wrong, they are going to keep the land that they conquered, but the occupied territories belong to the Palestininas, that's why they are called occupied, if not they would be called "Israeli land where we moved all the Palestininas who used to live somewhere else". Give them the land appropriated to them by the UN, give them a fair state. It might not be all what they had, but it would be better than the more or less nothing they have now. Just like how we gave Indians reservations.
From what I have read so far it seems that Zionism is a very self-centered cause. They could have easily avoided all the conflicts in place today by chosing another piece of land to call the home of the Jews (Does such land even exist?? Probably, i'm sure there are large sections of wilderness all over the world that could be settled, might not be as prime pieces of land, but that's the price you pay for wanting to segregate yourself from the rest of the world. Yes they were persecuted, and felt they had no other choice, but still doesn't give them the right to claim land that was already claimed by others).
Back to drawing a parallel between Israel/Palestine and the Native Americans. The Zionists, who began to move to the land known as Palestine, which had around half a million Arab inhabitants, did something quite similar to if today, Mexicans began to enter California in droves numbering hundreds of thousands to millions each year. Backed by outside governments these Mexicans would begin to establish their own businesses and not allow non-Mexicans in California to gain employment in their businesses. They would even set up their own Mexican-only schools, and set up their own government system and send representatives to the UN and other governments and continue to operate this way until California was recognized as a new nation for Mexican peoples.
That doesn't seem right does it? Seems like the only reason it happened in Palestine was because the area wasn't governed very well. It was under British occupation, and how much could the English have really cared for or been able to sympathize with the Arab inhabitants of the time? In the early 20th century, where the Jewish had their own representatives to the British, well versed in western customs (well many of them had received education and grown up in Europe hadn't they?), and the Arabs had little literacy and likely a very limited number of people on their side able to speak English and appear "civilized" in the eyes of the British? Which side do you think the British would have listened to? Yes the Jewish people were in need of their own nation, but that gives no exuse for the course of events which they pursued.
That happened about a century ago. And look at where it has gotten them. Non-stop wars and conflicts. What did the Zionists think would happen? I think that today moving the Jews from Israel is out of the question. Erradicating them is out of the question. The methods they used to achieve their nation are despicable, but they are there to stay.
The thing to do is to somehow educate the surrounding Arabs with the peacenik morals we teach in American public schools, make the literacy rate sky high. Then get everyone to understand that further fighting will not solve anything the way it is. Simply because no outside forces can ever help one side of the conflict and remain in the right (unless the Jews miraculously agreed to relocate, then problem solved). If we really wanted to end terrorism we would cut aid to israel and funnel it to helping to rebuild Iraq to rival European nations in economic sucess and a high literacy rate, high standard of living for all of it's citizens with a democratic government. But no US strongarming of that government. No using bases there to launch military support on other arab nations (This wouldn't be fair play because at that point Iraq would be extremelly dependant on US aid and would be in no position to say no, therefore we shouldn't ask for permission or take the opportunity to do so). No pitting of Iraq against other nations in war in ways that benefit US ends (not even for the sake of democratising the region). It would ruin all the efforts if the US did this or in any other way caused the new Iraqi government to appear to be a lackey to the US. This is the only way that the US could gain the trust of the arabic world. Use Iraq as an example. I don't know if that is even possible.
At this point both the US and Iraq could help refurbish the industries of other arab nations and to modernize the education system in the countries where it is so needed.
Facebook
Twitter