Israel and Palestine

Who started it is irrelavent, the way to solving problems is to talk, Wars can be solved throught fighting but the peace not and peace cannot be kept until it is present, Both sides have to talk and appreciate one and other until this can happen there will never be peace in the middle east.

Both sides have to talk.

 

It's not the talking that is the trouble, it's the fact that they don't realize what you just wrote: that it doesn't matter who started it and why, because the problems to be solved are here and now and far away from the roots of this conflict. So many wars and events have changed the picture that the origin is becoming more and more irrelevant. Both sides will have to talk, give some and take some.

 

That is the only thing that will provide a long term solution. Personally though I can't see any serious peace process getting off the ground any time in the next ten years.

 

Neither can I.
Too much has happened, on both sides, for things to settle down that quickly.
Especially with all the propaganda flying about.

 

Roel, what conservative, religious people think about certain topics might surprise you. I favor abortion...when the mother's life is in danger. Also in the case of rape or incest. However, I am totally against its being used as a form of birth control (which is why most of them are done these days) and I am totally against the procedure being done to teenage girls without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

As for so-called "gay rights", the gays have all the rights of any other American citizen, although the activist types don't like to admit that. I believe that the lifestyle is an unnatural one, but they do have the right to live that way if they choose. I oppose gay "marriage" under any and all circumstances.

These are my opinions, and yes, my religious convictions have much to do with them, as do certain of my life experiences, especially when it comes to homosexuality. You are free to disagree with me, Roel, as you have shown you do.

 

Well, there we are. Thank you, Corp.

 

For anybody wanting to learn a little about the background to Israel, there is a good book out there.
Published by Osprey (surprisingly ) it is called "The Arab-Israeli Conflict: 1948" or something similar.
It gives a pretty good account, setting the scene from around the turn of the century (1900), detailing the build-up to the war, the 'internal' fighting (actually mostly by Arab 'volunteers' from neighbouring countries vs local Jews) and then the 1948 war itself and the consequences.

It does miss out bits & bobs (like the WW2 vets from a variety of countries who joined the Jewish side) but is generally good.

The country who came out with the worse reputation is acutally the UK.
Britain was as you know the first country to suggest the Partition, but actually went against the UN-sponsored event as it would antagonise the Arabs, and Britain wanted friendly Arabs to maintain oil supplies as well as the British military bases out there. Britain did a lot to try and thwart the Jews - even threatening war in 1948 when they pushed into Egyptian-owned territory.
The USA was also firmly against a state of Israel (they wanted oil too) but was pushed into it by Roosevelt (before WW2, obviously). They did not do quite so much actively against Israel, as they had less influence in the area, but tried!

 

The Israel-Arab conflict is a complex and difficult issue. The conflict has historical, geographic, cultural and religious backgrounds. The conflict is as old as the Jewish people. Opposite players change but the the core of the problem is the same.

Like mentioned before the palestinian protectorate was hardly cultivated by the arabs living there. In fact the number of arabs was not that large as they tell us nowadays. Druzen nomades, moutain tribes (Jacobieten) Turks and many more tribes/minorities lived in Israel. Also a small number of jews have lived among the others. The arabs have no exclusive historical right on palestine or israel. Those who are called palestines have a historical present dating back at the most 5 generations. Many top palestinians speak with proud of their family roots. For example yasser arafat is more egyptian (egyptian father) then "palestinian". The term "palestinians" is basicly false because there are no real palestinians nor did there exist a independent "palestine" with a "palestinian" people. It is a mix of all kinds of peoples without any central historical or cultural defenition like other nations or people have.

On the other hand you have the Jewish people who have historical, cultural and religious roots in Eretz-Israel. These roots can be proven and are written by almost all middle east rulers in the past (unlike arab side).
The jewish people can be defined and recognised quit easily.


In the middle east is plenty of space for the arabs but the arabs insists to have israel too and it is very clear that they will not rest before their goal is achieved. In the founding letters of all arab (terror) organisations the principal goal is to drive israel in the sea and to wipe out the jewish people. Arafats organisation still has this goal although he negotiated about peace.

Someone mentioned that by force you cannot win it from guerilla/terrorists. I disagree, the latest developments in Israel prove that it is possible. And certainly this would have been the case if the IDF and Israeli intelligence services would have got "card blanche".
Unfortunately the Israely forces have to be very carefull in their operations because of (ridiculous) harsh foreign criticism. (Something you don't hear about US operations in Iraq or the Burmese operations or Philipines operations for example.)

What should also be remembered is the difference in mentality. The mentality in the middle east is incomprehenseble for the western outsider. When someone thinks the conflict can be solved by talking and negotiation he thinks wrong. Killing is talking and negotiation in the middle east. That is something we should realize in the western society before we judge actions of both sides.

 

Anton - good post!
I am a little biased as it supports my arguament, but it is still very good!

I do remember reading someone somewhere who said that most Arab cultures are still 'stuck' in the Thirteenth Century, and this is a large part of why their dealings with the West and Israel tend to go awry - and also why kicking out a dictator and assuming that democracy will immediately flourish is a non-starter (topical slot).

 

Exactly!

The problem lies more in the incompetense of arab/muslim leaders to offer its followers/citizens a decent live. Arafat's governing council has received up to now more then 8 billion dollars (the netherlands for example has payed the gaza harbour) and still there is no improving on economy, health care and education. In fact under Israeli rule it was better some arabs say.

The point is that arab/muslim leaders faced with unsatisfied and angry citizens/followers try to turn this feelings towards a common enemy. If the arabs would not focus on israel they will sooner or later focus their frustation towards their own governments. (like in saudi arabia) For example Jordania is absolutely depending on the conflict because 60% of the jordanian population regards itself as rightful owner of israel. Would these people turn their agression towards jordanian government it would soon mean the end for Jordania. Due to the poverty of these group and the steadily available weapons it would not be a rehearsal of september 1973 (not sure).

So actually it is in the interest of the arabs to keep the conflict going.

 

Yes, that was indeed an interesting post Anton. I must admit that I have a tendency to let my sympathy go to the weakest part in a conflict, the Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Palestines in the Middle East etc., but your post have certainly altered my perspective. And, as you write yourself, the situation in the Middle East is a matter of great complexity and it should not be viewed in black and white.

 

Sadly, it seems as it is in the interest of more groups than the Arabs that the conflict is continued. Besides the Islamistic groups in the Middle East you could count in Right Wing politicians in Israel as well as Jewish lobbyists and Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.A.

 

I think you're a bit off track there, Skua. No Christian that I know is in favor of the violence continuing in the Middle East. Why on earth would we want that? Especially given that Christians will no doubt get caught up in, and become victims of, the violence.

 

Let's face it guys, ever since God declared the Jews as His chosen people, various nations have tried, and will no doubt continue to try to exterminate them completely.




Also, have you noticed? It's always people who have NOT been aborted, that support abortion.


Finally may I also say how refreshing it is to see sensitive topics discussed on a forum in a mature & responsible way, with out abusive, antagonistic comments & personal attacks. Long may it last.

 

Hear Hear!

 

The only people I can think of off the top of my head who wanted the hostilities to continue were the old USSR - income from arms sales, fostering support among the Arab nations (allies in the cold war, + destabilise the West by interfering with the oil supply).

Yes, the Jewish hard-liners want the conflict escalated, in order to try & end it asap.
A predictable reaction, but depressing that people still believe that force alone is anything more than a short-term solution. :cry:

Christian 'fundamentalists' in the USA. Well, there are some right nutters among them - mostly people who skipped over the second most important commandment of 'love your neighbour as yourself', and believe that arson, threatening behaviour, and even direct physical assault are all fine (see abortion clinics). :angry: :bang:
The ultimate 'Christian Fundamentalist' was Jesus. How did he behave?
Well, he did overturn the tables of the 'traders' in the temple, who were in effect making a sham (or a shell) out of the Jewish religious observances. Abortion may or may not be murder, but the old 'eye for an eye' motto went out when the New Covenant came in. Yes, protest if you believe something is wrong, but breaking the law to do so - deliberately intimidating/harming people to do so?
How did Jesus treat offenders - crooked taxmen, prostitutes, adulterers, even people who had persecuted Christians?
Certainly not by setting fire to their workplace. :roll:

Sorry, I got carried away - I just get sooo frustrated at the perception of what a 'Christian Fundamentalist' is. (not yours Corp, but the people who applied that label to begin with)

 

Some claim the US government is willing to let thing conflict exist in order to gain the support of Jewish in the area by providing them with funding. In any case they do this to an unbelievable extent and it seems that this money is not used by the Israeli government to stop hostilities, and that this is permitted by the American funders. It all points toward the reality of this far-fetched idea.

Christian fundamentalists want the Holy City to be under the absolute control of Christians. I don't know how they can side with any party in this conflict, becasue neither is Christian, but it is another motive to let the conflict continue and to support the battling parties.

 

Roel, the idea that Christians want the fighting in the Middle East to continue so that Jerusalem will somehow become a totally Christian city is ridiculous. Christians want everyone to become Christians (even though we know that is a total impossibility), but we don't go around shoving guns in people's faces to achieve this. Such actions would be very un-Christian.

 

See my comments above about 'Christian fundamentalists'
Cross-referance to the Crusades.

Sadly, many things have been / are being / will be done in the name of Christianity that are as Christian as murder.

 

Your last note is perfectly true, Ricky...and God *will* deal with the ones who have done evil things in His name, those He hasn't already dealt with. As far as "fundamentalism" in religion goes, there's nothing wrong with that. "Extremism" is another matter entirely; nothing good comes of extremism, and not even Christian extremism would be excusable.