Prospect of peace in middle east

Originally Posted by TonyDaTigger

BBC news source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/969778.stm

Some video of the lynching:
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=53101

Pictures of the two lynched IDF soldiers. *GRAPHIC, not safe for work*
http://inhonor.net/ramlah/

Oh god... How come humans were that cruel? ;_;
I dont say Palestinians should forgive and forget what Israel did to them easily. But this brutality... I guess it can't be helped. Btw that was happened around 2000? make sense... it was during second Intifada I assume.

Originally Posted by TonyDaTigger

They published an apology in an Israeli newspaper. The source is in the original CNN link.

Oh ok, I dont watch CNN, thanks for pointing that out. But it would have been much better if both sides hold constructive talk so that civillians dont suffer from the war between elites.

Originally Posted by TonyDaTigger

I will be more careful in distinguishing the groups. However the Palestinian people freely ELECTED Hamas a terrorist organization by any one's standards.

I could understand why Palestinians elected Hamas. While the PLO has their own spot on Jordania, living separately from the daily life of sufferings in Gaza, Hamas' close to palestinians in the social level. They built public services for the people and eventually, palestinians felt the guerilla closer to them than PLO.

Originally Posted by TonyDaTigger

I'd say Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, whoever is in charge of the Rebels in the Congo, Abu Sayaff - Israel isn't the worst.

Quoted for the truth. I had my reference from Joe Sacco's Palestine. I own the book and I was surprised. The Nazi victim has turned into Nazi.

Originally Posted by TonyDaTigger

That I wholeheartedly agree with. If all the Middle Eastern countries were like Turkey, that would be a productive start.
Out of curiosity, do you know how Turkey treats other religions? Could there be a open public Buddhist Temple or Christian church?

Nope sorry, I dont know much things about religion toleration in Turkey. Secularization in middle east might be possible... but the chance would be too small since religious leaders still influence the people heavily. In this case I agree that democracy should be spread in middle east, but not in some unilateral act.
Maybe Adamgian could give us descriptions how is the daily life of Saudi people? Is religion influenced them that much?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by TonyDaTigger

When did Israel invade a neighbor and started a war?

While the Six Day War in 1967 would meet that qualification, you won't accept it. In its place, I offer the invasion of the Sinai during the Suez Crisis in 1956, and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Oh god... How come humans were that cruel? ;_;
I dont say Palestinians should forgive and forget what Israel did to them easily. But this brutality... I guess it can't be helped. Btw that was happened around 2000? make sense... it was during second Intifada I assume.

We all know that humans are capable of great evil but it's events like Ramallah continue to surprise us for the worst. From my understanding, this brutality is due to decades of propagating blind hatred by the people in charge of Palestine. It goes from Arafat down to the Mosque leaders, down to the educational teachers.
-Arafat himself was a terrorist and preached death to Israel
-Mosque leaders preached death to Israel
-Teachers preached death to Israel to children.
-Textbooks preached death to Israel
-Gunmen attend every funeral shooting guns in the air preach death to Israel.

Just hope you understand that considering what they face daily, Isreal has to defend itself vigorously. All things considered, they are gentle to their Arab neighbors.

Quote:

I could understand why Palestinians elected Hamas. While the PLO has their own spot on Jordania, living separately from the daily life of sufferings in Gaza, Hamas' close to palestinians in the social level. They built public services for the people and eventually, palestinians felt the guerilla closer to them than PLO.

So for the sake of some utilities, they knowingly elect a government that is scorned by civillized nations and continue the war that keeps their country so impovished? Come know, no civillized country will accept a government that has a platform insisting their neighbors be driven to the sea and all other outcomes are impossible?

Quote:

The Nazi victim has turned into Nazi.

I would not take this analogy. The Jews never caused trouble in Germany and never insisted that all of the Germans be killed or anything. The jews do not hate the Palestinians with the same fervor as their Arab neighbors hate them.

Quote:

While the Six Day War in 1967 would meet that qualification, you won't accept it. In its place, I offer the invasion of the Sinai during the Suez Crisis in 1956, and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

No I would not accept that the Six-Day War was a hostile act from Israel. They might not be on the 2006 World Atlas had they not fought that war.

The Suez Crisis and the invasion of Lebanon are both debatable events on how much an aggressor Israel is. Especially the former as it was a multinational attack force that several nations wanted to keep open for economic interest. I think with Lebanon, Israel dispropiately responded to militant attacks but the arabs *DID* start by shelling Israel.

The point that I am trying to argue is that Israel is in no way can be held in the same regard as the Palestinians and Arab nations as a "partner of peace" when it comes to achieving peace in the region.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

No I would not accept that the Six-Day War was a hostile act from Israel. They might not be on the 2006 World Atlas had they not fought that war.

The Suez Crisis and the invasion of Lebanon are both debatable events on how much an aggressor Israel is. Especially the former as it was a multinational attack force that several nations wanted to keep open for economic interest. I think with Lebanon, Israel dispropiately responded to militant attacks but the arabs *DID* start by shelling Israel.

The point that I am trying to argue is that Israel is in no way can be held in the same regard as the Palestinians and Arab nations as a "partner of peace" when it comes to achieving peace in the region.

Israel was still the agressor in all three cases. Israel was an agressor in Suez, whether multinational or not, that does not absolve it from partial responsibility. With '67, it still attacked and started the war, no matter what comes up, the fact is Israel attacked first. 1982 was shameful, Israel invaded and then proceeded to massacre thousands at Shabra and Shatilla, and massacred thousands more than the Palestinians ever attacked.

Israel can be held in the same regard, it has slaughtered far more civilians than any of the Arab groups have, and has consistently violated the rights of Palestinians while occupying their territory at the same time.


===

Israel's responce to the beach massacres can't even be classified as a real apology. They've come out and started claiming that they weren't even responsible, and when discussing their actions, their purported apology was hogwash. It wasn't an apology at all, the Israeli government is just trying to find a way to start covering when they realize that they might have triggered another intifada.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Israel was an agressor in Suez, whether multinational or not, that does not absolve it from partial responsibility.

If you want to blame Israel for something every other nation on earth has done at one point or another more brutally and for pettier reasons, fine.

Quote:

1982 was shameful, Israel invaded and then proceeded to massacre thousands at Shabra and Shatilla, and massacred thousands more than the Palestinians ever attacked.

So Lebanon was just "chilling" and Israel decided to come and invade them for the hell of it?

1.) The Fatah - Revolution Council attempted to assasinate Shlomo Argov, the ambassador to the UK.

2.) Repeated shelling of Israeli towns by the PLO from Lebanon.

3.) Palestinians begin massive arms buildup, tripling their artillery cannons and rocket launchers to ramp up the shelling of Israeli towns.

If you were a soverign nation being shelled by your neighbor what would you do? You would secure the area where the artillery/rockets were being fired from to remove their range wouldn't you? Maybe invasion was too heavy handed a response? Either case, Israeli responded to attacks upon it's civillian centers.

Quote:

With '67, it still attacked and started the war, no matter what comes up,

I'm not sure if it's pride or what but that is one of the most willfully ignorant statements I have ever read. Gee when over the course of three weeks:

*Egypt concentrates large armed forces in the Sinai penninsula. (For what I dunno, an INVASION?)
*Blockaded the Straights of Tiran and the ISRAELI port of Eliat. (For what I dunno, denying food and supplies to Israel for what.. an upcoming INVASION?)
*Egypt evicts UN Peacekeepers seperating Israel and Egypt. (For what I dunno, an INVASION?)
*Jordan suddenly joins the Egyptian/Syrian military alliance and places ITS TROOPS under Egyptian command. (For what I dunno, they really like Egypt or was it for a future INVASION?)
*Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait also follows suite by sending troops and armor. (I don't think it's for an INVASION, probably some big Arab BBQ or picnic)
*Israel is now surrounded by 465,000, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft (A little bit extreme for such an exercise? Or was it an INVASION force?)

Israel attempts to resolve the situaiton politically by apporaching the Great powers who promised that Israel would have freedom of navigation. Britain and France fail to live up to their agreement that they would help Israel. The United States President states that they would come up with a plan to block the armada. 6 days go by with no action being taken and with nearly half a million troops on the Israeli border - on June 4th, the IDF is to eliminate the forces that threatens Israeli's existence.

Was this all a big understanding? Was there no Arab threat to Israel prior to this? Was there really just a giant picnic and BBQ being put together?

Lets look at history

1948 - War of Independence.
*ONE* day after the British Mandate over Palestine expires and Israel declares its independence, five neighboring Arab states (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan) invade the newly formed state of Israel.

So in '67, THOSE SAME countries with additional forces, upgraded armamants and USSR backing are doing WHAT exactly on Israeli's border?

Quote:

Israel's responce to the beach massacres can't even be classified as a real apology. They've come out and started claiming that they weren't even responsible, and when discussing their actions, their purported apology was hogwash. It wasn't an apology at all, the Israeli government is just trying to find a way to start covering when they realize that they might have triggered another intifada.

Please.. so what does Hamas do when it kills people other than IDF soldiers and generals? Write tearful apologies and send flowers to deceased innocents?

Or do they hand out candy in the streets and praise God about how "great" he is and promise additional bloodshed until every zionist man, woman and child is wiped out?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Since Israel currently holds more territory than the world community officially recognizes, can someone tell me how it would be morally grievous if the Arab powers seized control of the territory that doesn't belong to Israel (territory acquired after the 1967 war) and used it to establish a Palestinian state?

FELIPE NO

Isn't that kind of what's being discussed here?

Whether or not it would be "morally" (I tend not to think in terms of morality, especially when concerning governments and official bodies as they prove time and time again to be utterly corruptable) or politically acceptable/feasible to establish a Palestinian state.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by lordjames

Since Israel currently holds more territory than the world community officially recognizes, can someone tell me how it would be morally grievous if the Arab powers seized control of the territory that doesn't belong to Israel (territory acquired after the 1967 war) and used it to establish a Palestinian state?

Uh no. the possibility is close to zero. I would compare your statement with the future expansion of UNSC permanent members. Too vague and too good to be true.

Arab is not that solid and I dont see reason they will help palestine to establish a state.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Since Israel currently holds more territory than the world community officially recognizes, can someone tell me how it would be morally grievous if the Arab powers seized control of the territory that doesn't belong to Israel (territory acquired after the 1967 war) and used it to establish a Palestinian state?

For many reasons I have outlined, Israel is well within their rights to keep the land they bled for in the Six-Day war.

Also, define world community? World community being UN or the Arabs? Also if we are using "World community", both Israel and Palestine were allotted land. The arabs considered the land allocated by the "World community" as "morally grievous" and attempted to wipe Israel off the planet on at least two occasions (War of Independence, Six-Day War).

Secondly, would it be morally grievous for Mexico to attack the United States to reclaim California?

Lastly, the Palestinians could have had a state for a LONG time. They just simply refuse to allow themselves to. How can a nation be taken seriously when you elect HAMAS as your governing authority?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Alright i'll explain this simply to those of you who don't get exactly why there can't be peace at all :

The main gripe is not just about the state, you know if it's in terms of state/area the Israelis actually had most Palestinian ground they "occupied" already owned (by purches/rent/etc..) BEFORE any war happened and before even the official country of Israel was declared. I have many Palestenian friends whose fathers and grandfathers aren't afraid to admit that.

Now here's the issue, they [palestenians] can shut up about the Land, but Israel is mainly aiming for "Al Haikal Al Thaleth", i dunno how to translate that, it means the Third Temple, i think, which should be built EXACTLY where the Aqsa mosque is.

Now, the Aqsa mosque, being one of the 3 most important mosques to Muslims in general and Arabs in palestine in particular (yes that includes Christians) is indispensable, you can't just take down the Aqsa!

I won't go against the Jews or side with anyone on this dilemma, but don't you see that that means it's impossible to have an agreement because some party will have to make a compromise (is that the right word for it?) and that would mean either give up the Third Temple which is crucial to the Israel fulfilling it's Promised Land position, OR tear down Al Aqsa and have like 1.4 Billion muslims around the world go kaboom.

If that offended any muslims i remind you i am one, well was one, i guess.. And no, i won't go kaboom, i don't fancy seeing myself with a bomb strapped to my belly.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I've been following this news in the local newspaper and its been boggling my mind. I don't understand why they can hate each other so much. Yes, there is a lot of strife between the two countries but can't they see that by kidnapping someone, it'll just cause one side to be more pissed off and can't they see that by shooting missiles and artilery shells would cause people to be pissed off? Why can't they just share the land or just stop shooting.

Edit: Sorry, I just read the post above me. Can there be some kind of compromise? Like a joint place of worship? I, myself am not too familiar with either religion, so sorry if I offended anyone.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?