Your thoughts of the Israel-Palestine Conflict


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Yazoo

Israel (Sharon) will never win the war but maybe the battle, as in the past. If and when he withdraws the palastines will retaliate with whatever they have. This is a sad fact. Its also insane to beleive that by sanitising the palastinians the conflict and hatred will end. There are a lot of children left without fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters. They will grow up with plenty of anger and start the cycle all over again. Whats the solution? I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. Sad fact:(

Well said.

Like I said, the only way to end this is through sitting down and negotiating a peace agreement. We DO NOT NEED more violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by codyg11

Well said.

Like I said, the only way to end this is through sitting down and negotiating a peace agreement. We DO NOT NEED more violence.

I agree here..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I?ve tried to avoid posting after that gruesome and low pic ?Neobond ?posted, which was ill-based, with no corroborating sources, and looked bogus or at least unrelated to the previous ones. But even though I searched for that photo around the net I couldn?t find its source, so I can neither disprove nor accept its validity.

And as another Israeli friend-nant - said, its hard not to take this personally.

I find it extremely condescending and patronizing reading liners like ?we don?t NEED any more violence?!

Who are YOU?

Are you the ones burying bodies every day?

Are you the ones crying over coffin after coffin?

Are you the 13 grieving mothers who just two days ago lost their sons? Or the family of 3 small children who lost their mother in last week in a terrorist bombing?

Are you the other hundreds of families torn apart?

Or the medics staring at the face of horror as countless body parts are scattered across roads and coffee-shops?!

Are you the parents of an infant less then one year old who got shot by a Palestinian sniper in a car?

Or the policeman who threw himself upon a suicide bomber as he was about to blow himself up, and got killed to prevent a greater catastrophe?

Or the actually innocent Palestinians, who have become starving hostages of a fundamentalist mob of terrorist orgs, which have been brewing bomb labs and trying to smuggle bombs under their own wounded inside ambulances?

Or other Palestinian people, who fall victims-yes, sometimes by Israeli soldiers

Should I go on?

YOU ARE NONE OF THOSE!!

There are countless more stories and examples I can bring, but it?s obvious YOU would rather do anything, but refer to examples, facts and arguments.

Instead, all I?ve seen in the majority of this entire forum, is a bunch of brainwashed, indoctrinated weak-narrow-minded people, effected by a populist press, with their own bigoted, closet anti-Semitism, which has obviously found a convenient opportunity to rear its filthy, ugly head.

And the gross amount of your mis-information, and lack of knowledge makes you anything but competent to offer any solutions on a matter, which grater leaders fighters and politicians haven?t been able to solve.

So spare your fake sympathy, care and bloated humanitarian concern, and find some other cause to cry out and whine about.

Maybe the racism and discrimination against blacks and minorities in the US. Or the growing nationalism against eastern European immigrants in countries around Europe. Take care of your KKK?s and your Hyders and leave this bloody, messy tragic Israeli/Palestinian conflict to us. For our soldiers to die. For our civilians to be blown up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes down to it, I think people pay most attention to names they recognize. One reason a lot of people in this forum will disagree to the bitter end is because they don't know each other, and have no reason to respect each other besides common courtesy. So, in the interests of making quality posts with great names behind them, here's stuff from Ghandi and Mandela:

Ghandi on Palestine

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 in-human 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 colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

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 aggre-ssion 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 world?s literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine, agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jew 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.

SEGAON, November 20, 1938

Harijan, 26-11-1938

(Vol. 74, pp. 239-242)

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

MANDELA'S FIRST MEMO TO THOMAS FRIEDMAN MEMO

To: Thomas L. Friedman (columnist New York Times)

From: Nelson Mandela (former President South Africa)

Dear Thomas,

I know that you and I long for peace in the Middle East, but before you continue to talk about necessary conditions from an Israeli perspective, you need to know what's on my mind. Where to begin? How about 1964. Let me quote my own words during my trial. They are true today as they were then:

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Today the world, black and white, recognise that apartheid has no future. In South Africa it has been ended by our own decisive mass action in order to build peace and security. That mass campaign of defiance and other actions could only culminate in the establishment of democracy.

Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. This was demonstrated in your recent column "Bush's First Memo" in the New York Times on March 27, 2001.

You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.

In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in

1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea.

Israel was not thinking of a "state" but of "separation". The valua of separation is measured in terms of the ability of Israel to keep the Jewish state Jewish, and not to have a Palestinian minority that could have the opportunity to become a majority at some time in the future. If this takes place, it would force Israel to either become a secular democratic or bi-national state, or to turn into a state of apartheid not only de facto, but also de jure.

Thomas, if you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of "I hate Arabs" and "I wish Arabs would be dead". If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognised as private property because it can be confiscated.

As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.

The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel's racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a "Jewish" state.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.

The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies.

Thomas, I'm not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I'm not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you're about, give me a call.

---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two well respected figures - and all due credit to them, they know what they're talking about. On the other hand, I disagree with some fundamental points of what they were saying, as you'll find most Zionists probably do.

Ghandi suggests that the purpose of Israel is to be a Jewish state as a home for Jews everywhere. In this, he is entirely correct - like the Vatican can be a "home" for Catholics, or a Muslim might consider Mecca or Qom a spiritual home, so Israel and Jerusalem is for Jews. Every year we say "Next Year In Jerusalem" at our New Year's Celebrations in hope of the time that we might again be united within Israel. However, is the reason that we are unable to be good British Jews or French Jews or American Jews because we do not want to - no, quite the opposite. In many cases it is (though this was far more relevent at the time - people are far more lenient now a days) because we are unable to. At the beginning of this century Jews were persecuted throughout pretty much every single country in the world. Do not think it was just Germany or Poland or Austria that treated us badly - it was England and America and Russia and Spain and France and almost every country where there was a sizable Jewish population. We were undoubtably the second-class citizens that Mandela talks about. Thus at the time a place was needed where Jews could be Jews, where we would be free and capable of practising our beliefs and living how we wished. That is as true today as it was 50 or 100 years ago - while some elements of the persecution may have been removed, but there are still people who feel unable to be who they are within the country that they live in. Luckily they always have Israel, should they need it. But does that for a second stop them being as British or American or as French as they can be - No! It is just they are unable to do so in the ways that they would wish. So rather they be Israeli with all their soul than to be French with half of it, and yet still be the French boy who made good of himself...

Just as importantly, there are Jews living in countries where to this day they are still persecuted. To them Israel is a home, because when they are unable to be absorbed into any other country - and this happens, as it happened when America closed it's borders to Jews, when England closed it's borders, so it happens today. Where then do these people go? Are we to leave them suffering in their home countries when no one else will help them? No!

So Israel exists. Yes the UN gave us Palestine when they removed the British Mandate, rather than Uganda as the Arabs suggested, or Madagascar as Hitler wanted. The Palestinians under the British were as persecuted and downtrodden then as any population might have been. We took the land and we turned it from desert to farmland, we made the desert green. We were attacked and we took steps to protect ourselves, as any sovereign country might do. We did not give the land back because to do so would have invited another attack, perhaps with the chance to irradicate us, as the last three attacks purported to do. When you are surrounded by 4 countries and within marching distance of many more who's publicly proclaimed aim is to "drive the Jews into the sea", you take every effort to defend yourself, as anybody would.

Now, as for Mr. Mandelas claims of an Apartheid in Israel, this I'm afraid to say is almost true. Palestinians ARE second class citizens. They ARE poorer, ill-educated, and they DO have less rights. But let's get one thing straight, is this the fault of the Israeli's? No! And why not, because the Palestinians are Palestinian citizens - they have their own passports, their own number plates, their own education system, their own legal system. And does it betray them, it most certainly does. Time and time again they have been offered their own country - from the day the UN removed the British mandate, they were offered a homeland - land that was the same size as Israel. And they rejected it. So we offered again, and again it was rejected. And again. And again. Each time the Palestinians have had a chance to create a home for themselves, they have tossed it casually aside and refused to make a society for themselves, refused to fix what so badly needs fixing. If you would like to place the blame for this at the feet of the Israeli's, please feel free. If you would like to place it at the foot of the man who might throw away his people's chance for a home, who refuses to organise his society and take responsibility for the maltreatment and injustices that his actions have brought upon the Palestinians, then you can turn around, as we have done and say that enough is enough - that the death of innocent people on both sides because of callous actions by Arafat cannot continue, and then you shall do everything in your power to stop the terror and bring some form of stability to the region.

But hey... what do I know, right? I'm not famous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My-my-my

What an interesting thread.

I cannot honestly say that I have read the entire thread. But I have read enough. I find it interesting that very few Israeli's seem to address the history of Palestine prior to 1948.

I saw many misconceptions here and I would love to comment on them.

First of all this is a land dispute and nothing more. It isn't about religion. It's the result of a short term promise on a long term lie. For those who do not recall or have not looked, Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The British, during WWI promised the Arab States independance in exchange for their help in that conflict. The promise included the Palestinians. But, thanks to Balfour Declaration this promise was not fulfilled in regard to Palestine. Instead what followed was some 25 years of Jewish Immigration, which the population of Palestine (including the 10% that was Jewish) objected to. You have to remember that these peoples, the Palestinians and Jews had lived together for many centuries in complete peace. In fact the Jews were considered like "cousins" after a fashion by the Arab population. This is not a centuries old conflict as some have said.

In WWII, Hitler exterminated far more non-Jews than he did Jews. The total death toll by the Nazi hand, not counting combat, was about 15 million (est). The Jews just happened to be the largest single group. There is some intimation here that the war was largely lost by the time America entered. I would take some exception to that, but even if it were true by wars end almost every Allied power owed the US huge sums of money for equipment, food and arms provided through Lend Lease and other such programs. Most of this debt was either forgiven or we just got out and out stiffed by the debtor nations. So spare me about WWII. Without the US that deal would have ended badly for Europe and much of Asia.

The Israeli's have an interesting interpretation of the events of 1948. The UN describes it thusly:

"In March 1948, Haganah High Command prepared a comprehensive operational Plan 'D', replacing plans 'A', 'B' and 'C' which had governed Haganah strategy in previous years. Zero hour for Plan D was to arrive when British evacuation had reached a point where the Haganah would be reasonably safe from British intervention and when mobilization had progressed to a point where the implementation of a large-scale plan would be feasible. The mission of Haganah was as simple as it was revolutionary: 'To gain control of the area allotted to the Jewish State and defend its borders, and those of the blocs of Jewish settlements and such Jewish population as were outside those borders, against a regular or pararegular enemy operating from bases outside or inside the area of the Jewish State'."

The key words here being "OUTSIDE THOSE BORDERS."

This territorial expansion by the use of force resulted in a large-scale exodus of refugees from the areas of hostilities. Palestinians allege that this was part of a deliberate policy to displace Palestinian Arabs to make room for immigrants, and quote Zionist sources, including Herzl:

"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.

"Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly".

Herzl's plans in respect of the size of the Jewish State are cited as another item of evidence of this policy. Describing a 1939 meeting with Churchill, Weizmann writes:

"... I thanked him for his unceasing interest in Zionist affairs. I said: 'You have stood at the cradle of the enterprise. I hope you will see it through'. Then I added that after the war we would want to build up a State of three or four million Jews in Palestine. His answer was: 'Yes, I quite agree with that'."

1939 . . . Long before the realities of the holocaust were known to the world the Zionists planned the absorption of Palestine by an as yet defined Jewish State . . . this was no action of the UN.

The Jews in Israel occupied land that was not theirs. These were not indegenous Jews, they were immigrants who conspired to steal the Palestinian lands and create a Jewish State at the tip of a British sword.

So if we are going to be anything . . . let's be honest eh? As an American who lives with all the benefits of manifest destiny, I say to the citizens of Israel that what your fathers did was as wrong as what my fathers did. But don't **** down my back and tell me it's raining. You stole the land. You were the aggressor. You emmigrated to a place you were not wanted by even the indigenous Jews. A place that had known relative peace for 1300 years prior to 1917.

Even a dog knows better than to s**t in his own bed. That's what you are doing right now.

I hear about all of the wonders of Israel and how technologically advanced it is. But each of you fails to mention that Israel operates a deficit budget . . . has done so for decades . . . which is largely underwritten by the US government.

Let me clue you in . . . the US supported you for many years, not so much because we agreed with your cause. I think what your fathers did was reprehensible. We supported you because we needed a beach head into the oil rich Arab States in the event of Soviet incursions. If you think that there was any other reason then you don't know my fathers very well. They hated the Soviets, and they feared the Soviets. Every political decision made in the 50's was born of that.

So here we are . . . 2002. The Soviet Union is dead. Many of the oil rich nations have come to the table with the US. We have made agreements and treaties. Their only remaining gripe is our foriegn policy in regard to Israel.

Be careful, or you may well find Israel a very lonely place. Get your people out of the illegally occupied areas afforded the Palestinians in 1967. Get your people out of the hundreds of illegal settlements that you have built.

America no longer needs a beach head and a lot of us think you're in the wrong right now. Not to mention that it would be politically beneficial to wash our hands of you.

The Arab States will kill you . . . this isn't 1967.

-TR

P.S. For anyone interested the UN has a real comprehensive history of these events. It seems pretty unbiased and can be found here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

danshome--

You seemed to miss the basic point Ghandi was trying to get across. He sympathized with the oppression felt by the Jews, but Jews aren't the only people who have been oppressed throughout history. Somehow, though, Jews are the only people that have been given their own state. The Vatican is a city, and Mecca is a city; Israel is a state. I suppose every African American should be promised freedom in access to land in Africa, and to hell with any government that tried to take it away. I suppose Native Americans should be given the American northwest, and gay people should be given...uh...Greece?

It's cool if the Jewish community wants a Centre of Culture, but this is fighting a war over a country. What Ghandi called for is Jews to stop being 'Jews' and start being humans. There's too much Jewish pride stemming from the whole 'Chosen People' spiel. Once again, pride and arrogance are frowned on in your religion, and your God didn't call you the chosen people to give you the right to look down on non-Jews.

To be quite frank, I don't participate in bullying people around just because they're different, but I see no good reason in the world for Jewish people to have their own country just because they're Jewish and "nobody likes them". Every other oppressed class in the western world fought back against those who oppressed them. Slavery was abolished, women's rights were won, and MTV is on a massive anti-homophobia campaign. The Jews of Israel, however, seem to just want a place to run away to and hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to sound inflamatory. I'm not biased on this issue, and really don't care enough to have my own opinion. I'm merely expressing my observations based on things said even in this very topic on this forum. In all honesty, Israel existing as a safe haven for Jews to run away to is exactly what it sounds like it's being described as. I simply said that there's no reason Jews have an exclusive right above all other oppressed minorities to some sort of safety zone.

Jews *have* fought and won equality under the law in countless countries, and it's absolutely taboo in America to trivialize the Holocaust. Anti-semitism is a dirty word and hate crimes are reviled. Countries throughout the western world have made a big gap of room for Jews to expand their equality here, but if they don't fill that gap and demonstrate themselves as equals, the tension will never go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok here is the final solution

1. Arafat should go and be replaced by Erakat or someone less afraid to be assassinated by Hamas or Islamic Jihad

2. A war criminal like Sharon should go and someone like a moderate for peace should come in, and one who doesnt have a military mind

3. Arab countries should reiterate that they will recognise Israel if it returns to the 67 border

4. Arab countries should kill every Hamas and Islamic Jihad member.

5. Israel should withdraw to the 67 border according to UN resolution 282 and 347

lets get this over with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by neo1980

ok here is the final solution

1. Arafat should go and be replaced by Erakat or someone less afraid to be assassinated by Hamas or Islamic Jihad

2. A war criminal like Sharon should go and someone like a moderate for peace should come in, and one who doesnt have a military mind

3. Arab countries should reiterate that they will recognise Israel if it returns to the 67 border

4. Arab countries should kill every Hamas and Islamic Jihad member.

5. Israel should withdraw to the 67 border according to UN resolution 282 and 347

lets get this over with

the thing is though they don't want to agree w/ that....why I have no idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to my mis informed american friend that said earlier that if it wasnt for the americans then us british would be speaking german...???

what crap

i dont hear the geramn speaking english

as for americal wanted to come in the was...it HAD to come in the war if germans took over the UK..The US was next Stop for the germans...this would leave no stepping stone for the yanks to come into europe

so no the americans did not do us a favour...they HAD to come into the war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for americal wanted to come in the was...it HAD to come in the war if germans took over the UK..The US was next Stop for the germans
The Germans lacked the necessary naval forces to undertake a cross ocean offensive. It never would have happened. They were barely able to muster enough landing craft to "consider" a cross channel invasion of Britian. They lacked any form of long range aircraft and an invasion of the continental United States was beyond their logistical abilities.
this would leave no stepping stone for the yanks to come into europe

so no the americans did not do us a favour...they HAD to come into the war

Half true. The US would have had a far more difficult task in fighting the Nazi's in the absence of a staging area as well considered as the British Isles. It was in essence a HUGE aircraft carrier.

My British friend, your nation was being starved by the wolf packs from the life line of US & Canadian imports. Your merchant shipping was being sunk faster than the shipyards could replace it. Your Air Corps, while effective was losing pilots faster than replacements could be trained. I'm sorry, and I know you won't believe this, but were it not for the US your country would have most certainly fallen. Maybe not in 1942, but it would have been perilous in 1943. You must remember also that although we were not militarily involved until December 1941, we had been providing military hardware since Roosevelt convinced congress to pass Lend-Lease in March of 1941.

I had a friend, whose father was a British soldier in Africa. He told us stories of how they stacked the bodies like cordwood and burned them in the night. There was no cover so burning them in the daylight was like sending up a beacon. He told us that they ate worms . . . "and they were glad to have them."

In 1941, Hitler's army was knocking on the door of Moscow.

http://pathfinder.com/photo/gallery/war/ww2/cap13.htm

The world would be a different place today were it not for an ill conceived attack on Pearl Harbor by a Japanese Military that didn't fully recognize the resolve and the industrial capacity of an America bent on vengance.

Yes . . . WWII without Americans would have been a whole different ball game . . .

-TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by irdawood

to my mis informed american friend that said earlier that if it wasnt for the americans then us british would be speaking german...???

what crap

i dont hear the geramn speaking english

as for americal wanted to come in the was...it HAD to come in the war if germans took over the UK..The US was next Stop for the germans...this would leave no stepping stone for the yanks to come into europe

so no the americans did not do us a favour...they HAD to come into the war

Hate to break it to you but even today a full military campaign against the US would be futile. There isn't a military around that can mobilize fast enough to come all the way over here and assault us on home turf. With the exception of terrorist and nuclear possibilities, the US is quit safe as well as Canada, and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Remember the golden rule after WWI any attack on the West will be taken as a direct assault on the US. That's the only reason Congress gave the go ahead in 1941 was because of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

*There are those who even till today think that the military higher-ups let it happen, so congress would fold and give the go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple points that have been missed. TimeRider, there is significant belief that US involvement in the war, although critical to the outcome of the war, was secondary to an ill-advised, ill-conceived attack by the germans against the russians. After the germans invaded russia, the eastern front drained precious resources and manpower. Many believe that if hitler had not invaded mother russia, then the war would have fallen (even with US involvement) in the axis' favor. Imagine for a moment, that the Japanese didn't attack Pearl, and an isolationist US allowed Britain to fall, (not a far stretch, since Britain had fought for quite awhile without US involvement) and let's say that now it's 1948 and a united germany (with jets and nuclear weapons) and russia (with it's great resources and power) pouring troops and weapons into alaska, canada and the western part of the US. Not a pretty picture considering the short distances between russia and alaska.

Yes, it didn't happen that way, but before we leave that image, and before the americans in this discussion break into wide smiles and start patting themselves on the back, let's remember one other thing.

The only reason that the United States was involved in WWII, is because the Japanese attacked us at Pearl. We were isolationist, we didn't care that the entire might of germany was being brought to bare against britain. For months, under a devastating war of attrition, britain was beaten nearly into submission. A time when it had virtually no support. Now, you can throw around "Lend-Lease Act" all you want, however I'm sure that since you are a student of history, you realize that Lend Lease was only enacted to assuage US guilt over not being involved in the war. It was a time when Britain and only Britain was standing toe-to-toe with fascism. Yes, if we hadn't gotten involved britain would have fallen to germany eventually. But let's remember one last thing.

If Britain hadn't valiantly fought alone against the nazis, and had fallen, then imagine D-Day invasion plans whose route would have crossed the Atlantic Ocean instead of The English Channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TimeRider

The Germans lacked the necessary naval forces to undertake a cross ocean offensive. It never would have happened. They were barely able to muster enough landing craft to "consider" a cross channel invasion of Britian. They lacked any form of long range aircraft and an invasion of the continental United States was beyond their logistical abilities.

true true, but what about the other ocean, and the other front? they did have the navy. and once Germany had England, they would throw all their energy into ship building, and if there is one thing that the Germans did well was re-build from almost nothing. Industry aws very veyr efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other thing. We father is dead now. But during the war, he was a bombadier on a B-17 from a base stationed in Britain. My father, and americans who were alive during that time, had admiration for the tough little brits who fought alone against the nazi's.

I lived in britain for nearly two years and met older brits who had great love and respect for the american boys who came over and fought side-by-side with them to destroy the germans.

What do we have now?

A generation of Brits and Americans, whose only knowledge about the history they speak of, comes from "Saving Private Ryan" and "Pearl Harbor", dissing the sacrifices made by the other country.

We have indeed come a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TimeRaider, I find it interesting that you have only included part of the history of the area. The Ottoman empire was certainly not the start of settlements in what is now Israel - Jerusalem has existed for several thousand years through Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman and British occupation. From the times of ancient Israel, the land has almost constantly been occupied by one empire or another. So is this a centuries old conflict - in some ways it is. It is the search of a people expelled continuously from their homeland for over 3,000 (if not more) years. Since you've concentrated on only the last period, let us look at that. Under the Ottoman Empire, Jews were unable to return to Jerusalem for pilgramages and lived a life in the country similar to those of the Jews in most Arab countries today (Iran and Syria are particularly pertinent examples of this) of enforced poverty and denial by the governments of the states they live within. To say that this is a life of peace is to say that you're at peace when someone has a gun to your head - true, but only half the story. Yes, we were considered cousins, but cousins to be spat upon, cousins of a lower class.

In WWII, Hitler exterminated far more non-Jews than he did Jews. The total death toll by the Nazi hand, not counting combat, was about 15 million (est). The Jews just happened to be the largest single group.
The remainder of the number is made up by Slavs, Homosexuals, Gypsys, prisoners of war and political enemies of the Germans. While the Nazi policy was to kill these other peoples when they got the chance they were more than happy just driving them out. The difference with the Jews was that they were undertaking an active campaign to first incarcerate within the ghettos every single Jew in Europe, but then to systematically exterminate an entire race, an entire religion. That is why the 6 million Jews is so significant a number - be it that there were only 6 Jews, it would still be a travesty of the gravest proportions. Thus, I don't quite seem the aim of this point, but while it is accurate, it again misses the "whole" story...
'To gain control of the area allotted to the Jewish State and defend its borders, and those of the blocs of Jewish settlements and such Jewish population as were outside those borders, against a regular or pararegular enemy operating from bases outside or inside the area of the Jewish State'."

The key words here being "OUTSIDE THOSE BORDERS."

I agree, they are certainly key. To consider that the state would only be protecting the individuals within it's borders would have been to only look after several thousand Jews, rather than the 15-odd million world wide. To say that this is revolutionary is just a lie. In fact, it is also US policy - if there is an American citizen that is harmed by a foreign nation, then the full force of the US government comes down upon that nation as best it can - sometimes through diplomacy, sometimes through sanctions, sometimes through military action. Is this objectionable? Hardly - many countries seek to protect their citizens, whether within their borders or not. As a Jewish State, Israel rightly feels responsible for the welfare of the Jewish population around the world.

This territorial expansion by the use of force resulted in a large-scale exodus of refugees from the areas of hostilities. Palestinians allege that this was part of a deliberate policy to displace Palestinian Arabs to make room for immigrants
As well they might - Israel was created by the UN and we had hoped that it might be the case that we could set up a country as we had been given the right to do and be left relatively at peace with our neighbours. However, we had been prepared for the worst, and thus when they attacked, Israel exercised the right, as any country might, to enforce its borders. That the Palestinians left the area is more as a result of the Arab attack than it is of Israeli territorial expansion.
Herzl's plans in respect of the size of the Jewish State are cited as another item of evidence of this policy. Describing a 1939 meeting with Churchill, Weizmann writes:

"... I thanked him for his unceasing interest in Zionist affairs. I said: 'You have stood at the cradle of the enterprise. I hope you will see it through'. Then I added that after the war we would want to build up a State of three or four million Jews in Palestine. His answer was: 'Yes, I quite agree with that'."

I don't see anything unacceptable about this? Herzl's plan was to create a country, not a village! And at the moment Israel has a population of what, about 5 million. So his drean has come to some form of fruition.

1939 . . . Long before the realities of the holocaust were known to the world the Zionists planned the absorption of Palestine by an as yet defined Jewish State . . . this was no action of the UN.

The Jews in Israel occupied land that was not theirs. These were not indegenous Jews, they were immigrants who conspired to steal the Palestinian lands and create a Jewish State at the tip of a British sword.

Well, actually it WAS an action by the UN. Were the Zionists before the war - of course! Israel was not a dream that happened in 3 years! Individuals and groups had been lobbying for well over 50 years for the creation of Israel and planning accordingly. Were they indiginous Jews? Almost certainly not. But were they Jews? Absolutely, and they could trace their families back to a time when they were indigionous and were forced out of their land by the many empires that came to occupy the country. If I took an army to Australia and threw out everybody that lived there from time immemorial, and didn't let anyone back in for 1000 years, does that make the action any more right?! Would those people not be justified in asking for their country back?!
The Arab States will kill you . . . this isn't 1967

I think you've managed to sum up the whole situation very succinctly in one sentence. Yes, they probably will. And now tell me that we're not justified in defending ourselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by txkang

HALO!!

I sent neoBond's gruesome pictures to my friend in Japan for analysis and here is the result he sent to me. He is scientist at Forensic Lab in Japan.

I, of course, asked him to read this thread this morning so he is aware of what is going on.

Here WE GO!

http://156.26.162.121/murder.jpg

They werent mine but hey!, Just want to say WOW and WOW again.. (for the forensics, good job)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I've got around to answering Joshie's points...

He sympathized with the oppression felt by the Jews, but Jews aren't the only people who have been oppressed throughout history. Somehow, though, Jews are the only people that have been given their own state. The Vatican is a city, and Mecca is a city; Israel is a state. I suppose every African American should be promised freedom in access to land in Africa, and to hell with any government that tried to take it away. I suppose Native Americans should be given the American northwest, and gay people should be given...uh...Greece?
Well, for a start, Mecca IS a city. The Vatican IS a state (though admittedly a particularly small one), Israel is a state. I've never claimed that Jews have been the only oppressed people throughout history, nor has anybody else. The point of Zionism is that Jews were (and are) oppressed and they have nowhere else to go, except to be oppressed even further. Take the following example - you have a Greek in Turkey. The Turks and the Greeks are not particuarly fond of each other, and within their own borders they do not treat the small ethnic populations particularly well. However, there is always the possibility that the ethnic Greeks in Turkey can return to Greece, or vice versa. Now (pre-1948) you have a Jew in Russia. Under Stalin, they are being oppressed and subject to a pogrom whenever he takes the whim. Where do they go? To Poland? To Britain, with it's closed borders. To Germany?! No, they needed a home. If you feel the need to compare it to something else, the closest example (and it is by no means perfect) I can think of is the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Syria - persecuted by all, with no homeland, similarly campaigning for one to be created.
What Ghandi called for is Jews to stop being 'Jews' and start being humans. There's too much Jewish pride stemming from the whole 'Chosen People' spiel.

Well, apart from the implications of "stop being 'Jews' and start being humans", which I'm not even going to start on, the point is that there is no separation. There's a big difference between saying someone is an Italian-American (making them American, not Italian, just tracing their routes and identifying them as an ethnic grouping) or perhaps as a Catholic-Italian (making them Italian but identifying their religion, and suggesting somebody is a Jewish-xxx. Because Judiasm is at once both a religion and a community. It is primarily a religion, but it is the religion of a people (whether those people are born Jewish or converted). We are treated as a race of people, excluded from our host nations by sheer definition, and thus needing a country. That we are not a race but a religion is often overlooked, but what is true is that there is a community between the people of a shared religion and those individuals have, de facto, formed a people that are needing of a country and as a result were given one. Should the Kurds rise up again and say "we want a nation", then it is the responsibility of the UN to do so (though they have not), thus, it was their responsibility in 1948.

To be quite frank, I don't participate in bullying people around just because they're different, but I see no good reason in the world for Jewish people to have their own country just because they're Jewish and "nobody likes them".

Everybody loves apathy. The point is that if no one else will care for us, then we should care for ourselves. Thus the state of Israel was formed, because people either would not or did not care at all.

Anyway, this is beyond the point. Israel exists. It was given to us legally from land which thousands of years ago was ours long before the Palestinians came and took it over. Now it has been reclaimed, justly so in the eyes of the world community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.