redman Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 I agree with Kilmer on the timeline. If your premises are that 1) Israel has the right to exist, and 2) the legitimate Palestinian complaints are based upon Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, then the 1967 war is where you start. Moving backwards in time undercuts the first premise; moving forwards undercuts the second. But "who is right" is academic for the short term purposes of the peace process as I said above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 So basically you fault nearly a million Palestinians for objecting to being forced to flee their homes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a result of the 1967 war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Kurp, is that addressed to me? If so, I don't get it as my premise assumes that Israel has no right to (continue to occupy) the "Occupied Territories". My answer is no, I fault Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 No Redman, it wasn't addressed to you. While I was typing my reply to Kilmer you jumped ahead of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 a question to the posters: since everybody agrees that targeting innocent civilians is wrong would you all think it more justified if the Palestinians went after the political and military leaders of Israel? if not are your belifs basically that Palestine is wrong and has no grounds to be upset? it seems pretty obvious that Israel is not willing to concede anything to the Palestinians, so what are the Palestinians to do? Give up? Quit ****ing? I for one agree with Tarhog's post on the first page of the thread. This cycle of violence is sad, but I don't see it ever ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Two things, AJ. 1) to me, your analysis is backwards in that it assumes the same motives on behalf of the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, essentially self-defense. That view ignores the fact that most Palestinians dispute Israel's right to exist at all, which is what legitimizes in their view violence against non-combatants, including women, the elderly and children. Israel simply attempts to kill militants, albeit knowing that there will often be injuries to innocent bystanders. 2) the second thing is that, ignoring point number one which I don't believe will ever happen, even if the Palestinians limited their attacks to military or political targets, you'd see even more quickly that the cycle of violence is basically started by unprovoked, politically motivated attacks by Palestinians, with the Israelis defending themselves by striking back. This is supported by the fact that every time there has been an violent Palestinian uprising, it is Palestinian violence that kicks off the cycle of violence. Again, for the purposes of peace in the short term, this stuff has to be largely ignored. However, I believe both points above are valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Originally posted by redman My answer is no, I fault Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt for this. Wouldn't be more accurate to blame the British? But I guess then you'd have to move back the timeline some 50 years from 1967. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 11, 2003 Author Share Posted June 11, 2003 Kurp, we could take our timeline back to the 1500s and give our lands back to the Native Americans as well. redman said it best. If those countries dont attack Israel, the Palestinians dont get forced out. Thats the way of war though. If your side loses, your going to lose some land. You cant lose and then expect to go back to the pre-war situation. Curiously, what date would you use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 The problem, Kurp, is that the British aren't "there" any more to blame. If you blame them, how does that clarify anything? Do you want to give "Palestine" back to them? There is no perfect starting point that is agreeable to all. You could blame the Arab world for basically ignoring the "Palestinians" until they became useful pawns against the Israelis after 1948. It's not like this had been a hot piece of real estate since the Crusades! Heck, if you go back far enough you can start blaming God! This is why, for the reasons I stated above, the 1967 starting point seems to be the most relevant as it supports the premise that while Israel has the right to exist, it doesn't have the right to the Occupied Territories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Kurp, we could take our timeline back to the 1500s and give our lands back to the Native Americans as well. or maybe the Israeli's could let the Palestinians get filthy rich by opening up casino's on their land!!! any name ideas? the holy roller? it worked for my employer, the most prosperous casino in the world and the biggest: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by redman I happen to agree totally with Tarhog. The Israelis need to realize that if they stop the tit-for-tat violence (however justified it might be in the short term) they'll expose Hamas et al to be the desperate radical murderers that they are and will undercut support for them in the world at large, including the Arab world. Every time they strike at Hamas, they ironically legitimize Hamas' radical claims to power and representation of the Palestinian cause. Israel has to bite the bullet, make a big show of complying with the "road map" to the letter, and for a while accept that there will be bombings and other violence against their citizens for which they will not retaliate. The problem is that I don't think Sharon has it in his temperament to be that patient, and Hamas knows that and will persist until he strikes back. This is a very interesting and well-reasoned thought. However, even if Sharon were to adopt this policy, I don't believe the muslim terrorists would ever stop killing Israelis. These people are taught from birth that they are to hate Jews. By the time they are 3 years old it's so branded into their consciousness that Jews are the devil that only and act of God could remove their hate. That's why we see toddlers on TV wearing imitation explosive belts at Palestinian parades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.