a realistic solution for the Middle East

[Hafezudine]

Ummm no.
The UN chose the 2-state solution, a Jewish state beside a Palestinian state, the Jews agreed, the Palestinians didn't, so when the Jews declared their independence (which was accepted by the UN as previously stated) the Palestinians launched their attack on the Jews with the help of neighbouring Arab countries.
You might say the Jews knew the Arabs would attack them if they declared their independence but still they had every right to do so and it was no grounds for an Arabian assault.

and what gaves the right for the UN to decide the fate of Palestine?? the whole thing is a Western Power theatrical play, one which was stupidly done... why dont we let the UN vote to Divide the US, give third of it to England, since it has the historical claim, a third to the native americans and the remaining third would make up the current Americans.... that seems fair.. doesnt it??

and Israel did know that the Arabs would attack, since the partition was in no means legal...

you cant bring immigrants and give them a state... that IS a theatrical play...

 

[Hafezudine]

There were plenty of Jews in the Mandate. Brits even let them have their own parallel governing organizations.

the jews who were in Palestine were not the owners, its like giving the arabs of France their independant state in 70% of france... its nonsense... its stupid... and ignorant, just like ANY other European partition in Africa or the Middle east... dividing it to secure a war...

 

[Dachs]

the jews who were in Palestine were not the owners, its like giving the arabs of France their independant state in 70% of france... its nonsense... its stupid... and ignorant, just like ANY other European partition in Africa or the Middle east... dividing it to secure a war...

The Palestinians probably would've garnered more sympathy from the Mandate administrators if they hadn't spent the early years rioting, rejected any sort of political council of their own for administration (compared to the Jewish community that very happily took advantage of their own Yishuv), and then went into open rebellion in '36 and '37. With that kind of history, it would have been ridiculous to assume that a one-state post-Mandate solution could work.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Hafezudine first I must ask that whenever you post try to make it one post and not 3 consecutive posts please .
As for the killings of Egyptian guards on the borders, I never heard anything about that, and I'm sure it's not something the media wouldn't speak about (trust me the media here loves to criticize the army).
About the UN decision, what can you do? In this reality it is he who is strong decides, not necessarily he who is right. If the Palestinians would have just accepted this decision and didn't attack, they would have been in a much better position by now. Who knows, maybe they could have planned a better attack and would have succeded in wiping out Israel?
Also:

The Palestinians had every right to disagree with the partition plan, as it was horribly biased in favour of the Jews, a massive minority, and gave them all the best land. It doesn't excuse the actions of extremists in caling for a new Holocaust, but it doesn't mean that the Palestinians were wrong to fight back against people who were effectively taking large tracts of their homeland.

Yes and you know why they got the best lands? Because these were the lands were Jewish immigrants came to and settled 40 years before that, and immediately started improving the lands.
100 years ago Israel was either swamps or deserts, the Jewish immigrants (Zionists) worked hard to clear swamps and prepare the lands for farming and supporting many other Zionists to come. The Palestinians who thought themselves as the rightful owners to the land of Palestine for thousand years didn't do squat to improve this land and this is why the Jews got most of the good lands according to the UN partition plan.
(And BTW more than 80% of the Jewish lands were deserts that were pretty much empty of settlements, but are now being improved and prepared by the state of Israel for housing more settlements).

 

[Lord Baal]

Hafezudine first I must ask that whenever you post try to make it one post and not 3 consecutive posts please .
As for the killings of Egyptian guards on the borders, I never heard anything about that, and I'm sure it's not something the media wouldn't speak about (trust me the media here loves to criticize the army).
About the UN decision, what can you do? In this reality it is he who is strong decides, not necessarily he who is right. If the Palestinians would have just accepted this decision and didn't attack, they would have been in a much better position by now. Who knows, maybe they could have planned a better attack and would have succeded in wiping out Israel?

Egyptian border guards tend to get shot when Israelis mistake them for border-crossers or think they're pointing a weapon in their direction, and other such situations. No biggie, happens at every armed border. North and South Korea periodically shoot at each other, same with the Americans in Cuba.

Ben-Gurion later admitted that he was planning to attack the Palestinian territories anyway, so that theory doesn't really hold water. And why accept a horribly biased, unjust decision? Palestine had every right to attempt to retake their homeland, which was being taken frmo them by the UN.

They could never wipe out Israel without cooperation between all Arab Governments. Since they all had their own agendas, that simply wasn't possible.

Also:

Yes and you know why they got the best lands? Because these were the lands were Jewish immigrants came to and settled 40 years before that, and immediately started improving the lands.
100 years ago Israel was either swamps or deserts, the Jewish immigrants (Zionists) worked hard to clear swamps and prepare the lands for farming and supporting many other Zionists to come. The Palestinians who thought themselves as the rightful owners to the land of Palestine for thousand years didn't do squat to improve this land and this is why the Jews got most of the good lands according to the UN partition plan.

Bullplop. The Jews took lands that were already more developed than their surroundings, because they mostly purchased land off welathy Turks, who had the money and power to improve it. While it is true that the Jewish immigrants did much to improve the land, you can hardly say they had nothing but deserts and swamps beforehand. Wealthy Turks were unlikely to build villas in swamps.

Also, Palestinians did improve the land when they could. For most of the time the Palestinians had lived in the area, they'd been ssubjugated by another power. This limited what they could do to improve the land, as did the relative poverty most of them lived in. You might as well say that Belgians deserve the Congo because they did more to develop it than the Congolese did.

(And BTW more than 80% of the Jewish lands were deserts that were pretty much empty of settlements, but are now being improved and prepared by the state of Israel for housing more settlements).

And Australia was Terra Nullus before the British arrived. Some of the land in the Jewish territory was empty, but it was by far the majority. The lack of major cities does not indicate emptiness. Palestine was dotted with small villages, sometimes housing only half-a-dozen or so families. Israel is developing the areas to house more people, but those people aren't moving into empty land - except where the Palestinians were forced out or massacred - but are in fact moving into enlarged small settlements. It was Palestine that got the most empty land, actually, although it was still a hell of a lot less than 80% of the territory.

 

[innonimatu]

The Palestinians probably would've garnered more sympathy from the Mandate administrators if they hadn't spent the early years rioting, rejected any sort of political council of their own for administration (compared to the Jewish community that very happily took advantage of their own Yishuv), and then went into open rebellion in '36 and '37. With that kind of history, it would have been ridiculous to assume that a one-state post-Mandate solution could work.

You must be aware that they had good reasons to be pissed with the british occupation of Palestine. The brits, and the french elsewhere, who played the role of "liberators" in 1917-8, had kind of overstayed their welcome by the 1930s. And only left when their empire was crumbling all around the world, after WW2.

Back then it was the League of Nations "mandates", now we have "UN administrations" in other small backwaters providing excuses for modern imperial occupiers who overstay their initial welcomes also. Plus ça change...

 

[Dachs]

You must be aware that they had good reasons to be pissed with the british occupation of Palestine. The brits, and the french elsewhere, who played the role of "liberators" in 1917-8, had kind of overstayed their welcome by the 1930s. And only left when their empire was crumbling all around the world, after WW2.

Yes, yes, changing one occupier for another, the usual deal, yada yada yada. Yah boo sucks to you Brits for instituting imperialism instead of allowing the formation of Greater Syria. And so forth. That doesn't excuse the total Arab failure to compromise in the early twenties, repeatedly rejecting a legislative council and forum for their views when they didn't get all they wanted - namely, control over immigration to the Mandate. When your bargaining power is nil, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be inflexible, and throwing away any chance to get more is nonsensical. They rather effectively destroyed all of their options for a revision of the Mandatory government but one, violence - so when the '36 revolts started breaking out, combined with the already extant low-grade warfare conducted by men like Shaykh 'Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, of course the British are going to say "screw this, when we leave there's no chance in hell of a one-state solution".

 

[BurnEmDown]

Lord Baal I'm sure you are familiar of the white books?
During the 20's and 30's there were periods of a much increasing Jewish immigration (the 3rd and 4th periods as we call them for the 20's and the 5th and 6th period for the 30's).
These periods stopped when the Arabs realized that the Jews are immigrating to Israel at an increasing rate and began to riot, which led to the British releasing a set of rules called a "white book" which greatly limited Jewish immigration and buying of lands, each white book more limiting than the one before.
Now, in the 3rd white book, the British proposed to the Arabs and Jews a one-state solution which would have a council of 11 electorates in charge of running the country (the government). 9 of those councils would be Arabs and only 2 would be Jews, this effectively means that the Arabs could do what they want and the 2 Jewish councils would just be figureheads for the Jewish people. The Jews accepted this plan, the Arabs didn't.
This is just one example of many when the Arabs got a deal to ensure their control over Israel or most of it, and they just said no.
I don't think there's any reason for the Jews to be blamed for accepting the UN partition plan.
And I personally don't understand why won't the Palestinians just give up and recognize Israel, if they do that they will get their own state in the west bank and all these conflicts would end.
Think of it as a mother with two kids, one who is very self-centered and another more shy and quiet (a usual case of older brother and younger brother). Now, the mother has 10 candies, the older brother demands all 10, but the mother says she'll give the younger one 2 of them. The older brother disagrees and fights the younger brother, then she says she'll give 5 of them to the younger brother, the younger brother takes them and the older brother fights the younger one again, claiming he is entitled to all 10 candies. Now the mother tells him to stop and the younger one already ate his 5 candies, the older brother is still furious and wants all 10 candies. The mother gives the younger brother the rest of the 5 candies, now the younger one suggest he give 2 candies to the older brother and eat the other 3. If the older brother doesn't agree the younger brother will just eat all of them, what do you think the older brother should do?

 

[Lord Baal]

Could you break up your paragraphs better? This hurts my tired old eyes.

Lord Baal I'm sure you are familiar of the white books?
During the 20's and 30's there were periods of a much increasing Jewish immigration (the 3rd and 4th periods as we call them for the 20's and the 5th and 6th period for the 30's).
These periods stopped when the Arabs realized that the Jews are immigrating to Israel at an increasing rate and began to riot, which led to the British releasing a set of rules called a "white book" which greatly limited Jewish immigration and buying of lands, each white book more limiting than the one before.

I'm familiar with the White Books, yes. I don't see much wrong with them. Every nation has limited immigration at some point in the past. Unlike most educated people in this country, I actually agree with such a policy, even on the basis of nationality. I don't agree with such limitations being placed for racist reasons, like the White Australia policy, but if your nation is being swamped by immigrants from a particular culture who seem intent on taking over, why not?

Now, in the 3rd white book, the British proposed to the Arabs and Jews a one-state solution which would have a council of 11 electorates in charge of running the country (the government). 9 of those councils would be Arabs and only 2 would be Jews, this effectively means that the Arabs could do what they want and the 2 Jewish councils would just be figureheads for the Jewish people. The Jews accepted this plan, the Arabs didn't.

Why should the Arabs agree to allow what was at the time a massive minority such a large say in government? Jews did not yet comprise 2/11 of the population, why should they have 2/11 of the power. You also seem to think that the vote would always be 9-2. In fact, the Jews were far more likely to vote together on all the same issues as the Arabs, meaning you'd have two votes that would almost always be the same amidst a fluctuating background. It would also set a precedent whereby Jews could increase the numbers under their control without the prerequisite population.

This is just one example of many when the Arabs got a deal to ensure their control over Israel or most of it, and they just said no.

I've mentioned the 'all-or-nothing' attitude in the past.

I don't think there's any reason for the Jews to be blamed for accepting the UN partition plan.

I don't blame the Jews for accepting the plan, I blame the UN for proposing such a grossly unfair plan to begin with. If someone offered me half a nation - and the best parts - when I represented maybe a third of the population, I'd jump at the chance too.

And I personally don't understand why won't the Palestinians just give up and recognize Israel, if they do that they will get their own state in the west bank and all these conflicts would end.

Firstly, most of them have recognised Israel, and even Hamas was willing to negotiate such an acceptance before Israel launched their unprovoked attack. Secondly, waving your hands doesn't make problems disappear. Lately the intransigence at the negotiating table has been far more Israel than Palestine. Historically, Israel suffers from the 'all-or-nothing' philosophy as much as the Arabs, they're just able to pull it off since they're negotiating from a position of strength.

Think of it as a mother with two kids, one who is very self-centered and another more shy and quiet (a usual case of older brother and younger brother). Now, the mother has 10 candies, the older brother demands all 10, but the mother says she'll give the younger one 2 of them. The older brother disagrees and fights the younger brother, then she says she'll give 5 of them to the younger brother, the younger brother takes them and the older brother fights the younger one again, claiming he is entitled to all 10 candies. Now the mother tells him to stop and the younger one already ate his 5 candies, the older brother is still furious and wants all 10 candies. The mother gives the younger brother the rest of the 5 candies, now the younger one suggest he give 2 candies to the older brother and eat the other 3. If the older brother doesn't agree the younger brother will just eat all of them, what do you think the older brother should do?

And here we descend into the most obvious case of paternalistic racism I've ever seen, short of a Taft commission to the Philippines.

Since the Jews were the ones who were new to Palestine, most having left there 2000 years before, they'd be the little brothers, if we're going by this silly analogy. Really, they're more like an old tenant who returns and boots the new tenants out, with Britain being just the latest in a string of landlords. But I digress.

You see, this argument is a fallacy. You are implying that the younger brother - Israel - has the right to any of the candies. It doesn't. The Zionists were, to all intents and purposes, invaders. That they used money instead of guns doens't make the invasion any less real. At first they were a trickle, and the Arabs didn't much care. Better Jews than Turks, after all, right? But then their numbers began to increase, they began to exercise power, and the Arabs became concerned.

They heard of the Zionist plans for Palestine, plans which involved making it a Jewish homeland, which would disenfranchise the current leaseholders. They knew that to give the Zionists any kind of legitimacy would be to open the door to more and more of them, so they attempted to nip the problem in the bud. They wanted Jewish immigration stopped, or at least slowed. Britain eventually acquiesced, but wanted to give Jews a say in the government. Giving the Jews such power would legitimise them and take power away from the majority, so the Arabs said no. Then, the British began to increase the power given to Jews in their proposals, right up to the final British proposal before turning the problem over to the UN, which was itself a partition plan, and got the man in charge of drafting it assassinated. Eventually, the UN imposed the harshest plan of all, and the long-suffering Palestinians fought back. This wasn't a case of a selfish older brother, this was a case of an older brother whose mother passed him over in her affection for the younger.

Now, the Palestinians aren't blameless in this situation. They were unwilling to compromise, and this exasperated the British and disenfranchised the Jews of even the power of self-determination which they did have a right to. But the Jews = good, Palestinians = bad dichotomy you are presenting is a false one. There was plenty of Jewish unrest and even outright terrorism in this time period as well. There was a well-thought out plan among leading Zionists for the disenfranchisement of a native people, and the native people knew it. It was public, in much the same way Hitler's plan for the Jews was public.The Palestinians went overboard, and did their cause no favours, but if you knew someone was planning to come into your home and take over, wouldn't you fight back? I know I would, and I don't even like this place.

 

[Verbose]

Firstly, most of them have recognised Israel, and even Hamas was willing to negotiate such an acceptance before Israel launched their unprovoked attack. Secondly, waving your hands doesn't make problems disappear. Lately the intransigence at the negotiating table has been far more Israel than Palestine. Historically, Israel suffers from the 'all-or-nothing' philosophy as much as the Arabs, they're just able to pull it off since they're negotiating from a position of strength.

Quite.

And the problem with positions of strength is that once you have it, the tendency is to start thinking "Hey, why should we give anything up at all?" Which is particularly insidious when done from a position of relative military strength, the actual political usefulness of which is almost always radically overestimated.

 

[Lord Baal]

Quite.

And the problem with positions of strength is that once you have it, the tendency is to start thinking "Hey, why should we give anything up at all?" Which is particularly insidious when done from a position of relative military strength, the actual political usefulness of which is almost always radically overestimated.

Word. Especially when that position of strength is eroding, and you have no idea of how to negotiate without it.

 

[BurnEmDown]

I never said the white books were "not OK", I just used them as an example of when the Arabs could have accepted their own country with minor Jewish influence but still said no.

by the 30's the Jews were more than 2/11 of the population, I'm sure you know that.
Also I know that the votes wouldn't go always 9-2, if anything the two Jewish votes would be only tie-breakers. And of course not always the 2 Jewish votes would be the same, since one council was from the social-left and the other from the capitalist-right.

Yes I know most of them recognize Israel, the problem is, as long as there will be extremists who don't recognize Israel there will always be conflict. If those extremists recognize Israel peace can be achieved, that is what I meant.

OK - here's another metaphor for you:
You have a really cool toy since you were a child, but over the last 20 years it broke and rusted. You don't care and you're glad you still have the toy, regardless of it's shape, then I come and offer you to buy this Toy for a large sum of money. You accept, then I clean it up, fix it, restore it to it's former glory you might say. Now you're jealous and claim it belongs to you. Who is the rightful owner of the toy?

Yes I do realize this is an exaggerated and kind of biased look on the situation, but I'm only doing it to make my point clear. Basically what I'm saying here is, if the Arabs care so much for this land, why did they sell it to the Jews? There is a huge difference between conquering a land and between buying it with money, in that conquering a land is taking it from it's owners by force and by buying it both sides have to agree.

And no I am not saying that Israel = good and Palestinians = bad. I realize Israel committed war crimes and other shameful acts, but what can you do? I'm sure if a Palestinian state would be formed and it asked for War reparations (not sure if this is the correct term) then Israel will gladly agree to give it a large sum of money, just like Israel accepted Germany's offer in it's early years.

Also I forgot to say that, about your previous post of the Belgians in Congo, the Belgians didn't only improve the lands, they took advantage of it and imported goods from Congo to Belgium, they benefited from the colonization even if in the end the land wasn't theirs, as all colonizers did. But the situation here is different, the Zionists came and improved the land, but didn't import goods from it to their "home country" since they saw this land as their "home country". If the Palestinians want their lands back, I personally wouldn't mind selling my house for a really large sum of money and moving to Europe or the USA, but most of the people here wouldn't sell it, and you can't blame them.

Edit: I also forgot to ask, what do you mean by "unprovoked attack of the Hamas".

 

[Lord Baal]

I never said the white books were "not OK", I just used them as an example of when the Arabs could have accepted their own country with minor Jewish influence but still said no.

An influence that would have grown though.

by the 30's the Jews were more than 2/11 of the population, I'm sure you know that.

I thought the 3rd White Book was still in the '20s? My bad if not.

Also I know that the votes wouldn't go always 9-2, if anything the two Jewish votes would be only tie-breakers. And of course not always the 2 Jewish votes would be the same, since one council was from the social-left and the other from the capitalist-right.

They'd be different on some issues, but I should have said they'd vote as a blocc on matters pertaining to the Jewish question. The Arabs wouldn't do that.

Yes I know most of them recognize Israel, the problem is, as long as there will be extremists who don't recognize Israel there will always be conflict. If those extremists recognize Israel peace can be achieved, that is what I meant.

Extremists are, by definition, extreme. If Israel focused more on the moderates, and less on the extremists, the extremists would find it more difficult to operate, and they'd either die off or become moderates themselves. This is what actually happened to Fatah. In fact, I'll blatantly still from one of my roommate's essays, which is on this computer. It's not entirely contextual, being as it is about South Korea's transition to democracy, but it still explains things a little.

In a democratic transition, two sides emerge; power-holders (or ruling elites), and challengers (or opposition forces). Ruling elites negotiate with opposition forces to determine what manner the democratic transition will take. Neither of these two sides in the democratic transition are unitary actors. The ruling elites split into two groups; hard-liners and soft-liners. The hard-liners favour a continuation of the status quo, often involving forceful suppression of opposition forces, whereas soft-liners are concerned about the continued cost – political, economic, social, international, etc. – of continuing the status quo, and therefore seek to bargain with challengers to channel and limit opposition. Challengers also split into two groups; maximalists (or radicals) and moderates. Maximalists are prone to risk-taking and social mobilisation, in opposition to the moderates, who avoid risks and seek an accord with ruling elites which further their own goal of democratisation.

There are four possible combinations of power-holders and challengers. A combination of soft-liners and maximalists discredits the soft-liners, leading to the return of hard-liners to power. A combination of hard-liners and moderates discredits the moderates, leading to maximalist domination of opposition. A combination of hard-liners and maximalists is the most volatile potential combination, as it leads to brinksmanship and confrontation, often resulting in suppression, oppression, or revolution. A combination of soft-liners and moderates is the least volatile possible combination of forces, and leads to bargaining. Situations in a democratic transition are fluid however, and exactly which group controls either the power-holders or the challengers can change during the process. A good example of this is the Israeli-Palestinian situation, where it is exceedingly rare for moderates and soft-liners to control both their respective forces at the same time, and seldom for long periods.

Assuming the moderates and soft-liners are able to negotiate successfully, which is dependant upon a democratic breakthrough event, they both seek to establish rules for the continued bargaining process, which will also encompass hard-liners and maximalists by delegitimizing any actions taken outside of this system of rules. Since it is very difficult and politically damaging to revise or discard these rules once they have been established, both sides seek to maximise their own future political power by pushing for the system they think will benefit them the most in the long-term....

(bolding mine - and it's rather fitting, don't you think?)

I'll cut him off there. he can be long-winded.

In the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Israeli government has alternated between soft-liners and hard-liners, and the Palestinians have oscillated between maximalists and moderates.

The maximalists - I think that term is more appropriate here than radicals - want the State of Israel gone, and Palestine all theirs again. The moderates want either a two-state solution, with Israel recognised, or a democratic one-state solution. Fatah were originally maximalists, but moderated over time, with Hamas taking their place as leaders of the radical groups. Ironically, Hamas itself later moderated, so that when it was elected it was about where Fatah was 15 years ago. The other moderates comprise the Arab parties in Israel.

The hard-liners in Israel have enjoyed power for most of the State's existence, and with good reason; they were confronted primarily with maximalists. This discredited the soft-liners - Golda Meir might fall into this category, though she wasn't really that soft - and put the hard-liners in power. The current hard-liners are Likud, but there are many in the left-wing parties that are also hard-liners for political expediency. Ariel Sharon was a notorious hard-liner. The soft-liners would include men like Yitzhak Rabin, who was sadly assassinated for his softening approach.

Dealing with these hard-liners also discredits moderates, like the current PLA, which in turn focuses the 'electorate's' attention on the maximalists, who they increasingly see the maximalists as their only salvation. Maximalists also have a tendency to become more radical, since there are always those who think that even the maximalists don't go far enough.

What the situation in Israel and Palestine needs is a nice period of soft-liner and moderate control, but there are enough hard-liners and radicals out there to tip the balance whenever there's a slight hiccup in the bargaining process. Currently, it is the Israeli hard-liners who are causing the trouble by disregarding the attempts of Palestinian moderates to negotiate. The situations have usually been reversed in the past, though not always. Hopefully, both sides can work this out to their mutual benefit, and soon. Very soon.

OK - here's another metaphor for you:
You have a really cool toy since you were a child, but over the last 20 years it broke and rusted. You don't care and you're glad you still have the toy, regardless of it's shape, then I come and offer you to buy this Toy for a large sum of money. You accept, then I clean it up, fix it, restore it to it's former glory you might say. Now you're jealous and claim it belongs to you. Who is the rightful owner of the toy?

Yes I do realize this is an exaggerated and kind of biased look on the situation, but I'm only doing it to make my point clear. Basically what I'm saying here is, if the Arabs care so much for this land, why did they sell it to the Jews? There is a huge difference between conquering a land and between buying it with money, in that conquering a land is taking it from it's owners by force and by buying it both sides have to agree.

They didnt' bloody sell it to the Jews. While some Arabs sold their land, in most cases it was the Turks, who had stolen the land from the Arabs - in most cases, I won't pretend some weren't there legitimately - who sold it to them. More like someone stealing your treasured toy, then selling it to a third party. In that situation, you're the rightful owner, and the third party is receiving stolen poperty.

One could also make a comparison with the habit of European immigrants to buy places for considerably less than market value - Manhattan being the classic example - but I won't go there.

And no I am not saying that Israel = good and Palestinians = bad. I realize Israel committed war crimes and other shameful acts, but what can you do? I'm sure if a Palestinian state would be formed and it asked for War reparations (not sure if this is the correct term) then Israel will gladly agree to give it a large sum of money, just like Israel accepted Germany's offer in it's early years.

You have far more faith in Israel than I do. Israel would be bargaining with Palestine from a position of strength, whereas Germany was quite the weakling at the time. Paying compensation helped get it out of the political doghouse. Israel doesn't care aobut being in the doghouse, since it's the biggest, meanest dog there. you'll notice that Japan has never paid compensation or admitted wrongdoing, and a large reason for it is because they never had to. Germany did.

As for what Israel can do, it could admit to said crimes instead of continuing to deny them, and even continuing to commit them. They're committing an act of aggression in Gaza right now.

Also I forgot to say that, about your previous post of the Belgians in Congo, the Belgians didn't only improve the lands, they took advantage of it and imported goods from Congo to Belgium, they benefited from the colonization even if in the end the land wasn't theirs, as all colonizers did. But the situation here is different, the Zionists came and improved the land, but didn't import goods from it to their "home country" since they saw this land as their "home country". If the Palestinians want their lands back, I personally wouldn't mind selling my house for a really large sum of money and moving to Europe or the USA, but most of the people here wouldn't sell it, and you can't blame them.

So it's more like Algeria than the Congo. My point still stands.

I also have no problem with Israel's continued existence. i don't agree with its creation, but the Israelis are already there now. Forcing out people that have been born and raised in Israel to replace them with Palestinians would be merely reversing the previous process.

Edit: I also forgot to ask, what do you mean by "unprovoked attack of the Hamas".

Hamas was a legally constituted political party which was democratically elected by the people of Palestine to run their country. It also offered to negotiate with Israel and recognise the country's right to exist, among other things. Israel declared the elections void, put their puppet government back in place in the West Bank and attacked hamas in Gaza. That's unprovoked aggression, and it only serves to enflame the situation and re-radicalise Hamas, which was moderating.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Are you talking about the latest attack on Gaza? I don't remember any other attacks since it was only recently considered an independent territory from Israel.
The latest attack wasn't at all due to Hamas being elected, it was due to 8 years of constant firing of rockets on Jewish cities near Gaza from Gaza. The attack was initiated because Hamas recently developed better rockets which could hit cities further away than just the border cities.

Yes the 3rd white book was released after the 36\37 riots.

About the buying of lands from the Turks, like your point about Israel's creation and existence, it has been too long since the lands were bought to give them back.
I'm still not sure if I agree with the creation of Israel or not, and it doesn't really matter, since that was more than 70 years ago and argueing over such a thing is stupid.

Also about Germany, if I remember correctly after the founding of Israel the government decided it wouldn't speak with Germany, and then Israel got into a "minor depression" as it almost went bankrupt, during the late 40's, and Germany offered Israel "War reparations" regarding the Holocaust. Israel accepted which got it out of the money problem and connections were established with Germany.

 

[Dachs]

Papers. They're called White Papers.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Sorry, in Hebrew it's translated as white book

 

[Lord Baal]

Are you talking about the latest attack on Gaza?

Yes.

I don't remember any other attacks since it was only recently considered an independent territory from Israel.
The latest attack wasn't at all due to Hamas being elected, it was due to 8 years of constant firing of rockets on Jewish cities near Gaza from Gaza. The attack was initiated because Hamas recently developed better rockets which could hit cities further away than just the border cities.

Yet the Israelis just happened to wait until after Hamas was elected to launch this retaliatory attack? And felt the need to overthrow the democratically elected government of Palestine on the West Bank in the process? Such coincidental timing. Also, Hamas doesn't develop rockets, they buy them. They've had the capability to hit frigging Tel Aviv for years.

Yes the 3rd white book was released after the 36\37 riots.

My bad, I thought that was the 4th.

About the buying of lands from the Turks, like your point about Israel's creation and existence, it has been too long since the lands were bought to give them back.

Except that the Turks were leaving en masse. It's like how I'd cheaply gift cities I was going to lose to other civs on Civ III, just to draw them into a war with the civ that was attacking me. Not saying that was Turkey's plan - it wasn't - but the principle is similar. Take land off one group, then sell it to another. They could just as easily have sold - or leased - it to wealthy Arabs. There were still a few of them. Not that I blame the Turks either, but your point about Arabs selling the land was bullplop.

I'm still not sure if I agree with the creation of Israel or not, and it doesn't really matter, since that was more than 70 years ago and argueing over such a thing is stupid.

Arguing over it, yeah. Discussing it? In a History forum? Not really.

Also about Germany, if I remember correctly after the founding of Israel the government decided it wouldn't speak with Germany, and then Israel got into a "minor depression" as it almost went bankrupt, during the late 40's, and Germany offered Israel "War reparations" regarding the Holocaust. Israel accepted which got it out of the money problem and connections were established with Germany.

Which kind of proves my point. It was incredibly politically expedient for Germany to do this, considering their own weakened political position. Smart move on their part. Israel had the high moral ground, and Germany was trying to regain it. Why would Israel feel the need to regain such ground in the advent of an independent Palestine?

 

[Hafezudine]

The Palestinians probably would've garnered more sympathy from the Mandate administrators if they hadn't spent the early years rioting, rejected any sort of political council of their own for administration (compared to the Jewish community that very happily took advantage of their own Yishuv), and then went into open rebellion in '36 and '37. With that kind of history, it would have been ridiculous to assume that a one-state post-Mandate solution could work.

ok, let me get this straight, you think that palestinians should have not rioted, hoping to get some sympathy from the Mandate?? what kind of Human beings that have some loyalty to their country would do such thing...

 

[Hafezudine]

As for the killings of Egyptian guards on the borders, I never heard anything about that, and I'm sure it's not something the media wouldn't speak about (trust me the media here loves to criticize the army).

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3209977/Israel-Army-Mistakenly-Kills-Three.html

http://www.crosswalk.com/1297366/

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/836/eg5.htm

http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/239/Israeli_Troops_Kill_Egyptian_Police

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2004-11-19-israeli-troops-kill-egyptian-police

if you dont know about it, doesnt mean it didnt happen, your news brings you NOTHING of the Truth, your Media, that you might think is unbiased, is probably just less biased then some very biased media... you guys dont have any Biased news to the Arabs, and dont have any unbiased News, its either very Biased, or little biased...

 

[Plotinus]

ok, let me get this straight, you think that palestinians should have not rioted, hoping to get some sympathy from the Mandate?? what kind of Human beings that have some loyalty to their country would do such thing...

Loyalty to a country is a vice, not a virtue. And of course people shouldn't riot. There may be occasions when it is understandable that they do, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do!