Israel

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Those are the borders that Israel originally agreed to; it was the Arabs who disagreed.

Here's the point: two peoples, a land, each one want all the land for him. What's original in this story?

Here is how the things seem to have happened:

One people, Jews, came back after haven't been there for a long time, and saying: "Hey, we got problems, we were highly persecuted in other countries (what I highly recognize, not as some others in different parts of the world), we want our own land now, to no more be persecuted and, look at the History book, our culture is born here and we lived here until Adrian Roman Emperor (100 after J.C.), so it's our land". The other people, Arabs, to say: "Okay, but you know during these about 2000 years we took the ground and established our civilization on it too, why should we give you this?!? You come here if you want, but it's our ground". Jews to say: "Now I want the land, we really want a own land to no more be persecuted and this one is our! That's all!". Arabs to answer: "Okay, we want the same land, let's fight!". Jews won.

Well, what seems to be original in this classical "two peoples for a land", it is, first, the 2000, and more, years ago arguments, then, the fact that being persecuted somewhere would give the right to invade any other country, no matter if the country invaded had nothing to see with the persecutions, and, more of all, the fact that the whole world supports this invading (UNO).

You can ad on this the fact that the land is where the monotheism, Judaism, and one of its universalist heritage, Christianity, are born and is also a very important place for an other universalist heritage of Judaism, Islam. And, to finish the addition, you can ad that these three religions have a very long past of enemy between each of them and the fact that the peoples who are issued from them compose about at least the half of the current world population.

Here we are, here seem to be the originality of this conflict and here is THE big problem of the last 60 years and, to me, still for years to come.

To me, the question would be, do we have to take in count all these originalities or do we have to resume this affair by "2 peoples for a land"?

If we do the first thing, it would be a never ending problem, which could only be ruled, to me, by an enormous blast of forces around the world or by deep changes in minds and psychologies of the peoples around the world, especially on the religious question.

If we do the 2nd thing... Is it possible to do the 2nd thing?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Those are the borders that Israel originally agreed to; it was the Arabs who disagreed.

The other people, Arabs, to say: "Okay, but you know during these about 2000 years we took the ground and established our civilization on it too, why should we give you this?!? You come here if you want, but it's our ground". Jews to say: "Now I want the land, we really want a own land to no more be persecuted and this one is our! That's all!". Arabs to answer: "Okay, we want the same land, let's fight!". Jews won.

The problem is that the Arabs didn't really establish their civilization on the land considered Israel-proper. The vast majority of Arabs that call themselves "Palestinians" were fairly recent immigrants to the land, mostly from the area now known as Jordan(although because Transjordan was a part of the Palestinian mandate, they were technically "Palestinians"). Jews had also been in that particular area of the Ottoman Empire that Israel was carved out of since at least the late 1400's(in Jerusalem, Hebron, and particularly in Tsfat). It's a myth that this area was some sort of vibrant civilization, because up until the late 1800's there weren't many Jews or Arabs there.

Yes, I resumed, but I think that what you say doesn't change what I meant.

I meant that, globally, Palestine wasn't the ground of Jews during about 2000 years, 1848 years if we want to be more precise (from 100 A.C. to 1948 A.C.). And even if during all this years it has not been a clearly identified "ground of the Arabs" Palestine has been a territory which the Arabs took a little bit after the born of Islam and which stayed in Muslim empires during about 1300 years, first the Arab one (about 800 years), then the Ottoman one (about 500 years).

So, outside of all the other reasons I mentioned before as "originalities", Arabs have can have at least as much claims on this land than Jews.

That's why the question is still to me:

Do we have to take in count the originalities or to let these 2 peoples fighting for this land?

Question to the one I would ad:

If we take the originalities in count, why do we do this? Why do Occident supports Israel? I would like this to be clearly assumed, this could clarify the situation for a lot of peoples.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

While I don't like the use of the Holocaust to justify the State of Israel, Israel is a necessary country in the proper place.  If the Arabs would stop attacking, a peace settlement could be reached.  However, the Arabs refuse to have peace.  When the leaders of bordering countries are calling for your extermination, you need to be always prepared.

I think it's easy for Americans to condemn Arabs position because they can't spontaneously understand their position. US has not border problems for a very long time and they always won their border problem. Europe has not for 60 years and there are still problems (Belgium, Spain, Scotland, Ex-Yugoslavia, others I don't think...).

Well, concerning Arabs, they were there for a very very long time (see my last posts of this thread), and suddenly it is said them: "Hey we want the land, that's ours" "Why?" "That's ours, that's the Jew land and we want it" "OK but that's a long time we are here now" "We don't care, we want the land". And, as all the peoples who are disagree for a land, they fought, Jews won.

OK, so Arabs can be disagree, can dislike it, why should they accept the Jews? For which principles do they have to give up the fight?

Clearly, I'm really fed up with this conflict, and I don't care about who will own the land, or what will be the future of this land. I would like we let them in this affair and that we no more try to find justification to one or the other. They can't speak? They can't be OK? So, go, fight, if you're just able to do this...

I just would like we stop to support one or the other one, I would like we try to put energy in something more interesting...

Otherwise, if we continue in this way, Xahar said it, we could see apocalypse. It could be because of the Temple, because of the Table of laws, or all other sorts of past relics of the monotheists religions. Because if the "new life" of old past religion becomes more and more important as it currently does, we will have fanatic leaders leading countries all other the world, and I think that fanatic leaders could be really less careful with the nuke buttons if you know what I mean...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Otherwise, if we continue in this way, Xahar said it, we could see apocalypse.

Hmm...? things aren't great, but they're better than a few years ago, surely?

Yes, but one important part of my way of life is trying to see where we go, what could be the future, and not what I want the future is. Because I think we have to envisage the more realist future as possible if we want to give us the more chances to can change it...

So, concerning this Israel/Palestine question, sure things are now better, but I don't believe in this "quiet" time.

To understand my views on this question for the future I would have to explain my global reflexion on it, I'll do it on this forum if I take time to, maybe one day. I've already spoken a little bit about it when I spoke about the "new life", the "rebirth" of old religions which is to me the biggest danger for the future, because this one is driving more and more people to stop thinking, and to abandon their mind in fully irrational beliefs, in fully emotional reactions, in "God" justifications for political choices...

If all Jews moved back inside the green line, do you think the attacks against Israel would stop?

that's a good point.

i think xahar is biased because of the fact that the neocons support israel so strongly.

they are doing right on this fact.

Why are they doing right on it?

think about it:

remove all jews away from israel. put them to germany, poland or the us.

do you really think the hate of the political islam is gone then? i don't thinkso. they will just look for a new target. maybe christian minoritiesor whatever.

Here, it is not spoken about political Islam, just Israel/Palestine question and no one said that ruling this question will rule the problem of the radicalism of political Islam.

Christians are already targeted in Muslim countries, more or less according to the different countries.

But my point was really that the Israelis moved in with the permission of the rulers of the land at the time. I don't think the vast majority of Jewish inhabitants in Israel got their land by stealing it. They moved there, a conflict arose. Once the Arabs refused to negotiate, refused to divy it up and took to arms I can't say it is as emotionally appealing to hear complaints about losing property. They tried to get it al for themselves and it didn't work. The fundamental point is that they don't want Jews. Whether the Jewish settlers on the West Bank took private property would make no difference to the level of violence. The idea that one can kill members of an enemy population simply for living in your country is the underlying principle of Xahar's reasoning (and would definitely apply to Arabs in Israel) and I find it to be...strange and a little disturbing.

The rulers of the land at the time...

Was UK representative of the Arabs and of their choices...?

Then, haven't Jewish imposed their views of what should be their new state?

Why Arabs had to accept negotiations? Had France to negotiate with Germany in 1940? What it officially did with Petain, but would you legitimate what has done Petain? Or would you legitimate "la résistance"? You know that Arabs refers to French resistance, where is the difference between these two terrorism? I just speak here about the occupation of France by Germany in early 40's, not about Holocaust. This also works for WW1, had France to negotiate when Germany occupied eastern part of France? Had they to give up the fight? I just ask.

Then, personally, as I said, I don't care about who would own the land, I would have liked a land for both peoples ruled by laws OK with the culture of both peoples (I know that reality seems to not be really OK with this) but, euh...please...someone... tell me, if we admit that Israel had right to create a land by force, why shouldn't Arabs be not OK with it and why wouldn't they be allowed to express it by force...?

Force has been legitimated for Israel, why would it be forbidden for Arabs?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Anyway, I have to say I am concerned that anti-semitism and anti-Zionism seem to frequently been conflated in the modern world. The two are very very different.

I agree; people do seem to get them confused too easily, and there is a big difference.

Hmm, if you allow me, it seems that the current epoch just...hmm...don't care about (to speak politely) the nuances...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I do not care what the Bible says here, it is not our guide to foriegn policy

Are you sure?

Anyway, I think we should be prepared that it becomes...

This focus on Israel, to me, so much wasted energy, possibly leading to a human big-bang on the more or less long term, and I don't speak about Iran, let's hope we're not in a final countdown...

I think there would have more interesting horizons than this focus on old justifications for a small piece of the Earth...

Thanks

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The point to me is that when you see a ship sinking some others around the world see a ship building. Yes, there are lot of mixes between racism, anti-israel, anti-US, anti-capitalism, anti-everything that is easy to be anti-for and to mix because no one really knows today about history, that's just mixes of poor things which are useful to make grow the hate of some who can't go over their frustrations or who are just despaired and so who take bad ways, let's watch how they recruit at al-qaeda...

Well, for the one who exposed the theory on racism and other things:

The racism as a cause of taking the Palestinian land? Argh. You should study the history of Zionism, or at least a summary of it, it's not just an holocaust revenge, it's really deeper and more nuanced, just learn, so, the argument of taking a german territory for jews is as absurd to me, please, learn and wonder before talking.

Then, sometimes humility is welcome. How easy is it to say that the holocaust was potatoes? I hope it is not so much. What the hell do the comparison with other mass murders of 20th century has to do here? Is it question of USSR? No. China? Still no. Cambodia? Still no. Well, we're effectively speaking about Jews and about what they lived. Has the holocaust to be a justification for creating Israel? To me, no. What saying about the 1948 UN approval for this state, to me there is to discuss, but if you could avoid poor ways, and if you could learn and wonder, please, it would be welcome.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If Netanyahu doesn't succeed in making a coalition, could the Israelis remake some general elections, technically?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If Gaza were to become independent, perhaps it could use Singapore as a model.*

Some already seriously envisaged it for a while as far as I can remember, though, I don't remember more about that.

*yes I realize this is hopeless dreaming, just sayin'

That would surely be the only chance of Gaza to be a viable state, but...yes.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

And what would Gaza have as an export? Could they have a viable economy? Or would they end up being some third world welfare state?

What do Dubaï and Singapore have?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

They're pretty good at exporting sympathy despite constantly blowing sh**t up, is there any value in that?

Exporting or importing?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

You know of another reason for the sympathy of the Palestinians, other than the massive civilian casualties, especially in comparison with Israel, they have suffered in this and other wars?

They've suffered more civilian casualties because the terrorists deliberately insert themselves in densely populated areas.  Israel has done so much to minimize civilian casualties among the Palestinians; but you don't care, you'll just continue blaming Israel no matter what they do.

Wow. There are still people to defend what happened in January??

And, no, the terrorist are here because Hamas took the control of there. And as a random they took the control of most screwed part of Palestine, Gaza. An overcrowded place under an embargo... Yeah, good strategy Israel, yeah, you're building your peace like that...

And defending what happened in January seems to me to be, no offense, it's purposed to be for the sake of those who old this position, nothing but a fully knee jerking stupidity. Ok, it's not bearable to receive rockets for a civilian population, like what was happening in the south of Israel, but the response of Israel was nothing but stupid, outside of the fact that this response was for sure going to include big war crimes (and not to speak of the orders given to infantry when they were in Gaza, sounds there are some debates about this there, right?), Israeli leaders should consult psychologists or sociologists or something, when you punch and kick and slap someone, it's very rare that this one suddenly becomes your friend.

I don't come to defend Hamas, actually, at that time i was speaking with an Arab girl from Tunisia, not a bad girl, not stupid, but she was here full of anger "with criminal Zionnists!!" and so on... And with her, I was saying the same kind of things towards the leaders of Hamas and toward Gaza's population who has let Hamas taken the control there.

We're here with both stupid sides, one "blows the s**t up" as been said here on an other one knowing that this other one is able to "blow tons and tons and tons of s**t up on them" and this other one does it!! His imagination concerning the possible consequences of his acts is just put on "off", on the short term (war crimes) and on the long term, so he throws his tons, and the other one is still more desperate and angry under these tons, so he continues to throw the bit of s**t he has, etc...

I can't think of someone I would congratulate there...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

http://www.france24.com/en/20091102-religious-zionist-ranks-army-israel-critics