The case of Israel

[Fenris]

In my opinion, in the israelo-palestinian conflict, the israelians are the base of the problem and it's them who are in cause for the conflict. Palestinians were there for a long time and the zionists, through propaganda and lobbyism managed to take profit of the holocaust and gain enough sympathy to gain what they wanted: put the palestinians aside and create their own country. The succeeded thanks to the United States mainly. They were given 50% of palestine while palestinians themselves kept 43% (is that correct) with the rest being neutral zones. Palestinians were not ok with this, but they got put aside. Then Israel kept pushing palestinians further and further.

First intifada: Mainly pacific protestation, Israel punished the manifestation with violence killing many palestinians.

Second intifada: After Israel kept pushing the palestinians further, some groups took arms and hostilities started for real, on both sides.

I think israelians are the main cause for this. (no need-Garb.)

[Garbarsardar]

This thread always ends badly. I want to believe that this time we'll make the exception and avoid any personal/unsubstanciated posting.

Thank you all pre-emptively.

Garb.

[Fenris]

This thread always ends badly. I want to believe that this time we'll make the exception and avoid any personal/unsubstanciated posting.

Thank you all pre-emptively.

Garb.

Of course, I guess it always happen when you say something against jews, lobbys or not.

[danzig]

Of course, I guess it always happen when you say something against jews, lobbys or not.

No it happens when someone presents a one sided biased view of things and it happens in many threads not just this particular topic. I think everyone is to blame for the conflict, from the west, to the Israelis, to the Palenstians to muslims in general in the middle east they all have to shoulder some of the blame. From an Israeli/Palenstian point of view any 'peace' requires the ability of each to trust each other in some manner much like Israel and Egypt's peace agreement but really what cause do Jews or Palenstians have to trust one another? Now you compact the problem by a group who's very existence is based on the elimination of Israel being in control of the their goverment.

[Erik]

I agree with you Fenris.

But I'm afraid I have to agree with Garb too: this subject always leads to heavy emotions because so many people here see it as a religious conflict and they feel they should choose sides because if that.

[Hub'ite]

In my opinion, in the israelo-palestinian conflict, the israelians are the base of the problem and it's them who are in cause for the conflict. Palestinians were there for a long time and the zionists, through propaganda and lobbyism managed to take profit of the holocaust and gain enough sympathy to gain what they wanted: put the palestinians aside and create their own country. The succeeded thanks to the United States mainly. They were given 50% of palestine while palestinians themselves kept 43% (is that correct) with the rest being neutral zones. Palestinians were not ok with this, but they got put aside. Then Israel kept pushing palestinians further and further.

First intifada: Mainly pacific protestation, Israel punished the manifestation with violence killing many palestinians.

Second intifada: After Israel kept pushing the palestinians further, some groups took arms and hostilities started for real, on both sides.

I think israelians are the main cause for this. (no need-Garb.)

Your kidding me right? You honestly can't be serious. If you want to blame anyone it would be the UK and Allies for putting them in THEIR homeland. So whos fault is it when Palestinians blow themselves up and kill innocent Palestinians and Israelis? Still Israel? Your post has no factual proof behind it. Flame removed-Garb.

[Fenris]

Your kidding me right? You honestly can't be serious. If you want to blame anyone it would be the UK and Allies for putting them in THEIR homeland.

But they did it following the jewish pressions, but I do agree that the allies (and besides it was mainly the USA who did it, Britain promised it, but never actually did it, they let americans do it). But at the beginning Israel were given 50% of the territory, they have not stopped expanding since then. What % of the territory they have now? I'll let you tell me.

So whos fault is it when Palestinians blow themselves up and kill innocent Palestinians and Israelis? Still Israel? Your post has no factual proof behind it. Flame removed-Garb..

Violent repression was started by Israel mainly during the first intifada, I'm actually very surprised that palestinians have not been violent sooner. And don't think that palestinians are the only ones doing the casaulties, much more palestinians have died in the conflict, and the fact that palestinians use kamikaze to attack is not much different than the israelians using guns and commandos to eliminate palestinians. Read about the first intifada before making such claims, seriously.

I think everyone is to blame for the conflict, from the west, to the Israelis, to the Palenstians to muslims in general in the middle east they all have to shoulder some of the blame.

Palestinians to blame? I don't think any population could endure so much before actually using violence to defend itself, I was surprised as I said. And the rest of the muslim world pretty much stayed out of the conflict.

[Hub'ite]

Violent repression was started by Israel mainly during the first intifada, I'm actually very surprised that palestinians have not been violent sooner. And don't think that palestinians are the only ones doing the casaulties, much more palestinians have died in the conflict, and the fact that palestinians use kamikaze to attack is not much different than the israelians using guns and commandos to eliminate palestinians. Read about the first intifada before making such claims, seriously.

So terrorism is the answer? Killing innocent people on both sides solves what?

Barak then initiated the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. The Israeli prime minister and Yassir Arafat once again conducted negotiations with President Clinton in July 2000. However, the talks failed to bring about anything but rebuffs from the Palestinian side of Barak's offers for a Palestinian State. The failure of the talks caused many Israelis on both the right and left to turn away from Barak and discredited the peace movement.

With the collapse of the talks, Palestinian groups began a second uprising, known as the Al-Aqsa Intifadah after the leader of the opposition, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Sharon emerged as the new prime minister in March 2001 and was consequently re-elected, along with his Likud in the Knesset elections of 2003. Despite his formerly hawkish standpoint, Sharon initiated a plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Amid great tension, this disengagement was executed between August and September 2005.

Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifadah, over 1,000 Israelis, primarily citizens, have been killed as a result of acts of terrorism from Palestinian militant groups. According to B'Tselem statistics over 4,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli Security Forces and by Israeli civilians, most of them terrorists/militants, though a high number of civilians, including approximately 23% minors under age 18, have also lost their lives. Israel also has been building the West Bank Barrier, the stated purpose of which is to defend Israel from terror. The barrier, which is planned to measure 681 kilometers, often meanders past the Green Line and effectively annexes 9.5% of the West Bank[6], and has been met with criticism from the international community, though it continues to be supported by a vast majority of the Israeli public.

[John I Tzimisces]

If it is anyone's fault, blame the UK and UN. They were the ones with the ability to actually create the state. The US supported it, sure, but if we didn't the UK or another nation would have, since we weren't the only ones with an interest in seeing some kind of friendly puppet-esque state in the ME.

[Farnan]

May 14, 1948 Israel is formed as a state.

May 15, 1948 Arab nations attack Israel.

So again, who started it?

[Fenris]

May 15, 1948 Arab nations attack Israel.

What do you expect, if someone would decide to create a muslim nation on half of USA, how would you react? And what is even more in favor of palestinians is that those were isolated attacks by small groups mainly. True "warfare" started with the second intifada, after years and years of israel expansionism and violent repression of palestinian manifestations.

If it is anyone's fault, blame the UK and UN. They were the ones with the ability to actually create the state. The US supported it, sure, but if we didn't the UK or another nation would have, since we weren't the only ones with an interest in seeing some kind of friendly puppet-esque state in the ME.

But even then, my point is not about the United States. Let's say they had their wrong in giving 50% of the territory. What angers me the most is that israelians had the arrogance of pursuing an expansionist policy.

And keep in mind people that I am not muslim sympathiser (sp?) or anything, I just think that in many conflicts people relativise too much. It would be like saying that Kosovo was as much to blame as Serbia in the Kosovo conflict.

[danzig]

What do you expect, if someone would decide to create a muslim nation on half of USA, how would you react? And what is even more in favor of palestinians is that those were isolated attacks by small groups mainly. True "warfare" started with the second intifada, after years and years of israel expansionism and violent repression of palestinian manifestations.

Wasnt the land of the 'arab nations' though it was by your definition the Palestinians land so guess you support preemptive action by third party states?

But even then, my point is not about the United States. Let's say they had their wrong in giving 50% of the territory. What angers me the most is that israelians had the arrogance of pursuing an expansionist policy.

Because everyone kept attacking them and threatening to drive them out into the sea...you say you are suprised the Palenstians took so long to attack well do you expect any less of the Israelis to sit by and just kindly endure being driven into the sea?

Regardless this is rehasing the past, it doesnt change the present and that is the fact Israel has a right to exist peaceful in their own state as do the Palenstians, arguing over who's fault it was is counterproductive and its not clear cut...there isnt many truly 'bad guys' in all of this (except for the terrorist aspect)

[Fenris]

Because everyone kept attacking them and threatening to drive them out into the sea...you say you are suprised the Palenstians took so long to attack well do you expect any less of the Israelis to sit by and just kindly endure being driven into the sea?

Everyone? That makes... palestinians... palestinians and... palestinians. Plus the very little active support they had in the muslim world, while they had the americans, among other backing them.

And I don't see your logic at all... because they were threatened, it justified the fact that they came and pushed all the populations aside to make their Lebensraum?

[Matt]

Everyone? That makes... palestinians... palestinians and... palestinians. Plus the very little active support they had in the muslim world, while they had the americans, among other backing them.

Little active support ? There has been three massive attacks (1948-1967-1973) on Israel by various Islamic countries such as Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and many others. Israel did not receive any official military assistance by the United States nor any Western country during these conflicts as far that I am aware, and the pledges for it were turned down.

[internationalist]

This issue is far too complicated to say that it is the fault of one side. I of course do not condone suicide bombs that kill civilians. If the Palestinians wish to use suicide bombers to attack soldiers (as they were used in Lebanon) or military sites, that is morally justifiable: the killing of civilians never is. However, the use of assasination by Israel as well as numerous human rights violations, which, cited by the United Nations include: prolonged detentions w/out access to a lawyer, arbitrary demolition of Palestinian properties, use of Palestinians as human shields in searching for Palestinian terrorists, establishment of curfews/roadblocks and denying freedom of movement, and causing Palestinians lack of access to medical care and water.
(United Nations Human Rights Council examination of Israeli Actions)
All in all, atrocities on both sides aside, the moral responsibility, I believe, lies with the Israelis, as they are the official state and control the state's power.

[Erik]

May 14, 1948 Israel is formed as a state.

May 15, 1948 Arab nations attack Israel.

So again, who started it?

Clearly Israel because May 14 came before May 15.
But I guess you try to imply it was the Arabs?
The Arabs just tried to prevent Israel from occupying their country.

It's a lot like "Americans" and the native Americans.
Were the native Americans wrong to attack them when they invaded their country?

The only thing that makes this "special" is that the Bible says the land belongs to the Jews, so Christians choose the Jewish side. (especially since those same Christians hate the Jews so they were very glad they got rid of them by sending them to Israel)

[bdh]

In my opinion, in the israelo-palestinian conflict, the israelians are the base of the problem and it's them who are in cause for the conflict. Palestinians were there for a long time and the zionists, through propaganda and lobbyism managed to take profit of the holocaust and gain enough sympathy to gain what they wanted: put the palestinians aside and create their own country. The succeeded thanks to the United States mainly. They were given 50% of palestine while palestinians themselves kept 43% (is that correct) with the rest being neutral zones. Palestinians were not ok with this, but they got put aside. Then Israel kept pushing palestinians further and further.

First intifada: Mainly pacific protestation, Israel punished the manifestation with violence killing many palestinians.

Second intifada: After Israel kept pushing the palestinians further, some groups took arms and hostilities started for real, on both sides.

I think israelians are the main cause for this. (no need-Garb.)

I don't think thats a complete analysis. There had always been Jews in palestine and largescale jewish immigration to palestine predated the holocaust by several decades. By the late 19th century, there were just as many Jews in palestine as their were Palestinians, if not more. Today, Israel has more than twice the population of Palestine.
The founding of Israel is just like many other historical migrations.

[Last Roman]

I'm gonna have to agree with Danzig and exc. It is much more complicated that simply blaming the Isrealis or Palestinians. There were and still are many factors. The UN, the US and UK, the zionists, the modern Isrealis, the Palestinians and the fanatical Islamists.

-The UN (along with the US and UK) simply said "here, take this" without any consultation with the previous inhabitants (and don't give me a 'the Jews were there first' speech, they hadn't lived there for over 2,000 years so it was hardly their homeland anymore)
-The zionists for being so stubborn in choosing a new homeland. Why pick a place that was already hostile? Because they had some ancient claim to it?
-The modern Isrealis for making it worse than it already was (taking more land in the wars)
-The Palestinians for making it worse than it already was (rather than trying to find a diplomatic solution, they immediatly chose war)
-Fanatical Muslims for calling out for the destruction of the Jewish state as well as Jewish people, only increasing antagonism

[Fenris]

-The UN (along with the US and UK) simply said "here, take this" without any consultation with the previous inhabitants (and don't give me a 'the Jews were there first' speech, they hadn't lived there for over 2,000 years so it was hardly their homeland anymore)

That, I agree.

-The zionists for being so stubborn in choosing a new homeland. Why pick a place that was already hostile? Because they had some ancient claim to it?
-The modern Isrealis for making it worse than it already was (taking more land in the wars)

What angers me the most here is the expansionist policy they pursued. They already had 50% of the territory, but that wasn't enough, and they have what... 90% of the territory now?

-The Palestinians for making it worse than it already was (rather than trying to find a diplomatic solution, they immediatly chose war)

They didn't immediatly chose the war, that's what to understand. Small groups chose the war, but it was far from being the official position and generalised as it is now. They tried a lot to find diplomatic solutions (through pacific manifestations mainly, they were answered with violences and deaths). And knowing that they were not even consulted when Israel was formed, taking out 50% of their territory, and israel would even less listen to them than the international community. I'm a pacifist, but I can agree here that violence was all they had left when it really started during the second intifada.

-Fanatical Muslims for calling out for the destruction of the Jewish state as well as Jewish people, only increasing antagonism

Agreed.

[Flavius Silvanus]

Really it is the fault of the Assyrians. If the Assyrians hadn't carried all the Jews back to Nineva, and the Persians hadn't obliterated the Assyrians and Nineva, then the Jews would have never had to freed by the Persians, the Diaspora never would have happened, the Palestinians would never have been the Palestinians, and the Jews would have stayed in Israel, thus they would never have had to try to get their homeland back.