after all that has happen and as the idf had used American bombs to use on Palestine
why did any Arab country come in to stop it. or why did the U.N. never come in between the 2 to stop the idf from going in any further? and emergency crews was stopped from going in
to pick up the injured as some were shot at by the idf. this is what I had heard from what I had been reading>.."Why was there any compassion of the victims felt?
Actually, Dror, I think it a simplistic way to describe a complex problem. Oslo opened the way for the return of the PLO, who in turn invited in Hamas, Islamic Jihad ... even Naif Hawatme, as a Palestinian overlay, the PA, "the leadership". To my knowledge, no Palestinian ever voted the PLO as "sole representative" (forever) though it is enshrined in the Palestinian Charter.
I think the Palestinians today are as much victims of their "leadership" as are the Israelis. Simply put Hamas gives as much a hoot for Palestinian lives as it does for Israeli ones. Peace will only come when the Palestinians can shuck off the terrorists, with world help, but the first step will have to be their recognition that this is the source of their suffering. All the more difficult whilst they are being brainwashed that it's the fault of the Jews.
Dror articulates a common idea that only a strong Jewish state can "protect" Jews from what happened in Europe. The problem Dror is that this is a misleading reading of history. The concept of nation-state that evolved in 19th century Europe following the collapse of empires was a) not a natural concept to humanity b) was de facto the concept that gave rise to discrimination against minorities (including Jews), and c) was and is a major source of wars, conflicts and suffering (just see WWI & WWII). Zionism was one of many movements that rose in response (Bund socialism, humanism, and others also were responses). Of all these movements, Zionism was the most assimilationist (i.e. assimilated to the ideas of European ethnocentric chauvenistic states and basic colonialism/superiority attitudes). It is a mimic (he if Germany is for Aryan Germans than we need a Jewish state for Jewish people). It is like abused children growing up to be child abusers. Europe has since moved away from their own ideas (ethnocentric states) towards a European Union concept that subverts "state nationalism". Israel enforced it and in doing so created its own nightmarish situation that will not be sustainable. The most important reason it will not be sustainable is that there were people already living here (Christians and Muslims) and we will NEVER give up until we get our basic rights back (and no we will not follow the model of Zionism or other ethnocentric chauvenistic nationalism). Neither the ideas of Bin Laden or Ben Gurion will survive long term here in a multiethnic/multireligious society.
yes exactly Basil.." I had always believed in a Jewish State..But as to the Jewish I am afraid that the Jewish would not except it as a Palestinian State ..the twist as I known it that it was" the "Palestinians did not want to except Israel as a Israeli state and also as I was told by some I had talked to ...That both Israelis and Palestinians were both living together until . Israel had became a state..." Then after this had come to be it was the down fall of Israel becoming the state over Palestinians that when many Arabs lost some of there rights. that lived in Israel.
that when the Palestinian up rise begin there there goal as wanting there self to be apart of a Palestinian state ...I feel that Israel had Palestine to be a state. then they would be no longer in power it is like stealing what you had past down to you just that some one wanted it and call it mine and feel it would be a up rise against if the Arabs took over the Jews .. why there is so much conflict
but all the things that Israelis has done not to win peace over war.. " as I again Hamas is no different
to teach Palestinian children that Israel does not exist." this context of the past as I am saying and that I am going by what I have learned on here off hand.
I basically agree with you, Peace-maker, each side should recognise the right of the other to self-determination. I know that history isn't important to many, but it is to me, not in order to place blame, but to better understand what is involved and where a just solution might lie.
You are also right that many Arabs lived peacefully with their Jewish neighbours, especially in places like Haifa. But there was always a group that wanted Jews out, and so you had massacres of Jews in 1920, 1921, the 1929 maasacre of the Jews of Hebron, which left Hebron ethnically cleansed of Jews, and more massacres throughout the 1930s. All this was long before there was an Israel at all. The 1948 war represented efforts to dislodge Jews from the area.
But today, Arabs and Jews still share Haifa. I think if you take away the rejectionists, you will easily have a Palestinian state sitting happily alongside a Jewish one, with no wars or problems.
History does teach us certain facts:
1) Israel cannot be both a Jewish and a democratic state (it can be one or the other). Religious states (Muslim, Christian, or Jewish ) are inherently undemocratic.
2) The Crusader Kingdoms lasted 120 years and finally lost because it is not sustainable as an exclusivist state in the multiethnic, multireligious Eastern Mediterranean region.
3) A poll of Israeli Jews in 2000 actually showed that most believe Israel will not exist "as a Jewish state" in 50 years. While many of these people are Zionist, they do see the impossibility of maintaining injustice in a sea of people who were done wrong.
Hi Mazin, let me take it point by point.
a) Self-determination, rather than allegience to a super-Empire, is the most natural thing in the world, to humanity. It represents freedom, and the right to pursue your own culture, and your own destiny without interference from an authority that has neither as an interest.
b) Jews and other minorities suffered most under Empires whose sole purpose was to rob them of independence. There is no comparison between Jewish suffering under Empires and under nation states. Even the Holocaust stemmed from the nazi desire for Empire.
c) A history of the world's wars should make it clear that the bulk of them had to do with the establishment of empires from the earliest times. Even today the Islamists battle for a Moslem Empire with a restored Caliphate. Both WW1 and WW2 were about establishing empires.
Zionism has had many motives. The majority view can best be summed up in the return of an indigenous people, the Jews, to its native homeland. That was certainly the language used by the League of Nations in allocating defunct Ottoman lands west of the Jordan river to be a Jewish national home, in 1924. For Herzl it was about escaping from antisemitism, and that is certainly a factor. The plight of Jews changed worldwide with the establishment of Israel.
Europe hasn't surrendered its nation-state staus, but has unionised, mostly for expediency and economics. Each nation retains an individual language, culture, parliament and identity.
Palestinians are supported in their desire for self-determination because that is recognised as a basic national right, but you can't deny that right for Israelis in the same breath as you uphold it for everybody else ... that would be bigotry. Palestine (the geographic area, not "the land of the Palestinians") was divided in 1924 to allow different groups that right of self-determination, much like happened with India to form Pakistan. Christians and Muslims live happily in Israel as equal citizens, so I'm not sure what you mean. I do know that if any of them find the path of being an Israeli odious, they are free to move to a society that better suits their asperations, and the same is true of every individual in the free world. I am Jewish and live in a Christian environment in Australia. If I yearned for a Jewish environment I would move to Israel. If Moslems in Israel yearn for a Moslem Palestinian environment, they would move to Jordan. I don't get your problem. Aren't these the reasons we have immigration?
I think you misunderstand Mick and maybe I was not clear enough. Let me try again. Yes, every people living on a piece of land have the right to self determination IN THEIR LANDS. Jews in America are not denied self determination for being in America. I expect they would be denied self-determination if Baptists decided to have a baptist state in NY and NJ and kick all the Jews out or the majority leaving a tiny minority that is not given equal rights. Indeed this is not unusual in human history of colonization (e.g. see the atrocities against native Americans) but is unusual in the supposed era of enlightment and certainly in the 21st century. In fact today no group of people anywhere is subjected to ethnic cleansing and the perpetrators get away with it. I personally simply think it will take a bit more time but Zionism is not going to get away with it (not because of a major Palestinian power) but simply because it is against history and Israelis are not going to kill Palestinians faster than population growth rates (as happened with native Americans). In international legal norms and laws also you are not allowed to say I want to have self-determination by ethnic cleansing of others (ie. might makes right). That was ended after WWII precisely because of the atrocities of Nazis. Nazis after all said they had a right to have self determination and thus live in a secure nation with white Aryan germanic people. It is now considered unacceptable and utterly racist.
Your statement that "If Moslems in Israel yearn for a Moslem Palestinian environment, they would move to Jordan" is likewise racist. Moslims (and Christians) in Palestine live in their own environment and are native to the land. They are not Jordanians. It is even worse than saying that "if blacks in the South of the US wanted to live in a black environment, they should move to Africa". More like "if blacks in White South Africa wanted to live in a black environment, they should move to other parts of Africa". It is very hurtful to me personally and is certainly not conducive to respectful dialogue.
Imagine if Jews were expected to declare loyalty to the US AS A CHRISTIAN STATE or blacks to the US as A WHITE STATE.
Oath of loyalty to the country is OK but oath to support racism and calling Israel a Jewish state is unacceptable.
well it takes the two sides to stop who ever wants to be.. the main thing to have the peace then to argue over who want to be over who.. Dror you do have a good point as I been seeing. I can not stress it any more then common sense to settle that all can agree on and to "except it"