 |
|
Bearcat
|
|
Oregonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
Has anyone read Sum of All Fears?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month... and continued with non-violent protests for a year or two, they would've gotten a state in most of the 1967 borders.
The Israeli public opinion supports an eventual Palestinian state and the removal of settlements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:24
|
|
I think most of the israelians only want peace peace peace. They have jobs, a social life, why would they want war?
People in democratic countries only want war if they're scared because of unsafety, because they're bored (mass unemployement), don't have food.
I'm sure that if the palestinians stop violence / counter-violence, whatever you want to name it, there will be peace.
But since there is hate, much hate, on both sides violence will keep on happening.
I think the israelians should be the 'wise old brother' in the conflict, and remove their settlements.
They could at least do that to show their willing for peace to the rest of the world.
If that fails, and palestinian violence goes on, there's no reason left over to drive them out of the country.
But I dare to bet that the violence will stop after Israel removes the settlements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Removing the settlements or even simply really and truly freezing settlements and removing the most inflammatory ones would be a major feather in Israel's cap. They could have an even stronger claim to the moral high ground, a major contention between the international community and Israel would be addressed and exorbitant expenses on security and settlement subsidies could be dropped. Plus, if the moves were seen as a result of meaningful negotiations with moderate elements in WB and G they could bolster moderate power among the palestinians. Is this way off?
I don't think being against the settlements is necessarily an anti-Israel view, just read Haaretzdaily.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I agree most Israelis want peace, but the question is, which do they really want more, land or peace? Moshe Dayan had an answer in 1968, and I think the current govenrment of Israel shares that answer. It wasn't peace. |
I disagree here, though I agree most Israelis want peace its legitimate concerns for security that make them vote hardline. The question is do the people they vote in, who push the security line, see land as the only way to security.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Because they want to be jerks. 
Seriously, though, they are driven to an extent in the belief that they are God's chosen people and that that narrow stretch of land was promised to them by God. Secularly, after the various wars Israel had with her Arab neighbors, their government wanted some sort of buffer zones surrounding them. Mostly, they live there out of spite for the palestinians AND stupidity (willfully putting themselves into the worst position posible: living on enemy soil, in enemy territory). |
This isn't completely true. Some settler communities are obviously extremist and are there to be jerks honestly, but I believe most are just normal people looking for affordable housing. The thing is, the government highly subsidizes life in the settlements, which is the main draw for most people. Government spending on settler communities, even excluding security expenditures, is much higher then spending on communities within the Green Line. This is part of the reason settlements are pretty unpopular among Israelis as well.
Plus, most but the most foolish or stupid of the settlers knew the risks when they moved in. Its a pretty widely held view that when peace comes many of the settlements will go, and when they do the settlers will expect large payoffs from the government.
quote:
Originally posted by DRoseDARs If only the Arab world had just accepted the UN plan like the Israelis did. Most if not all of this bloodshed could have been avoided... |
If only the zionists hadn't been quite so successful in influencing British policy in 1917...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
bah, gsmoove, you're too damn knowledgable about the conflict...
I feel I'm gonna have to pull up alot of sources in the future.
Imran - if not for the PLO's existance, there would be no major movement to free Palestine, as for a long time, the PLO was an umbrella for such movements.
The main reason for the split up, was when in the 80s, Arafat decided to fool the west by declaring that he accepts Israel, while the rest of the Palestinians groups feared that that would undermine their claim that the whole of Israel is illegal.
Evidently, Arafat's way proved much more successfull.
Hamas and Jihad would have been nothing if not for PLO.
1) no reason for Israel to support it during early 80s
2) no state sponsored umbrella for their actions, like the PLO is giving them since 1993.
Even with the Israeli funding, which pretty much ended around the first Intifada, before 1993, Hamas and Jihad were almost nothing. Surely not even 5% of what they are today.
As far as the settlers go, gsmoove is correct, but I also learnt that not only do they see themselves as a line of defense, sometimes they are. Reportedly sometimes IDF does win from having an isolated settlement to protect, since it gives IDF an excuse to set up a watch base on Palestinian villages and towns, which they need to control terrorist activity. This only applies to post 2001 though.
gsmoove - Actually I see no problem in the british policy. Besides being unclear of the borders, the promised two states for two peoples... and then began giving more and more of it away to third sides (french, hashemite dynasty).
In the end, only a tiny strip of land was left to devide between palestinians and jews. not so good.
I also see the work of Haj amin al-Husseini as devestating, and the prime reason for inability to reconciliate.
He basically was the one that began religious encitement towards the jews. This being aided by local leaders suporting him out of fear for their own status in light of a future jewish state.
And a new conflict was born in 1920.
Before that, Jews and Arabs had rather interesting cooperation. Infact, up until the 1929 and 1935, most of the zionist political movements were very very very dovish.
Some believed in a united jewish palestinian state.
Some believed in a jewish and a palestinain state in a federation (like the usa).
Some believed in two states for two people.
Unlike presented now by anti-israeli historians, the revisionist movement was not at all popular or dominant in the Israeli politics.
What happenned is that due to arab initiated violence, the political views of the majority began to drift towards the reivisionist views, and they finally became the majority in the 70s.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-11-2002 03:24
Personaly I think that the Palestinians want to demonstrate peacefully, but B@stard Sharon keeps them locked up in thier homes. He is intentionaly trying to srew up the peace prosess because he is a Orthodox jewish SOB and doesn't want a Palestinian state, he just wants the arabs to be second class citizens, dispite what he and his freaking consevative B!tches in the Knesset(sp.?) say. 
|