07 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzoAt my previous answer to you, scherzo, I mistakenly mentioned four reasons instead of three -and I have to apologize for the inconvenience.
First of all, 1956, 1973, and 2006 did not involve Palestine. The first two involved Egypt and Syria; the third involved Lebanon.
Second of all, you can spout as many platitudes you want about the option of coexistence. It's not going to change anything.
However I will remind you what happened on May 15, 1948, just a day after the declaration of the independence of Israel.
If I remember well, five Arab nations attacked that day Israel in order to defeat it and to dismember it, but after a year and a half the Israelis were the triumphant winners. And this is the reason why the Palestinians were forced to leave their soil and to become refugees and live at other Arab countries of the region.
We could also talk a bit about the Black September 1970 issue too, and to check that little incident between Jordan and PLO that ended to the deportation of the Palestinians to Lebanon; and we could also talk about the conditions that forced the Jews to establish Haganah at the ‘20s…
However these conversations are futile. The main issue remains, and it is the establishment of an agreement of the two parts that can lead to the coexistence of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleThe Israelis do not want peace. They are never going to have peace. They are always going to have some excuse for blowing up a random Middle Eastern country, and (who knows?) they may even invade South America someday. The only way for there to be peace is for the Israelis to leave. The situation was fine before the Ottoman empire, then the Mandates, then Israel.
Now let me be more specific; Israel came into existence because of four reasons:
1. Huge anti-Semitism in Europe for centuries, that was high peaked by the atrocities of the Nazis
2. Politics: the politics of Great Britain during 1920-1947
3. Dynamism: the dynamism and the unity of the Israelis set the momentum whilst the Palestinians are still repre ...[text shortened]... pinion, the Palestinians could promote the ingenious plan (a) or the ultra intelligent plan (b).
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleIf I remember well, five Arab nations attacked that day Israel in order to defeat it and to dismember it ...
At my previous answer to you, scherzo, I mistakenly mentioned four reasons instead of three -and I have to apologize for the inconvenience.
However I will remind you what happened on May 15, 1948, just a day after the declaration of the independence of Israel.
If I remember well, five Arab nations attacked that day Israel in order to defeat it and ...[text shortened]... greement of the two parts that can lead to the coexistence of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Nope. Egypt wanted Gaza, Jordan wanted the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon wanted to stop Jordan from taking the West Bank, and I'm not sure what the 5th country you're referring to was. The Israelis just ... eh ... got in the way from these various imperialist endeavors.
The main issue remains, and it is the establishment of an agreement of the two parts that can lead to the coexistence of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Believe me, if you think that can work, and you think you have the capacity to convince the Israelis that what they are doing is wrong, more power to you. But my feeling is that Israel is never going to relinquish the Palestinian territories unless the state is dismantled.
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy people have been willing to compromise for far too long.
Sounds rather like the story of terrorism in the last 10 years. I am yet to hear of a story of a terrorist that achieved a goal that benefited him or his cause. It is easy to say "I will fight to the death" and then fight to the death. It is quite another thing to give up some dreams in order to actually achieve something. I have a lot more respect for those who are willing to compromise.
07 Apr 09
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by ScriabinNow, tell me, what does the second coming have to do with the Nazi holocaust?
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate in ...[text shortened]... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzoYou are wrong. On May 15, 1948, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan (today Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq joined Palestinian and other Arab guerrillas who had been fighting Jewish forces since November 1947. These are the differ Arab nations I was reffered to. Then the war became an international conflict, known today as the first Arab-Israeli War.
[b]If I remember well, five Arab nations attacked that day Israel in order to defeat it and to dismember it ...
Nope. Egypt wanted Gaza, Jordan wanted the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon wanted to stop Jordan from taking the West Bank, and I'm not sure what the 5th country you're referring to was. The Israelis just ... eh ... got in the way from these va ...[text shortened]... srael is never going to relinquish the Palestinian territories unless the state is dismantled.[/b]
On the other hand, the sole way out of the Israeli-Palestinian issue can spring out of a mutual respected plan of coexistence. This means not that the Israelis have to be "convinced" that "they were wrong", not at all.
This means, at first, that the Palestinians must understand that if they cannot manage to become united they will keep up suffering.
Furthermore, they have to understand that they will gain nothing through wars and conflicts, because the Israelis are capable to cut them, along with every force that will decide to join the Palestinians at an open conflict or massive attack war, into pieces.
The Palestinians never saw it coming, and they are still stranded. The UN note 181/ 1947 was a far better proposal that anything they can achieve today, but they filed to understand it.
And you, even right now, you appear to understand not the case since you insist that, according to your "feelings", the "..state of Israel has to be dismantled".
It is my knowledge that, once you and your allies are engaged in a string of wars and you get yourself constantly defeated badly, something terribly wrong your leadership is doing. However, for the sake of the conversation, kindly please let me know which way the Palestinians will dismantle Israel.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzoThat is what your people and the Israelis have been chanting for the last century or so. The real problem is that too many people benefit financially from the current situation (on both sides and in both cases the supporters of the sides).
My people have been willing to compromise for far too long.
What I would like to see is more naming and shaming in the media. Every time an attack by either side is reported it should be followed by a list of people who supported the attack financially and an explanation of why they did so.
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleYou are wrong. On May 15, 1948, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan (today Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq joined Palestinian and other Arab guerrillas who had been fighting Jewish forces since November 1947. These are the differ Arab nations I was reffered to. Then the war became an international conflict, known today as the first Arab-Israeli War.
You are wrong. On May 15, 1948, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan (today Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq joined Palestinian and other Arab guerrillas who had been fighting Jewish forces since November 1947. These are the differ Arab nations I was reffered to. Then the war became an international conflict, known today as the first Arab-Israeli War.
O ...[text shortened]... onversation, kindly please let me know which way the Palestinians will dismantle Israel.
I don't know what makes you think these countries supported Palestine ... I recommend you read the Israeli book "The Birth of israel" by Simha Flapan.
This means, at first, that the Palestinians must understand that if they cannot manage to become united they will keep up suffering.
Furthermore, they have to understand that they will gain nothing through wars and conflicts, because the Israelis are capable to cut them, along with every force that will decide to join the Palestinians at an open conflict or massive attack war, into pieces.
But the villains go off home free?
08 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd what prompted it. Because 9 times out of 10 a Palestinian martyr operation, etc. is a direct result of Israeli military action.
That is what your people and the Israelis have been chanting for the last century or so. The real problem is that too many people benefit financially from the current situation (on both sides and in both cases the supporters of the sides).
What I would like to see is more naming and shaming in the media. Every time an attack by either side is reported it ...[text shortened]... by a list of people who supported the attack financially and an explanation of why they did so.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzoWhat makes me think that the incidents I mentioned are facts? History. And also Flapan himself.
[b]You are wrong. On May 15, 1948, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan (today Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq joined Palestinian and other Arab guerrillas who had been fighting Jewish forces since November 1947. These are the differ Arab nations I was reffered to. Then the war became an international conflict, known today as the first Arab-Israeli War.
...[text shortened]... n open conflict or massive attack war, into pieces.[/b]
But the villains go off home free?[/b]
Examining “Myth Five” at the book you mention, Flapan states that the Arab invasion was caused by the decision by the Jewish leadership to declare statehood at May 14, due to the fact (according to his evaluation) that the Arabs had accepted the last minute American proposal for a three months truce in case the Israelis were willing to postpone the declaration of their independence for three months. I am not at all intended to object Flapan and I will accept that this data is accurate. However, since the Israelis refused (and they refused coz in their opinion the diplomacy promoted by the UN et al had failed because of the Arabs, and also because they had nothing to wait for in order to support their will of independence by means of diplomacy) the Arabs decided to invade the soil of Israel the way I mentioned earlier.
This fact shows that the evaluation of the Arabs was totally wrong, because they decided to ignore politics and thus they became the first to attack. This is the reason why USA, USSR and many other states recognized Israel asap after its independence declaration and they pointed immediately that the Arabs reacted with aggression. Amongst else, even the Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko stated the following at the Security Council at May 29, 1948:
-- “This is not the first time that the Arab states, which organized the invasion of Palestine, have ignored a decision of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. The USSR delegation deems it essential that the council should state its opinion more clearly and more firmly with regard to this attitude of the Arab states toward decisions of the Security Council.”
Now, who are the "villains" in your opinion? Palestinians and Israelis were, and they still are at war. At a war, there are not "villains". At a war there is solely monstrosity. And on the other hand the Palestinians who caused this specific war they remain divided even today.
"Glory" and all that jazz during war is a delusion, but you appear to believe that I just spout "platitudes". You simply refuse to see that the Israelis claim that the Palestinian "martyrs" are killers of innocent citizens whilst the Palestinians claim that the Israeli soldiers are rapers and assassins.
Therefore there is nothing to be gained once the Palestinians keep up thinking the way you think. If you still think that your "plans" can work, kindly please show me the way.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzoThe way the Arabs decided to react is "what prompted it". If they had accept the UN note 181/ 1947, the Palestinians would enjoy today their own country at the soil of Palestine.
And what prompted it. Because 9 times out of 10 a Palestinian martyr operation, etc. is a direct result of Israeli military action.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadGreat idea!!! 😀
That is what your people and the Israelis have been chanting for the last century or so. The real problem is that too many people benefit financially from the current situation (on both sides and in both cases the supporters of the sides).
What I would like to see is more naming and shaming in the media. Every time an attack by either side is reported it ...[text shortened]... by a list of people who supported the attack financially and an explanation of why they did so.
09 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzoThe media already frequently does that. Also martyr operations supposedly have publicity as their main purpose and thus frequently try to get that message out. But I am not convinced that it is having any effect in terms of discouraging Israel or even gaining significant support for the Palestinians internationally.
And what prompted it. Because 9 times out of 10 a Palestinian martyr operation, etc. is a direct result of Israeli military action.
However if a key figure in Iran or some other country was named when an operation was carried out using his financial backing and it was clearly pointed out in the media that he benefits financially from the continued trouble in Palestine I think he would think twice before continuing his financial support.
I could be wrong but it is worth a shot.