The Israel / Palestine situation - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2002, 01:14 AM   #46
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:30 AM
In response to Not George Lucas
Quote:
Originally posted by Not George Lucas
1. Ariel Sharon is hardly a hero. He encourages terrorism against Palestinians. He's wanted for war crimes in multiple countries. He has done nothing to preserve peace in that region. While Yasser Arafat is not the greatest of men, he does condemn terrorist activity, and he has done a lot of work in the past to try to preserve peace. You may even recall that Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, along with Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin, "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East."
Fully agree about Sharon, not about Arafat though. He is well known for having promoted terrorist activities from as far back as the 70s. Though he seems to be more moderate now, I'm not so convinced of his "condemnation of terrorism". He has led negotiations for peace in the area but I wouldn't qualify him a champion of peace as the Nobel Prize would seem to imply.

Quote:
2. Israel is not simply defending itself from suicide bombers. Israel has had a military occupation in Palestine for the last 35 years. Military occupations are by nature violent.
True. It is also true that there has been a fierce Jewish colonisation campaign of Palestine for over 80 years now.

Quote:
These so-called terrorists are not trying to bring down the capitalist Americans. They're trying to get equal rights for their people. They don't want radical Islam to dominate the world. They want their famlies to be able to walk the streets without being harrassed or shot at.
They are not "so-called" terrorists - they ARE terrorists. Even if their motives may be legitimate the methods they indulge in cannot be condoned under any circumstance, in the same way most of the IDF's methods "to defend themselves" can't either. Even if the spirit of the intifada is to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation, Hamas and Hezbollah ARE Islamic radical groups who use legitimate motivations to push forward their own covert agenda of expanding Islamic fundamentalism.

Quote:
Furthermore, Israel is in violation of countless UN treaties and agreements and is responsible for multiple human rights violations, including (but not limited to) treating anyone who isn't Jewish (Muslims, and Christians alike) as second-class citizens, threatening, injuring, and killing doctors, nurses, and paramedics, shutting off water and electricity in hospitals, forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes at gunpoint, to make room for Israelis, and shooting Palestinian children for sport. And yet, somehow, it's unamerican to stand up to that?
Yes Israel is violating and has violated countless UN resolutions and agreements including the Declaration of Principles which kicked off the Peace Process arbitered by the US during the 90s.

Quote:
I think anyone who is trying to save his/her country from military occupation and governmental oppression is justified in sacrificing him/herself for that cause. Palestine has been occupied by Israeli forces since 1967. Palestine has no army. Practically speaking, suicide bombing is an effective way of getting rid of invaders.
Defending yourself, your home, or your country is never terrorism. The Israelis want land. The Palestinians want freedom. Which is more important?
To defend their land is justifiable and even to sacrifice themselves for that cause is, but even if due to the lack of a proper army suicide bombing may be "effective" it is still terrorist tactics. What there is no doubt of is that through these tacticts they've succeeded in drawing international attention to their cause, but not certainly sympathy. Nothing justifies terrorism, even defending your own country or home. Let's not not mix up legitimate motivations with the legitimacy of the methods to defend those motivations. I mean no-one can justify bombings of schools, hospitals, stores, etc or the killing of the enemy's families to defend what's their own. This obviously cuts both ways.
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-26-2002, 01:18 AM   #47
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:30 AM
In response to ouizy
Quote:
Originally posted by ouizy
As a matter of fact, there is no such place as Palestine, and never was. This is the crux of the Palestinians debate, that they want Palestine back and the Israelis should leave. Go back to the old testament and see who occupied the land. I can tell you it was neither Palestinians, nor Israelis, but a complete mix of both and for one side or the other to claim the land today seems ludacris.
There IS and has always been such a place as Palestine, in fact at the time of its annexation to the Ottoman Empire in 1517 it already existed as such. Back in ancestral times (i.e. over 2000 years ago) there was indeed a mix of Philistines (that's where the name Palestine comes from) Canaanites and Jewish people over there. After the diaspora very few Jews were left and the non-Jewish communities which descended from Canaanites, Philistines and other conquering races continued to live there. These people mixed with Arab neighbouring tribes and with the expansion of Islamism became in their majority Muslim. They have been living in the area known as Palestine for over 1200 years and during that time time they cohabited while not in friendship but in peace with Jewish minorities who stayed or arrived there at a later time. When in 1917 the British agreed with the Zionist Organisation to propitiate the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine nine tenths of the population living in the area referred to in all documentation of the time as Palestine were of Arabic and therefore Muslim descent. These people were not in any way consulted as to whether they agreed that their soil i.e. the one they had inhabited uninterruptedly for 1200 years should be given to the Jews, who had inhabited it 2000 years before but weren't at the time except for a bare 10% of the whole population, to create their own country. What is ludicrous is that the Zionist Organisation's claim of the land of Palestine on the grounds that it had been inhabited by the Jews 2000 years before was even seriously considered.

Quote:
They need true leadership who will squash that behavior and who will ally themselves with the EU, the US and even Asian nations, to bring about some kind of peace settlement, because as we have seen, Arafat can do nothing, the US has done nothing, and Israel is simply in the position to give, but will only give when proper political action is taken. I believe in my heart Israel will give, should give, and eventually will even be more prosperous with a friendly Palestinian neighbor when the process is complete and the Palestinians are seen by the world as a peaceful state, and not a collection of refugee camps filled with terrorists the way they are now.
This is logical reasoning, but it is difficult to convince people who have been done away of what was lawfully theirs in the first place, who have been militarily occupied for 35 years, who have been forced to flee from their soil and who have seen Israel ride roughshod over every agreement they signed starting right back 1949. Putting things into their right historical context could not only help to a better understanding of the problem but towards devising more effective solutions.

Quote:
Clearly the Plaestinian movement does not have the power from whatever land they have to defend themsleves, however they need to do so in a diplomatic, and not explosive way.
It would definitely be the ideal way, only that their claims have been historically ignored in the diplomatic arena and only given some consideration when they raised hell (terrorist attacks and so on). Not that such methods are justifiable in any way as I've already said, but if history is checked, who can blame them for turning to violence? There's a link to a page within the UN site, I've already posted it on another thread, which briefly describes the evolution of the "Question of Palestine". Within that page there are links to more comprehensive documents always within the UN site called "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem" Parts I, II, II and IV which are very informative and well documented as well as full of lots of references to consult for further details.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Quote:
He may condemn it, but he takes no action against it. If he truly is the leader of the Palestinian people, he would have the power to find, arrest, and imprision members of such groups as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but he does not. Somehow they are always able to blow themselves up before he is able to bring them to justice. If he was a true leader such as Tony Blair, or even GWBush, he would have this power. He does not. Do you think for one moment that a group like Hamas would be able to operate in the US? Of course not. After the first incident, the rest of the conspiritors would be arrested and imprisioned. Not so in the Middle East, though. It goes on and on...
I've already given my opinion on Arafat and his less than convincing terrorism condemnations, however Hamas and Hezbollah get massive support from the people because they have seen that negotiation has got them nowhere because Israel is not willing to respect what it agreed to and because the international community esp the US who was the arbiter of this negotiation did not do enough to compel Israel into compliance of the terms it signed and not even the UN was willing or able to do so. If Arafat attempts to stop these groups he'll have most of the population against him which is not only detrimental to his own aspirations but which will undoubtedly favour the seizure of power on part of a more radical i.e. Islamic fundamentalist leadership. You can't compare the Middle East to any western country. Hamas couldn't operate in the US because no-one has any reason to support such a group over there.

Quote:
The Israeli governments doctrine is to demolish the homes of convicted and/or deceased bombers (aka terrorists). Not to make way for Israelis, but to simply punish the criminals and their families if they blow themselves up. This has to be looked at as the opposite of what Saddam Hussein is doing by paying these families $10,000 for what their criminal child has done by blowing themselves up. As for shooting Palestinian children for sport, this is just another example of how you let your feelings take over what you write and allow immature thoughts to come out in your writings. That simply is not true, and is quite offensive.


The homes bulldozed at Jenin were not terrorist homes, but rather civilian homes were it was suspected that terrorists were hiding. Before this episode there have been scores of reports of Israeli attacks on Palestinian villages and towns which go as far back as 1948. I've never heard of Isrealis killing children for sport and would certainly hope that it isn't true, but there have been many reports from organisations like Amnesty International and even the UN Commission for Human Rights which state repeated violations of human rights on part of the IDF in detriment of Palestinian civilians. Also as joyfulgirl has already said, random, routine shootings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers and settlers have been repeatedly reported by these organisations and are proven fact.

Quote:
I will go back to a statement I made a while ago. I beleive that the UN must occupy Israel and the Palestinian territories with troops for a specific period of time while negotiations take place. I believe any infraction of a specific set of rules the UN dictates by EITHER side should have international action taken against them. I do not think these two groups of people can do this by themselves, and there is no reason for the violence to stop at the rate they are going. Both sides deserve better and it is going to take a third party to give this to them.
This would be a logical solution, though I doubt Israel would be willing to accept it, since they've got more to lose.

Quote:
nobody even identified themselves as Palestinian until the 1950s. Before that they were simply considered Arabs. The land of Israel was a Jewish state beginning about 1,000 years B.C. The Jews only dispersed in the year 70 AD because they were defeated by the Romans. The area did become controlled by Muslims around 700 AD or so and was part of the Ottoman empire.
There is a lot of documentation prior to the 50s that refers to the said area as Palestine and to its inhabitants as "Palestinian Arabs". Re remote history: the overall facts are correct though it must be mentioned that the "Jewish state" that began around 1000 BC under King David did not span until the diaspora in 70 AD. In fact it only lasted about 100 years as a unified entity in the way King David conformed it since it was divided in two parts, Israel and Judah, after King Solomon's death around 900 BC. This division weakened the Hebrews' power and Israel finally fell to Assyria around 700 BC and Judah to Babylon (Persia) in 586 BC. Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were carried as slaves to Babylon. Some years later they were allowed back to an area named Judea, a district of the territory known as Palestine and were allowed considerable autonomy under the Persian rule. In 333 BC the Persian hegemony was replaced by a Greek one as a result of Alexander the Great's defeat of the Persians. It continued to remain under Hellenistic domination under the Ptolemies and Seleucids. Around 140 BC the Jews rebelled and succeeded in establishing an independent state but were again defeated some years later by neighbouring tribes. Judea was renamed Syria Palaistina and many Jews were expelled from the area. In 63 BC Jerusalem was taken over by the Romans. In 70 AD after years of civil disorder Emperor Titus laid siege to Jerusalem and finally the Jews definitely dispersed from the area. In 638 AD when the Arabs entered Jerusalem, the area became known as Filastin and has had continued Muslim presence up to date. The inhabitants of the area were not forced to convert to Islamism but eventually did in their majority about a century later. They also adopted the Arabic and Islamic culture. After almost 900 years under different Muslim dynasties' rule Palestine was annexed by the Ottoman Empire as a distinct province in 1517. The area was divided into several districts, such as that of Jerusalem. The administration of the districts was placed largely in the hands of Arab Palestinians. The Christian and Jewish communities, however, were allowed certain autonomy.

Quote:
The Arabs never claimed that Israel is theirs because they were indigenous people--they claimed it as an Islamic land. Muhammed wasn't even born until the 600s, which makes their claim really ridiculous.
Who says they claimed it as an "Islamic land"??? They claimed it as the land they lived on for the past 1200 years. If there is a ridiculous claim that is the Zionists' since it was based on the grounds that the Jews had lived in that land over 2000 years before, ignoring both the situation of the world at that time (they certainly were not propitiating that the Italians take over all what was under the Roman Empire) as well as what happened in the place during the 2000 years they had not lived in it.

Quote:
The problem right now is that the Palestinians and Arabs agreed to negotiate for a final settlement peacefully and ended up w/ a deal that would give them 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and a capital in part of Jerusalem. That wasn't good enough for them so then they started up again with the violence.
Violence did not start again because what it was offered to them "was not good enough for them" (which will never be for many of them since they see that they were dispossessed of the land their immediate ancestors lawfully lived in) but rather because most of what was agreed in the Declaration of Principles, Oslo II, the Wye River Memorandum, etc during the period 1993/99 was never completely fulfilled including the fact that the Palestinian State had to be created in 1999 and such a decision was postponed at President Clinton's request on a letter to Arafat against the promise of the complete fulfilment of the peace process in one year's time. Nothing was completely accomplished and with Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa precinct in September 2000 the situation blew over.

Quote:
It seems one side is "re-negging" on an agreement, and is doing so by blowing up innocent people. I think we all agree the violence has to stop, however, to base claims on a land that never rightfully belonged to a group of people is incorrect.
Well Israel did not respect its part of the agreement at its proper time. Why did they increase Jewish settlements in areas they had to turn over to the Palestinian Authority esp during the Netanyahu rule? Why did they refuse to hand over all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip when they had to? Why did they refuse to hand over access routes and water supply control to areas they had agreed would be under the Palestinian Authority? Violence has to stop - yes. The land belonged to the people who were living there at the time and had been doing so for over 1000 years, if that isn't enough to claim a land as theirs I don't know what is. I can't understand why conversely it is acceptable that someone should base a claim on a land that belonged to them 2000 years before and which they did not inhabit at least in a majority for that period of time.

Quote:
In any event, I keep reading complaints about how the Jews and the British handled this, but what is the argument for the "Palestinians" of that time to have the land? If there is a valid argument as to why at that time (early 1900's) the "Palestinians" should have had that land I would like to hear it.
It's too simple. They were actually living there and had been doing so for generations during the previous 1200 years.
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-26-2002, 01:22 AM   #48
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rainbow
Invaders? Are you saying that Israel invaded Tel Aviv? Or the cities near it?
Yes. Before the massive immigration of Jews after WWI and until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 Jews were only 10% of the population in the territory of Palestine.

Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
Here are a couple of stories from Pilger's website www.johpilger.com that are included in the film. One is an Israeli soldier who now refuses to fight, and the other is the Israeli father of a little girl killed by a suicide bomber. These stories give me hope.
Great post

Quote:
Originally posted by CannibalisticArtist
you can even be more cynical and say that the british gave the jews israel because they wanted them out of europe.
No it has nothing to do with that. It had more to do with putting a dent in the Muslim world. Don't forget that the Arab nations formerly under the Ottoman Empire had deep cultural, racial and religious affinities and therefore were natural allies - in fact they later conformed an Arab League, that the Egyptians had been causing problems with the Suez Canal and that the control of oil was already becoming an issue at the time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Pacotalica
If you were to do a comparison; whatever wrongs the Israelies have commited against Palistinians since the British gave them Israel (even if it wasn't the theirs to give) is a spec of dust in comparison to the atrocities commited against the Jewish people. Violent acts that have been going on for centuries, against them.

In truth there is virtually no period in history where the Jews have not been persicuted. With exception of the spread of Christianity when Judaism was more accepted, they have never known an extended period of peace. You would be hard press to find a place where they are truely accepted. And lets not forget or deny the Holocost. That nearly brought the extinction of their entire people. And they have endured the atrocities time and time and time and time again. They have always stayed strong and kept faith in their religion and their beilefs. For some it was the promise of the Holy land that kept them going. The promise of a land where they could be at peace. So it is something much deeper then simple dirt or space they are fighting for.
No-one denies the horrors Jews have undergone throughout history only that there's no reason why the Palestinian Arabs have to pay for them.

The events in WWII played a major role in the destiny of the region, since the massacre of Jews on part of the nazis, installed worldwide the idea that as no country could guarantee that such events against Jewish people would not happen again, it was logical that Jews should be allowed to live in a country of their own. Even if the claim to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine was never related to persecutory motives against the Jews it became inextricably linked to them after WWII for no valid reason whatsoever other than the international community's remorse for not having been able to prevent the Holocaust.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
If Palestine has no army, then wouldn't ALL of the Palestinians who are killed by the Israelis be classified as "civilians"?
U2Bama, you surely realise they mean non-terrorist population. And yes your statement about them having a police force under the Palestinian Authority is correct.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-26-2002, 01:25 AM   #49
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:30 AM
In respomse to nbcrusader
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Actually, Israel has given up land for the sake of peace.
What land???

Quote:
Israel is surrounded by peoples who would, bottom line, like to see all Jews dead. This is something that Americans, living in relative security, will never fully comprehend..
Some of them undoubtedly would in the same way the likes of Sharon would love to see Palestinians wiped out. Let's try to be fair in our judgement.

Quote:
I think this highlights the fact that even a well-known respected journalist approaches the Israel-Palestine issue with a bias. Mr. Pilger is not a judge nor has the power to declare what is illegal.
A bias? Why? What makes you think that your own position is unbiased? Mr Pilger has not declared Israeli occuppation as illegal, he is echoing what the international community through the UN Resolution 242 of 1967 has already stated, as joyfulgirl has already said.

Quote:
I believe we should start, as Ouizy’s post suggests, with a greater understanding of the historical context of the current situation. It is a far greater value in understanding the current conflict that various antidotal accounts.
Agree.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-26-2002, 05:24 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Ultraviolet7:

Well I knew it would not be long before you would come in with your anti-Israel on everything points of view. Sorry, but I just finished reading every single one of your post in entirety and am not in the mood for a rehash of past discusions at the moment. I disagree with everything you've had to say, but I just don't have time to go into everything at the moment.

I disagree with your contention that there was no unoccupied land in Israel/Palestine in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I would have to see actual documented proof of this, which of course may be fabricated by the Arab side. I mean actual names of people and the square miles they actually owned, where it was, and how it was illegally taken from them. I don't mean an example or generalizations either. There is no mass movement of Muslims off land in the late 18th century to make way for Jews recorded.

There is no way that with only 400,000 people that most of land in Israel/Palestine was already occupied. I'm not just talking about land suitable for farming, I'm talking about literally every square mile. Were talking of an area that had a population density of less than 40 people per square mile just by dividing the population by the land area. Most of the people were clustered into certain area's leaving large tracks of unoccupied land. Certainly all the land is definitely owned or by someone, private or government "today", but even with over 7 million people in the area, that are still massive area's that one could walk for miles without seeing another human being.

The Ottoman Empire were not just surpervising the land, it was their land, it would still be today if it was still a country. It had been their land since they took it in 1517 from the Mamelukes. So it was perhaps illegal, but the Turks of the 1900s don't have to give it back just because their ancestors took it illegally 400 years earlier. If were going to get into that, then the claim by some Jews that its their land because they were there 2,000 years ago becomes valid.

Just because the Jews made up 10% or 20% of the population does not mean that they don't have a right to form a state. When the Ottoman Empire colapsed, no country existed and certainly no Palestinian Muslim had the right to force Jews to be member of their state. The Jews had every right to form a state of their own, no matter how small. When no country exists, an ethnic majority has no right to force Jews rightfully living there to be a member of their Muslim state. The Palestinians Muslims have no right to claim all the land in Israel/Palestine just as the Jews do not either.

Israel is a democracy and while one political party may be opposed to Palestinian rights, Israel is a democracy and non-violent action would be effective where terrorism and war obviously has not been. Look at what the Palestinian Muslims could of had in 1948, but they said no to the agreement. Sorry, but I find it a little fishy that the day the 5 Arab countries decide to supposedly defend their Palestinian brothers is the day that Israel declares its independence. Self defense?!?!, I'm sure thats what they've always said to defend their actions on that day.

My parents grew up in the southern United States and know full well the difficulties faced by African Americans in obtaining civil rights. There were blocks of both parties that were opposed to civil rights. One thing that you have to understand about US politics is that not every issue comes down on party lines. Only 110 years before the civil rights movement, it was the law of the land in the USA to own slaves. After the Civil War while African Americans were free, their road to gain full civil rights was a long one and was resisted at every turn in the begining by the majority of Congressman. It took African Americans almost 100 years to get the Civil Rights due to them. During this time thousands were murdered by white extremist and their suffering ignored by an uncaring public. Yet through out, they new the principles of the US government and democracy of the nation would eventually lead them to victory and full civil rights. They accomplished their goals through non-violent action, even though in the late 1800s, they had virtually no real political support at all.

The Palestinians Muslims violent actions since 1948 in securing and independent state have been a terrible failure. Their terrorism and war's with their Arab "brothers" have just led to the loss of more of their land and refugees. The fact is, there never will be a Palestinian state until it ceases being a potential terrorist state. They need to prove that they can live in peace with Israel and reject the violent actions since 1948 that have prevented them from being able to form a state.

Even if you don't have much faith in non-violent action, wouldn't it be worth a try after 54 years of violence that has not succeeded in achieving the goal of an independent state? Many other countries even countries that our suffering oppression have had non-violent movements. Where is the Palestinian Muslims non-violent movement? Its their key to statehood!

Jenin was a legitmate military operation to destroy a terrorist cell. It is amazing that only 48 civilians were killed and is to the credit of the IDF that civilian losses were kept low. There is not any undisputed proof that any single civilian was killed on purpose at Jenin! That is a fact! Accidents occured as often does in the confusion of combat at night in an urban center. There were houses blown up by Palestinian terrorist that contributed to the number of 48 civilians that died in the fighting. Certainly terrorist houses were bulldozed, but one has to prove that IDF soldiers bulldozing the house new that only civilians were still in there once the procedure started. It is not IDF policy to bulldoze houses with only civilians in them. If terrorist are still fighting or firing from the house though, it does become a legitmate military target. If it was the IDFs goal to kill Palestinian civilians, they could have wiped out the entire population back in 1967! We all know what would happen if the roles were reversed and the terrorist had control of Israel!

There are people all around the world who suffer in worse conditions than the Palestinians, yet that don't strap bombs to themselves and go into disco's to blow up Israely teens listening to U2. This is just boneheaded and stupid as all terrorism is boneheaded and stupid. Accomplishes nothing except to purposely ruin the lives of innocent people! Its sick, just plain sick to target innocent people that have no control over your problems!

Hey if you think its legitimate or understandable, try exlpaining that to our fellow Interferencer RAINBOW who lives in Israel.

As a side note, I find it interesting that you mention Jewish "terrorism" before 1948 yet fell to mention Palestinian Muslim terrorism dating back to before 1905 against Jewish civilians in the Israel/Palestine area.

It would behoove the Palestinians to try alternative methods such as negotations and non-violent action in order to achieve their objectives. Set backs in the peace process or temporary delays are no justification to run off and kill teens listening to U2. The African American civil rights movement suffered all kinds of setbacks over a period of 100 years, but they knew that they could win through non-violent action because of the system of laws and democracy that the USA was founded on. People change over time, and politicians and political parties change much more rapidly in as little as 2- 4 years sometimes. As far as convincing people of their views and rights, the African American population had a far greater uphill battle at the start of the 1870s than the Palestinians do today. The Palestinians can achieve statehood through negotiation and non-violent action! It is a fact that violent methods to achieve statehood have failed for the past 54 years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2002, 09:05 PM   #51
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Sting2
I knew that it wouldn't be long before someone accused me of being "anti-Israel". Only I thought it wouldn't be you in view of the civilised way we have conducted our discussions in the past albeit our diametrically opposed points of view. I'm sorry to see that because you have no solid argument to bring forth to contend what I've posted which is, as you are perfectly well aware of not "a fabrication of the Arab side", but backed by historical documentation, most of it from British official sources of the time, you should choose to attack me. There is no way you can accuse me of being "anti-Israel" because I NEVER stated or implied that Israel has no right to exist. The fact that I see that Palestinians have legitimate rights over their soil, something which has been recognised by the international community through specific UN resolutions cannot in any way be interpreted as being "anti-Israel" and not even pro-Palestinian. In fact I'm neither since I have no particular affinity with the Palestinian people nor with the Muslim in general and much less do I have aversion for the Jewish people since I'm partly of Jewish descent myself. If it had been the other way round or it had involved the Balinese, Scottish, Dutch, Peruvian, you name it instead of Palestinians my view of the situation would be exactly the same. If I'm "anti" anything that is injustice . In this case and from the research I've done consulting both Zionist and anti-Zionist sources as well as neutral ones as official UN reports, British documents of the time, etc I've come to the conclusion that the Palestinian people have been the object of an injustice. This does NOT mean that I'm against the existence of a Jewish state especially after the atrocities they were victims of before and during WWII on part of the nazis. What I'm against of is the manoeuver the Zionist Organisation with the support of the British in the first place and other powers later on performed in detriment of the Palestinian people to achieve that goal.

I'm also sorry to see that you had the need to twist my words by saying that I "don't have much faith in non-violent action" to make your own point. There is no way that you can accuse me of being pro-violence because there isn't a single comma in any of my posts which could lead to such an interpretation. In fact if you had really read every single one of my posts as you claim, you would have noticed that in my responses to Not George Lucas and ouizy as well as in past exchange with you I have always condemned terrorist action and been favourable to the diplomatic way out. The fact that I believe that Palestinians have a legitimate motive to justify their fight DOES NOT mean that I believe that the methods they use are legitimate. I've made this point clear throughout my posts, if you choose to ignore it it's your own business, but please refrain from making uncalled for insinuations to reinforce your point. In any case, I come into this forum to hold intelligent and civilised debate and not to engage in fights with people I don't know a thing about, since my participation here stems from the desire of a pleasant break from my everyday activity and not from the need to vent any pent-up frustrations.

There's no need for you to prompt me to "try telling this to someone who lives in Israel" because I've already held similar discussions before with Israeli people in other forums - you'd be surprised to see how many of them are less fanatical in their defence of Israeli policies than people who have never set foot in the Middle East and how easily many of them can tell the difference between understanding the motives and justifying them. Even the most recalcitrant of them admit that Palestinian people as a whole don't wish to do away with Jews, but that such a notion is exclusive to Palestinian terrorist groups. On another account I don't have to remind you that I live in a country which was actually flogged by terrorism (not in the same scale it's understood - but terrorism all the same) back in the 70s so I do have an idea of what it is to live with the constant fear of terrorist attacks.

There's nothing else for me to add since I've already substantially made my points, provided references, posted a link from a neutral source (the UN) and your reply consists simply in a complete refutation of my post without providing any backing to your own claims which I could eventually argue or agree with. Furthermore, I'm not out to push my point of view down anybody's throat since I'm absolutely in favour of freedom of thought and speech.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-26-2002, 09:19 PM   #52
War Child
 
CannibalisticArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Coast babyeee
Posts: 511
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Sting 2
first i am anti-Jewish for not liking the way the british handled the situation!, then ultraviolet7 is anti-israel for stating historical fact and backing it with evidence. it's easy to label people.
__________________
CannibalisticArtist is offline  
Old 10-26-2002, 10:24 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:30 AM
I say we demolish all of Israel/Palestine, and make it a Eastern/Western strip mall. "Holy Lands" kind of irritate me, because of all this crap...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-27-2002, 12:34 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Ultraviolet7:

I really don't know what to say except that when I said anti-Israel points of view, I meant it in the general sense of it not being a pro-Israel point of view. There are often two opposing sides to this debate. Perhaps Pro and Anti are not the best terms to be used in this discussion, and sometimes there are more than just two directly opposing view points, but I've had plenty of a discussions with other people on different issues where the same terms were used but no one took it personally including myself. The real opposite of Pro is Con and perhaps if I had said Con instead of Anti, I would not be accused of attacking you, but I guess that can depend on how one interprets a few words. I don't understand why you would twist that into a personal attack on you? I was talking about YOUR points of view on a particular topic, NOT you personally, there is a difference. I appeal to you not to create something that does not exist or imply that I have attacked you personally when I have not. I've been a member of this forum for over 2 years and never been accused of attacking anyone. I apologize for any bad feelings, that something I said, may have created. But its important that you understand that was not my intention and that my comments were not personal.

Cannibalisticarist:

It is easy to apply incorrect thoughts and idea's to what people say, incorrect interpretation. I never said you were anti-Jewish. Ultraviolet's views are selective facts and a different point of view on a very contentious policy issue. There are very credible arguements and counterpoints to everything he listed in detail.

Ultraviolet7:

It is your opinion that I do not have a solid arguement and my reference to a "a fabrication by the Arab side" was in regards specifically to if there are any legal documents that have the names of people that privately owned all the land of Israel/Palestine in the late 1800s. I never said this was in fact the case, just a possibility. Many Arabs(NOT ALL ARABS) consider terrorism to be a legitamite form of action so a fabrication of documents would not be beneath them.

When I brought up the point of not having much faith in "non-violent action" I was talking about are debate about what could or could not accomplish the Palestinian Muslims goals. I tried to explain that non-violent action had a much better chance of accomplishing their goals. You doubted my assumption. So I don't see it as inaccurate to say that you have little faith(that does not mean any faith) in non-violent action to achieve the Palestinians goal in this particular case. How you construe that I'm saying that your PRO violence by this, I have no Idea.

I'd just had an interesting discussion with are fellow interference member (RAINBOW from Israel) who told me she sometimes gets upset by certain post on this forum about the situation. I have no Idea if you have or have not talked to anyone in Israel(before you stated so), but whats the harm, in light of that, in mentioning that we have a fellow interferencer who lives in Israel and may have an interesting insight whether it be Pro or Con in this debate or neutral. Why is suggesting discussion with one of our fellow interference members construed as a personal attack?

The UN source you gave is an interesting one but while the UN is supposed to be an unbiased source, the way the report is written at least the first part of it, is clearly biased towards the Palestinian Muslims. British sources can't be assumed to be unbiased or biased towards Israel since there was a strong Con-Jewish feelings among many British officials especially the officer corp stationed in Palestine at the time of the mandate. Plus, the report should give equal space(50%) to Jewish counter arguements but does not. I could site sources as well, but then I would be accused of citing biased sources. Its fine to the list the source, but the report is not unbiased.

I apologize for any thing you have written that I might have (or did) mis-interpreted or twisted. At the same time I hope you would be careful and not mis-interpret or twist things that I say, which you have clearly done in your last post.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-28-2002, 01:19 AM   #55
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago,IL,USA
Posts: 221
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Arafat continually tells the world that he is for peace and condemns terrorism, then tells his own people that they should not rest until every israeli citizen is wiped out. Now, I don't know if he really believes this or he is just saying this to avoid being killed by his own people, but nothing justifies murder. I can't understand why most of the world supports the Palestinians. They are clearly the aggressors. I'll admit Israel is not 100% innocent (name one country that is), but if your very right to exist was threatened, wouldn't you take extreme measures to protect yourself?
I've heard the argument that Israel should give back the land that they took in the sixties or seventies (sorry if I don't recall the year). Maybe they should, but these terrorist groups are acting out of pure hatred; a far cry from simply wanting freedom. So even if Israel did give them their land and freedom, the terrorism would not stop. If it is just their own country that the Palestinians are looking for, then why don't they look to Jordan. From what I understand, when the UN created Israel, (1947, I believe) they also created Jordan exclusively for the Palestinians, but almost immediately afterwards, someone (I forget his name) came in and declared himself the King (Prince?) of Jordan, and he didn't want the Palestinians to live there. Ever since then, the Palestinians blame Israel. Excuse me?
When will people stop being zealots and accept the fact that human beings are human beings no matter what they believe. Live and let live.
__________________
U2fan42 is offline  
Old 10-28-2002, 03:08 PM   #56
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Sting2
What I took as personal more than the "anti-Israel" issue itself (which I did) was the context in which you used it in your reply:
Quote:
Well I knew it would not be long before you would come in with your anti-Israel on everything points of view.
It's OK if it wasn't your intention but you'll have to agree that it does sound aggressive. I did not twist it into a personal attack, it simply sounded like it.

Re the use of labels: my personal approach is, when referring to somebody else's points of view, to refrain from issuing qualifications especially when the individual isn't personally known since labels may easily lead to misconceptions related to somebody's true standing regarding a particular issue. That is why I avoid them, expect others to do the same and it irritates me when they are used. This labelling is particularly offensive when it entails the concepts of "anti" (or con - it's exactly the same) or "pro" a particular nation/people/race/religion since in this context the "anti/con" tag has a distinct connotation of hatred or intense dislike generally rooted in racist or other irrational motives (anti-semitism comes immediately to mind as an illustrative example), whilst "pro" in this same context is normally a notion linked to blind adhesion and approval of anything the nation/people/race/religion does. This particular debate is illustrative as to how misleading qualifying tags can be, in fact to narrow it down to two opposing sides labelled as "anti-Israel" and "pro-Israel" (or pro-Palestinian or anti-Palestinian) is to clearly to oversimplify the issue and to jump to conclusions regarding people's real stance. In fact, as I said in my previous post, "anti-Israel" implies, among other things which may be even read by some people as anti-semitism, the denial of the right of Israel to exist. People who acknowledge Palestinian rights are not necessarily denying the right of a Jewish state to exist. Some might and some might not. In the same way people who acknowledge such rights are not necessarily pro-Palestinian, a tag which may way too easily be confused with being pro-terrorist, since they might not see the light of day in everything the Palestinians do nor have any particular affinity with them. Again some might and some might not.

Quote:
When I brought up the point of not having much faith in "non-violent action" I was talking about are debate about what could or could not accomplish the Palestinian Muslims goals. I tried to explain that non-violent action had a much better chance of accomplishing their goals. You doubted my assumption. So I don't see it as inaccurate to say that you have little faith(that does not mean any faith) in non-violent action to achieve the Palestinians goal in this particular case. How you construe that I'm saying that your PRO violence by this, I have no Idea.
Well it is not too difficult to construe from a statement which claims that someone "has no (or little) faith in non-violent action" that it is suggested that the said person is pro-violence since such a statement implicitly conveys the idea that the person sees violence as the only way to solve problems. In any case I never said that non-violent action didn't have a better chance to accomplish Palestinian goals. What I said is that from the very beginning decisions made in the diplomatic circles have been less than beneficial to Palestinian aspirations. In fact it was a diplomatic agreement which deprived them from part of their soil. To make things worse Israel has unfailingly refused to comply with all or some of the terms of the agreements it signed and never once was it emphatically forced by international arbiters to respect them. In view of this it is understandable that Palestinians (NOT me) have little faith in diplomacy and therefore are adept to violence as the method to force their claims. It is my opinion that if treaties satisfactory to the two parties can be accorded and the two of them are compelled to respect the terms, a solution will be devised much more successfully than with any violence. Simply it has never been the case and in view of the mounting resentment this conflict continues to create it is certainly no easy task. On another account what I said is that as a result of violent action Palestinians succeeded in drawing international attention to their problem. In fact if they hadn't we wouldn't be even discussing this issue and they would probably have got nothing at all from Israel. Again this does not mean condoning violent action but rather making an observation on its effect. It's conjecturing to say that if they had settled for the partition plan in 1947 they would have a state now, basically because the partition plan was not satisfactory for either side. This is because the Palestinians felt at the time that they couldn't settle for what was being offered to them as they did not see that they were being given but rather taken away something lawfully theirs, a situation which could very well contemplate the creation of a conflict in the near future. Such a conflict could also have been triggered from the Israeli side in view of the explicit expansionist ambitions of extreme Zionism which entertained the idea of making all of the territory of Palestine the site of the Jewish state. These irreconcilable aspirations were already more than obvious before WWII and were precisely the reason why the British had to abandon back in 1939 the partition idea suggested by the Peel Commission two years before.

Quote:
I'd just had an interesting discussion with are fellow interference member (RAINBOW from Israel) who told me she sometimes gets upset by certain post on this forum about the situation. I have no Idea if you have or have not talked to anyone in Israel(before you stated so), but whats the harm, in light of that, in mentioning that we have a fellow interferencer who lives in Israel and may have an interesting insight whether it be Pro or Con in this debate or neutral. Why is suggesting discussion with one of our fellow interference members construed as a personal attack?
I never considered the suggestion of holding a discussion with Rainbow a personal attack. I merely said that I had already had similar discussions with Israelis. I have no problem in having another one. My response was to the "try telling an Israeli".

Quote:
The UN source you gave is an interesting one but while the UN is supposed to be an unbiased source, the way the report is written at least the first part of it, is clearly biased towards the Palestinian Muslims. British sources can't be assumed to be unbiased or biased towards Israel since there was a strong Con-Jewish feelings among many British officials especially the officer corp stationed in Palestine at the time of the mandate. Plus, the report should give equal space(50%) to Jewish counter arguements but does not. I could site sources as well, but then I would be accused of citing biased sources. Its fine to the list the source, but the report is not unbiased.
I'm curious to find out what you would consider to be an "unbiased" source. My own opinion of an unbiased source is linked not to what the source says in itself i. e. the result, but rather to what sort of documentation and references it uses to elaborate its reports and to what endorsement the source itself has. In my opinion the UN can be considered an unbiased source prima facie because it is an international organisation which supposedly serves no particular nation's interests and therefore there should be no reason for it to publish an unobjective report. On a second analysis its objectivity is actually proved by the fact that it does not make gratuitous statements, but everything it claims is referenced to official documentation and public statements picked up from well known newspapers like The New York Times and not from sources favourable to only one of the sides in particular. Conversely I don't believe an encyclopaedia to be necessarily an unbiased source as you mentioned on another post, since even if it may try to offer an opinionless panorama of facts its objectivity depends on the sort of sources that are consulted to elaborate the entries and who publishes it. Unless the sources consulted are actually mentioned to be able to judge the degree objectivity they offer, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the information on them is "unbiased".

In the case of the UN report, the fact that its result does not imply that both sides are equally right (or wrong) does certainly not mean that it is biased since in a situation like this one it is very improbable that there is a balance between the two sides' rights and wrongs. Your claim that the report should give 50% space to Jewish arguments supposes that it gives more space to the Palestinian ones. This is simply not the case since the report does not cite Palestinian or other Arab sources at all other than bringing up statements made by some of their leaders in the same way it quotes Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion or Begin. It's true that the report is in the end more favourable to the Palestinian side but this was not the result of giving Palestinian arguments more space, but rather of the analysis of official documentation of the time. On another account the assumption that British sources were biased against the Jews is highly dubious since British policy throughout the Mandate as well as the documents drafted by the British Government were clearly favourable to the Zionist cause.

Quote:
It is your opinion that I do not have a solid arguement and my reference to a "a fabrication by the Arab side" was in regards specifically to if there are any legal documents that have the names of people that privately owned all the land of Israel/Palestine in the late 1800s. I never said this was in fact the case, just a possibility. Many Arabs(NOT ALL ARABS) consider terrorism to be a legitamite form of action so a fabrication of documents would not be beneath them.
My reference about you not having a solid argument stems from the fact that you have not presented any backing to your case. In fact you said you disagreed with everything I said but did not offer any documented reason as to why my own arguments (which I backed with references) were wrong other than you said so. Obviously if your references come from Zionist sources there wouldn't be much room for discussion. On another account, I don't quite get what is the connection between fabrication of documents and considering terrorism a legitimate method to defend a cause. In my interpretation fabrication of documents is not beneath anyone who does not have enough legitimate arguments to defend their cause, while terrorism may not be beneath anyone who does not have enough strength to defend their arguments otherwise.

Quote:
I apologize for any thing you have written that I might have (or did) mis-interpreted or twisted. At the same time I hope you would be careful and not mis-interpret or twist things that I say, which you have clearly done in your last post.
It's OK. I in turn I'm sorry if I have done the same, however I don't have a clue to what it is exactly that I have twisted.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-28-2002, 04:51 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolet7
In respomse to nbcrusader

What land???
Israel has acquired land following wars with neighboring countries – countries that initiate wars, then lose. Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-28-2002, 09:17 PM   #58
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Israel has acquired land following wars with neighboring countries – countries that initiate wars, then lose. Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace.
OK, but it isn't land that belonged to Israel in the first place. I mean they did not "give up" the Sinai, they returned to whom it belonged in the first place.
__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 10-28-2002, 10:13 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Ultraviolet7:

I was refering to my comments that you took to be aggressive or hostile. You mis-interpreted or twisted this to be something that it was not. Perhaps it was easy to do though, and I will do my best to avoid language that can be easily mis-interpreted or twisted to mean something else. I'll avoid the use of Pro, Con, and anti and use in place different or opposite or any word that would not be mistaken for a particular bias.

From appearence, the UN should be an unbiased source of info. I don't have time to go into detail here, but there are several points in the report where different people are clarifying the condition of certain people and using words to define them in ways that I would not after examining the same information. The UN is the some of its parts and most members of the UN can be said to have a bias view against Israel. While the selection of sources main seem legitimate, it is just that "selective", as well are the quotes from the various people. It is interesting to see which quotes they choose to reference from people and the quotes they choose not to. I consider it a biased report from what should be an unbiased organization. But thats ok, and is certainly something that everyone should read.

I'd be careful about defining someone's arguement as not being solid just because they have not cited an internet source. You certainly have not cited every single post you have made at interference, but I'm not going to then say you don't have a solid arguement for that reason alone. Its fine to list sources of info whether they be biased or unbiased and present info to back your arguement up. Whats the point in defining someones arguement as not being solid by a single criteria. Present your information and sources if you have them and make your point and move on. Were getting into the whole clarification thing now. Most post on these discussion boards are uncited and based on the general knowledge one may have gained from looking at multiple sources on a particular topic over several years. One may have read or learned from certain people the information they present here and may not be able to identify a particular source at the current time for the info and idea's they present. Don't assume that just because someone has not cited an internet source for their points that they don't have a solid arguement. As I said in that post back then, I did not have time to fully respond and still don't right now.

In my opinion I would not automatically label a source that is from a citizen of Israel or an Israely organization as a Zionist source. I've not listed sources because in any source there is a subjective quality to it and then "selective" use of objective facts. It can therefor be judged as being biased by someone. Raw statistics are usually not a problem though. I'll list sources if that would please people here though. There are a large number of sources though that are simply not available on the internet.

The UN source is great. But I would not present it as the Gospel or that it is entirely free of Bias, the report itself that is.

Unfortunately right now I do not have time for a more in depth discussion on the topic of this thread. But maybe this weekend, we'll see.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-28-2002, 10:59 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Ultraviolet7:

Just one more point. I never said "try telling an Israely". Look back at that post where I first mentioned Rainbow.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com