Whose land is it?

[August1991]

I've wondered about this question alot.

The "Bible" claims the Israelis lived there - even the West Bank - and then the Israelis were dispersed and lost the land. Later, Israelis decide to return and "claim" their land.

WTF? Some "book", apparently written 5000 years ago, states that your ancestors used to live in some place. You go there and buy land. Or you "force" people to leave.

Then, other people get involved and eventually we have the proverbial childish squabble. "I said, he said". "Mine, is not." "Here first, not true."

One side says: "We are going to get our land back even if we have to push them into the sea." The other side says: "This is our land. If some people want it, we will kill them."

What's the solution? I liked what Anwar Sadat did. He said, "Let's not fight. Right or wrong, let's accept the situation."

IOW, if we accept to lose this argument now, our children will have much, much more than they will ever have if we continue this argument and we eventually, maybe, will win this argument.

Whose land is it? How to organize this? What about Jerusalem?

As laughable as saying that Canadians/Americans should be evicted from North America and the land be handed over to the natives because they were the first to settle there.

Very good point d4d (sorry for any plagiarism). So, I started a new thread. (Imitation is the sincerest flattery.)

Edited April 24, 2004 by August1991

[d4dev]

Hey, that's plagiarism!! You first have to ask for my consent and give me royalty money before quoting me!

On a more serious note, how about making this a poll?

[August1991]

I would think it would be great if those two groups could get along, they won't thats a fact of life.

They will have to. How to get there.

You cannot even compare the issue of Native Americans to that conflict over there.

Why not compare Israelis/Palestinians to Mohawk/Quebecois? What's the dif?

I know that Hamas is determined to make sure there is no peace, that there will never be an Israeli state, they will coerce their own children to suicide bomb, they will continue to suicide bomb

Radical, extreme. But young American pilots died in WW II for something they believed in.

Hamas offers believers a clear vision of a Palestinian state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, its way of life grounded in the values and principles of Islam.

Islam? "Thou shalt not steal" comes from the Old Testament.

Hamas uses antiquated European anti-Semitic terminology to describe the Jews...

Hamas does not use antiquated terminology. The "civilized, peaceful, Venusian" Europeans "did" the Holocaust. Not Muslims, (and not Bush Americans, need I add.)

...expects to fully eliminate them from the Middle East by violent means.

True.

So, how can Israelis show Palestinians that they will NEVER succeed (and Palestinians shouldn't waste time trying)?

Or, how can Israelis make it possible for everyone to win?

[d4dev]

August, don't be too vocal about the Israel-Palestine question or you'll be labelled as a leftist.

[Sully]

Why not compare Israelis/Palestinians to Mohawk/Quebecois? What's the dif?

Religion, the approaches that each side takes, history, the scope of the issue, size of land claims, number of people who are involved, various different groups within groups each wanting their own agenda fulfilled, one side with a lack of authority or prominent leader, thats just a few of the differences.

Radical, extreme. But young American pilots died in WW II for something they believed in.

Yes freedom is what they died for, they died to make sure people like Hitler did not have a stranglehold on the European continent. To ensure that the European people would not be subjects to a tyrant. They did not promote the killing of innocent civilians nor did they propagate the war to last any longer than it had too. There was a clear goal with a clear finish line.

Looking at the issue from a Western Standpoint the only standpoint I will be able to look at it from, indescriminate killing is totally appalling and wrong. And I feel there is no viewpoint that can justify that.

Islam? "Thou shalt not steal" comes from the Old Testament.

Well the history of that area is troubled, group after group taking control its never ending struggle with no clear end in sight.

Hamas does not use antiquated terminology. The "civilized, peaceful, Venusian" Europeans "did" the Holocaust. Not Muslims, (and not Bush Americans, need I add.)

Yes Europeans did the holocaust. Yup thats fact.

So, how can Israelis show Palestinians that they will NEVER succeed (and Palestinians shouldn't waste time trying)?

Or, how can Israelis make it possible for everyone to win?

The Israeli's cannot show the Palestinians that they will never succeed. People that are not afraid of dying and revered as matyrs in death will only continue the cycle. Unfortunately group have perverted the beliefs of their respective religions and those differences will keep this struggle alive and well. There is no way for everyone to win.

Palestinians win when they either accept a peaceful resolution or completely take over the area.

Israel wins with a peaceful resolution where the two groups can coincide together or unleashes its forces more and more frequently to annihilate the Palestinians.

Hamas wins only when there are no more Jews on this earth.

BTW who is leading the Palestinian people, that to me seems the biggest hurdle to peace, lack of autority and restraint for the Palestinians, I believe that more focus should be spent on uniting Palestine under one group that can speak and act for them.

[August1991]

Sully, does your morality require more thought?

They did not promote the killing of innocent civilians

No? The bombers over Berlin? Dresden? Hiroshima?

[Sully]

Hamas targets, I repeat targets INNOCENT CIVLIANS. If you look like an Israeli or reside in Israel you are a target. They would target you and me if we were in a crowded street. Do you think we could justify with a logical reason why we would be considered targets. NOPE I CANNOT, Just because I am not Palestinian is all I can come up, I am their enemy because I am not Muslim or because I support them.

Innocent people will be killed in a war, bombs cannot avoid destroying the flesh of the innocent. But the targets were bomb making factories, not a Jewish wedding. Bridges, Nazi Headquarters, etc. are all strategic war time targets, these are not comparable to Jewish Cafes or buses. Can you not see the difference, on one side you have everyone as a target, and on the other you have strategic targets which unfortunately result in the loss of innocent life.

As for Hiroshima, I think that detonating that on an Island to show their power would have been better and could have saved lives. But hindsight is always 20/20. Who knows maybe the Japanese would not have surrendered, I mean the Japanese were fighters til the death they showed that thoughout all the island hopping fights. I think we both agree that everyones lives on this earth are of equal value, so bombing hiroshima may have killed 130,000 Japanese but also maybe saved hundreds of thousands of Americans lives had they not dropped it and instead moved into to invade Japan. All these scenarios can be played out again all we gotta do is try learn from history.

[August1991]

As for Hiroshima, I think that detonating that on an Island to show their power would have been better and could have saved lives. But hindsight is always 20/20.

There is a "morality", I believe.

Fighting endlessly about hectares/acres is silly. There are no 'principles' to die for except "I have no principles other than my children". What is best for them? What will be best for my grandchildren?

And why do I exist anyway if my grandchildren won't live? Do I really believe "I" will "exist" in 5000 years?

The morality is having my life now; and the ensurance that others in the future will enjoy what I have.

[August1991]

Why can't we compare North America to the middle east? Because you say so? 

No not because I say, its just simply looking at the situations and seeing that it would be comparing apples to oranges.

Here are a few glaring differences:

1.) Religion

European Catholics and native Indian elders.

2.) Scope of the war

What?

3.) History

French Indian War?

4.) Killing is not rampant here in N/A when fighting over land

True, we North Americans are generally peaceful (perhaps because of the Native Indians - and so too the Middle Eastern types). The truly violent are the Europeans.

5.) The number of people involved (Millions)

(Sorry, got me there.)

6.) Lack of authority and control on one side of the equation

Natives/Arabs disorganized? Europeans/Jews organized? Are you T. E . Lawrence?

7.) Different factions within each group have their own agendas and will not compromise until those agenda are completed.

The basis of many divorces.

8.) Each group has religious zealots

Europeans in America were Christians spreading the faith. I suspect the native Americans wanted to keep their "lifestyle" too.

the list can go on and on.......

You know anything about India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka?

It's very simple, Sully. Hamas wants their land back. They want to have their own independant country, and refuse to recognise the state of Israel.

So, so true.

Compare the situation to the communist revolution in China/Russia, albeit with a different ideology. The only difference is that the Chinese and the Russians were fighting against their own countrymen, whereas Hamas considers Israeli Jews to be foreigners who have occupied their land.

True too.

Hey I am not doubting they want what they believe to be their land back. I just find it strange that you view Hamas as a group of freedom fighters, rather that what they truly are.

I too have always been confused by the terms 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' and 'soldier' and 'policeman'.

But then would you agree with aboriginals performing suicide bombings here is North America in order to reclaim their land, its easy for us so far removed from the situation to pass judgement.

Why don't Native Americans do suicide bombings? (Maybe they're civilized.)

But I know that the targeting of innocent people is wrong there as it would be wrong here. Do you support Hamas and all they stand for?

The Americans killed about a hundred thousand in Hiroshima in 1945 - to avoid killing millions later. Perhaps they should have killed hundreds in Rwanda to prevent the killing of a million or so. There are hundreds dying in Iraq - but not millions elsewhere in the future.

What is this nonsense? Is there any logic to killing several now so that more are not killed in the future? Uncivilized. We Canadians don't like such nonsense. (The civilized Europeans apparently do. We Canadians have sometimes got involved.)

Are you serious when you say religion is not important? Wow thats naive. I wish that were the case but I am sure if religion was not an issue then there would be peace as unfortunate as that sounds. Yes you are right they would hate any religion, because of what is dictated by their leaders perverted view of their religion. But the vast majority of Muslims have a distaste for Jewish people, this view is not isolated to Palestine. Go perform a survey in Muslim countries see what reaction you get by asking the question "As a Muslim what are your views of the Jewish people", see if you make it out alive for asking that question. I mean really which side do you think that Middle Eastern countries support, Israel or Palestine? Do we even need to answer that one.

Muslims do NOT have a distaste for Jews. They have a distate for Zionists.

Why do you think that Mel Gibsons movie has been breaking box office records over in those areas its allowed to play. Because they like that the movie is "suppose" to be anti-semitic because of all the hoop-la before its release. I mean these places were not suppose to allow a movie with a prophet in it to be shown on the silver screen, hmmmm looks like they let that one slide, I wonder why?

Two reasons: Some people, mostly men, frustrated in life, like to see bloody violence. The film gives them a legitimate reason to watch what they want. Second. Some people, mostly women, angry about life, want to believe their misfortune is for a good cause.

My view? We, as a species, have no future if we believe torture is good.

Without a doubt the purpose of the Bristish Empire was to control the wealth of those places to benefit England. Yes those are facts, but that was then this is now. Tell me what is so beneficial to setting up Israel. Puppet state eh! Every country has their hands in the Middle East. Ever wonder why Germany, France and Russia vehemently opposed the war in Iraq. Yup you guessed it France, Russia and Germany had their companies inside Iraq making money. Wow lucky for us the Europeans are above all those simple issues of wealth and make decisions solely on sound principles.

You are describing imperialism from the intellectual colonial perspective. That is, you are describing the position of an intelligent woman in a traditional marriage. Get with the times, please.

I am not necessarily agreeing with the way Israel was carved out the existing land, but I have no problem with their existence, they are here now and I support them.

Me too.

[Sully]

European Catholics and native Indian elders.

Religion existed of course at those times but it did not make them fight each other. Resources and the control of the land did which N/A and Isr./Pal have in common.

What?

This war has greater implications than just between Israel and Palestine. This war has results that will be felt in the whole neighbourhood called the Middle East.

True, we North Americans are generally peaceful (perhaps because of the Native Indians - and so too the Middle Eastern types). The truly violent are the Europeans.

Europeans are the more violent ones, no not at all, we were just more efficient at making weapons that could kill more people per conflict. There is no group of people on this earth that have been untouched by conflict and violence at some time.

(Sorry, got me there.)

Well 2 groups of people living adjacent to each other makes a huge difference in this war, people are not far removed from the action and see it daily and that has a huge impact on people's emotions and actions.

Natives/Arabs disorganized? Europeans/Jews organized? Are you T. E . Lawrence?

I never drew that comparison you did, but are you telling me that the Palestinians have a central figure who would be able to stop suicide bombings by asking their people to cease and desist, hahahah right, how many times has the peace been broken by a bombing. There has to be a central and strong government on that side who can come to the table and get results through negotiation. Until then its useless trying to negotiate with a fragmented people.

The basis of many divorces.

I believe thats true, but hmmmmm Israel and Palestine are they married?

Why don't Native Americans do suicide bombings? (Maybe they're civilized.)

Are you saying that Palestinians are not.

The Americans killed about a hundred thousand in Hiroshima in 1945 - to avoid killing millions later. Perhaps they should have killed hundreds in Rwanda to prevent the killing of a million or so. There are hundreds dying in Iraq - but not millions elsewhere in the future.

What is this nonsense? Is there any logic to killing several now so that more are not killed in the future? Uncivilized. We Canadians don't like such nonsense. (The civilized Europeans apparently do. We Canadians have sometimes got involved.)

Actually yes there is logic to it. If we consider everyones lives on this earth to be of equal value, then it is logical to kill several now, to save several thousand lives later. Unfortunately I would not want to make that decision. But people have to and also unfortunately no one can see the future and the impact of making two different decisions and see if their predictions came true. Canadians love to take the high ground, while the Americans do the dirty work, must be nice to have that relationship.

As for Rwanda, the world didn't give a crap, sad isn't it.

Muslims do NOT have a distaste for Jews. They have a distate for Zionists.

I guess we are all entitled to dream. And no not every single Muslim hates Jews but the MAJORITY do. They are taught to right from the time they are born in many cases. Just like many are taught to hate the West, do you watch the news, if you do you can see it nightly.

Two reasons: Some people, mostly men, frustrated in life, like to see bloody violence. The film gives them a legitimate reason to watch what they want. Second. Some people, mostly women, angry about life, want to believe their misfortune is for a good cause.

My view? We, as a species, have no future if we believe torture is good.

Hmmmm obviously you did not see the comments from movie goers in that area after watching the film, who cares about the stupid reasons why they would say it, what matters is how rampant those views are.

Who is promoting torture?

You are describing imperialism from the intellectual colonial perspective. That is, you are describing the position of an intelligent woman in a traditional marriage. Get with the times, please.

When you make comments and draw in these strange comparisons make them clear as to a point, that will definitely help me get your intended meaning a lot better.

[Michael Hardner]

Sully:

Actually yes there is logic to it. If we consider everyones lives on this earth to be of equal value, then it is logical to kill several now, to save several thousand lives later. Unfortunately I would not want to make that decision. But people have to and also unfortunately no one can see the future and the impact of making two different decisions and see if their predictions came true. Canadians love to take the high ground, while the Americans do the dirty work, must be nice to have that relationship.

I can't follow the jump you made from "killing innocent civillians is wrong" to "killing some now is better than killing some later". Which ones would have died later and why ?

It seems to me that this morality is flexible enough to rationalize Israelis exterminating Palestinians or the other way around.

The culture of self-righteousness and justified violence saturates people on both sides of the conflict in the ME. There's no simplified way to look at the players - both have done wrong and continue to do so. Until the people truly want it to end, and the leaders have no choice but to accept this volition, the conflict will revolve infinitely.

[Sully]

I can't follow the jump you made from "killing innocent civillians is wrong" to "killing some now is better than killing some later". Which ones would have died later and why ?

It seems to me that this morality is flexible enough to rationalize Israelis exterminating Palestinians or the other way around.

I never said it was right, I would love a world without war, but thats just not realistic anytime soon. LOGICALLY speaking it is understandable that someone would have to make that decision in the time of war like dropping the A-bomb. Several thousand lives are not equal in value to several hundred thousand future lives being taken, if thats what they predict the future will hold. Like I stated before it could have been used to blow up a small island rather than a city and saved many peoples lives, but I am not priviledged enough to know all the facts before making that decision and I do not believe anyone other than wackos would relish making that decision.

But there is a huge difference between what targets are chosen, blowing up buses, weddings and cafes are far different from blowing up hideouts of terrorists that have by strategically placed amongst the population. Yes they both result in cases of innocent deaths, but on one side the innocents deaths were NOT INTENDED.

Using the Japanese as an example, they were fighters to the death, history proves that. Kamikaze pilots come to mind. Why would Americans risk losing thousands of troops when they would move to invade Japan. If we believe in the equality of life of all people then unforturnately killing the thousands of Japanese with those bombs may have saved many more equally valuable American lives. No one can see the future to see if the numbers would back those decisions but who knows maybe it would have, I do not think it was right to drop the bomb, but it was logical. Indescriminate killing of Israelis is not comparable, these are random senseless acts of terror, nothing more. Is it really logical to continually attack innocent people is it moral also. I do not think so.

[udawg]

The term "state terrorism" is a really great one. Both the Israeli government and Hamas are guilty of terrorism. I don't know enough about the history to say who has a rightful claim to the land, but I do know that certain factions of both parties are guilty of atrocious crimes in the name of this dispute.

Hamas needs to stop killing Israeli citizens if they want to gain any credibility, and Israel needs to stop rocketing resedential neighbourhoods if they seriously want to find a solution.

[August1991]

They did not promote the killing of innocent civilians nor did they propagate the war to last any longer than it had too. There was a clear goal with a clear finish line.

Sully, you say that with hindsight. At the time, they could only hope, or follow instructions. There was no clear way to cross the finish line, nor even any certainty they would cross it. The outcome, at the time, was far from certain.

Their success has given us our current confidence.

[udawg]

Actually, which leads me to my next point.

I'm sure someone has said this before, but Israel doesn't actually want a solution.

By continuing to attack Palestinian settlements as retribution for suicide attacks, and settling in internationally recognized Palestinian territory, "to maintain security", the Israelis have won the public relations aspect of the war.

They have plausible excuses for their actions, but in doing so, are merely provoking further attacks by the Palestinians, which allows them to take the role of victim too. The Israelis know exactly what they're doing, and it's not "peace negotiations." They aren't going to give up their land, and as long as they can goad the Palestinians into attacking Israeli citizens, nobody expects them to.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear all,

The main problem is that both sides are acting directly on their perceived instructions (and promises) from God. Humanity has politicized it, as udawg points out

They have plausible excuses for their actions, but in doing so, are merely provoking further attacks by the Palestinians, which allows them to take the role of victim too. The Israelis know exactly what they're doing, and it's not "peace negotiations." They aren't going to give up their land, and as long as they can goad the Palestinians into attacking Israeli citizens, nobody expects them to.

Judaism and Islam are incidental to this, as one could insert any warring factions of mankind into this. Hutus and Tutsis, Pakistanis and Indians, etc.

God must be placed in one's heart, not in one's muzzle.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Speaking of land ownership, without the presence of humans, it belongs to no one (except God, if one believes such). It is just there for all to share. After that, animal instincts of territory rule the day. As it is now.

[August1991]

animal instincts of territory rule the day.

Onthe contrary, it is the lack of clear title that leads some animals to fight and kill one another.

It is just there for all to share.

That is a recipe for disaster.

The Iceland's fishery is a marvel; Newfoundland's fishery is moribund. Why? Fish off the coast of Newfound;and were "just there to be shared". Fish off the coast of Iceland are owned.