Bonam Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Rue, all the history I've ever read says that the Ottoman Empire claimed all the land shown below. It's color coded between the actual provinces/divisions of the empire, as well as its tributary/vassal states. Besides that, the area of the current West Bank was part of a number of other states further back in history, including: The Byzantine Empire The Roman Empire The Macedonian Empire The Persian Empire The Babylonian Empire The Assyrian Empire All of which claimed and asserted sovereignty over the area for some span of time. Here's another map showing the land claimed as part of an empire as early as 671 BC. Even prior to that the area of Palestine was part of a long series of states all the way back to the times of Akkad and even Sumeria, indeed to the dawn of human civilization. But as intriguing as the long history of the area is, it does not alter my other points above. Nor does it particularly matter whether any state wants to claim it now. It's not some uninhabited island open for colonization, there is a dense population there with aspirations of statehood. There is no reason in the 21st century that a people should be part of a state they do not wish to be part of. As soon as Israel can get rid of the West Bank in a safe and controlled manner it is to the best advantage of both Israel and the Arabs of the West Bank that that happen. Do you disagree? Even if one could make the legal argument that the West Bank is an unclaimed frontier, free for the taking for any nation that wants to go in there and subjugate, expel, or exterminate the native population, as has been done throughout history... is that really the argument you want to make? Maybe it would be to Israel's advantage to drive off the native Arab population and annex the area, but that's not really an option that's on the table. The only options that can possibly be executed are: 1) Maintain the status quo as long as possible (a waste of lives, resources, and reputation) 2) Annex the West Bank and give everyone living there full citizenship, i.e. "the one state solution" (complete demographic suicide) 3) Allow/facilitate the West Bank's transition into a sovereign Palestinian state, i.e. "the two state solution" The options that I discount as not being realistic are: 4) Annex the West Bank and subjugate the population there as second class citizens (would not be supported by Israelis and would not be permitted by other nations) 5) Expel/destroy the native population and annex the area (would not be supported by Israelis and would not be permitted by other nations) 6) Have other existing states claim the area, such as Jordan reclaiming the West Bank (won't happen cause no one wants it) It seems to me that (3) is obviously the preferable option for everyone involved. Edited January 10, 2014 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Bonam I actual agree with you but I do want to push you on this point just because I love you. Lol. Its amoot point but hey... None of the land you described belongs to the Ottoman Empire today because the empire no longer exists. Therefore as I stated the West Bank is not part of a sovereign nation and therefore can not be occupied which I do not believe you are debating. The land that the Ottoman Empire once claimed all belonged to it including Palestine I would argue WAS occupied or administered but never became a sovereign part of it and I will tell you why in a second. It is a moot point because the Ottoman Empire no longer exists and the area known as Palestine reverted back to being stateless. The land The Ottoman Empire forcefully seized from other nations that belonged to other nations that was never part of its original empire was in fact occupied. It gets legally murky which part of that occupied land by law can then be said to have been annexed by it. There are two kinds of annexation. One is a formal unilateral legal declaration which it never did-the other is defacto possession in an uncontested and prolonged manner. Parts of the land it expanded to were continually disputed as being occuped by other nations. Some of the land like Palestine that were never a country were administered by it but the Empire never had any government buildings in Palestine nor did it def9ne by domestic law Palestine as a province. So there certainly was no formal annexation. What we had was long distance administration. To claim sovereignty today, one has to establish at minimum a government presence, a military or police force or both, and a formal political and governmental system. There was none of that. At best what you had was a sort of quasi long distance real estate land title claims type connection which was uncontested because no one cared about the area. To cal that sovereignty is inaccurate. In fact it can't be compared to the definition of sovereignty used in today's law. So I could have made myself clearer before because technically I do not disagree with you that at one point the Ottoman Empire administered the area known as the West Bank through a land titles system which at the best of times was inaccurate and very poorly documented. Palestine was administered by the former Ottoman Empire but never formally made part of it so its inaccurate to call that sovereignty. For example when Jordan annexed the West Bank it uilaterally declared it a region of Jordan and physically occupied it with both police and army and actually government buildings administering laws and taxes on the West Bank. Israel has been very careful to avoid annexing or being deemed to have annexed the West Bank. It does not administer 60% of the land where the Palestinians live. They collect teir own taxes and are already a de facto nation. The only issue is the 40% of the land where Israel has its settlers of which 20% Israel unilaterally has stated it will give up no matter what happens. So what we are really talking about is 20% of the remaining West Bank and Israel has stated it can be part of a Palestinian state if its allowed to keep its troops on that land patrolling that land. For those who say NATO can do that get real. NATO has no intention of putting troops down on the ground on the West Bank. As for any of you who want to lecture Israel on putting its security in the hands of others yah tell me about it. The UN did a hell of a job doing what it promised and that is disarm Hezbollah. Hell of a job. Also its doing a hell of a job in GAza preventing missile attacks. This is the same UN who did a heck of a job protecting Southern Sudanese, Rwandans, the people of Mali, Congo, Ivory Coast, Liberia, East Timor, Biafra. Oh yes they have an excellent unblemished record. Those Chinese peace keepers such marvellously neutral soldiers never mind they armed and mobilized Hezbollah and Syria. Say once we are at it, I love the neutraily of the UN Refugee Commision in Ramalla. Just love how they assist the transportation of terrorists and their weapons and use their vehicles to spy and attack on Israel. Better still I just adore how in Gaza they let themselves be used as an arsenal warehouse and attack post against the IDF. Ah yes the UN. What a wonderful organization. I mean golly gee now it is a model of democratic institutions working in a corupt free environment above partisan politics. Edited January 10, 2014 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Rue Maybe the Palestinians are just pissed that they have had this bum deal for centuries. One occupier after another. I'd get a little tired of that too. None of the land you described belongs to the Ottoman Empire today because the empire no longer exists. Therefore as I stated the West Bank is not part of a sovereign nation and therefore can not be occupied which I do not believe you are debating. That sounds like a really lame excuse. By that notion Israel was not a sovereign state either. But they made one. There is no reason to deny the Palestinians a sovereign state. A sovereign state might be in Israel's better interest. Bringing the Palestinians into statehood and get them into international order and accountability through the United Nations. Which is a joke in of itself. However the UN is used by everyone for their advantage in some way. One thing we need is to remove 'veto' power of every nation that adheres to the UN. Geo-politics always skew votes in favour of one over another. Israel has a wild card in it's pocket. The USA will come to the aide of Israel and will veto any resolution that makes Israel accountable to International Law which Israel itself does not really seem to recognize. Israel has been very careful to avoid annexing or being deemed to have annexed the West Bank. It does not administer 60% of the land where the Palestinians live. They collect teir own taxes and are already a de facto nation. The expansion of the settlements tell another story Rue, which is annexation. Israel issues the permits for everything in the occupied territories. Looks like annexation to me. To claim sovereignty today, one has to establish at minimum a government presence, a military or police force or both, and a formal political and governmental system. There was none of that. At best what you had was a sort of quasi long distance real estate land title claims type connection which was uncontested because no one cared about the area. There is no way Israel would let the Palestinians have a functional formal recognized military. There is no way for them to accomplish this while being occupied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Ghost I actually agree with Bonham I am just pushing the technical differences. Its all semantics now and a moot point and the practical reality is whatever word we call it the Ottoman Empire had control of many lands including Palestine and had they not ceased as a nation they may be turned into a permanent legal right to claim the territory as part of it so it is not that big a deal but it is confusing because the legal definition of sovereignty and the political or legal or practical (de facto)ones are all different. Now I agree Palestinians can argue they have a right to create a state from the West Bank no different than Israel did. Never said they did not, in fact just the exact opposite. The same laws that allow Israel to declare a nation apply to Palestinians. Now some argue Jordan is already that Palestinian state but Palestinians clearly reject citizenship in Jordan and Jordan has rejected them so its a moot point whether we are talking about a second or first Palestinian state when it comes about on the West Bank because Israel has stated repeatedly it will recognize one and the only thing in its way is terrorism and how to secure its borders. The Oslo accord ironically which the PA ripped up stated Israeli would recognize a Palestinian state. Now at this moment in time more settlements are going up. Most are in the disputed Eastern zone of Jerusalem and these are on lands that were once Jewish that illegally seized by Jordan in 1949 and so now the Palestinians feel belong to them after Jordan denounced itself of control post 1967. The zones in and around East Jerusalem have legal issues the rest of the West Bank does not. Here are some realities. For two states to come about Israel already has conceded it will pull out of 20% or so of the 40% its on to on or around Jerusalem creating a secure border that would prevent terror attacks. The notion the world has that Israel would go back to 1967 borders without terrorist disarming and denouncing their charters is illogical and insulting to Israel. Its like saying, be reasonable let terrorists point their guns at your head. Why? Would you? If someone told you that you were not reasonable because you refuse to let a man with a loaded gun stand next to you and point it at you after telling the rest of the world his intent is to kill you, would you? The bias against Israel is so bizarre it asks for that. Jews in Israel are the only people in the world asked to enter into alleged peace agreements that would enable terrorists to be in their back yard and kill them. Won't happen. Those settlements going up in Jerusalem are a precursor to a bigger legal problem. This notion Jerusalem will be divided in half and one half given to the PA isn't going to happen. Israel will never agree to that the same reason the Christian churches won't-the PA does not recognize the pre-existing land titles of the Christian churches or Jews prior their invasions after 1949. They refuse. In the Arab world, here is no discussion. None. They start with an ultimatum-Israel must....there is never any concession that land was illegally seized from Jews in Jerusalem and synagogues deliberately burned down. There is no acknowledgement of the theft and vandalism of sacred Jewish lands. The vast majority on this board have no idea what Jerusalem is, who owns what, where church and Canon law applies, how many illegal scams arose where Palestinians were ripped off by other so called Palestinians. People have no idea how many Arabs came into the West Bank taking advantage of the fact that they could simply call themselves Palestinian, and illegally took land from other Palestinians. Its a dog's breakfast of who owns what and there are all kinds of squatters who are not even Palestinian who have come in calling themselves Palestinian, built buildings and then act shocked when they are torn down. There is no doubt there is going to be a complex debate on who owns what in Jerusalem but it is not going to be the way the PA thinks and that is, they spit out an ultimatum, and then Kerry comes running like a step and fetch it boy repeating their ultimatum and stating in public if Israel doesn't give in there will be another intifada. Once Kerry did that he sabotaged peace talks. The PA has been given green light not to negotiate. Kerry has unilaterally stated the current US position is pre 1967 borders for Israel with absolutely no reference to what then happens when Israel is exposed to terrorism on its borders. Then again Kerry is part of the world opinion at the UN which was quick to condemn Israel putting up a security wall but made not peep of how terrorism attacks stopped once the wall went up. Such is the way of the world at this point. It has a dominant faction of nations that are anti Israel and use the UN for partisan anti Israeli policies and ask of Israel what they will not ask of Sudan, Rwanda, Mali, on and on. The two faced double standard of the UN and now Kerry and Obama speaks for itself. Now Netanyahu brought it on. By insulting Biden, he lost his strongest US ally at this time, and Colin Powell who seemed to be able to grasp the nuances of the Middle East being a man of integrity walked when he was used as he was over Iraq. The former Prime Minister of Britain who claimed he would be a mid East peace maker was laughed at. The only way peace comes is using military men who understand terrorism and security issues who are neutral, mapping out realistically defensible borders. Powell could have done that. Romeo Dallaires if he was not so sick and exhausted could do it. Finding a soldier of integrity and a code of honour both sides will trust is easier said than done and until that happens when you see civilians butting heads and making speeches it means nothing. Its just posturing. Until someone with true authority can sit down with the IDF and make a defensible map for both sides, nothing happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 Ah yes the UN. What a wonderful organization. I mean golly gee now it is a model of democratic institutions working in a corupt free environment above partisan politics. And funding an educational system useful for the future of Arab schoolchildren in Gaza and the West Bank (link to thread). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Road Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 How does prophecy fit in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 as israel cannot be trusted to negotiate a deal and since the u.s. administration does not have the strength to battle the powerful israeli lobby who has a heavy influence over congress and sentate, it's the bds movement that is making a difference. it has picked up momentum and it can no longer be brushed aside: Israeli settlers in West Bank's Jordan Valley cite boycott in slumping produce sales to Europe NETIV HAGDUD, West Bank — An international campaign to boycott Israeli settlement products has rapidly turned from a distant nuisance into a harsh economic reality for Israeli farmers in the West Bank's Jordan Valley. The export-driven income of growers in the valley's 21 settlements dropped by more than 14 percent, or $29 million, last year, largely because Western European supermarket chains, particularly those in Britain and Scandinavia, are increasingly shunning the area's peppers, dates, grapes and fresh herbs, settlers say. "The damage is enormous," said David Elhayani, head of the Jordan Valley Regional Council, which represents about 7,000 settlers. "In effect, today, we are almost not selling to the (Western) European market anymore. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 the bds movement is front page in israel. boycott will be a tsunami, wiping away the good with the wicked. no israeli should assume they will be immune. palestinians do have power, the power of conscience, and when the world gets behind it because the "offer" of the israeli government is no offer at all, whatever isolation jews have felt in the past will pale in comparison to what may be coming . and the main difference is that every new generation of american feels less and less guilt about calling things as they see them when it comes to israel. that is especially true of young jews. “100 leaders of the economy warn of boycott on Israel,” reads the lead headline in Monday’s Yedioth Ahronoth. The sub-headline includes the quote, “The world is losing its patience and the threat of sanctions is increasing. We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians.” The commentary next to it by star columnist Sever Plocker is titled, “It’s the economy, Bibi.” Yedioth is almost as popular and influential an Israeli newspaper as Channel 2 is an Israeli TV news show. Between Channel 2’s Saturday night prime time wake-up call about the boycott and now this one, it’s likely that the Israeli public is beginning the process of waking up. The Israeli government – probably not so much. Which means the boycott will continue to grow, until some Israeli government in the indeterminate future is awakened by it, too. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 floodgates have opened. more israeli companies with ties to the settlements are being boycotted by european countries. Denmark sanctions Israeli bank over settlements Country's largest bank Danske Bank decides to divest in bank Hapoalim, joining the Netherlands and Norway Denmark's largest bank Danske Bank has decided to pull out all its investment in the Israeli Bank Hapoalim, local media reported on Saturday. The decision was made amid Hapoalim's involvement in funding construction in the West bank's Jewish settlements. In its statement, Danske Bank said that Hapoalim operates against the international humanitarian laws. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 floodgates have opened. more israeli companies with ties to the settlements are being boycotted by european countries. Denmark sanctions Israeli bank over settlements Should the world "boycott" the supply of this Israeli hospital (link)? I a m sure it's outside Israel's 1944 borders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Should the world "boycott" the supply of this Israeli hospital (link)? I a m sure it's outside Israel's 1944 borders. what a lame response and a desperate attempt at changing the topic and to get brownie points for israel. the boycott in EU is about businesses operating in the illegal jewish settlements. it's not about any business or company inside israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Should the world "boycott" the supply of this Israeli hospital (link)? I a m sure it's outside Israel's 1944 borders. Shouldn't Canada boycott the U.S. for supporting Israel and supplying billions in economic and military aid ? Oh wait...Canada signed an upgraded trade deal with Israel instead. Never mind.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 the bds movement is front page in israel. boycott will be a tsunami, wiping away the good with the wicked. And you cheer this on, I assume? It's interesting to see how gleefully you salivate over collective punishment of Israelis, while being outraged by similar treatment for Palestinians. Your bias truly knows no bounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 And you cheer this on, I assume? It's interesting to see how gleefully you salivate over collective punishment of Israelis, while being outraged by similar treatment for Palestinians. Your bias truly knows no bounds. why would i be happy about the good being wiped? what a dumb thing to say. i am just calling the situation as it is. the wicked is the biggest beast. it is overpowering the good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Another batch of buildings will be erected by Israel in the occupied territories. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26056608 Israeli officials have given final approval for 558 new apartments in Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem city council said its planning committee approved building permits in three neighbourhoods. The units are to be erected on land Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed, a move not recognised internationally. Settlements built there are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. 'Provocation' Building permits were granted for the neighbourhoods of Har Homa, Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Zeev, according to the city council. Piece process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Another batch of buildings will be erected by Israel in the occupied territories. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26056608 Piece process. Any clues as to how Israel ended-up 'occupying' the West Bank...aka Judea and Samaria? Any at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 they took land that doesn't belong to them. the law continues to say that the land doesn't belong them. canada and u.s. even agree that the land that they forcibly took from the palestinians does not belong to them. if you have a problem with this, you have a problem with international law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 they took land that doesn't belong to them. the law continues to say that the land doesn't belong them. canada and u.s. even agree that the land that they forcibly took from the palestinians does not belong to them. if you have a problem with this, you have a problem with international law. Why was North Viet-Nam allowed to invade three countries, capture land, ethnically cleanse the South and send any that disagreed with them to reeducation camps all without you and your crew giving a golly gosh darn? They were rewarded with a full seat at the UN...a full TEN YEARS after the Six Day War. An estimated 200,000 Boat People died at sea...shark bait for your international law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Why was North Viet-Nam allowed to invade three countries, capture land, ethnically cleanse the South and send any that disagreed with them to reeducation camps all without you and your crew giving a golly gosh darn?Israel only aspires to be like North Vietnam? They were rewarded with a full seat at the UN...a full TEN YEARS after the Six Day War. An estimated 200,000 Boat People died at sea...shark bait for your international law.That's not a reward but a way to involve them, encourage them to aspire higher.It appears to me that Israel also needs to aspire higher ... or perhaps it's just some of Israel's Canadian apologists that need to aspire higher. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Israel only aspires to be like North Vietnam? That's not a reward but a way to involve them, encourage them to aspire higher. It appears to me that Israel also needs to aspire higher ... or perhaps it's just some of Israel's Canadian apologists that need to aspire higher. . With respect...if you're under the belief that Israel is being compared to North Viet-Nam, you're not quite up in your understanding of 20th century history. -Israel was always the defender in the major Arab-Israeli conflicts. -North Viet-Nam, like the Arabs* in 1948, 1967** and 1973, was the attacker. -In North Viet-Nam's case, the attacker was rewarded by the UN with a full seat. Ten years post Six Day war. -In Israel's case, it has been continuously punished by the UN. Still is. In the West Banks case during the Six Day War, Israel begged Jordan to keep out of the fighting. King Hussein's response was a Caeasr-like 'the die is cast' and attacked along with the rest. After the fighting, Israel held the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jordan didn't gave up its claim to the West Bank...Palestinians Arabs aside...until 1988; dropping it fully in Israel's lap. This put Israel into a very difficult position, being seen as 'the occupier' when it was Jordan that had actually annexed the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and made it part of Jordan. To understand why all this occurred requires a bit of understanding of the different Arab clans and their differing goals re: pushing Israel into the sea. The al-Husseini clan was perhaps the largest one in the region, rich and with apparent direct lineage to Mohammed. Both the Mufti and Arafat were al-Husseini/Husayni/etc. They viewed the entire region their's and their's alone. The Hashemites were the perceived carpetbaggers from Arabia. The feud came to its first major head in 1951 when King Abdullah I of Jordan sought a separate peace with Israel. The Grand Mufti had him assassinated...murdered on the Temple Mount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Husayni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_I_of_Jordan The on and off conflict between the two clans climaxed in 1970 with Black September in Jordan where the Jordanian military attacked the PLO forces trying to take over the kingdom. This forced the PLO etc to move to Lebanon which eventually led to the 1982 War with Israel. This when not blowing-up airliners, attacking the Olympics or tossing old guys off of cruise ships in their wheelchairs...etc, etc, etc. These are the gomer pyles (and their successors) people are supporting for their own state...dreamt up by a REAL Nazi...when the people they apparently represent should have LONG ago been absorbed by Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc. But, now there's the Iranian backed Hezbollah in the mix and the Syrian Civil War*** going on just to make things that much more impossible to solve without another BIG war...goodness forbid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan (Note the massive casualties.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence Anyways...I hope that makes some sense to you. * including the Palestinians/PLO/Fatah/etc **regardless of the dawn Israeli airstrikes on Egyptian airfields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus ***more dead than in all the Arab-Israeli Wars combined on both sides. Edited February 8, 2014 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 DoP: You made the comparison by implying that Israel should get away with whatever North Vietnam got away with - ie, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Is that all Israel aspires to? Pity. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 DoP: You made the comparison by implying that Israel should get away with whatever North Vietnam got away with - ie, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Is that all Israel aspires to? Pity. . No...I'm saying there are rules for Israel and rules for everyone else. I've outlined the history and framed the hypocrisy. Would you like a run-down of the Viet-Nam War, too?...I'm well versed in that, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) No...I'm saying there are rules for Israel and rules for everyone else.Maybe it isn't about rules, but about respect.Does Israel only aspire to be respected as much as North Vietnam? Pity. Edited February 8, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 ...and that's it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Jacee I can only tell you the typical Israeli does not relish being hated in the world any differently than any other nationality. All they ask is to be treated with the same standard as the other nations it is in conflict with. The status quo on the West Bank can not continue-it is a cancer eating away at both Israelis and Palestinians and the only people who benefit are the cancer cells, i.e., the extremists and in particular terrorist groups as well as those on the side lines whose contribution to the dialogue is to engage in rhetoric that demonizes either side. Sometimes I think some of the forum contributors when discussing the conflict are nothing more than spectators cheering on pit bulls in an arena and trying to jab both dogs in the pit with sitcks to get them to fight. It matters to me what people younger than me think. The fact that those of us ahead of you may have failed to achieve peace and respect between us does not mean you can not help achieve that by encouraging both sides to learn to live together. Don't give up fighting for peace for BOTH sides to live in peace and harmony. Israelis do care. So do Palestinians. Neither wants to be hated. Edited February 8, 2014 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.