Current actions in the Middle East

[Yanny]

Vultar supported England’s Goverment System, far from an Absolute Monarchy.

One Example of Imperialism? Diamond Mining in Kenya, their leaders let us mine for Diamonds, we sell them weapons.

[FinsterniS]

that was me

[Guest]

Arafat govermenent doest endorse terrorism.
Israel does. Stating Arafat is making terrorism is as dumm as those who said Castro was making weapons of mass destruction. Arafat is in a very, very bad position.

And If israel is on self-defence, why so many palestinian die ? And mostly innocent. I am not on any side, palestinian terrorism is sure inhuman. But theres far more innocent death on the palestinian side, even if they are not all (but most are) innocent.

DEATH STATISTICS from December 9, 1987

December 9, 1998
Today, December 9th is the 11th anniversary of the start of the Intifada.
According to B’Tselem (www.btselem.org) in that time, in Israeli and the
occupied territories,

1,361 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces
139 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli civilians
1,500 TOTAL

and….

265 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinians
129 Israeli forces have been killed by Palestinians
394 TOTAL

[HortenFlyingWing]

Vultar supported England’s Goverment System, far from an Absolute Monarchy.

he did, but he also didn’t…he’s nuts!

http://www.historyteacher.net/EuroProjects/DBQ1998-1999/DBQGlossary 7-99.htm

check this link at the bottom

“One Example of Imperialism? Diamond Mining in Kenya, their leaders let us mine for Diamonds, we sell them weapons.”

I have heard some of this, but not the american government directly related. any links.

[Xi]

FS, if I remember correctly each time the Intifada is acted out, the Israeli gov’t. responds disproportionately(meaning about 10x as strong as the Palestinian attack). This has been recognized as the most efficient and successful reponse to any attack for a long time. If you destroy your opponent the conflict is over. If you crush your opponent so hard that maximum effort must be expended by them to recover/relocate then the conflict is, at the worst, delayed for a long time.
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I do believe in kooks. I do believe in kooks. I DO believe, I DO believe, I DO believe in kooks!” - Xi

[Xi]

The Israelis(I) have been forced to the table by their allies twice to offer all or almost all the Freed territories back to the Palestinians§. Both times the offer has been refused. The P want the elimination of the I nation and I people.
The territories are not occupied. I was attacked repeatedly by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan('56, '67, '73 if I remember correctly). They won the wars and took the territories to insure their continued security. The P (there was and is no such nation as Palestine, it is just a region) were not allowed to leave the area by the arab countries(the most likely to recieve them). The arab countries wanted to keep them as a thorn in I’s side.
The I gov’t. built whole neighborhoods of apartment buildings for the P, but the P leadership wanted to maintain control so they did not allow them to move in under threat of violence.

Many arab (oil) countries could alleviate their people’s problems. However, to remain in power they use the news media(they control) to convince the uneducated that Israel and Israelis are the problem. Israel manipulates the Great Satan(read USA) and the Little Satan(read USSR/Russia) to keep the Islam and Muslims down.
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Ich bin ein Berliner!” - It coulda been an all Soviet Berlin if they had kept up the blockade. Many historians say we could not militarily defend it or take it. Many economists say we were stretched almost to the financial (not worth keeping up)breaking point. - Xi

[FinsterniS]

FS, if I remember correctly each time the Intifada is acted out, the Israeli gov’t. responds disproportionately(meaning about 10x as strong as the Palestinian attack). This has been recognized as the most efficient and successful reponse to any attack for a long time. If you destroy your opponent the conflict is over. If you crush your opponent so hard that maximum effort must be expended by them to recover/relocate then the conflict is, at the worst, delayed for a long time.

Still, the conflict is opposing two fanatic.
The islamic extremist group.
The israelian* governement (less fanatic, but a little more powerful).

But the logic of Sharon of “they attack then we’ll attack even harder” is a big problem. Its a vicious circle, violence breed violence, each time the israelian governement kill palestinian they give people there a reason to be angry. Each time palestinian terrorism are killing israelian
they give a good reason to Sharon to use again more violence…

And to people here who think Arafat is “evil” and he do not want peace and blablabla. Who, between Sharon & Arafat, want an international police ?

• its israelian or israeli ?

[HortenFlyingWing]

Terrorist attacks were down when israel has military forces in occupation…when they withdraw they resume.

The wall works around gaza strip, and hopefully it will bring peace to the “west bank.”

“The Israelis(I) have been forced to the table by their allies twice to offer all or almost all the Freed territories back to the Palestinians§.”

Barak wanted a quick peace treaty and made large concessions for a victor power. Arafat’s people did not want peace and when he came back w/out it they were very happy.

Barak offered only 80% of the land right away, and the Israeli military would have access of strategic areas for 20 more years.

Some reasons besides the obvious arafat said no:
He would of not (he as in “palestinian people”), had full control of the areas water supply. I’m no water technician guy, so i could not tell you if that water was used by israel as well.

One third of jerusalem would be his, closed off from west jersualem. this would ruin the areas economy.

Now israel claims all of jerusalem is their’s. Arafat, just make peace and actually try to stop terror…we all forgot how he used to hand out guns and sponsor terror…he still does, so why would he stop?

[TG Moses VI]

I agree with Horten’s post on the Israel-Palestinian issue (like the wall and Arafat), though I’m in favor of an independent Palestinian state. But lets just not let Jerusalem be their capital (though there have been talks between splitting it in half between Jew and Muslim).

[HortenFlyingWing]

“I’m in favor of an independent Palestinian state. But lets just not let Jerusalem be their capital (though there have been talks between splitting it in half between Jew and Muslim).”

If it were split, one third of it would be muslim, but they want sole propiertership of the Temple Mount, even though it is the formost holy area to Jews.

Jersualem should be an open city, but if not, the “holy areas” should have no clear ownership.

Isn;t Ramallah the most important “Palestinian” city? That should be their capital.

Also about the “settlements.” If a peace is made, they should become citizens of the Palestinian state, but they should be protected by palestinian, but if not, Israel has the right to station troops inside these settlements…

but here’s the problem. What if the palestinians launch their artillary and rockets at these settlements…israel would no longer have the right to “police” the area, and they could only sit bacvk and watch jews die.

Any ideas on how to answer this?

[KPwatkin]

these posts are very interesting, in this conflict there is no virtous side, both sides have horrible attrocities to mark their pasts and when you analyze this issue it is impossible to say “But they are innocent…” because both sides have made horrible mistakes and commited horribble attrocoities against each other. The problem is the solution of this conflict, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Israel wont share Jerusalem, Israel wont dismantle the territories, and on the flip side the Palestinian people commit acts of terrorism. Through my study oft his subject I have come to sympathize with the Palestinian people in general (I live in the US, so I get alot of crap for my views), but acts of violence by a overzeoulous government are not any more justifiable than terrorism. Suicide bombers are not acceptable, and that must stop, but for this to come to peace there must a Palestinian state, there is no way around that. im kinda rambling now so im done

ps- the offer that arafat rejected should have been rejected, there is no way any kind of responsible leader (and arafat might not qualify) could accept that offer. it was about 80% there. He has even said that it was the best offer to date, but just not quite there.

peace in the middle east

[TG Moses VI]

Well I think we all know that neither side is truly innocent here. The tricky part is finding what side is more at fault, and that requires many, many varying viewpoints. Give it time; I’m sure they’ll dig up some better leaders than Sharon and Arafat (hopefully). Then we can settle this thang once and for all. :wink:

“peace in the middle east”

“Rain in Spain!” 8)

[Captain Mitchell]

Granted both sides have done wrongs, I’m a pro-Israel guy. I like their military and they have had to take a lot from terrorists granted the Palestineans(forgive my spelling error) have taken a lot from Israel.

[TG Moses VI]

I would probably be more inclined to take the Jewish side because I have a lot more Jewish friends, but then again, I alway cheer for the underdogs (which in this case would be Palestine. So I can’t really figure what side to be on. I hate the terrorist attacks, but then again, I hate Jewish treatment of Palestinians. It’s really a toss up. :-?

[KPwatkin]

i believe it is dangerous to attempt to assertain who is ‘more at fault’, if anyone has done a serious study of this material then the palestinians and Israelis have seroius gripes against one another, but if one side is more at fault will that help in the creation of a solution? the answer is no, The Israeli concept of ‘land for peace’ that they used in the 70’s has the only real promise of a true compromise, but once the Likud paryt came to power they began a massive colonization of the occupied territories to make that trade imposible, yes, this was actually their thinking. That colonization push continies to this day, and they continue despite condemnations from the UN, and their strongest ally the US. According to the UN any territories acquired through military conquest cannot be legally assimilated into your home country, you may however have provinciual control, but many Israelies hope to one day assimliate the West bank, Gaza, and the Sinia into ISrael. That will not bring a solution, or raise their security level. The typical Israeli response of disprportionate response has worked in the past, but it has also been a negative in that it escalates violence.

all that sais, Israel has a fundamental right to exist, and under no circumdstances should that right be in jeopardy.

another reason this conflict will not end is that the Palestinians will not quit until they have SOMETHING, they myst have the W. bank and gaza to call their own, how would you feel if driving through your country you had to stop at checkpoints where you were questioned for over 20 min about why you were going anywhere. The Palestinians have developed a new word, and it ‘sufferness’ it is meant to describe their place and that suffering is the chosen life for their people, the change is meant to demonstrate that they feel of their suffering as lasting a long time, they will not quit until some kind of fair deal is struck.

but what is fair? if you go by history their is enough ammo for each side to stall forever, but all that history must be pushed to the back, and they must approach with not only their point of view, but an open mind. Im not sure that wil happen anytime soon. and as an american i am sad to say that Bush is doing nothing to help the situation.

[Guest]

@HortenFlyingWing:

Barak offered only 80% of the land right away, and the Israeli military would have access of strategic areas for 20 more years.

Some reasons besides the obvious arafat said no:
He would of not (he as in “palestinian people”), had full control of the areas water supply. I’m no water technician guy, so i could not tell you if that water was used by israel as well.

Well, controlling the water in that area of the world is the same as controlling the land. Without water, there is no irrigation and nothing to drink for the ppl. The land is worthless to the ppl if they don’t have water, so the “control” still would be in israeli hands.

[Guest]

@Xi:

The territories are not occupied. I was attacked repeatedly by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan('56, '67, '73 if I remember correctly). They won the wars and took the territories to insure their continued security.

'56 the military actions were started by Israel.
'67 the war was started by Israel.
'73 the war was started by Egypt.
'78 Israel conquered the “security zone” in the Lebanon
'82 Israel attacked the Lebanon and seized Beirut

[TG Moses VI]

Where is Xi anyways, I haven’t seen him for awhile. Kinda sucks. :( It’s hard not seeing his grand book of quotes and silly soots. :P

[EmuGod]

@F_alk:

@Xi:

The territories are not occupied. I was attacked repeatedly by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan('56, '67, '73 if I remember correctly). They won the wars and took the territories to insure their continued security.

'56 the military actions were started by Israel.
'67 the war was started by Israel.
'73 the war was started by Egypt.
'78 Israel conquered the “security zone” in the Lebanon
'82 Israel attacked the Lebanon and seized Beirut

Now that’s a twist on historical events! In 1956 the war was started by Egypt who nationalized the Suez Canal. In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike. Their intelligence officer in Damascus, Eli Cohen, who almost became president of Syria be the way, found out of an impending invasion by Arab forces and Israel had no choice but to attack first. The next war as the War of Attrition from later in 1967 to 1971. This was a very bloody war. In 1973, the war was started by Syria.

[TG Moses VI]

I can agree with 1967, it was more of preemptive strike on part of Israel. The Syrian and the Egyptian concentrated troops on the borders and tension reached its peak when Egypt ousted UN force from Sinai and closed the straits of Tiran, cutting off Eilat from the sea. Israel could not acquiesce to the blocking of its southern outlet.

Egypt did nationalize the Suez Canal in '56, blockading off the Southern Outlets, though Irasel also used military raids against Egypt. Though the the dumb English and French had to land at Port Said, effectively cutting off the routing action of the Israelis against Egypt.

However, I think Egypt did start the '73 as the first troops to Suez the Canal while Syrians struck west. However, you can say that was also a preemptive strike