BF2S Forums War in Gaza Official Thread

TSI wrote:

Okay, so I have a couple questions:


1. I don't want to begin a debate about the historical relevance of Israel, but let us operate from the premise that the Palestinians (arab peoples) were living in the area far before the arrival of Zionists in 196, and certainly far before the creation of the state of Israel.

2. From that premise, we can take into account the principles behind the creation of Israel. Now, building a nation for the Jewish people (mostly of Europe and Russia is a noble undertaking, to be sure, but I ask, why there? The concept of a "Holy Land" is valid to a certain extent only; Israel is too small for its population, and moreover is living in a most hostile milieu.

3. That hostile milieu is a large part of the problem; the arabic neighbours of the Zionist state do not support its creation; I think that opinion is fair, given the fact that they were almost completely ignored in the process. Some (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) have gone so far as to wipe Israel off the map. Why? Because they perceive Israel as a threat to the integrity of arab world (a valid observation given Israel's penchant for military exhibitionism), also because they believe the "Holy Land" is theirs.

4. The UN, in 1967, recognized this problem; hence, Resolution 242 was drafted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … lution_242, in order to establish a permanent dual-state solution, on the borders of the 1967 Six-Day War. This resolution called for mutual recognition of Palestine and Israel. Now, we must recognize that Israel at the time was genuinely threatened by its neighbours, especially Syria. In this way, Israel's demands for a security zone were well taken.

5. The Resolution, accepted by Israel, called for withdrawal from occupied territories. This has not been done. The wording itself: (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

6. The current situation is highly complex, but from a historical perspective, there is one problem that stands out: Israel refuses to recognize the (democratically) elected Hamas government, as it considers Hamas a terrorist organization (a valid claim). However, one can easily make the claim that Israel has pushed the Palestinians into an impasse. Much like Hizbullah, Hamas enjoys the support of ordiary arabs who believe it can represent their views in opposition of Israel's perceived aggression, more specifically its blockade of Gaza and its security barrier (both indubitably aggressive examples of bad faith in the negotiation process). Now, let us not forget the fact that Hamas is a political party, and it was elected by the people of Palestine. Israel is persisting in only dealing with the Fatah-led PA. This shows a blatant disregard for the concerns of ordinary Palestinians. Israel seems surprised that it is being attacked; this incredulity clearly cannot be taken seriously.

7. The real, immediate issue: why is Israel building settlements on land that isn't theirs (Oslo accords)? The Palestinians have complained bitterly about the problems caused by the settlements on a practical level, and also on a more symbolic level; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4141484.stm Israel had renounced its claim to the land, ceding control to the PLO, later the PA (currently governed by Mahmoud Abbas). Now, Israel does not own the land. It does not have any legal right to build those settlements. The Palestinians have complained, mostly violently. Israel sees this as a threat (valid), and as such attacks Gaza in order to stop incoming rocket fire.

8. Consider for a moment the interests of the Palestinians: defending THEIR land from Israeli settling, they have now been attacked (in direct violation of the Just War tenet of proportional retaliation). Will this stop the rockets? Temporarily, yes. In the longer term (after 2 months), it will anger the arab nations surrounding Israel. Then, the rockets will get deadlier. Counterproductive, methinks.

9. That leads to my ultimate question: what right does Israel have to build those settlements in the first place? And now, with this clearly illegal war undertaken (attacks on civilians, no adequate protection of human rights or basic measures for sanitary and medical relief, disproportionate retaliation), what is Israel hoping to achieve in the long run, apart from its oft-purported intent of conquering the Fertile Crescent's Nile-Euphrates axis?

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

• Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip   
• The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal   
• The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control   
• Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control   
• Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City   
• "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader's style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The settlements are not "illegal" as sometimes charged. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to settlements even though you will often hear the claim that it does. Israel took over the land in a defensive war in 1967 from rulers (Jordan, Egypt) who themselves had recently acquired control of the land by aggressive war. The only internationally recognized agreements are those of the Oslo process which do not in any sentence prohibit settlements. At some points in time Israel has voluntarily agreed to a temporary halt to new settlements in anticipation of negotiating breakthroughs. But the repeated reversion to terrorism by the Palestinian Arabs has ended such restraint. The endlessly repeated refrain about "occupied territories" is propaganda, since a) the territories never belonged to Palestinian Arabs, b) the Palestinian Authority was given control of the areas, and c) the only reason Israel continues to exert control is in reaction to Palestinian Arab violence.

The United Nations has frequently addressed the question of Israel's policies and activity of Israelis in the territories, starting with Resolution 242, passed right after the 1967 war. That Resolution seeks a just resolution of the conflict and calls for withdrawal and mutual recognition, but it says nothing about legality. Resolution 338, passed after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, requires Israel and the Arabs to negotiate peace. By insisting that the Palestinians negotiate with Isreal, the Security Council Resolution implicitly agrees that the occupation itself does not violate international law. Later Security Council resolutions - numbered 446, 452 and 465 - do indeed condemn Israel's policy of building settlements in the occupied territories and declare that these settlements have "no legal validity." However, these are political statements reflecting the balance of power in the UN and not a reasoned legal analysis. The Resolutions are not binding on Israel and do not of themselves create illegality.

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine wrote:

mods:

A)  this thread is one giant AWM...so take a break.

B)  When a mod involved in the discussion has no issue with anything, those not involved should ignore reports.

C)  this thread is out of control.  you can't control it.

It's like one teacher trying to control a class with 200 kids. The thread is fast moving.. more like a chat room.

ATG wrote:

I just want to say that this thread is copy/paste and slander epic.

Nice one Serge.

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

henno13 wrote:

I dont see why people are shouting out and protesting over the invasion
to me it is justified
to those who disagree with me ask youself this

What if you country was getting bombarded by missles either on a daily or weekly basis by you neighbour
what you you do?.......

exactly
you would invade them bomb the hell out of them using airstrikes

And i return you the question:

What would you do if the world gave your land to a foreign people and you were asked to leave your home and give it to strangers? Then this foreign people would start to even steal more of the remaining land you have.. building settlements full of crazy extremists right next to your new home...

How would you react?

Ottomania wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

Their religious book says them to do so, on their way to conquer Promised Land. Also hamas was created in 1987, israel in 1948.

So you are saying the Koran is not a book of peace and understanding, but a guide to send suicide bombers into markets and shoot rockets at civilians?

The terrorism toward the Jews has been going on since before 1987, they just had a different name.

So are you saying that Hitler had reasons to massacre Jews  so he can be right? And Israel can bomb innocent palestinians because Hamas uses them as a shield?

Killing Intentionally targeting civilians cant have any excuses.

12/f/taiwan wrote:

due to the influence of Jewish people in American politics/Control of the US Media

FEOS wrote:

The part you miss here is that the arabic hatred of Jews (vice just Zionists) started long, long before Israel was created. That is evidenced by the Mufti of Jerusalem's support of Hitler (and Himmler specifically) in formulating the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" during WW2

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The part you miss here is that the arabic hatred of Jews (vice just Zionists) started long, long before Israel was created. That is evidenced by the Mufti of Jerusalem's support of Hitler (and Himmler specifically) in formulating the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" during WW2

Got anything to back that up?

Up to the creation of Israel most arab, and persian, countries had large populations of jews who lived without trouble.

If hatred of the jews really goes back thousands of years and spans multiple countries and continents maybe the jews should take a look at themselves and figure out why every race on earth has taken a dislike to them.

Or maybe its just bullshit, they aren't disliked particularly more than anyone else but they use their 'victimhood' to gain advantage.

FEOS wrote:

To use your "logic", perhaps the Palestinians should take a look at themselves and figure out why every "race" surrounding them has taken a dislike to them. Or maybe they just use their "victimhood" to gain advantage.

FEOS wrote:

The Muslim/Jewish animosity goes back to the beginnings of both religions...before even the rift between Shi'a and Sunni. They go back to Abraham, but diverge at which son carried forth the true Word of God (Jews=Isaac, Muslims=Ishmael).

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-06 19:04:16)