BF2S Forums Who has a right to Palestine and the Holy Lands?

A few commnets to some made in this thread, in no particular order...

Has there ever been a time when people of Jewish and Muslim and their ancestor's faiths did not live in that area side by side sometimes in peace often at war? Tribes, Nations and Empires have come and gone there but many of the people remained under the government du jour.

Humans have been warring on the tribal level longer than written history. Whether the Isrealis left or not there will still be violence and terrorism in the region, near-term, until a lead-balloted election puts someone in charge, then until he is impeached with a 7.62mm vote to the head.

Terrorism is not new and was not invented by the Isrealis in 1948!!! It is a a very ancient Art of War discussed in writing at least 3000 years ago in both China and the Middle East.  They didn't call it that but the tactic and strategy is identical.  Earliest indications are that instilling fear into a potential enemy is a good first line of defense and a big chip on the diplomatic bargaining table.

There is nothing new under the sun, we just keep rearranging it to look brilliant, get book deals and win nobel prizes.

Shmizmar wrote:

I think that everyone should share Israel.  The Israelis have offered this to the Palestinians many a time, and they refused.

Believed Untrue, please provide proof.

omg after israel made its country there israel and almost all of the middle east fought a war against israel...and israel won..........so israel deserves the land since they won the land

the UN thing wasn't necessarilly directed at you , the UN is a monument to it's own impotence, I mean come on, states notorious for human rights violations and even brag about it are on the human rights council,

as for england, I thought it was you that said it created israel when the pulled out of the middle east in the early 20th century, maybe it was someone else, could be wrong, I'm having trouble sifting through outside sources to find something that wasn't written by a biased source as to it's establishment in it's current state, I hate using wiki as pretty much anyone can post, I prefer stuff like encyclopedia britannica or national geographic, but even they can be editorialized sometimes (though those writers don't seem to last long)

and the china thing was just a "I wear large condoms thing" hard to resist, but near as I've been able to find (as i said earlier, i'm still looking, been sifting info for 2 weeks now) the ancestors of the present Palestinians were nomadic and sort of moved in after the Jews built an actual state and infrastructure, but I am still digging on it

by the way HM1{N}  you would fail a statistics class with that loaded survey   but +1 for a lively topic.

Just like Nations have the UN  maybe Jeruselam should be the official International Religious center - but you think it is bad now? just watch the bullets fly after buddhists, hindi, druids, Hale-Boperinos and the last few Branch Davidians move in.

I think the core problem is any religion that tells its believers to kill all non-believers is going to be a problem waiting for an opportunity.

HM1{N} wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

National borders have fluctuated so much in human history that who's to say what belongs to anyone? Sorry to say that "might makes right," as it always has.

OK, so if might makes right, is it fair to install a superior military presence, disarm the indigenous population, and take away the right of said population to defend themselves, thus making them subserviant to the other?

As long as the "conquerors" hold elections and form a local government, laws etc. and turn the country back to the people who live there then OK. There are a few examples of that. If the "conquering" country/ideology just enslaves the people outright, forces them believe in their God or die then no it isn't OK.

On topic many children of God have lived in the Middle East as long as anyone else. Palestinian nationalists should just dig into rebuilding their society and ignore distractions. The national boundary issue will resolve itself if poverty is not involved as a prime motivator of violence. Just stop shooting and start building and people will come, money will come, peace will be there.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-30 18:27:59)

OpsChief wrote:

On topic many children of God have lived in the Middle East as long as anyone else. Palestinian nationalists should just dig into rebuilding their society and ignore distractions. The national boundary issue will resolve itself if poverty is not involved as a prime motivator of violence. Just stop shooting and start building and people will come, money will come, peace will be there.

I'm sorry, they should ignoe the fact that they have to live in refugee camps and have less rights than Jews?  How the fuck is that an acceptable solution?

isn't palestine receiving financial aid from Israel as well? I've been looking but so far can only find passing references to it, nothing with solid figures

Bubbalo wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

On topic many children of God have lived in the Middle East as long as anyone else. Palestinian nationalists should just dig into rebuilding their society and ignore distractions. The national boundary issue will resolve itself if poverty is not involved as a prime motivator of violence. Just stop shooting and start building and people will come, money will come, peace will be there.

I'm sorry, they should ignoe the fact that they have to live in refugee camps and have less rights than Jews?  How the fuck is that an acceptable solution?

Absolutely totally 100% it is unacceptable for people to live in refugee camps like that. I hate that. I hate it because they are living there only due to their leaders not caring enough for their well being but caring more for their psychotic magnificent political posturing. What decent human would lead their own people into muck like that? We are not talking surrender to Israel here but compassionate treatment of Godloving innocent Palestinian people by the Palestinian Leadership.

Let's see...I will offer you an unfair bet. If the mortars and rockets stop landing on Israelis and Palestinians and foreign visitors living in Israel then Israeli missiles and arty will stop landing on Palestinians (this includes preemptive strikes). Given this scenario people could actually have a chance at living in a home because it will not be turned to dust by 250 lbs bombs after a glory-hungry nut fires a mortar from the backyard.

World opinion can and will force Israel to be civil to other civil people, but it can't force them to stop defending themselves. If you believe Isreal doesn't have a right to exist and shoot at them then you will end up living in refugee camps. Arrest terrorists if they don't stop shooting. A peaceful people. and especially Palestinians, will get foreign loans to rebuild if they rebuild stores not rockets. If they came out and said "we will stop fighting" and stop? I think the refugee camp will be only a terrible memory for us all.

Stop shooting and I will send money too.

Try peace.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-07-01 15:46:35)

Israel benefits from continuation of status quo.

Land belongs to no man , they should learn to just get along ffs already, another thing they need to stop doing is refering to each individual as the whole palestine or israel side & start naming them as individuals.
It's like the media pumps them all up to fight each other, israel did this, oh yeah!... palestine did this... OH yeah! ...etc.
Stop being kids in an adult world.

OpsChief wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

I am tired of seeing this framed as "X attacks; Y retaliates".  Both sides claim they are retaliating against the other's initial attacks -- and that will never change -- so this is not a basis for progress in any sense of the word.

What must be understood is who benefits most from the continuation of the status quo and, therefore, who is motivated to stall any true hope of peace between the two peoples.

Peace is always a laudable goal, but it is the terms of a peace that determine how likely it is to last.

Spoken like a true political science major   but thats back at square one m8. If you worry about how long your peace will last you may as well choose war because its easier to understand and control, and is very profitable to a few wealthy slime.

Never so much as taken a single Political Science course in my life.  Maybe that's why I can't quite fathom your logic here:  If you want a lasting peace, you might as well choose war?  Because manipulating its parameters is simpler, and more profitable?  Please explain what you mean by this.  Preferably in a manner we non-PoliSci majors can understand. 

OpsChief wrote:

The peace ball is in the Palestinian's court only because each time they let someone shoot from their backyard they add another reprisal [from Israel]. The Israeli's have held back before and it did not result in the same behavior by the troublemakers (not all Palestinian's are in this category).

So, renegade troublemakers are being used as a stick to beat a whole people?  To apply this equally would mean considering attacks on Arabs by "mentally ill" Israelis as justification for attacks on Israel.  Clearly not a valid position.

Yes, it's very international under the Jews.  Totally.