NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems to me like it's the only solution to this conflict. These people just can't stop killing each other, so why not permanently seperate them? I realize the economic impacts would be devastating, but if you keep all Palestinians out of Israel, then it keeps Palestinian terrorists out as well, and maybe we can solve the damned conflict.

What? Seams like kind of a weak solution. A wall?

Seems to me like it's the only solution to this conflict. These people just can't stop killing each other, so why not permanently seperate them? I realize the economic impacts would be devastating, but if you keep all Palestinians out of Israel, then it keeps Palestinian terrorists out as well, and maybe we can solve the damned conflict.


I fully support the wall.. but, since its unlilateral (Israel has taken the initiative to build it), then build it on the edge of Israeli territory.. or, alternatively, on the Green Belt.

The way it is now, it is nothing but a blatant land-grab, and no government has the courage to say otherwise and risk being added to Israel's black-list, commonly referred to as the "OMG ANTI-SEMITISM!!11" list..

Hey hey. Give the palestinians back the west bank and gaza and it sounds good to me. While I think the only real solution involves only one state, I don't think Israel would ever accept this.

Actually, the Israelis would love one state, as they could dominate it. The Palestinians are the ones who want their own.

Seems to me like it's the only solution to this conflict. These people just can't stop killing each other, so why not permanently seperate them? I realize the economic impacts would be devastating, but if you keep all Palestinians out of Israel, then it keeps Palestinian terrorists out as well, and maybe we can solve the damned conflict.

Indeed it would sharply reduce terrorist related attacks, thus reducing Israeli counter attacks. But in my opinion I think the economic disadvantages would be too great, and building the wall would face harsh tasks in defining the border lines.

However I would think that if a non-biased force such as U.N peacekeepers patrolled the disputed borders, violence I believe would also decrease. As americans are seen as biased, most likely because of there support and aid to Israel.

i always thought a radical way to solve it would be a 1-state solution--force everyone to live together. of course israel would never go for it because of both economic reasons and palestinians slightly out-number israelis (and have a faster growth rate).

furthermore, i don't think a government could ever function effectively with all the bickering...

Since it worked so well for China, as Mr. Genghis Khan can tell you. :mp5:

Non-biased UN? My arse. Still, no matter how many soldiers you have, you can't catch someone who doesn't look suspicious. And most terrorists don't. Besides, the Palestinians would scream blood murder over "Christian Crusader Imperialists!"

two state solution would solve a lot.... and this comes from a Zionist.

i always thought a radical way to solve it would be a 1-state solution--force everyone to live together. of course israel would never go for it because of both economic reasons and palestinians slightly out-number israelis (and have a faster growth rate).

furthermore, i don't think a government could ever function effectively with all the bickering...
The palestinian extremists would never go for it, however, which is why the situation is still unstable. The sad fact is that the majority of Palestinians still feel terrorist attacks are justified.

The palestinian extremists would never go for it, however, which is why the situation is still unstable. The sad fact is that the majority of Palestinians still feel terrorist attacks are justified.

of course neither side would go for it, that is why i said you force them to live together. as i kind of alluded to, something must radically be done because the current way is not working.

some kind of "peace wall"?

sounds familiar....

Hey hey. Give the palestinians back the west bank and gaza and it sounds good to me. While I think the only real solution involves only one state, I don't think Israel would ever accept this.
More to the point, the Palestinians wouldn't.

The wall is a fantastic idea. The wall in Gaza, by the way, has been spectacularly effective -- not one single terrorist bomber has made it past the wall since it was built.

without the security barrier/wall, Israel would be at much greater risk 2 terrorist attacks.
however- israel should build the barrier more directly
if the palestinians continue 2 show themselves as irresponsible terrorists that refuse to work with Israel, Israel needs to do what is right to protect its citizens.
i think this occupation of the palestinian territory is wrong and Israel isn't perfect but it's tryin everything it can 2 defend its citizens
plus israel is the only democracy in the middle east- everyother country, saudia arabia, syria, lebanon, yemen, kuwait egypt- they're all dictatorships
Israel is the only beacon of freedom in the middle east, and ranks 20th in GDP- $20,000 a year so its also a modern country
if the palestinians continue 2 use violence as a bargaining chip, the best thing is for Israel 2 break all ties with the palestinians and seperate both societies
i hope that things get better in the middle east

i always thought a radical way to solve it would be a 1-state solution--force everyone to live together. of course israel would never go for it because of both economic reasons and palestinians slightly out-number israelis (and have a faster growth rate).

furthermore, i don't think a government could ever function effectively with all the bickering...
Oh, there are more Jews there than Arabs (even including Arab Israelis), but the Palestinians would be even more opposed to it than the Israelis.

Whether a country is a democracy or dictatorship is not a proof of its good or bad-ness

However I would think that if a non-biased force such as U.N peacekeepers patrolled the disputed borders, violence I believe would also decrease. As americans are seen as biased, most likely because of there support and aid to Israel.

The UN has consistently proven themselves to be totally incompetent in it's peacekeeping efforts. If you disagree, please state some examples of where they have been successful. Oh, and I don't think they are non-biased either. :headbang:

Whether a country is a democracy or dictatorship is not a proof of its good or bad-ness
I think its a decent gauge.

the wall is very nessesary now. last summenr when I visited Israel I was in an area where not onlly terrorsm, but theft of agricultural products and equiptment from bordering feilds is a huge problem. I hope we will live to d=see the day when it is taken down.

i always thought a radical way to solve it would be a 1-state solution--force everyone to live together. of course israel would never go for it because of both economic reasons and palestinians slightly out-number israelis (and have a faster growth rate).

furthermore, i don't think a government could ever function effectively with all the bickering...

Hate to say it, but it sounds like you are talking about Northern Ireland. :D

The UN has consistently proven themselves to be totally incompetent in it's peacekeeping efforts. If you disagree, please state some examples of where they have been successful. Oh, and I don't think they are non-biased either. :headbang:

Maybe true.....

But I was under the impression that the current peacekeeping effort in the balkans was going reasonably well.

Africa is going well to a point.

And in general they have been reasonably ok. I may be wrong, but I think they are seen as more un-biased then someone like America taking up such a duty.

I think its a decent gauge.

the wall is very nessesary now. last summenr when I visited Israel I was in an area where not onlly terrorsm, but theft of agricultural products and equiptment from bordering feilds is a huge problem. I hope we will live to d=see the day when it is taken down.
How is it a decent gauge? Democracies can be just as bad as dictatorships

without the security barrier/wall, Israel would be at much greater risk 2 terrorist attacks.
however- israel should build the barrier more directly
if the palestinians continue 2 show themselves as irresponsible terrorists that refuse to work with Israel, Israel needs to do what is right to protect its citizens.
i think this occupation of the palestinian territory is wrong and Israel isn't perfect but it's tryin everything it can 2 defend its citizens......

Your posts are very difficult to read. Please consider using some punctuation and capitalization. Please! :fluffle:

Whether a country is a democracy or dictatorship is not a proof of its good or bad-ness
That's what a dictator would say!

Maybe true.....

But I was under the impression that the current peacekeeping effort in the balkans was going reasonably well.

Maybe because it was going reasonably well when NATO handed it over to them.

Africa is going well to a point.

That is very debatable.

I may be wrong, but I think they are seen as more un-biased then someone like America taking up such a duty.

I will agree with you there.

How is it a decent gauge? Democracies can be just as bad as dictatorships

Please name some democracies that are or have been just as bad as dictatorships.

The UN has consistently proven themselves to be totally incompetent in it's peacekeeping efforts. If you disagree, please state some examples of where they have been successful. Oh, and I don't think they are non-biased either. :headbang:
This might interest you: http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/02.18.html

A barrier? Its one of many answers. Israel illegaly occupied the Gaza Strip and other parts during the war. The palestinanzians require it back. Besides, even if you think Israel is the righful owner, then Israel should make a bigger effort in peacful relations.

recent comment-Whether a country is a democracy or dictatorship is not a proof of its good or bad-ness

g-d thats so pathethic
dictatorship- their's no freedom of press or speech so only the government says stuff and there's no coverage of things
also- these dictatorships can torture ppl and kill ppl without the world knowing.......
but the irony is that a female Arab in Israel has 10 times more rights
i understand critism of israel but i dont understand when ppl single out israel as
"the worst country" "a nazi regime" and condemn it when they haven't condemned china's brutal occupation of tibet, rwanda, sudan, syria's brutal occupation of lebanon
its becuz israel is the "jew" among the nations and will never be accepted
its the only country that has no regional mermbrship in the UN! when countries with the worst dicatorship regimes that torture ppl reguraly r allowed in regional membership but Israel isn't allowed in (becuz of the corrupt ruthless arab bloc)

Israel illegaly occupied the Gaza Strip and other parts during the war.
How is capture during a defensive war illegal occupation?

Seems to me like it's the only solution to this conflict. These people just can't stop killing each other, so why not permanently seperate them? I realize the economic impacts would be devastating, but if you keep all Palestinians out of Israel, then it keeps Palestinian terrorists out as well, and maybe we can solve the damned conflict.
Too bad it won't keep the Israelis out of Palestine.

without the security barrier/wall, Israel would be at much greater risk 2 terrorist attacks.
however- israel should build the barrier more directly
if the palestinians continue 2 show themselves as irresponsible terrorists that refuse to work with Israel, Israel needs to do what is right to protect its citizens.

i hope that things get better in the middle east
Please don't use numbers in place of words...not when you take the time to type out words like occupation and irresponsible....is 'to' really that hard to type?

How is capture during a defensive war illegal occupation?

They CAPTURE lnd in a DEFENSIVE war? Doesn't make sense. Besides, Palestine needs it more than Israel.

Maybe because it was going reasonably well when NATO handed it over to them.



That is very debatable.



I will agree with you there.


Yes of course they can be improved, but if anyone can stop the violence by peacekeeping it will be the U.N, as they are not seen as corrupt like the others.

Although that is also debatable.

They CAPTURE lnd in a DEFENSIVE war?


Indeed. The Israeli Defense Forces are...quite good.

Doesn't make sense.

It's a fact.

Besides, Palestine needs it more than Israel.
1. There is no such entity as "Palestine."
2. They didn't before 1967, when the Gaza Strip was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan?

Too bad it won't keep the Israelis out of Palestine.
Again, there is not such sovereign entity as "Palestine."

Again, there is not such sovereign entity as "Palestine."
Let me rephrase then. Too bad it won't keep the Israelis out of the territory that is not Israeli, occupied by Palestinians, yet not a sovereign Palestinian entity. Don't argue semantics with me when you understand perfectly what I intended with that statement..

2. They didn't before 1967, when the Gaza Strip was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan?

Now, they do. their increasing population and require for the land is greater.

On the other hand, israel was attacked and they deserve to have it taken away from them. They should split it 50 50.

This might interest you: http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/02.18.html

Very interesting. Thank you.

Yes of course they can be improved, but if anyone can stop the violence by peacekeeping it will be the U.N, as they are not seen as corrupt like the others.

Although that is also debatable.

:D

Let me rephrase then. Too bad it won't keep the Israelis out of the territory that is not Israeli, occupied by Palestinians, yet not a sovereign Palestinian entity. Don't argue semantics with me when you understand perfectly what I intended with that statement..
Israel doesn't go around blowing up civilians, and soldiers are necessary to protect Israeli citizens in the Gaza Strip and West Bank from terrorists.

How is capture during a defensive war illegal occupation?What "defensive" war. Goddam Israel has never fought "defensive" wars.

The ONLY solution would be that the Jews give up their baseless claim for the land between the Jordan and the Sea. There will never be peace as long as the Jews do not give up their notion of superiority they still draw from their alleged status as god's chosen people, which they have also expressed politically ever since the beginning of the 20th century. It's strange how some folks always try to keep religiously motivated ideologies out of the discussion while it is the sole reason for all the problems caused by the unrightful existence of Israel. The Jews' stupid religion and their abuse of it to justify their atrocities is the root of all evil present today in the Middle East. It is the Hebrew lie that brought all those wrong values into the Western world in the first place, all this shit about who Yahweh is and what he wants and what is righteous in the eyes of this racist, murderous, inhuman deity. One only needs to listen to the settlers' and their offspring's ideas and one knows there will never be peace. And since Sharon has always had the same mind, there is no hope for peace. Although he speaks differently now, his actions are still only targeted at the final annexion of the West Bank.

The logical consequence of this wall is the complete subjugation of Palestinian Arabs in the world's greatest detention camp ever. There can be no Palestinian state with a wall around it. It just does not work, but obviously Israelis are either too arrogant and self-righteous to understand that, or they do not want and never wanted that in the first place (which is more likely, given who they elect as their prime ministers).

Israel doesn't go around blowing up civiliansThat's a lie.

What "defensive" war. Goddam Israel has never fought "defensive" wars.

The ONLY solution would be that the Jews give up their baseless claim for the land between the Jordan and the Sea. There will never be peace as long as the Jews do not give up their notion of superiority they still draw from their alleged status as god's chosen people, which they have also expressed politically ever since the beginning of the 20th century. It's strange how some folks always try to keep religiously motivated ideologies out of the discussion while it is the sole reason for all the problems caused by the unrightful existence of Israel. The Jews' stupid religion and their abuse of it to justify their atrocities is the root of all evil present today in the Middle East. It is the Hebrew lie that brought all those wrong values into the Western world in the first place, all this shit about who Yahweh is and what he wants and what is righteous in the eyes of this racist, murderous, inhuman deity. One only needs to listen to the settlers' and their offspring's ideas and one knows there will never be peace. And since Sharon has always had the same mind, there is no hope for peace. Although he speaks differently now, his actions are still only targeted at the final annexion of the West Bank.

The logical consequence of this wall is the complete subjugation of Palestinian Arabs in the world's greatest detention camp ever. There can be no Palestinian state with a wall around it. It just does not work, but obviously Israelis are either too arrogant and self-righteous to understand that, or they do not want and never wanted that in the first place (which is more likely, given who they elect as their prime ministers).
You, sir, have confused me with someone who converses with racist, anti-Judaic anti-Semites. Take your hateful ramblings and begone from this place!

Since it worked so well for China, as Mr. Genghis Khan can tell you. :mp5:
Not to mention Berlin! :rolleyes:

Sounds like a great idea. It is keeping Palestinian suicide bombers out, and is reducing region wide tensions already.

What "defensive" war. Goddam Israel has never fought "defensive" wars.

The ONLY solution would be that the Jews give up their baseless claim for the land between the Jordan and the Sea. There will never be peace as long as the Jews do not give up their notion of superiority they still draw from their alleged status as god's chosen people, which they have also expressed politically ever since the beginning of the 20th century. It's strange how some folks always try to keep religiously motivated ideologies out of the discussion while it is the sole reason for all the problems caused by the unrightful existence of Israel. The Jews' stupid religion and their abuse of it to justify their atrocities is the root of all evil present today in the Middle East. It is the Hebrew lie that brought all those wrong values into the Western world in the first place, all this shit about who Yahweh is and what he wants and what is righteous in the eyes of this racist, murderous, inhuman deity. One only needs to listen to the settlers' and their offspring's ideas and one knows there will never be peace. And since Sharon has always had the same mind, there is no hope for peace. Although he speaks differently now, his actions are still only targeted at the final annexion of the West Bank.

The logical consequence of this wall is the complete subjugation of Palestinian Arabs in the world's greatest detention camp ever. There can be no Palestinian state with a wall around it. It just does not work, but obviously Israelis are either too arrogant and self-righteous to understand that, or they do not want and never wanted that in the first place (which is more likely, given who they elect as their prime ministers).


Israel has rightful claim to the territory, although not all of it. Who had the territory first, Hebrews. Jerusalem was founded three thousand years ago. Ever since then, Jews have had a constant presence, although sometimes minimal. A section of the land was given to the Jews by the British, modernally making it legitly Israel's land. And yes, it was a defensive war and Israel managed to kick ass and take the West Bank and Gaza from the Egyptians and Jordanians who took it from the Palestinians during Israel's war of Independence.

Israel is not constructing a wall around Palestinians, it is constructing the wall around itself. And the wall has successfully prevented attacks.

And Israel does not target civilians. Unlike some Palestinians terrorist groups that openly admit and support blowing up school buses, Israel tries its best not to harm civilians. They use less lethal weaponry, not non-lethal, such as rubber bullets.

This might interest you: http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/02.18.html
#
# Despite the United Nations' significant achievements, the organization continues to exhibit weaknesses that decades of experience have yet to overcome. Most UN missions are undermanned and under-funded.
Yeah, cause they really, really, really, really needed the fleet of $75,000 Land Rovers for Afghanistan. It's not that they're underfunded. It's that they're using the money to buy themselves comfort.

That's a lie.
Fine, Israel doesn't go around blowing up civilians for the sole intent of blowing up civilians, they are generally aiming for terrorists.

Sounds like a great idea. It is keeping Palestinian suicide bombers out, and is reducing region wide tensions already.
Reducing tensions for the Israelis maybe? The wall cuts the palestinians off from East Jeruselum and the 250,000 palestinians there which they claim as their capital, while the Israelis are rapidly expanding their settlements included in the wall to make the wall the permanent boarder annexing chunks of the West Bank in doing so.

Not to mention Berlin! :rolleyes:

Uh, the Berlin Wall DID work the way it was supposed to. It stemmed the flow of people from East Germany to West Berlin.

Reducing tensions for the Israelis maybe? The wall cuts the palestinians off from East Jeruselum and the 250,000 palestinians there which they claim as their capital, while the Israelis are rapidly expanding their settlements included in the wall to make the wall the permanent boarder annexing chunks of the West Bank in doing so.
The "Palestinians" don't have a state, much less a capital. Jerusalem, whole and indivisible, is the capital of the State of Israel.

The "Palestinians" don't have a state, much less a capital. Jerusalem, whole and indivisible, is the capital of the State of Israel.
You want to play it that way, you can deal with the terrorism. Excuse me, freedom fighting. You sow the seeds, you reap the rewards.

Israel has rightful claim to the territory, although not all of it. Who had the territory first, Hebrews. Jerusalem was founded three thousand years ago.


And last I checked, the Pallestinians have been living in the region since their descendants moved there over four thousand years ago.
Or am I mixing them with another ethnicity? Because I know the Hebrews havn't been there that long.
Remember, the Hebrews fought the origonal occupants of the area three thousand years ago, when the origonal occupants had already been there a thousand or so years.

EDIT: http://www.cactus48.com/earlyhistory.html
And according to all my books on ancient civilizations of the region (Alot considering I have a deep interest in Sumer), Jerusalem was founded around 4000 BCE, ranking as among the older cities of the area (If still predated by the cities of Sumer).

And last I checked, the Pallestinians have been living in the region since their descendants moved there over four thousand years ago.
The Arabs moved in in the 7th century A.D.

And last I checked, the Pallestinians have been living in the region since their descendants moved there over four thousand years ago.
Or am I mixing them with another ethnicity? Because I know the Hebrews havn't been there that long.
Remember, the Hebrews fought the origonal occupants of the area three thousand years ago, when the origonal occupants had already been there a thousand or so years.

EDIT: http://www.cactus48.com/earlyhistory.html
And according to all my books on ancient civilizations of the region (Alot considering I have a deep interest in Sumer), Jerusalem was founded around 4000 BCE, ranking as among the older cities of the area (If still predated by the cities of Sumer).

Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

Jews took the land from Canaanites, not Palestinians, and Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

And Jerusalem was not founded around 4000 BCE.

Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

Jews took the land from Canaanites, not Palestinians, and Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

And Jerusalem was not founded around 4000 BCE.

According to every book, journal, and article I have that even mentiones Jerusalam, it's six thousand years old. So, I'm gonna trust my books, articles, and journals more then you.

The Arabs moved in in the 7th century A.D.
You are aware that Arabs are only those who lived in the Arabian pininsula, and not all semites?
Do you even know what a semite is?

Israel doesn't go around blowing up civilians, and soldiers are necessary to protect Israeli citizens in the Gaza Strip and West Bank from terrorists.
Perhaps YOU need to rephrase yourself now.

Israel has rightful claim to the territory, although not all of it. Who had the territory first, Hebrews. Jerusalem was founded three thousand years ago.
Then why aren't you supporting the claim of Native groups to the lands we originally inhabited before they were stolen from us by Europeans? Or only the Israelis get your attention?

Then why aren't you supporting the claim of Native groups to the lands we originally inhabited before they were stolen from us by Europeans? Or only the Israelis get your attention?

Who says I do not support Native groups?

And Dostanuot Loj, you are right about Jerusalem, my mistake. I still disagree with some of your other points though.

Well, I've been for a wall long before the Israelis started building their security fence. Where the Israelis and I seem to differ is my concept of a barrier would be more like Germany's iron curtain, whereas the Israelis seem to have more of Hadrian's wall in mind. My idea was the Israelis build a fence around the Palestinian lands, expel the remaining Palestinians in Israeli territory into Palestine, and shoot anyone coming within a set distance of the fence. Then they can say to the Palestinians: you have your own state now. It would hopefully stop the cycle of violence by simple apartheid. So eventually the Palestinians would forget about driving the Israelis into the sea and learn to live with what they have.

Of course, Israel doesn't fancy that. They really want it so Palestinians can still work (at low wages) in Israel, but they can better control their movement and hopefully pick out suicide bombers before they get through. I don't think it's likely to work.

Yes, just for the record. King David and the Hebrews conqured Jerusalem in 1004 BCE, massacreing the previous inhabitants and installing themselves as rulers.
Jerusalem was settled before 3500 BCE by the Jebusites, who were themselves relatives of the Canaanites.

I have no problems with Israel as a nation, and I think the IDF is cool.
But I don't think they should be pushing the Palestinians out of their land.

And before anyone jumps on me, the name "Palestinian" comes from the fact that the British, and I believe the Ottoman Turks, called the area "Palestine".

Yes, just for the record. King David and the Hebrews conqured Jerusalem in 1004 BCE, massacreing the previous inhabitants and installing themselves as rulers.
Jerusalem was settled before 3500 BCE by the Jebusites, who were themselves relatives of the Canaanites.

I have no problems with Israel as a nation, and I think the IDF is cool.
But I don't think they should be pushing the Palestinians out of their land.

And before anyone jumps on me, the name "Palestinian" comes from the fact that the British, and I believe the Ottoman Turks, called the area "Palestine".

Israel didn't puch Palestinians out of their land. In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

Only difference is Israel absorbed Jewish refugees and Arabs did not.

Israel didn't puch Palestinians out of their land. In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

Only difference is Israel absorbed Jewish refugees and Arabs did not.
I guess you have never heard or Zionist terrorist groups, like the Irgun or the Stern gang then?

Israel didn't puch Palestinians out of their land. In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

Only difference is Israel absorbed Jewish refugees and Arabs did not.


I wasn't talking when modern Israel first came about.
In 1948, they were quite well set up. I'm speaking recent movements into Palestinian lands, and land that Israel has no right to.

EDIT: Whoops, typo, 1948, not '58.

I wasn't talking when modern Israel first came about.
In 1958, they were quite well set up. I'm speaking recent movements into Palestinian lands, and land that Israel has no right to.

Oh, Okay. I won't argue with you there. If you are refering to the "Land Grab," I mean.

A barrier? Its one of many answers. Israel illegaly occupied the Gaza Strip and other parts during the war. The palestinanzians require it back. Besides, even if you think Israel is the righful owner, then Israel should make a bigger effort in peacful relations.
Bigger effort? C'mon, whatever they do, the Palestinians keep on using terrorism. Israel constantly concedes, and gains nothing. And you do realize that the territory was "illegally occuppied" because Israel was attacked in a war, and they seized the land in the counter offensive?

Well, unless your suggesting the Isreali's to pack their bags and leave.. The wall is a necessity. The suicide bombers will keep on coming.

Israel has rightful claim to the territory, although not all of it. Who had the territory first, Hebrews. Jerusalem was founded three thousand years ago. Ever since then, Jews have had a constant presence, although sometimes minimal. A section of the land was given to the Jews by the British, modernally making it legitly Israel's land. And yes, it was a defensive war and Israel managed to kick ass and take the West Bank and Gaza from the Egyptians and Jordanians who took it from the Palestinians during Israel's war of Independence.

Israel is not constructing a wall around Palestinians, it is constructing the wall around itself. And the wall has successfully prevented attacks.

And Israel does not target civilians. Unlike some Palestinians terrorist groups that openly admit and support blowing up school buses, Israel tries its best not to harm civilians. They use less lethal weaponry, not non-lethal, such as rubber bullets.
That's just all wrong.
1. Jerusalem was founded long before that, and not by any Hebrews, let alone Jews. And it would not constitute any claims anyways, since even the bloody Conquest of Canaan was illegal and inhuman. The only acceptable claim would be of those who actually lived in the land in 1916/17 when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and before the European Jews started their influx into Palestine for religio-ideological reasons.
2. The British had no right to give away land they were only supposed to administer. It was not their land, it was the Arabs' land. And the UN had no right to come up with a division plan that ripped the Palestinians of all agriculturally valuable land.
3. The declaration of statehood of Israel was a declaration of war against those who rightfully dwelled in the land. There was no defensiveness in the aggressive attitude of the Jews ever since Herzl published his book, and also not in the war they wilfully sparked.
4. Israel is constructing a wall around the West Bank, not around itself. Otherwise it would also build walls on the Egyptian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian borders. And the wall inside the West Bank (not on its borders!) is only a means of further land grab. And Sharon will find an excuse not to get the sttlers out of where they never belonged in the first place.
5. Firing into markets from Apache helicopters is to target civilians. And there have been more dead Arabs in the last 57 years than dead Jews, and since Palestinians have no military they were all civilians. And what was Israel trying best in shooting little girls on their way to school ?

Seems like a the Berlin Wall relived to me...

The wall is a bandaid. The real problem is that artillery, rockets or mortars based where Palestinians live can hit any large city in Israel. Therefore, unless the Palestinians decide to stop their war, the Israelis must of necessity prevent any Palestinian territory from having a direct border with any outside state in order to prevent the importation of any such long-range weapons. Of course, any Palestinian state that is completely encircled by Palestinian territory is a sovereign state in name only. The Israelis are putting a lot of effort into systems that can shoot artillery shells in mid-flight. That, plus the wall, plus some advanced radar, will allow the Israelis to pull back to behind the wall, and leave the Palestinians to do what they want on their side.

The wall is a land-grab. The real problem is that missiles, F-16s or Apaches based where Israelis live can hit any large city in Palestine. Therefore, unless the Israelis decide to stop their war, the Palestinian freedom fighters must of necessity prevent any Israeli territory from launching such weapons of destruction in order to prevent the death of countless civilians .

Edited. :rolleyes:

I don't know if its been mentioned before, but that sounds an awful lot like a certain wall in Germany, just a little one, wasn't it? But no-one remembers that. All it did was split a city in half for forty years, just because neither side would give in. Nothing serious.

Maybe there would be less of a problem if the Israelis gave the Palestinians back their land, by which I mean most of Israel. I mean, it was never officially given to them, they just sort of, I don't know, invaded it.

While I'm on the subject, has anyone else noticed that Israel is practically a terrorist state? The Mossad pulls all sorts of ops that no civilised country could get away with, but no-one says anything, because as soon as they do, they're accused of being pro-holocaust.

And the UN is definitely biased, since it is dominated by the US, who just happen to be Israel's biggest ally.

Debunking some myths about the origins of Israel:

http://www.rwor.org/a/1259/palestine-occupation-resistance.htm


Israel didn't puch Palestinians out of their land. In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

Only difference is Israel absorbed Jewish refugees and Arabs did not.

Bollocks.

Before the UN partition of Israel and Palestine into seperate territories, Palestinians composed a very clear majority and owned about %92 of the land. Israeli Zionist settlers, on the other hand, numbered in the mere tens of thousands and controlled maybe %8, and that mostly in settler enclaves on the Mediterranean coast.

The partition, on the other hand.. granted the Israeli settlers control of %54 of the land!!! Even though they only owned a tiny fraction and were outnumbered 2-1 by the people already living there. Of COURSE the Palestinians and the Arab states weren't going to accept this. Of COURSE they declared war. What did the world expect them to do, just sit there and take this kind of imperialist bullying?

Not only that, but the Palestinians did NOT flee their homes because of promises by the Arab states to exterminate the Jews; they left because they were in danger of extermination themselves! The Der Yassin massacre is a good example of the fate that the Palestinians had in store for them if they decided to stick around.

The entirety of Israel - not just the areas of the WB/Gaza Strip seized and occupied by settlers and soldiers - is stolen and illegitimate. Israel has no real right to exist, not when its existance was procured at gunpoint and built on the blood and bones of thousands of dead Palestinian civilians and children. The only solution, or at least the only solution that will result in the Palestinian people having REAL self determination and justice, is an end to the Jewish state. One secular, democratic Palestine, with equal rights for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, of no particular religious or ethnic character. Plus right of return for all Palestinian refugees.

If this is not accomplished through armed force, it will eventually be accomplished by demographic implosion as Palestinians begin to outnumber Israelis and we start seeing an actual "apartheid" state in the most literal sense of the world - actual minority rule over an oppressed national/religious minority. And eventually, the situation will explode. That's why this wall is being built. It's essentially the equivalent of an enormous Bantustan; or, to be deliberately provocative, an absolutely gigantic concentration camp.

As far as I see it, the Intifadah is ultimately a rightious and justified struggle of the people against Israeli oppression and brutality. But the methods used to accomplish this goal are as often as not counterproductive and can't lead to real, anti-imperialist revolution in Israel. The wrong places and the wrong people are being targeted - Israeli workers rather than the oppressive apparatus of the Israeli state, i.e. the police, army, and armed settlers. I'm not one to tell the Palestinian people how to wage their own armed struggle nor do I propose to do that, but I suspect there would be alot more success in that struggle if army convoys and police patrols became the most major targets of acts of resistance instead of commuter buses and grocery stores. The Israelis haven't made any offer at all that's truly just or even worth considering; therefore, I see no reason why the Palestinian Resistance should put down its rifles any time soon.

Not to mention Berlin! :rolleyes:

Yes, but the Berlin wall was meant to keep people in, not out.

According to every book, journal, and article I have that even mentiones Jerusalam, it's six thousand years old. So, I'm gonna trust my books, articles, and journals more then you.

Please provide us with the name of some of those books, journals, and articles and the names of the authors. You know, like cited references.

According to every book, journal, and article I have that even mentiones Jerusalam, it's six thousand years old. So, I'm gonna trust my books, articles, and journals more then you.

Reference; www.ask.com type in "founding of Jerusalem.

B.C.E. (Before the Common Era, B.C.)

c1004
King David establishes Jerusalem as the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel.

On the other hand google revealed this http://www.aldeilis.net/jus/politics/jerusalem/jerusalem-founding.pdf
Which places the founding before tha arrival of the Israelites.

Looks like we need some more references.

Oh, Okay. I won't argue with you there. If you are refering to the "Land Grab," I mean.
Didn't Israel take that land as the result of winning a war? Specifically the Arab-Israeli war? :confused:

5. Firing into markets from Apache helicopters is to target civilians.

When did they fire into markets. They have fired at many terrorists in the streets or in their homes. I don't exactly classify terrorists as innocent civilians.

since Palestinians have no military they were all civilians.

The terrorist groups must be a sort of military. After all they claim it is a Holy war and you can't fight a war without troops of some kind.

And what was Israel trying best in shooting little girls on their way to school ?

Are you sure you are not buying into some terrorist propaganda?

Debunking some myths about the origins of Israel:

http://www.rwor.org/a/1259/palestine-occupation-resistance.htm


I wouldn't call this source an unbiased credible source.

This was in today's haaretz. Read it!

Who says we embrace the fence?

By Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo

It was with great disappointment that we followed the Israeli cabinet debate and vote last week, just 12 days after the Sharm Summit, authorizing the "improved route" of the separation barrier.
Meron Rapoport in Ha'aretz (February 24) "And now the fence is embraced by the left?" suggested that the Geneva Initiative welcomed this development. He was wrong. Both the substance and the process of the decision were deeply flawed.

In substance, the barrier route serves neither Israeli nor Palestinian interests. It took three years and a Defense Ministry Special Committee to realize what we all knew regarding the home demolition policy - namely, that in addition to being immoral, it actually increases anger and hostility among the Palestinian population.

A barrier can promote security on both sides and can perhaps even prevent terror attacks such as the condemned suicide bombing in Tel Aviv over the weekend. A fence / wall built within the Palestinian territory, while disregarding the Palestinian nation and leadership, has the same logic as the home demolition policy mentioned above.

A physical barrier constructed without Palestinian consent, inside Palestinian territory, leaves more than a quarter of a million Palestinians involuntarily annexed to "barrier-delineated" Israel. Tens of thousands of settlers remain on the "Palestinian side." The barrier will eventually be dismantled or moved. But for Palestinians, the fabric of daily life is further ruptured.

For Israelis, every revision and extra unnecessary kilometer of barrier takes resources away from desperately needed social budgets, while gaping holes remain in construction, as even the Sharon government hesitates to defy the Israeli Supreme Court, the Hague ruling and the U.S. government.

We are not against a physical as well as a political border, and fences may make for good neighbors. But not when the fence is in the neighbor's garden. It is an agreed border regime that will look after both peoples, the best security guarantee.

In the Geneva Initiative, we reached an agreed border - the detailed maps can be viewed at www.geneva-accord.org - based on the 1967 lines with minor mutual modifications, and a land swap that addresses both Israeli and Palestinian needs.

But it is the guiding policy of this decision that is equally troubling. The unilateralism that has characterized the last few years must now become the language of the past. With one hand the Sharon government met the outstretched Palestinian hand at Sharm, but with the other hand it continues to sign unilateral edicts that shape our shared future.

The unilateral policy had two components: one side exclusively defines what happens next and then implements these decisions alone. It seems that regarding implementation, the Israeli government has understood the need for coordination and cooperation. But this is not enough. The process itself, the parameters, the substance, must again be the result of a dialogue - and a dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, not Israelis and Israelis. We must return to comprehensive negotiations.

The Gaza disengagement and unilateral West Bank barrier construction are connected in more ways than the Israeli government vote. Our concern is that this signifies the "morning after Gaza" intentions, namely a continued avoidance of permanent status talks and the creation of more facts on the ground that undermine the very viability of a two-state solution.

The temptation to go slowly, in measured steps, nothing too far-reaching, is perhaps human and understandable. But it is mistaken, and learns nothing from the past decade. The cruel terror attack in Tel Aviv is another example of what extremists can do to sabotage and wreck. It is in the interest of both our peoples to end this conflict - and soon. That is probably why in a recent poll published in Ha'aretz, 64 percent of Israelis and 54 percent of Palestinians supported the detailed content of the Geneva Initiative.

Interim arrangements and the avoidance of defining the endgame solutions are a recipe for encouraging extremists on both sides to torpedo every step along the way. Gradualism places an unbearable burden on any attempt to stabilize the security situation. Not defining the endgame feeds unnecessary fears and unrealistic dreams in both constituencies. In many respects, it may be easier to reach a permanent status agreement than an interim arrangement.

Of course, we both support an end of the occupation in Gaza. But the "morning after Gaza" is just around the corner, and those who wish this conflict to continue, or believe that it is our fate, are already planning their next moves. So it is not too early for the coalition of sanity on both sides to declare that after Gaza, no more unilateralism, no more interim solutions, end the uncertainty, end the conflict.

We find it instructive that in more than a year since the Geneva Initiative launching, no detailed alternative plan has been proposed for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even our critics appear to concede that if, or when, a solution is reached, it will be along the Geneva Initiative lines.

The alternative is to postpone the decisions and to prolong the conflict, thus guaranteeing more suffering and more victims. According to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the Geneva Initiative gave birth to the Gaza Disengagement Plan. Our commitment is to drive the process from Gaza to the Geneva Initiative.

The Israelis haven't made any offer at all that's truly just or even worth considering

LMAO. Funny.

I wouldn't call this source an unbiased credible source.

All media, especially with regards to news, is biased. PERIOD. Yes, that includes more well known publications such as the New York Times and the BBC.

So, you noticed that the Revolutionary Worker takes a political position. Good for you. All papers do, in some way or another. What's actually relevant is whether the facts reported in that story are true, or false. If you don't believe them, look it up. They were nice enough to provide sources for you at the bottom.

I don't know if its been mentioned before, but that sounds an awful lot like a certain wall in Germany, just a little one, wasn't it? But no-one remembers that. All it did was split a city in half for forty years, just because neither side would give in. Nothing serious.There wasn't a lot of fighting going on between the two sides, was there?

Maybe there would be less of a problem if the Israelis gave the Palestinians back their land, by which I mean most of Israel. I mean, it was never officially given to them, they just sort of, I don't know, invaded it. Aren't something like 40% of Palestinians from other countries? Why should Israelis give up land on which they've lived for all their lives? How long do people have live in a place before it is theirs? And if it's not good enough that people have lived there all their lives, you must be suggesting that ancestral claims make a difference, in which case, a lot of Israelis have some pretty strong claims.

We really have to work with what people have now, not forcing heaps of people to move. The sensible solution is to take the current distributions as given (maybe with some adjustment to clear out the blurring) and seperate the two. Eventually people will get used to situation, and in the mean time it'll cut the cycle of violence.

While I'm on the subject, has anyone else noticed that Israel is practically a terrorist state? The Mossad pulls all sorts of ops that no civilised country could get away with, but no-one says anything, because as soon as they do, they're accused of being pro-holocaust.I've never noticed that. When NZ caught those Mossad agents and cut of relations with Israel, I didn't hear Israel pulling the holocaust or anti-sematism card.

And the UN is definitely biased, since it is dominated by the US, who just happen to be Israel's biggest ally.More likely it's dominated by a hundred third world countries with poor human rights records. When it comes to the security council all the members have equal veto power. Which is why in most cases it doesn't do much.

Oh, and given that the US is the largest funder of the UN, it's a testament to the independence of the UN from the US that they're critical of the US.


The wall is a bandaid. The real problem is that artillery, rockets or mortars based where Palestinians live can hit any large city in Israel.While that's true, mortars, rockets and artillery are more expensive than suicide bombers, probably less effective, and easier to trace and knock out with airstrikes.

The wall will reduce the main weapon the Palestinians use. And if used correctly, could eventually get them over their problems.