NationStates Jolt Archive

Should Palestine be allowed to form a state? If so should the US, and NATO support it? Should it just include the west bank and gaza or more? or Less?
Should it only be allowed if democratic? Should the US provide protection?




I realise this is a "hot Button" issue in some circles so be civil and provide an actual argument or point in your posts and please no Flaming!

Give them what's theirs: Gaza and Cisjordania. Follow the green line. By the meter. Make sure Jewish colonies are given the choice: be part of the new country (as ordinary citizens) or dismantle.

Make it a tolerant, open country. Make sure people have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, security, prosperity.

It wouldn't be the smallest country in the world. It wouldn't be that bad, once the infrastructures are developed. Expect other Muslim countries to invest a lot in the (re)construction, so it wouldn't be costly for us westerners.

That's it.

As many here will tell you, I'm always posting on these Israel/Palestine threads from a very pro-Israeli standpoint. But I do think that the Palestinians deserve a state, in addition to it being the only route to lasting peace.

Should Palestine be allowed to form a state? If so should the US, and NATO support it? Should it just include the west bank and gaza or more? or Less?
Should it only be allowed if democratic? Should the US provide protection?

I realise this is a "hot Button" issue in some circles so be civil and provide an actual argument or point in your posts and please no Flaming!
They were offered a State in 1945(ish). They turned it down in favor of "refugee" status and blowing themselves up because it didn't include ALL of British Palestine. They just couldn't/can't stand the idea of sharing with the Joos.

Poor them. AFAIC, after that they don't "deserve" squat.

Of course Palestine should become an official state. The wording of the question is interesting though, "should they be allowed"...by whom? Us? Do we lord that sort of control over the people of Palestine that they should have to sue us for our permission?

One of the points I always make is that the US should back a palestinian state because

1. It would allow a democratic nation in the mid-east
2. It may stop them from blowing themselves up around us.
3. It would lead to a stronger israil

I think Dennis Miller has the right idea; Give the Palestinians the casinos. It certainly satisfied the American Indians. :)

Of course Palestine should become an official state. The wording of the question is interesting though, "should they be allowed"...by whom? Us? Do we lord that sort of control over the people of Palestine that they should have to sue us for our permission?

No, we don't. Well it depends actually. Israil won't allow them to form into a new state. If the US backed the palestinians israil would have no choice but to reconize them. Your readding to much into the question, you only become an official state when other reconize you, and your stronger neighbor doesn't bomb you.... you see. If the PAls. were to claim their sovernty today(which they already have) it wouldn't do anything because there would still be israili tanks in their cities. but If the US told israil to get out they would (maybe).............

anyway I Think you read too much into it.

Yes, they were offered a state in 1945..... but guess what? All the Palestinian leaders from that time are now DEAD.

You know what else? Rome invaded France about 50 BCE..... I guess the Italians don't deserve a homeland....

They were offered a State in 1945(ish). They turned it down in favor of "refugee" status and blowing themselves up because it didn't include ALL of British Palestine. They just couldn't/can't stand the idea of sharing with the Joos.

Poor them. AFAIC, after that they don't "deserve" squat.

your ignorance of history is well established in this post. First it was 1948, second the UN gave the best parts of palestine(the most furtile lands) to the jews and gave the pals. worse, Yes they turned it down, seeing how it was their historical homeland( don't get in an argument about that statement I mean they have been living their for quite some time thats all). They thought they could win and have all of palestine, they lost, that doesn't mean they don't deserve a nation though/ here read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_war
you might learn something...

The UN and US should end all support to both the Israelis and Palestinians then whoever's left standing when the dust settles gets it.

They were offered a State in 1945(ish). They turned it down in favor of "refugee" status and blowing themselves up because it didn't include ALL of British Palestine. They just couldn't/can't stand the idea of sharing with the Joos.

Poor them. AFAIC, after that they don't "deserve" squat.
Ditto.

The UN and US should end all support to both the Israelis and Palestinians then whoever's left standing when the dust settles gets it.

Then when israel is done nuke palestine they will then have every arab nation in the world attack them, then they nuke them, then we are out of oil, then we nuke israel, and the france nukes londen(unrelated)....


Anyway.......

I know it would never happen, but why doesnt the Isreali and Palistine people just unite and form one nation that includes isreali lands with the palstine held lands...

of course thats just wishful thinking..lol

Maybe if the UN would have just let them go into all out winner take all war less people would have died. Instead of having a quick bloody war, weve had a long drawn out bloody war.

Give them what's theirs: Gaza and Cisjordania. Follow the green line. By the meter. Make sure Jewish colonies are given the choice: be part of the new country (as ordinary citizens) or dismantle.

Make it a tolerant, open country. Make sure people have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, security, prosperity.

It wouldn't be the smallest country in the world. It wouldn't be that bad, once the infrastructures are developed. Expect other Muslim countries to invest a lot in the (re)construction, so it wouldn't be costly for us westerners.

That's it.

Idealism is an ugly thing.

How about Israel gets their state, Palestine gets their rightful land, all in one piece (not Gaza/West Bank) and Jerusalem becomes a seperate country or something, like the Vatican? Or does that make too much sense?

In short order what would happen if Palestine and israel join forces..

1. The moderates and centerists will rejoyce
2. The hardliners will declare a holy war
3. Some hardliners bomb some moderate/centerists
4. The Centerists want revenge for their friends deaths, then they turn into harliners
5. Side A blames Side B for the social problems(which there will be many seeing how Palestine has no infrastructure)
6. Genocide insues where side A kills Side B
7. The UN steps in and tries to save all the B's and bomb the A's
8. Isael/Palestine is seperated to allow for peace
9. they remember the genocide (repeat steps 5-7)

Then End!

Make Jerusalem a Protectorate of Burma, they can just not let anybody in.

How about Israel gets their state, Palestine gets their rightful land, all in one piece (not Gaza/West Bank) and Jerusalem becomes a seperate country or something, like the Vatican? Or does that make too much sense?
There are at least two precedents about an "international city".

Danzig/Gdansk.

Trieste.


But these were temporary solutions.


Jerusalem as an international city would please a lot of people, but the Israelites wouldn't accept it I think. They would feel they're "losing the temple" once again. Otherwise I guess the Muslims would be happy to go as tourists in one of their holiest cities. The Dome of the Rock is important for them. And so are a few landmarks, for many Christians faiths.

Make Jerusalem a Protectorate of Burma, they can just not let anybody in.
Better yet give them some guy in an odd hat to rule it, say something about god wanting him there, then give him some swiss guards, and give him the city!

Yes they need a state.

Why they have now is not enough as other things need to be worked out like industry and water.

Many palistineans are tired of the fighting. As are many israelis. Well at least the ones I talked too....

The problem will be the more fantatical elements from both sides.

Even today I saw a blip that some of the Israeli goverment are concerned of assassanation attempts by Israelis.

Give them what's theirs: Gaza and Cisjordania. Follow the green line. By the meter. Make sure Jewish colonies are given the choice: be part of the new country (as ordinary citizens) or dismantle.

Make it a tolerant, open country. Make sure people have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, security, prosperity.
Soo, basically eject most of the actual "palestinians", cause unless you put microchips in their heads that's the only way to make it happen.

Soo, basically eject most of the actual "palestinians", cause unless you put microchips in their heads that's the only way to make it happen.

What makes you think we can't put microships in their heads? We already got all the canadians chiped up! (when their born an american CIA agent goes in an puts a chip in their head! Why would we do this? Its simple, its all about the maple syrup. we need a constint flow of maple syrup in the US and it can't be interupted so we install chips in the canadians heads that foce them to have an odd obsesion with maple, their oringinal flag was a goat....) anyway.......



I'm sorry if any canadians were insulted,

disclaimer: No Canadians were hurt in the making of the post.

Holy crap. The inaccuracy of the and, frankly, uneducation of this thread is astounding. Maybe a Jewish boy who did two research projects on this subject can shed some light. Pardon any spelling errors, I'm a little tired and am going to bed right after this.

1. In 1948, when the partition was declared, that land was divided to try and make the best of both worlds. Not to mention Palestine would have the Jordan river, which is where Israel's fresh water comes from.
2. While the Jews liked the idea and were willing to live in peace with their neighbours, Palestinians and surrounding nations abhored the idea. These people had supported Hitler during WWII. War was declared the day that Israel's first Prime Minister signed the Declaration of Independence, the armies invaded the day after.
3. The war of 1948-49 ended with Israel owning more land than it had begun with, with Jordan in control of the West Bank and Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip. They maintained control until 1967. During this time, neither nation made any effort to create a palestinian nation. Indeed, during the wars between 1948 and 1967, the invading armies would often fight eachother, as there were disputes as to who would control what part of the holy land.
4. After 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza Strip were conquered, Palestinian women and non-land owners were given the right to vote in Israeli elections. Something that Jordan and had never allowed. Egypt was and still is a dictatorship, so there were no elections.
5. Joint governence was offered and refused.
6. Numerous road maps were offered and refused.
7. It is only recently that things are going through, with Israel withdrawing its forces from different areas. Israel would certainly prefer Jurusalem in Israel, and that is the way it will stay.
If you have any questions that I haven't covered here, please send me an email, as I'm going to bed. I'll answer your questions in the morning. My email address is dickhiffer@gmail.com

My email address is dickhiffer@gmail.com

Not a good Idea to post your email in a post, If you have any questions about it email me at burning112@gmail.com... wait a second.......

I'd have to agree with UnitedEarth, though for the sake of idealism and civility I picked "yes."

The bottom line is, both are stubborn idiots (overall generalization) and amongst them (especially the Palestinians) they have people that would keep fighting to the death over some "holy" land, meanwhile degrading the environment around it in pointless wars.

And to reiterate UnitedEarth's point, the Palestinians have been given plenty of chances, one-sided compromises, and ample patience, for on many occasions, the superior technological and philosophical might of the Israelis could have wiped them out, along with most of the surrounding Arab countries, and the problem could have been solved with (arguably) less bloodshed, whining, and meandering. (blatant Jewish elitism)

They just couldn't/can't stand the idea of sharing with the Joos.

If you were forced to give up half your country to a group of people (say, followers of the Latourian religian, trying to make a "Latourian state") (I know they weren't technically a country at the time, but their colonial status isn't a big issue. America was once a colony), would you freely give it up?

2. While the Jews liked the idea and were willing to live in peace with their neighbours, Palestinians and surrounding nations abhored the idea. These people had supported Hitler during WWII. War was declared the day that Israel's first Prime Minister signed the Declaration of Independence, the armies invaded the day after.
7. ...Israel would certainly prefer Jurusalem in Israel, and that is the way it will stay.
2. Gurion refused though, to adhere to the UN timetable by declaring independence before it was agreed to do so, and by refusing to settle for any borders. He had plenty of agendas there - you are portraying things very one-sided.
7. Why has Israel a right to the city, and the rest of the pious world does not?

I think the Palestenians should get a state, but I dont see why their generous Arab neighors are unwilling to fork over for it.
Face it. Theres only one predominantly Jewish nation on the planet. If its givin to Arabs, whats going to happen? Where are all the Jews going to go?
The Arabs, by comparison, are predominant in most of the Middle East and a few places in SE Asia, they have lots of places to go.

Theres only one predominantly Jewish nation on the planet. If its givin to Arabs, whats going to happen? Where are all the Jews going to go?
The Arabs, by comparison, are predominant in most of the Middle East and a few places in SE Asia, they have lots of places to go.
Oh, come on. There is plenty of room left in Israel. And they can always go to the US, like after the War. Isn't there more Jews living there than in Israel already?
That can hardly be your justification.

Oh, come on. There is plenty of room left in Israel. And they can always go to the US, like after the War. Isn't there more Jews living there than in Israel already?
That can hardly be your justification.
Theres plenty of room in Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan or any number of other countries, why dont the Palestenians go there?

Theres plenty of room in Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan or any number of other countries, why dont the Palestenians go there?
:rolleyes:
Palestinians are ethnically different from Turks, or from Arabs.
You might as well ask the Poles to give up their country. Can't they live in Russia instead...?

7. Why has Israel a right to the city, and the rest of the pious world does not?
Now as every time, I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this headache of a debate that just goes over the same points, and does it repeatedly, but this was laughable.

Lets think, for one moment, that the Palestinians get given Jerusalem. Can you honestly see them letting Jews in to worship? No, they clearly wouldn't, if the Jews got given Jerusalem, they would.


And I agree with Dontgonearthere, we have one country, the arabs have 22 I think. Do we not even deserve that one small strip of land? I hardly think its asking for much. No matter which way you look at it, its the Palestinians and their leaders to blame. Arafat was offered 98% of what he wanted, and he walked away without even negotiating.

:rolleyes:
Palestinians are ethnically different from Turks, or from Arabs.
You might as well ask the Poles to give up their country. Can't they live in Russia instead...?
The Jews are their own ethnicity, in case you didnt know.

Jews are an ethnic group (although I don't change my ethnicity by becoming Jewish...). Granted.
They can have a country, they should have one. But they need to be able to coexist, and not turn themselves into the same nationalist mob that threatened to destroy their country so many times.

-snip-
I'm not proposing Palestine get Jerusalem. I say no one gets it, as was originally proposed, and as was ignored by Israel. Jerusalem is strictly speaking still an occupied city.
And it is irrelevant how many countries "the Arabs" have, as Palestinians are not Arabs.

Zionism was a good idea - but it was a peaceful one. When Gurion worked to establish Israel against others, rather than with them, Zionist Intellectuals already said that their dream had died.
And today they'd all be rotating in their graves.

Doesn't everyone know that you must support everything muslim (only ingnorant war mongers think otherwise)? That anti semitism is cool again? That people will manipulate "facts" to prop up their cause?

That anti semitism is cool again? That people will manipulate "facts" to prop up their cause?
Are you talking about me? Because if you check my posts, you WILL NOT find a single anti-semitic point.
I state "facts" (if they're incorrect, correct them), which pro-Israeli people usually don't state. If that is enough to declare me anti-semitic, than so be it.

ON a secondary point, I want to know whos going to go into Israel and say:
"Yeah...uhh...about the whole giving you this state thing...were sorry, but were taking it and giving it to the Palesenians now, so you all just pack up and leave....sorry."

In 1947 the Un offered to split the land between the arabs and the jewish, they didn't take it, they wanted it all!!! and after the jewish did take the offer the arabs tryied to fight but loas (as in all wars).
In 1997-1998, the Israeli PM offered them more then they will be getting after Israel will leave, more then they will even get, but they tured it down.
they don't want a state, they won't be able to support thier acconomy, and producing jobs!!!
It's in thier nature...

i say give them a state, they won't be able to overcome the political diffrences between them, the US and Europe will have to take things into thier own hands, by supportung Israel.. they doesn't have a strong leadership that will getter ala people and be a strong charecter in the palastinien street!!! thier lost...

ON a secondary point, I want to know whos going to go into Israel and say:
"Yeah...uhh...about the whole giving you this state thing...were sorry, but were taking it and giving it to the Palesenians now, so you all just pack up and leave....sorry."
No one. Why should they?
The point is, none of the conquered areas (which make up somthing like half of today's Israel I believe) are legally part of Israel. The international community must take a stand there (it worked when Iraq annexed Kuwait for example) and make it clear that peace can only exist if both sides have some sort of equality.
Why do you insist on oversimplifying the issue? Like you can only have aggressive Israel conquering its' neighbours and bombing the shit out of suspected terrorists, or holocaust.

In 1947 the Un offered to split the land between the arabs and the jewish, they didn't take it, they wanted it all!!! and after the jewish did take the offer the arabs tryied to fight but loas (as in all wars).
Check your history. That is clearly not true.

No one. Why should they?
The point is, none of the conquered areas (which make up somthing like half of today's Israel I believe) are legally part of Israel. The international community must take a stand there (it worked when Iraq annexed Kuwait for example) and make it clear that peace can only exist if both sides have some sort of equality.
Why do you insist on oversimplifying the issue? Like you can only have aggressive Israel conquering its' neighbours and bombing the shit out of suspected terrorists, or holocaust.
You mean the lands mostly gained in wars initiated by their overly aggressive neighbors?
The international community wont take a stand because the issue is unclear. If you support Israel, your supporting the fellows that bulldoze peoples houses, shoot random people, and so forth. If you support Palestine, your supporting terrorists, people who blow everybody up.
My last comment was made in jest, apparently you took it seriously.
In any case, Israel is not any more agressive than its neighbors, to deny this is to deny reality.

Whatever happens, Israel will get the blame from all sides.

If Israel grants them a state and leaves them to it:
1: The UN, will say that Israel isn't doing enough to ensure the survival of the state.
2: The Palestinians will say that its just a part of a plot to steal more land from them or somesuch.
3: The neighbours will try and spin it so that Israel becomes the evil one and will encourage the Palestinians to rise up against Israel.

If Israel doesn't grant them a state:
1: The UN will pass resolution number million and whatever condemning Israel for not giving them a state.
2: The palestinians will say its part of the plot to steal more land from them or somesuch.
3: The neighbours will tell everyone how evil Israel is and use that as evidence.



Basically, Israel comes out evil whatever happens, we're just used to it by now.

In any case, Israel is not any more agressive than its neighbors, to deny this is to deny reality.
Indeed, but it really should be better than that. Afterall, it was meant as a shining example, according to Zionism.
Also, the Arab countries are not generally portrayed as the victims in the whole issue. Israel is.
And finally, you are proposing that somehow it wasn't Israel's fault that the situation is as it is - I would argue Israel provoked its neighbours into the first war and everything else followed from there.
Oh, and the six-day-war was started by Israel...pre-emptive strike. Sound familiar?

It's disappointing to see so many people blaming the Palestinians, if they are somehow the cause of all this, as if its only because of their stubborness that things aren't going according to (israel's) plan? Every "deal" offered to the Palestinians has come with so many "if" "and" or "buts" that no thinking person could accept them. In 1948, the UN Resolution which created Israel called for 49% of Palestine, to be given to the Palestinians, and 51% to the Jews. Jerusalem was to be an internationally administered city. The Jews were not happy with only 51%, and between November 1947 and May 1948, they seized large parts of land that had been given (By the UN Resolution) to the Palestinians. On May 14th 1948, when Israel declared its independence, a coalition of Arab states sent troops to protect Land given to the Arabs, but occupied by the Jews. The objective, for the most part, was to save Palestinian lands that had been encroached on by the Palestinians. The Jews, supplied by the West and the US, which still had a guily conscience about not being any help in ending the Holocaust, supplied Israel with the most sophisticated equipment they could, and the result was inevitable. The world promised 51% to the Jews...they took 78%. It was not Arabs or Palestinians who somehow rejected (an unfair, biased) Resolution that divided their land, the Jews were simply greedy and werent happy with that much.

Despite what has gone before, the only real solution today is a redivison of the country along different proposals made in the late 1940s, and there are a number. One of the most interesting was made by Swedish Count Folk Bernaddotte, who had rescued many Jews from the death camps, and was now the UN's Special Envoy to Palestine. He made many peace plans, but was assasinated by Jewish terrorists, the Hagana. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/2nd-bernadotte-plan.gif various other proposals are available here: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/

Today the Settlers are the main threat to peace in Israel/Palestine and many Jews in Israel are starting to realize this. Israel's most famous and well-liked news anchor, dubbed Mr. Television, recently came out on national television (after 30 years on the air), against the occupation, and noted the effect it was having on the Jewish character.

My Modest proposal is that (as Thomas Friedman suggested), Egypt joins NATO, and together with Turkey, establishes a Peacekeeping force (which would have a US Commander, since its in NATO), to enforce peace in the area. Turkey has long been a US and Israeli ally in the region, while also being Muslim, while Egypt has made peace with Israel, but is on better terms with the Palestinians..Israel would progressively give up the areas East of, and inside the Seperation Barrier in the West Bank, and IDF troops would withdraw from these areas as Peacekeepers take their place. Peacekeepers would provide security for the borders with Jewish-occupied areas and guard the settlements until they can be dismantled.

Despite what sort of a war-mongerer he is, Sharon has a plan now to allow Jordanian and Egyptian security and military personnel help train Palestinian security forces in the West Bank and Gaza, and this should be included in a final peace plan. International Peacekeepers, as part of NATO, and acting under a UN Mandate would stay as long as both sides need them. As the Israelis complete a withdrawl from all areas East of the Wall, the Wall itself would be dismantled, and if they so desire Israel can build a wall on a final border, and the Peacekeepers would provide a border guard service on the Palestinian side. The water of the Jordan should be shared by both sides, as a guarantee for lasting peace.

With international peacekeepers on the ground, we can avoid further Israeli brutality towards Palestinians that has as its end martyrdom operations by HAMAS, and Israel will no longer have to expand money and manpower on its immoral occupation. Its only a suggestion for the good of both sides.

Indeed, but it really should be better than that. Afterall, it was meant as a shining example, according to Zionism.
Also, the Arab countries are not generally portrayed as the victims in the whole issue. Israel is.
And finally, you are proposing that somehow it wasn't Israel's fault that the situation is as it is - I would argue Israel provoked its neighbours into the first war and everything else followed from there.
Oh, and the six-day-war was started by Israel...pre-emptive strike. Sound familiar?
Idealism is not reality, politicians, priests and public figures make lots of statements about things being shining examples, the Soviet Union, for example.
I would argue, in turn, that Israels main provocation to its neigbors is the fact that its run by Jews, Jews who currently own a rather important (to any religious person, anyway) city.

If Israel grants them a state and leaves them to it:
1: The UN, will say that Israel isn't doing enough to ensure the survival of the state.
2: The Palestinians will say that its just a part of a plot to steal more land from them or somesuch.
3: The neighbours will try and spin it so that Israel becomes the evil one and will encourage the Palestinians to rise up against Israel.
...
Basically, Israel comes out evil whatever happens, we're just used to it by now.
1. Granted. Israel is in a position to do much to help out its' neighbours, so a case could be made.
2. :confused: Now you're making shit up. And currently, the way the wall is being built as well as the settlements would qualify as "stealing" (ie using) Palestinian lands, correct?
3. Actually, I haven't actually seen much anti-Israeli propaganda for a while. There were those Israeli jets bombing Syria, but otherwise, they have their own issues to work on. You're just trying to feel important, aren't you? ;)
...
Start crying then. Seriously, do you reject having a part in this issue? Do you really think it's all "the Arabs'" fault?

I would argue, in turn, that Israels main provocation to its neigbors is the fact that its run by Jews, Jews who currently own a rather important (to any religious person, anyway) city.
Naw, that's a strawman argument. It makes it easy to reject any criticism of Israel as religiously motivated, when there are actual sound political and economic arguments.

Naw, that's a strawman argument. It makes it easy to reject any criticism of Israel as religiously motivated, when there are actual sound political and economic arguments.

I think it depends on the group arguing the issue. The actual terrorists, who kill and maim civilians, do this out of hatred for the Jews, much like any terrorist group is motivated by hatred for a particular group. The resistance, which strikes only military targets/establishments, have legitimate concerns about the dire situation both economically and politically in the Palestinian regions which are often due to the corrupt Fatah party and their mismangement of the regions in addition to the effects of Israeli containment of their regions which isolates them.

The actual terrorists, ..., do this out of hatred for the Jews, much like any terrorist group is motivated by hatred for a particular group.
And in my opinion, any religious war isn't inspired by religion, but by politics and economics. Religion comes later as justification.

I am from Bosnia and Herzegovina I now how is to be après by other nation/nations like , Israel, USA, and there allies, they didn’t want to stop the Bosnia War they dint care for Bosnia Muslims. In Srebrenica 1995, Serbian Military ran over the Bosnian Enclave and enter the city killing 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, man and boys.
I think that Palestinians Should have a State and Be independent form the Zaniest Enemy of Israel.
Yes Palestinians should have a independent State.

And in my opinion, any religious war isn't inspired by religion, but by politics and economics. Religion comes later as justification.

Generally correct. Much of the Anti-Semitism drew from jealousy over the Jews' success in finance and trade during the Middle Ages, and the ridiculous excuses like "the Jews killed Jesus" and "deicide" (an impossibility) were made up to justify, ironically enough, coveting the wealth of their neighbors (nice Commandment breaking, that one).

1. Granted. Israel is in a position to do much to help out its' neighbours, so a case could be made.
2. Now you're making shit up. And currently, the way the wall is being built as well as the settlements would qualify as "stealing" (ie using) Palestinian lands, correct?
3. Actually, I haven't actually seen much anti-Israeli propaganda for a while. There were those Israeli jets bombing Syria, but otherwise, they have their own issues to work on. You're just trying to feel important, aren't you? ;)
...
Start crying then. Seriously, do you reject having a part in this issue? Do you really think it's all "the Arabs'" fault?
1) But they shouldn't have to, they have enough to deal with without needing to look out for their neighbour who hates them.
2) I think not, the pulling out of Gaza has already been spun as drawing attention away from the mass stealing of lands in the West Bank. :rolleyes:
3) In that case, watch the news more often. Especially Fox and BBC. There's so much anti-Israel baseless crap in there that would make even the most hardline Hamas activists proud.
4) Not all, but a huge majority of it, yes.

Also, the Arab countries are not generally portrayed as the victims in the whole issue. Israel is.



That's just delusional. If that's the way you see things, you're completely out of touch and absolutley unreasonable.

2) I think not, the pulling out of Gaza has already been spun as drawing attention away from the mass stealing of lands in the West Bank.
3) In that case, watch the news more often. Especially Fox and BBC. There's so much anti-Israel baseless crap in there that would make even the most hardline Hamas activists proud.
4) Not all, but a huge majority of it, yes.
2) Well, it is kind of true though...It's nice they're granting the Palestinians their lands in Gaza, but why do they feel like they have to take something in return?
3) Whatever. I don't watch either, and you're apparently looking at the world with a good dose of paranoia as well. Everything that is reported that may portray a different view than the Israeli Military's view is anti-Israel baseless crap?
4) In that case, you qualify as a fanatic.

That's just delusional. If that's the way you see things, you're completely out of touch and absolutley unreasonable.
It is exactly the discussion I'm having right now. They started it!!!
People around the world know the Arabs always attack Israel, but no one has a clue about the circumstances in which Israel was started.

Thank you Leonstein, for reinforcing my belief that these debates are a load of crap. As soon as you go back to petty insults, you're no better than any other debater. Let me know if Xanaz or Greenmanbry step in here, then I'll come back.

After the WWII the Allies felt guilty for letting happen something as horrible as the Holocaust on not-germans (Jews, Gipsies, Slavs). BTW gipsy people never got an independent state and they dont complain about it.

The problem is where should this state be. IMHO I think it would have been from a justice point of view better that this state was made from the land of one of the defeated countries as there were areas completely destroyed that needed people to man them. If this wasnt possible it should be in one of the countries that kind of allowed it to happen. The US has a lot of free land why didnt they give the Jews some of it so they could build their state. But nothing of this happenned and so they built the state in a land where lived a people that had nothing to do with WWII. Would any of you accept suddenly that half of their country should be run by a different people? Probably not and this was why the first wars happened.

Nowadays I believe Israel has the right to the land that was given them after WWII. But it has no right over the palestinian area according to the first agreements. As for Jerusalem, because of its symbolism for the 3 big religions of the West should be run by a triunvirate of leaders of each religion in a progressive fashion so fanatism would become history.

Anyway I reaaly admire the effort put into peace in the region by Rabin and Arafat (Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli terrorist). The peace almost achieved was broken by the extreme right wing in Israel leading to the current state of affairs.

I hope that all the people there will find a lasting peace.

Thank you Leonstein, for reinforcing my belief that these debates are a load of crap...
Well, now I feel much better about myself... :rolleyes:

Back to the topic then.
I believe there must be a Palestinian state. That's a no-brainer, because without there is zero, with it there is at least some chance for peace.
So we need a proper roadmap, including politics, economics and a bit of common sense.
a) Both sides need to accept shared responsibility for the crap they're in. That's 50:50.
b) Israel needs to retreat from all areas outside the zone allocated by the UN before Gurion's declaration.
c) Palestine must accept UN Peacekeepers to take over institutions and so on and eliminate aggressive elements (ie those that still want to see Israel destroyed)
d) Israel needs to change its' constitution to become truly secular. There is no place for radical orthodox parties when you work on something like this.
e) A free trade zone including Palestine and Israel needs to be established and the international community is responsible for getting both sides up to scratch.
d) Jerusalem remains a free enclave under UN control. There will be UN soldiers there, as well as UN officials and institutions. Travel in and out must be monitored but free.
...
Can't think of anything else right now, but those are good points to start from in my opinion.

We shouldn't let the Palestinians down like we've failed the Kurds since 1922.

Holy Crap. I can't believe some of this.

First, the creation of a Jewish state was in the making since before WWI, so it had nothing to do with WWII. WWII simply helped to spur it on. Before WWII began, there were two groups, the Haganah (1918), and the Irgun Zvai Le'umi (1931). The Haganah was a group entirely dedicated to defending Jewish settlements from attack. They were needed and used extensively, especially during the Arab riots. If it hadn't been for the Haganah, many more people would have died. The Irgun (Zvai Le'umi), on the other hand, believed in taking a more offensive approach. They made counter attacks on the Arabs, though they never deliberately attacked non-militants, unlike their Arab counterparts. Approaching WWII, the Irgun changed its main enemy to be the British (who they declared war on), who were the ones occupying and enforcing laws in the region. The Irgun attacked government offices, police stations, military bases, supply depots, and all sorts of supply lines. They would never deliberately attack a civilian. When WWII rolled around, the Irgun declared a truce with the British, and many Irgun members joined the Jewish Brigade in the British army. After WWII ended, the Irgun rebanded. After it was quite clear that the British still weren't going to withdraw, they resumed attacks. Also after WWII, the Stern Gang was created, a terrorist group who would attack non-militants. The Stern Gang was hated by the Haganah and Irgun, and they only allied themselves with the Stern Gang out of neccesity. Many Stern Gang members were put on trial and sentenced to prison due to their crimes. When the Jews saw the map that the UN was planning, they rejoiced. It was a dream come true, their homeland returned. But the Palestinians, the Arabs surrounding the Holy Land, wanted nothing to do with the Jews. While the Jews were willing to work with the Palestinians and their neighbours, their neighbours wanted no such thing. When David Ben Gurion signed the Declaration of Independence, the War of Independence began. The armies of seven nations swept down upon Israel, killing as they went. These nations were backed by European nations and the Soviet Union. Israel was backed by no one. Their airforce consisted of three obsolete planes. If it hadn't been for the Irgun, who had a large weapons cache, the new Israelis would have lost the War of Independence, and Israel would have been destroyed, along with every last Jew in the region. Israel managed to purchase military planes on the black market in the United States, and smuggled in weapons from Checkoslovakia. The world sat by and watched while Israel was losing. However, soon after Israel turned the tide of the war, it was a matter of days for the UN to propose and pass a resolution calling for a cease-fire. Israel complied, the Arabs didn't. Israel now had less land than they had started with. Since the Arabs refused to comply, Israel resumed its defense and counterattacks. They broke though the Arab lines and began taking land away from the Arabs, who kept fighting. Finally, once Israel had taken more land than it had been given, when the casualties were over 7000 Jews, the invading nations signed Armistice agreements. Iraq was the sole exception, which technically was at war with Israel until the fall of Saddam.

Everywhere between the War of Independence and the Six Day War (including), Israel was abandoned by its allies, as its allies would place arms embargos on the entire region. On the other hand, the Soviets would continue to supply the Arabs.

The Six Day War in 1967 was rought with bloodshed well before Israel attacked. Syria was bombing Israel from the Golan Heights, Egypt was funding terrorists. It was all becoming to much. Israel eventually held a retaliatory strike against Syria, destroy Syrian MiGs. Syria and Egypt, along with the other nations, decided to line up their militaries on the Israeli border, again, in preparation for invasion, the Arab leaders proclaiming that this war would be a glorious slaughter. Israel was surrounded and outnumbered. They were on full military alert, but they could not wait for an Arab invasion, as the death toll would have been higher on both sides. They attacked first because they had every right to do so. They attacked Egypt first and then Jordan and Syria attacked. The war raged for six days, with death tolls rising on both sides. Israel took the Sinai in three days, the West Bank in four days. Syria they had a bigger problem with, as the Golan Heights were riddled with bunkers. The Syrians had their soldiers handcuffed to the inside of the bunkers so that they couldn't leave and surrender. Since they couldn't leave, they would just keep fighting, and so the Israelis had to destroy every bunker, one at a time, as there would always be someone in the bunker unwilling to surrender.

I could go on, but why bother? I am a person that places all blame on the Arabs, as Israel tried over and over again, and continually challenged their neighbours to have peace. But it never happened. No matter what they did, the Arabs refused. So no, I do not place the slightest amount of blame on Israel. A place the blame on the United Nations for always failing to act while Israel was losing, and on the Arabs for wanting war instead of peace, for their wars with Israel are not about politics or strategy, they are about hatred. Hatred that we as a human race "hate" so much, and yet so many support it. If you support these people driven by hatred, then you are nothing but an animal, just like the people whom you support. Just like those animals who murder innocent civilians, who burn them alive and poke the corpse with sticks.

Go to this website if you still support those animals, animal: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poilitica.htm

One of the points I always make is that the US should back a palestinian state because

2. It may stop them from blowing themselves up around us.

I didn't realize you had a lot of Palestinians blowing themselves up in Rhode Island. *LOL* :p

They were offered a State in 1945(ish). They turned it down in favor of "refugee" status and blowing themselves up because it didn't include ALL of British Palestine. They just couldn't/can't stand the idea of sharing with the Joos.

Poor them. AFAIC, after that they don't "deserve" squat.
I agree, but sometimes you don't give a people something because they deserve it, but rather because you get something you want in return. A palestinian state may calm the palestinians down and remove any justification they have to attack Israel. Also if a palestinian state does attack Israel, Israel can declare war and hit them much harder than they do now.

Oh, come on. There is plenty of room left in Israel. And they can always go to the US, like after the War. Isn't there more Jews living there than in Israel already?
YEAH! Screw them pesky Jews! They don't need a country! Screw 'em! Let 'em move to Antarctica!

*puke smiley*

Theres plenty of room in Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan or any number of other countries, why dont the Palestenians go there?
In fact, before there was an Israel the palestinians were Jordanian citizens. Palestine wasn't a nation. It was part of Trans-Jordan.

:rolleyes:
Palestinians are ethnically different from Turks, or from Arabs.
You might as well ask the Poles to give up their country. Can't they live in Russia instead...?
Bullshit. Check your facts. Palestinians are arabs. There never was a nation called palestine. Palestine was a region in Trans-Jordan.

I agree, but sometimes you don't give a people something because they deserve it, but rather because you get something you want in return. A palestinian state may calm the palestinians down and remove any justification they have to attack Israel. Also if a palestinian state does attack Israel, Israel can declare war and hit them much harder than they do now.
I actually agree there. Give the Pals a state and put up the wall with checkpoints. Then give the Pals an ultimatum: "You have your country, we'll leave you alone, completely. Develop and grow how you wish. But, if even ONE SINGLE homicide bomber or missile attack happens, that will be an act of war and we will take no prisoners."

Bullshit. Check your facts. Palestinians are arabs. There never was a nation called palestine. Palestine was a region in Trans-Jordan.
Some people believe Cisjordania should be given to Jordan, and Gaza should be given to Egypt. But Palestinians aren't considered citizens of these countries, they're outsiders; and they don't feel Egyptian or Jordanians. So it's a real problem... they're Arabs, right, but they don't fit in other Arab nations.

Some people believe Cisjordania should be given to Jordan, and Gaza should be given to Egypt. But Palestinians aren't considered citizens of these countries, they're outsiders; and they don't feel Egyptian or Jordanians. So it's a real problem... they're Arabs, right, but they don't fit in other Arab nations.
Big F-ing deal. Most of them weren't forced out. Most left voluntarily so that the arab armies could depopulate a fledgeling Israel. without worrying about arab civilian casualties. When Israel won against all odds the palestinians weren't allowed back. Nor should they have been. If you choose to leave your home so that your neighbors can be exterminated don't be surprised if your neighbors don't want you back.

Give them what's theirs: Gaza and Cisjordania. Follow the green line. By the meter. Make sure Jewish colonies are given the choice: be part of the new country (as ordinary citizens) or dismantle.

Make it a tolerant, open country. Make sure people have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, security, prosperity.

It wouldn't be the smallest country in the world. It wouldn't be that bad, once the infrastructures are developed. Expect other Muslim countries to invest a lot in the (re)construction, so it wouldn't be costly for us westerners.

That's it.

Correct, the 6 smallest states in order are:
The Vatican: 0.2 sq miles.
Monaco: 0.7 sq. miles.
Nauru: 8.5 sq. miles.
Tuvalu: 9 sq. miles.
San Marino: 24 sq. miles.
Liechtenstein: 62 sq. miles.

Bullshit. Check your facts. Palestinians are arabs. There never was a nation called palestine. Palestine was a region in Trans-Jordan.

Indeed.
In 1800 the Muslim population in Palastina was called Arabs. In 1900 the Muslim population in Palastina was called Arabs. in 1920 the Muslim population in Palastina was called Arabs. In 1947 the muslim population in Palastina was called Arabs.
Not to mention the entire arab countries saw in the Israeli arabs as their brothers and that's why they were not allow to live inside them and to get citizenship.

Everyone deserves a homeland. The jews deserved one after thousands of years of Diaspora, and the Palestinians deserve one now. These two peoples must face the fact that they will have to share this land. No amount of bitching on either side is going to change that fact. Israel will not be permitted to annex Palestine, and the Jews aren't going anywhere, regardless of what Hamas does. There are two options and two only, have two independant states, or one state with power-sharing between Jews and Arabs. Without one of those solutions, war will continue indefinitely. Two states is more likely considering the hatred between these two groups, so that's the best choice.

What the Palestinians did in rejecting the partition plan and deciding on war was a horrible act that permanently scarred the Middle East peace process. Regardless, they didn't give up their right to a homeland, just as the Germans in WWII still deserved a nation even after the Nazis, or the US after thier horrible treatment of the Indians and Blacks. The right to sovereignty is not something to be earned or that something can be taken away - if a people have a claim to a nation and want a seperate nation, then they deserve it. Who is the US, or any nation for that matter, to revoke a nation's right to exist, or a people's right to have thier own society?

Everyone deserves a homeland. The jews deserved one after thousands of years of Diaspora, and the Palestinians deserve one now.
So if my friends and I demand a homeland, a nation all our own, it's suddenly the world's responsibility to clear off a piece of land for us despite the fact that we're US citizens already?

In 1919 Emir Faisal granted Israel to the Zionist Organization. Jews are a distinct ethnic group. Those two facts alone make Israel legitimate. The palestinians are in fact Jordanian arabs. They already have a homeland. They're just demanding another one.

I personally think they should get land in the West Bank and Gaza so they won't have the "homeland" issue to gripe about anymore and so that if they attack Israel war can truly be declared upon them. I just don't think that they "deserve" a homeland.

Make the whole area around there Israelistine and call it good enough. Both sides unhappy is better than one feeling worse off than the other.

I'm not so sure the arabs want only their own palestine, but I believe their goal is to eliminate the jews altogether. You give them their own state and think they'll live in peace beside Isreal? Never have and never will, no matter what you give.

I'm not so sure the arabs want only their own palestine, but I believe their goal is to eliminate the jews altogether. You give them their own state and think they'll live in peace beside Isreal? Never have and never will, no matter what you give.
Yes, but if you give them a state you take away the victim status they have in much of the (antisemitic) world. Then if they make trouble you bomb the hell out of them and nobody can say much about it. Every time a bus in Telaviv goes boom a city in Palestine goes boom.

Good point.

Check your history. That is clearly not true.

Chack Your history.... i'm an Israeli and i learend about it all my life, and now i'm in the university, majuring political and communication, i learn about it, lived it, and know my history, so chack yours!!!

Should Palestine be allowed to form a state? If so should the US, and NATO support it? Should it just include the west bank and gaza or more? or Less?
Should it only be allowed if democratic? Should the US provide protection?




I realise this is a "hot Button" issue in some circles so be civil and provide an actual argument or point in your posts and please no Flaming!
Yes, Palestine should be a recognized sovreign state.
Democratic, in my mind, would be the best choise but it is up to the people of the nation.
I see no point in sending in NATO, the Palistinian people have fought the israeli army for years and can protect their nation, people and government just fine on their own. It would be a good idea to send in advisors form America or fellow muslim nations.

Oh, and the six-day-war was started by Israel...pre-emptive strike. Sound familiar?

By started; I assume you mean the pre-emptive strike where Israel leveled Egypt's air-assets; in the Sinai, just after Egypt signed a military pact with Jordan, and Syria that included the provision of "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." and began massing units near the Israeli border....

It was pre-emptive; but Israel didn't start it. At least from the perspective of anyone dealing with reality...

The effect of the six-day war; was the agression began by the alliance, was stomped over by Israel; and put to a quick demise; as they took over all of Sinai (which was eventually given back, in exchange for a non-aggression pact with Egypt), Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.

I'm sure, if an enemy surrounding you began massing troops on all yourborders; you would sit back and wait for them to attack....

By started; I assume you mean the pre-emptive strike where Israel leveled Egypt's air-assets; in the Sinai, just after Egypt signed a military pact with Jordan, and Syria that included the provision of "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." and began massing units near the Israeli border....

It was pre-emptive; but Israel didn't start it. At least from the perspective of anyone dealing with reality...
Moreover, the Egyptian Navy blockaded the straits of Tiran, cutting off Israel's main sea shipping route (for oil in particular). Under the existing international law (the so-called Law of the Sea), it amounted to a declaration of war, and Israel had the right to take military action.

I thought this thread was going to be a big fight between leftist supporters of Israel and pro-Palestinian writers against hard-right Israeli partisans. Turned out, it turned into a historical battle over who has a "right" to the land, and divided on the more typical lines. Oh well.

My support for a Palestinian state is mostly based in pragmatism. This war is bad for everyone. A Palestinian state, to my way of thinking, would end it. And I voted "for" in this poll. However, if we use history to determine whether someone "deserves" something, I think the facts would support the Israeli viewpoint:

1. 1948 - Israeli War of Independence. The territory was split 57% for Israel, 43% for Palestine, and Jerusalem was an international zone. The Israelis accepted it; the Arab world said "we want it all" and then invaded Israel. Bear in mind that the modern Palestinians (a concept which was created after 1967) demand a fraction of that 43%, and would be quite content with getting it. So I wouldn't say they were getting a raw deal.

2. 1967 - that's been covered by several other posters.

3. 1973 - Yom Kippur. Arab nations, without provocation and with declared intent to wipe out Israel, invaded Israel on the holiest day on the Jewish calender, where no Jew is supposed to leave synagogue, let alone pick up arms. Note that there was virtually no mention of Palestinian rights.

4. 2000 - Camp David. Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat the entire West Bank, sans Jerusalem. Almost every Palestinian demand was satisfied. What did Arafat do? Start the current Intifada.

I thought this thread was going to be a big fight between leftist supporters of Israel and pro-Palestinian writers against hard-right Israeli partisans. Turned out, it turned into a historical battle over who has a "right" to the land, and divided on the more typical lines. Oh well.

My support for a Palestinian state is mostly based in pragmatism. This war is bad for everyone. A Palestinian state, to my way of thinking, would end it. And I voted "for" in this poll. However, if we use history to determine whether someone "deserves" something, I think the facts would support the Israeli viewpoint:

1. 1948 - Israeli War of Independence. The territory was split 57% for Israel, 43% for Palestine, and Jerusalem was an international zone. The Israelis accepted it; the Arab world said "we want it all" and then invaded Israel. Bear in mind that the modern Palestinians (a concept which was created after 1967) demand a fraction of that 43%, and would be quite content with getting it. So I wouldn't say they were getting a raw deal.

2. 1967 - that's been covered by several other posters.

3. 1973 - Yom Kippur. Arab nations, without provocation and with declared intent to wipe out Israel, invaded Israel on the holiest day on the Jewish calender, where no Jew is supposed to leave synagogue, let alone pick up arms. Note that there was virtually no mention of Palestinian rights.

4. 2000 - Camp David. Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat the entire West Bank, sans Jerusalem. Almost every Palestinian demand was satisfied. What did Arafat do? Start the current Intifada.


I think the problem, is alot of us dealing with history of the Palestininans; realize that even creating a "state" does not solve the issue; They don't actually "want" a state; and do actually already have one they could go to (Jordan); The problem is; they don't want Israel around; and no matter how much land you gave to them, they would continue to bicker to grab more; till none is left.... There's no "real" way to "solve" the problem; short of either giving the Palestinians everything, and evicting the Israeli's...

YEAH! Screw them pesky Jews! They don't need a country! Screw 'em! Let 'em move to Antarctica!
:confused:
That was not what I meant, and you know it. The point was that he suggested there somehow wasn't enough room in Israel to live in. Which is clearly not true. They build settlements in the desert in Palestine, they might as well build settlements in the desert of Israel.
I said it many times and I say it again: I am FOR a Jewish State. But I am also FOR a Palestinian State. And in order for both to function, we need to start over ie in 1948. I DO NOT rate the Israelis claim to Jerusalem any higher than the Palestinian's claim.

As for Palestinians, they are different from Syrians, or Lebanese or anyone by ethnicity, just like Poles are different from Russians. You cannot expect them to live in a state full of different people, so that other people don't feel discriminated against.

Of course it was called Trans-Jordan. Are we looking back at Colonialism as a viable alternative now? You know as well as I do that the borders were drawn on a map without any regard for reality.

As for Irgun, they were terrorists. To somehow distinguish them from other terrorists in order to make them seem nicer is unnecessary. Jews used terrorism, now Palestinians use terrorism. It's natural when you have no other means of defending yourself.
And the differences between Hamas and the Haganah are not as big as you'd think they are (if you achknowledge that Haganah worked together on projects with terrorists in order to further their cause).

-snip-
Come on, not you too?
Why does everyone insist on making the Israelis the victims here? Both sides thought they could do better with war in 1948/49.
Ben Gurion did NOT accept the borders set by the UN, and he DID NOT adhere to the timetable. While negotiations were still going on, he declared Israel independent, made the Haganah the "army" and refused to declare any fixed borders.
Obviously that would upset the Arab peoples around. Early Israel was just as infatuated with some sort of "greater Israel" as the Serbians were in 1913/14 or certain Palestinians are today.
Why don't you try and step back, look at what people did and then try to guess their intentions, for a moment forgetting your own religious, ethnic, political or any other background. Because that is what's always missing in these discussions.

As for 1967:
Yitzhak Rabin, then Chief of General Staff (ramatca"l) of the Israeli army:

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it."

(From Le Monde, 28 February 1968)

General Mattitiahu Peled of the IDF General Staff:

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."

(From Le Monde, 3 June 1972)

General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations (later President of Israel):

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."

(From Ha'aretz, 29 March 1972)

General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General, Southern Command:

"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the six-day war."

(From Lilienthal, Alfred M., The Zionist Connection. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978 - p. 558)

General Haim Bar-Lev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israel Defense Force:

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."

(From Ma'ariv, 4 April 1972)

General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Governor, Israeli Occupied West Bank:

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger."

(From Ma'ariv, 4 april 1972)

Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing:

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."

(From Al-Hamishmar, 14 april 1971)

Yigal Allon, Minister of Labor and member of Eshkol's Military Advisory Committee on the origin of the Six-Day War:

"Begin and I want Jerusalem."

(From Haber, Eitan: Menahem Begin: The Legend and the Man. New York: Delacorte Press, 1978 - p. 271)

Menahem Begin, later Israeli Prime Minister:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

(From Op-ed piece, The New York Times, 21 August 1982)

General Mordichai Hod, Commanding General, Israeli Air-Force:

"Sixteen years' planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it."

(op. cit. Lilienthal, pp. 558-9)

General Meir Amit, head of Mossad in 1967:

"There is going to be a war. Our army is now fully mobilized. but we cannot remain in that condition for long. Because we have a civilian army our economy is shuddering to a stop. We don't have the man power right now even to bring in the crops. Sugar beets are rotting in the earth. We have to make quick decisions . [...] If we can get the first blow in our casualties will be comparatively light."

(From Eisenberg, Dennis, Uri Dan and Eli Landau: The Mossad: Israel's Secret Intelligence Service. New York: New American Library, 1978 - pp. 160-1)

Gen. Aharon Yaariv, Israeli chief of military intelligence, gave a background briefing to newsmen on 12 May 1967. He spoke first on Syria's support for guerrilla activity against Israel then hinted the Israelis were about to attack:

"If the Syrians continue for a long time the Palestinians will become a factor in the relations between us and the Arabs. They have not become a factor ever since almost 1949 [...] So we must make it clear to the Syrians that they cannot continue in this way and I think the only way to make it clear to the Syrians is by using force [...] I could say we must use force in order to have the Egyptians convince the Syrians that it doesn't pay [...] I think that the only sure and safe answer to the problem is a military operation of great size and strength."

(From Cooley, John K.: Green March, Black September. London: Frank Cass, 1973 - p. 160)

Air Force Commander Gen. Ezer Weizmann stated there was "no threat of destruction" but attack was justified so Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies."

(op. cit. Cooley, p. 162)

According to Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, the Israeli settlers on the border between Israel and the Golan "didn't even try to hide their greed for their [i.e., Syrian] land, "wanting 'to grab a piece of land and keep it until the enemy will get tired of us'." Describing the idea that Syria was threatening Israel before the 1967 war as "bullshit", he said: "I know how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was [...] You do not attack the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you, and the Syrians in the fourth day of the war were not threatening us. "

(From New York Times, 11 May 1997)
====================================================
Well, I am going to say this now:
I don't like where you're pushing me here. I'm starting to feel like you want to turn me into your enemy, and I don't want that.
I have my views, you have yours. I always feel though that it is important to look at both sides of the argument, and so far it seems like nearly no one here is doing that. You justify modern day inequalities and unfairness with one-sided accounts of what happened 60 or even 40 years ago - and that is clearly not the way to move forward.
But I am not anti-semitic, nor do I want to be branded that way. You know my views on the issue, I posted them over these past pages.
I said all I wanted to say, and anything I post won't convince anyone either, or even make them think about it. So I'm not going to bother.
Maybe we can go and find a "nice" topic to talk about, where I don't end up ostricised.

As for 1967:
Yitzhak Rabin, then Chief of General Staff (ramatca"l) of the Israeli army:

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it."

(From Le Monde, 28 February 1968)

General Mattitiahu Peled of the IDF General Staff:

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."

(From Le Monde, 3 June 1972)

General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations (later President of Israel):

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."

(From Ha'aretz, 29 March 1972)

General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General, Southern Command:

"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the six-day war."

(From Lilienthal, Alfred M., The Zionist Connection. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978 - p. 558)

General Haim Bar-Lev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israel Defense Force:

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."

(From Ma'ariv, 4 April 1972)

General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Governor, Israeli Occupied West Bank:

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger."

(From Ma'ariv, 4 april 1972)

Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing:

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."

(From Al-Hamishmar, 14 april 1971)

Yigal Allon, Minister of Labor and member of Eshkol's Military Advisory Committee on the origin of the Six-Day War:

"Begin and I want Jerusalem."

(From Haber, Eitan: Menahem Begin: The Legend and the Man. New York: Delacorte Press, 1978 - p. 271)

Menahem Begin, later Israeli Prime Minister:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

(From Op-ed piece, The New York Times, 21 August 1982)

General Mordichai Hod, Commanding General, Israeli Air-Force:

"Sixteen years' planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it."

(op. cit. Lilienthal, pp. 558-9)

General Meir Amit, head of Mossad in 1967:

"There is going to be a war. Our army is now fully mobilized. but we cannot remain in that condition for long. Because we have a civilian army our economy is shuddering to a stop. We don't have the man power right now even to bring in the crops. Sugar beets are rotting in the earth. We have to make quick decisions . [...] If we can get the first blow in our casualties will be comparatively light."

(From Eisenberg, Dennis, Uri Dan and Eli Landau: The Mossad: Israel's Secret Intelligence Service. New York: New American Library, 1978 - pp. 160-1)

Gen. Aharon Yaariv, Israeli chief of military intelligence, gave a background briefing to newsmen on 12 May 1967. He spoke first on Syria's support for guerrilla activity against Israel then hinted the Israelis were about to attack:

"If the Syrians continue for a long time the Palestinians will become a factor in the relations between us and the Arabs. They have not become a factor ever since almost 1949 [...] So we must make it clear to the Syrians that they cannot continue in this way and I think the only way to make it clear to the Syrians is by using force [...] I could say we must use force in order to have the Egyptians convince the Syrians that it doesn't pay [...] I think that the only sure and safe answer to the problem is a military operation of great size and strength."

(From Cooley, John K.: Green March, Black September. London: Frank Cass, 1973 - p. 160)

Air Force Commander Gen. Ezer Weizmann stated there was "no threat of destruction" but attack was justified so Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies."

(op. cit. Cooley, p. 162)

According to Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, the Israeli settlers on the border between Israel and the Golan "didn't even try to hide their greed for their [i.e., Syrian] land, "wanting 'to grab a piece of land and keep it until the enemy will get tired of us'." Describing the idea that Syria was threatening Israel before the 1967 war as "bullshit", he said: "I know how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was [...] You do not attack the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you, and the Syrians in the fourth day of the war were not threatening us. "

(From New York Times, 11 May 1997)
====================================================
Well, I am going to say this now:
I don't like where you're pushing me here. I'm starting to feel like you want to turn me into your enemy, and I don't want that.
I have my views, you have yours. I always feel though that it is important to look at both sides of the argument, and so far it seems like nearly no one here is doing that. You justify modern day inequalities and unfairness with one-sided accounts of what happened 60 or even 40 years ago - and that is clearly not the way to move forward.
But I am not anti-semitic, nor do I want to be branded that way. You know my views on the issue, I posted them over these past pages.
I said all I wanted to say, and anything I post won't convince anyone either, or even make them think about it. So I'm not going to bother.
Maybe we can go and find a "nice" topic to talk about, where I don't end up ostricised.


hmm nice topic?, I will try and find one, but I doubt no one will be offended, there is always someone thats offended lol.....

Wasn't Jerusalem supposed to be an International City in the initial plan, anyway?

Well, I am going to say this now:
I don't like where you're pushing me here. I'm starting to feel like you want to turn me into your enemy, and I don't want that.
I have my views, you have yours. I always feel though that it is important to look at both sides of the argument, and so far it seems like nearly no one here is doing that. You justify modern day inequalities and unfairness with one-sided accounts of what happened 60 or even 40 years ago - and that is clearly not the way to move forward.
But I am not anti-semitic, nor do I want to be branded that way. You know my views on the issue, I posted them over these past pages.
I said all I wanted to say, and anything I post won't convince anyone either, or even make them think about it. So I'm not going to bother.
Maybe we can go and find a "nice" topic to talk about, where I don't end up ostricised.
I in no way wanted to turn you into an "enemy." I just wanted to weigh in on the historical issue. And I don't justify these things with history - I'm "on record" saying that I think a Palestinian state is a good idea. The shit that's going down on both sides is bad. Where I think the blame lies is largely irrelevant to what I think should be done. So I don't want to brand you anti-semitic at all; merely have a conversation. I'm sorry if any offense was taken.

Wasn't Jerusalem supposed to be an International City in the initial plan, anyway?
yeah but both israel and the Pals have said that they won't accept a peace plan unless they get Jerusalem, its an impasse.

...So I don't want to brand you anti-semitic at all; merely have a conversation. I'm sorry if any offense was taken.
Wasn't really you, it was everyone.
And somehow, the whole issue makes me feel...uncomfortable. It's difficult to argue my point of view these days - and I've gone through some time of being branded a Nazi in my home town for a while. It's not nice.

I support some form of Palestinian State
This is never going to happen but the best thing would be divide up Israel, give half to Israel, half to Palestine and have Jeruselem as a neutral city run by a third party, such as the UN

:confused:
That was not what I meant, and you know it. The point was that he suggested there somehow wasn't enough room in Israel to live in. Which is clearly not true. They build settlements in the desert in Palestine, they might as well build settlements in the desert of Israel.
I said it many times and I say it again: I am FOR a Jewish State. But I am also FOR a Palestinian State. And in order for both to function, we need to start over ie in 1948. I DO NOT rate the Israelis claim to Jerusalem any higher than the Palestinian's claim.

As for Palestinians, they are different from Syrians, or Lebanese or anyone by ethnicity, just like Poles are different from Russians. You cannot expect them to live in a state full of different people, so that other people don't feel discriminated against.

Of course it was called Trans-Jordan. Are we looking back at Colonialism as a viable alternative now? You know as well as I do that the borders were drawn on a map without any regard for reality.

As for Irgun, they were terrorists. To somehow distinguish them from other terrorists in order to make them seem nicer is unnecessary. Jews used terrorism, now Palestinians use terrorism. It's natural when you have no other means of defending yourself.
And the differences between Hamas and the Haganah are not as big as you'd think they are (if you achknowledge that Haganah worked together on projects with terrorists in order to further their cause).
You're absolutely wrong about palestinians being ethnically different from other arabs. They share the same language, customs, and religious affiliations as all other arabs.

You criticize us for pointing out that palestine was never a nation, but rather part of trans-jordan because it was a construct of the collonial times, then you use Syria and lebanon, places defined by artificial collonial borders as well to imply that there are different ethnic groups among arabs. Shouldn't you make up your mind?

There already is an arab state in Palestine. it is called Jordan. in 1922, the British government gave East Palestine, 75% of Palestine, to Emir Abdullah to form an arab state in Palestine.

You're absolutely wrong about palestinians being ethnically different from other arabs. They share the same language, customs, and religious affiliations as all other arabs.
I am merely echoing the sentiment I had from various Palestinians I spoke to (who didn't say they were Arab) and various Lebanese friends who all vehemently disagreed with any indication that they might be the same. One actually told me (more or less proudly) that her mother "threw stones at the Palestinians".
And "all other Arabs" is an ignorant statement to make. People in Syria clearly have different customs from people in UAE or Sunni Iraqis.