• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

2008-2009 Israeli-Palestinian conflict


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#61 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 21 January 2009 - 06:00 PM

Like I said earlier, I would like this discussion to focus on this specific conflict and what you think needs to be done. I oversimplified Chomsky because I really don't feel it has pertinence to this particular discussion and don't wish to discuss him in detail. If you want to go on about the New World Order and all that jazz start another thread. Deciding who you blame isn't the most helpful aspect of this discussion, and it's going downhill fast. So I'll pose the question again, more directly:

What do you believe needs to be done in Israel/Palestine, what compromises can realistically be made, and what role should the U.S. and other foreign interests play in mediation of the conflict?


So you do not want to understand the conflict, just jump to a sollution ? You cannot solve or understand a conflict like this without trying to see the bigger picture or by excluding history. I mentioned Noam Chomsky and his subjects because there is a common denominator when it comes to state terror and conflicts that arrise from it. The world is interconnected you know...
Please quote separately, now it looks like i started about chomsky and some new world order (btw if you would read the article you would understand that this has nothing much to do with some hawks sitting in a building trying to build a global world or a new order)I assume the second part was a response to mediceman's post.


So my answer to your question is : Israel needs to think again and start to talk instead of using state terror over and over again. It has to give up their occupied territories and need to change their aggressive policies into more moderate policies.They need to start behaving like a civilized nation to sum it up.(i'm talking about their leaders, not the inhabitants offcourse) Enough very smart people in that country to bring the same change that Obama hopefully brings to America.

Edited by drmz, 21 January 2009 - 06:01 PM.


#62 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 21 January 2009 - 06:44 PM

a new world order is not meant in the article as some sort of thing that is going to happen. the current events regarding NATO, UN, the US, israel, kosovo, the middle east, they are all part of this new unjust order.. i surely thought the facts in the article pointed you in the right directions. it is not as if I made up dates and events. ill leave the work of looking things up to you.... I hope you actually took the time to read the article rather than just the first paragraph and title.

As for solutions, I dont think my human self took a harder blow than recently due to this legal "ethnic cleansing" that occured in the past weeks. I am out of any suggestions. Coexistence is obviously not going to work. Both sides hate each other. Maybe Israel should just continue to ethnic cleanse the region. Use the shock and awe tactics that America is so good at using, so the pain doesn't last too long.

#63 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 21 January 2009 - 07:35 PM

Like I said earlier, I would like this discussion to focus on this specific conflict and what you think needs to be done. I oversimplified Chomsky because I really don't feel it has pertinence to this particular discussion and don't wish to discuss him in detail. If you want to go on about the New World Order and all that jazz start another thread. Deciding who you blame isn't the most helpful aspect of this discussion, and it's going downhill fast. So I'll pose the question again, more directly:

What do you believe needs to be done in Israel/Palestine, what compromises can realistically be made, and what role should the U.S. and other foreign interests play in mediation of the conflict?

......So my answer to your question is : Israel needs to think again and start to talk instead of using state terror over and over again. It has to give up their occupied territories and need to change their aggressive policies into more moderate policies.They need to start behaving like a civilized nation to sum it up.(i'm talking about their leaders, not the inhabitants offcourse) Enough very smart people in that country to bring the same change that Obama hopefully brings to America.


Agree with you "Israel needs to think again and start to talk instead of using state terror over and over again..." a democracy doesn't need to use systematicaly weapons.


Some of you said palestinians were use like kind of human shield.


I just want to clarify some points:
-some of them want to escape but i remind you frontiers were close in both sens. so where do you go in those conditions ?
-if you leave your house, it will be desctructed, a ground left is a ground that can be colonized, this tactic had been used "legaly" during the past 30 decades. That why olive tree are systematicaly dig up.
-when i talked about education, it was not only dedicated to palestinians women.... :-D Plenty of israelians/palestians reconsider their positions once they now more about the other and even us occidental we are far away from this conflict. Our respectives televisions, programs are indirectly affected by what happend, they won't tell you the truth, there is no thrue.

There is just the individual belives....

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 21 January 2009 - 10:01 PM

In order to discuss possible solutions or how to ameliorate things, one has to have a realistic understanding of the situation. So no
discussion is possible with bigots who state that Israelis (and for that matter Americans) do certain things because they enjoy killing people.
I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.

#65 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:20 AM

drmz... i would normally agree with you but Israel has been attacked since its formation. Constantly being attacked through various sides in an attempt to remove it from existence. America is no longer as threatened by attacks from neighboring countries nor terror cells because it invests so much money towards defense (more so than it has), the neighbors of America pose no immediate risk other than beliefs of an economic crisis caused by illegal immigration. It's much different however if you're constantly in panic of needing to protect yourself. Israel is a nice place too, a very western feel. Kind of makes you wonder how humans can be so stupid, but i guess sometimes the heart guides more than any rationality.

I like your perspective of trying to understand the situation before jumping for solutions, but i kind of feel that the conflict in the middle east has no solution at the present time. I think so much money has gone towards exploiting Gaza citizens and brainwashing programs to teach radical Islam, that until the resources of these organizations die out, we'll always have a crisis there. People have hidden agendas in maintaining the conflict too.

Israel has a lot of economic stability too, so that should hopefully ensure its survival. But I don't see why the name of the country matters. They don't deserve death.... but the issue is how does one distinguish his enemies in times like these... I've seen pictures of people dying over there, on both sides, and it's painful... to know that because of some silly ethnicity/religion we bare an ever present hatred of each other.

I haven't heard of the talks with hamas and their talks with Egypt, but Israel regards Hamas as a terrorist organization, and as such doesn't do business with them. They're not helping their reputations at all.

.fonclea, i can understand your perspective on the dishonor of colonizing locations that have held Palestinians life at an earlier time. All media programming has hidden agendas as well, and i wouldn't be surprised to see investments of various companies by manipulating the flow of information. But at the same token people don't want news, they want media sensations, that's why celebrities often time get more airing than the events that go on around the world. There just isn't as much of a market for news as there was in earlier days.

Edited by mysticpsi, 22 January 2009 - 12:42 AM.


#66 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:20 AM

I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.

inawe, that's probably all for the best, but for the love of god, please stop hitting the enter key at the end of every line in the editor. Wordwrap is your friend.

#67 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:33 AM

A nation as sophisticated, affluent and populated by some very, very smart people as Israel, can do better than launching such an asymmetrical campaign that will only serve to foster anti-semitism whilst killing so many innocents. The strength of Israel has been its high moral ground, a position that it is very far from now.


I can respect that opinion. I don't know if i would call it asymmetrical, but it mainly seems that the advisors upon war tactics in Israel have been rather crappy. Lebanon wasn't a worthwhile war, and it would be great if the president who was supposed to have been in office wasn't assassinated, since I'm pretty sure Lebanon was a beautiful place and a promising democracy (whatever that is). Most problems can be solved easily... like mathematics and analytical reasoning... but this whole crisis... every small and large deed, whether in retaliation to the violence of having your own people killed, or simply to ensure the survival of a certain area has led to more bloodshed and more stupidity. So i know what you mean, but at the same token, how is Israel to protect itself, to ensure its survival if not by demonstrating that military action is against the interests of terrorists. Of course it must also demonstrate its desire to help Palestinians in a struggle for a home.

#68 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:46 AM

how is Israel to protect itself, to ensure its survival if not by demonstrating that military action is against the interests of terrorists.


Ensure its survival with phosphorus and depleted uranium weapons going off in civilian populations? Are you kidding me?

How many more atrocities do innocents have to endure in the name of ensuring its survival?

#69 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:35 PM

I just read an article that deserves review in this discussion. Please ignore the irony of the name of the source and focus on the substance. The Christian Science Monitor is actually known for quality journalism and I think this article is not biased but is both pragmatic and prophetic. The real crisis to come will be whether Israel can become a true non-sectarian secular democracy or not.

********

http://news.yahoo.co...m_csm/yglucroft

Israel's bigger battle ahead: its national identity

by Bill Glucroft – Thu Jan 22, 3:00 am ET

Fairfield, Conn. – The war, for now, is over. Israel, eager to strike back against thousands of frightening, but largely ineffective, rockets, and apparently sensitive to the blunders made against Hezbollah in 2006, may have very well "won." Ultimately, however, Israel loses by focusing, once more, on external threats rather than internal failures.

Such failures have gone largely unaddressed for decades and are sending Israel to a tipping point that will prove more dangerous to its existence than any threat Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Iran could ever pose.

If a viable Palestinian state does not come to pass in the near future, most agree a single, binational state will emerge. However, Israel already is, if merely in de facto form, just that. One-fifth of Israel's population – 1.4 million citizens and growing – is Palestinian-Arab. They are descendants of 160,000 Arabs, who did not become refugees in 1948-49 and then who had citizenship thrust upon them in the new, Jewish state – unlike some 800,000 others who fled.

Democracy means universal suffrage, an independent judiciary, and a culture that values expression. Israel has that. Democracy, at least in America, Canada, and Europe, also means that citizenship and nationality are one in the same. That's not the case in Israel.

Israel's democracy is ethnic. To be a part of the collective, a citizen must be part of the Jewish nation, something civil law can't afford to those of the Arab nation, even though they are, ostensibly, equal citizens. Israel, as Yoav Peled, a leading thinker on Jewish-Arab relations, has written, is ruled by Jewish ethnos, not Israeli demos. The result: There is no such thing as an Israeli nation.

Israel lacks an identity that transcends subnational units of ethnicity and religion, which can unify all citizens as equal members of a shared state with a shared destiny reached through common goals. The fractured nature of Israeli society goes beyond the disagreement and debate inherent to a healthy democracy, instead prompting the question of whether Israel's 7.1 million citizens – Jewish and Arab – actually want to be "Israeli."

Normally, a country's internal instabilities are its own business. In Israel's case, however, huge decisions demanding national consensus are looming that will affect the future composition of Israel, peace in the region, and security around the world. In question is not only the relationship between Israel's Jews and Arabs, but also between religious and secular, Sabra (native-born Jew) and immigrant, and the immigrant communities themselves. For Israel to be at peace with its neighbors, it must first be at peace with itself. It's a hefty, and long delayed, process, but here are three objectives Israeli leaders and voters should work toward in building Israeli identity.

1. Required national service for all may be the lowest-hanging fruit. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported last year that Arab enlistment in the army reached an all-time high (still only in the hundreds), and the Knesset, Israel's parliament, is considering making civil service compulsory for Arabs as it has been for Jews.

No one should expect any substantial number of Israeli Arabs to join an army that is sometimes called upon to fight their families in the occupied territories and neighboring countries. However, serving one's own community in Israel through civil service makes sense. In a country that puts a premium on service and self-sacrifice, Arabs would have a better leg to stand on when demanding equal treatment.

2. One education system for all is essential. Today, three groups of citizens attend three kinds of schools that deliver three kinds of curriculum.

The majority secular Jews enroll in public schools, similar to any other Western country. Religious Jews can study in publicly funded religious schools. Largely underserved Arabs attend schools taught in Arabic and framed by Arab history. How does a society forge an identity from children who grow up with different understandings of their country? How do citizens learn to live together when they are raised in a segregated environment?

3. The lack of a constitution is the most glaring deficiency of Israel's democracy. Instead, it gets by on a collection of basic laws that enjoy semiconstitutional status.

Israel must ratify a constitution that enshrines equal rights and protections for all citizens; recognizes Israeli Arabs as the collective, indigenous minority that they are; separates religion from state but still preserves the Jewish character of the country (in the same way England is officially Christian, but the Jewish minority has no trouble living there).

A constitution is more than a set of laws. It is the ultimate symbol of national unity: one document from which all citizens will be judged equally and fairly. No one is above it or forgotten by it.

Dealing with Israeli identity – or the lack of one – could in itself tear the country apart, and it's why no Israeli leader has seriously gone down that path. Attacking external extremists has always been preferable to confronting its own citizens. Yet securing Israeli nationhood is essential if it is to speak in one voice with a nation of Palestinians and save itself from either being swallowed by the regional majority or taking drastic and immoral measures to prevent that from happening.


• Bill Glucroft is a writer and digital journalist. He worked for an Israeli Arab advocacy organization in Haifa and blogs at www.mediabard.org , where a more detailed analysis about Israeli identity is available.

#70 StrangeAeons

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 732 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 22 January 2009 - 04:58 PM

Thanks, LL. I think is probably a more articulate way of expressing my desire for a single, secular state as I mentioned in my OP. I think the biggest thing getting in the way of this is not the secular Israelis or the Arabs, both of whom would gain from such an arrangement. The problem is the significant and powerful minority of religious Jews in Israel; all the Israelis I know or am related to are religous, and I can imagine the fuss they would put up if we tried to make Israel a purely secular state. My mother has even gone on paranoid tirades about how Arabs are reproducing faster than Jews, so that there's the growing "threat" that in one or two generations Jews will be the minority in Israel and the state will lose its "identity". Judaism doesn't believe in converting people, it's merely paranoid about gentiles and believes everything is second to pride in Jewish identity. I really can't think of a way shy of heavy propoganda and bribing/coercion of prominent Rabbis to get religious Jews to acknowledge this as a possible solution.
For the record, I do believe in discussing the history of the conflict (see some of my other posts) but there is a certain type of discussion that is more sensationalistic than productive. More importantly, I think we should try to understand these parties' motives beyond accusations of bloodlust.

#71 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 22 January 2009 - 05:12 PM

.............. The problem is the significant and powerful minority of religious Jews in Israel; all the Israelis I know or am related to are religous, and I can imagine the fuss they would put up if we tried to make Israel a purely secular state. My mother has even gone on paranoid tirades about how Arabs are reproducing faster than Jews, so that there's the growing "threat" that in one or two generations Jews will be the minority in Israel and the state will lose its "identity". Judaism doesn't believe in converting people, ........


You are right, it's been 'reported in a document once on TV. That might be why it is so easy for a jews to immigrate their with the "aliyah".
An israelian once confirmed me most of the fierce religious are from the ex-URSS.

If jews had been able to keep their identity during 2 millenium without contry, i don't think they gonna lose it in the next decade, don't worry. :)

#72 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 23 January 2009 - 02:55 AM

In order to discuss possible solutions or how to ameliorate things, one has to have a realistic understanding of the situation. So no
discussion is possible with bigots who state that Israelis (and for that matter Americans) do certain things because they enjoy killing people.


I bet you're real popular over at the DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground. Have you had your accounts suspended yet?

#73 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 January 2009 - 04:30 AM

In order to discuss possible solutions or how to ameliorate things, one has to have a realistic understanding of the situation. So no
discussion is possible with bigots who state that Israelis (and for that matter Americans) do certain things because they enjoy killing people.

I bet you're real popular over at the DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground. Have you had your accounts suspended yet?

Not to worry. There's always LittleGreenFootballs or FreeRepublic. I'm not sure that would go over so well though, but for different reasons.

#74 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 23 January 2009 - 05:11 AM

I just read an article that deserves review in this discussion. Please ignore the irony of the name of the source and focus on the substance. The Christian Science Monitor is actually known for quality journalism and I think this article is not biased but is both pragmatic and prophetic. The real crisis to come will be whether Israel can become a true non-sectarian secular democracy or not.

********

http://news.yahoo.co...m_csm/yglucroft

Israel's bigger battle ahead: its national identity

by Bill Glucroft – Thu Jan 22, 3:00 am ET

....


1. Required national service for all may be the lowest-hanging fruit. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported last year that Arab enlistment in the army reached an all-time high (still only in the hundreds), and the Knesset, Israel's parliament, is considering making civil service compulsory for Arabs as it has been for Jews.


I can agree with that, there's no reason why an arab should have to fight against his own family. If anything the idea of a necessary service reduces immigration by quite a lot. But the country feels that it's national security is built on a vigilance which not very many countries can say have similar. So this whole area is complex.

2. One education system for all is essential. Today, three groups of citizens attend three kinds of schools that deliver three kinds of curriculum.

The majority secular Jews enroll in public schools, similar to any other Western country. Religious Jews can study in publicly funded religious schools. Largely underserved Arabs attend schools taught in Arabic and framed by Arab history. How does a society forge an identity from children who grow up with different understandings of their country? How do citizens learn to live together when they are raised in a segregated environment?


Seriously? The country can't even decide upon natural borders... there are certain sections of Israel that are ruled to the standards of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, where dress codes are so essential, where stonings and civil unrest still occur for idiotic causes... how can anyone suppose to "socialize" education by making a single standard... you'd have to meet everyone's criteria, and then there would be either an idiotic Ultra-Orthodox person distressed over having his children learn Islam or vice-versa. Having education be separated is great because it allows for education excellence for non-secular programs. Still Arab-Israelis should be able to attend these schools, but who says they can't... how do you know it's not the bias of these Arab-Israelis who prefer their curriculum.

3. The lack of a constitution is the most glaring deficiency of Israel's democracy. Instead, it gets by on a collection of basic laws that enjoy semiconstitutional status.

...


I think it's difficult to reach a constitutional agreement with a country as turbulent as Israel, where there have been so many sides coming from the leaders. But i can see your point that maybe a constitution which recognizes both Israelis and Arabs as equal citizens might help, but what of the Arabs that want Palestine back... that don't endorse a two-state solution?

#75 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 23 January 2009 - 05:25 AM

how is Israel to protect itself, to ensure its survival if not by demonstrating that military action is against the interests of terrorists.


Ensure its survival with phosphorus and depleted uranium weapons going off in civilian populations? Are you kidding me?

How many more atrocities do innocents have to endure in the name of ensuring its survival?


I'm kind of bothered that you only attack, and only the points you have an argument for. You seem to ignore everything else i have written. Whether that be by the strength of your disagreement, or your lack of desire to read all i have written...

You've yet to answer how Israel should defend itself... only offering the solution of keeping a "moral high ground". I'm not disagreeing with that, but it seems you're not seeing the complexity of that solution. I also fail to see why i have to counter everything while you counter only the easy targets but whatever... i suppose these are how conversations are these days.

Look i'm not saying i agree with their war strategy. If that's what your determining as asymmetrical, then you reach a crisis. Do you look at symmetry over a small duration of time or over a collection of time and conflicts? I really have no idea why Israel decided to use phosphorous shells, in fact i disagree with that method, but as of this moment i don't believe Israel has explained itself (even more bothersome). The reasoning behind it could be several... the purpose of phosphorous isn't always the targeting of humans but also ammunition. I have read that it burns ammo, so perhaps they were targeting that. I don't get it and I'll give you that, the tactic seems odd. But that doesn't represent the ideologies of all the citizens of Israel nor the nation, just the military personals in charge. Perhaps Israel didn't comment because the attack wasn't authorized. It's extremely murky.

I haven't read that they were using uranium weapons... perhaps before saying something of that nature you might want to source it.

Edited by mysticpsi, 23 January 2009 - 05:26 AM.


#76 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 23 January 2009 - 09:53 AM

http://www.haaretz.c...es/1057649.html

The only long term solution is to foster a thriving free market economy and make strategic investments in Gaza that benefit the civilian population. The rest takes care of itself. Let the Palestinians stress over acquiring the latest plasma tv's and fashions rather than ruminating on why their brother/sister/father/mother was killed/maimed by US munitions being used by vengeful Israeli's..

#77 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 23 January 2009 - 10:20 AM

http://www.haaretz.c...es/1057649.html

The only long term solution is to foster a thriving free market economy and make strategic investments in Gaza that benefit the civilian population. The rest takes care of itself. Let the Palestinians stress over acquiring the latest plasma tv's and fashions rather than ruminating on why their brother/sister/father/mother was killed/maimed by US munitions being used by vengeful Israeli's..


I agree. I really hope for Israel's sake the alleged stories aren't true, i can only imagine the use of uranium-depleted bombs to penetrate into tunnels, but the risks involved in that and the message it sends.

I feel that even though the free-economy and opening of equal trade is the greatest solution, the procedure seems impossible, idealist, and outside the desires of "disinterested" people. I've been through the Arab side of Jerusalem, i liked it, i liked the culture, the food, the market place. Even the people, though I was not sure if my mention that i was American was taken under a negative light. I hold nothing against them other than the constant attack on Israeli soil. I was born there, and even though i live in America i still have relatives there, we moved from there because of the lack of safety, because of the lack of knowledge onto whether or not danger loomed in the background of every action, for economic reasons, because a country cannot thrive freely when it has to invest so much on defense and subjugate its populace to mandatory military service in order to make sure it exists. This might seem dishonorable, but man seeks happiness in the end, to what expense though.

Here in America everything is different...

So in the end i want to agree with you, but i don't see it. I don't know who's to blame, but it doesn't seem to matter.

Edited by mysticpsi, 23 January 2009 - 10:21 AM.


#78 Clyde

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • -3

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:15 AM

These facts and figures are gory....how long will innocent me, women and children continue paying the price for such violence??? God knows how many more lives will be sacrificed until peace finally comes to this region?
Both sides need to display understanding to arrive at an amicable solution. Get more updates at http://samsonblinded.org/news
  • dislike x 1

#79 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 09 June 2009 - 12:18 PM

Being raised Orthodox Jewish with an incredibly one-sided view of this matter, I find it somewhat difficult to assess this situation objectively. I see the situation is morally complex. I have a solution, though it's a tad insane. Feed the Palestinians. Lace their food with mood stabilizers. It's harder to be mad when you're not starving. It's also harder to be mad when you have lithium flowing through your blood. Hopefully once they calm down Israel will have to cave to international pressure. I'm more serious about this idea than I would like to be, because the situation is such a colossal cyclical cluster%*$#. Ultimately I believe in a single state, with the abolition of a "Jewish" state, and instead the institution of a secular progressive democratic government (which Israel already is for the most part anyways.)
Seriously, though, I would like to know what people here think. I would also like to know what they think the U.S. should do to intervene, and what measures they anticipate Obama will take.


I hope you're kidding with that proposed "solution", as it would inevitably became public knowledge worldwide and further tarnish Israel's international image.

The only solution that will work is a two state solution, with both being independent, sovereign nations. Nothing else has a prayer of ending the cycle of bloodshed.

It's worth remembering that prior to Israel's recognization as an independent nation, the territory was controlled by the English, and Jewish nationalists committed "terrorist" acts of violence against the British authorities in a bid to force England out and speed recognition as a sovereign nation. The 6th PM of Israel, Begin, was personally involved in such attacks including bombing British governmental offices.

http://en.wikipedia....ct_with_Zionism

When we are talking about a land occupied by foreign troops, whether it's modern day Palestine by Israelis, Israel by the Brits over half a century ago, or colonial America by the English centuries ago, the line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" is in going to be determined by the vantage point of the observer.

The Palestinians were there first. The vast majority of persons of Jewish ethnicity currently residing in Israel were latecomers, emigrating there after the Holocaust. No solution will work that does not recognize the rights of these two peoples to govern themselves as sovereign entities.

Edited by TianZi, 09 June 2009 - 12:21 PM.


#80 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 30 September 2009 - 06:26 AM

The biggest lesson is that we - even the best of us - are just animals with consciousness.

I fear that aggression, exploitation, racism, conflict, war, resistance, deceit, self-deceit, fanaticism, hate are genetic traits of human behaviour in order to trigger selection and evolution.

The solution is genetic programming of the Ten Commandments into every human being lol.

Including maybe some minor other "sins"...
  • like x 1

#81 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 30 September 2009 - 08:10 AM

Being raised Orthodox Jewish with an incredibly one-sided view of this matter, I find it somewhat difficult to assess this situation objectively. I see the situation is morally complex. I have a solution, though it's a tad insane. Feed the Palestinians. Lace their food with mood stabilizers. It's harder to be mad when you're not starving. It's also harder to be mad when you have lithium flowing through your blood. Hopefully once they calm down Israel will have to cave to international pressure. I'm more serious about this idea than I would like to be, because the situation is such a colossal cyclical cluster%*$#. Ultimately I believe in a single state, with the abolition of a "Jewish" state, and instead the institution of a secular progressive democratic government (which Israel already is for the most part anyways.)
Seriously, though, I would like to know what people here think. I would also like to know what they think the U.S. should do to intervene, and what measures they anticipate Obama will take.


I hope you're kidding with that proposed "solution", as it would inevitably became public knowledge worldwide and further tarnish Israel's international image.

The only solution that will work is a two state solution, with both being independent, sovereign nations. Nothing else has a prayer of ending the cycle of bloodshed.

It's worth remembering that prior to Israel's recognization as an independent nation, the territory was controlled by the English, and Jewish nationalists committed "terrorist" acts of violence against the British authorities in a bid to force England out and speed recognition as a sovereign nation. The 6th PM of Israel, Begin, was personally involved in such attacks including bombing British governmental offices.

http://en.wikipedia....ct_with_Zionism

When we are talking about a land occupied by foreign troops, whether it's modern day Palestine by Israelis, Israel by the Brits over half a century ago, or colonial America by the English centuries ago, the line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" is in going to be determined by the vantage point of the observer.

The Palestinians were there first. The vast majority of persons of Jewish ethnicity currently residing in Israel were latecomers, emigrating there after the Holocaust. No solution will work that does not recognize the rights of these two peoples to govern themselves as sovereign entities.

:p :p

#82 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 October 2009 - 07:51 AM

It's worth remembering that prior to Israel's recognization as an independent nation, the territory was controlled by the English, and Jewish nationalists committed "terrorist" acts of violence against the British authorities in a bid to force England out and speed recognition as a sovereign nation. The 6th PM of Israel, Begin, was personally involved in such attacks including bombing British governmental offices.

http://en.wikipedia....ct_with_Zionism

When we are talking about a land occupied by foreign troops, whether it's modern day Palestine by Israelis, Israel by the Brits over half a century ago, or colonial America by the English centuries ago, the line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" is in going to be determined by the vantage point of the observer.

The Palestinians were there first. The vast majority of persons of Jewish ethnicity currently residing in Israel were latecomers, emigrating there after the Holocaust. No solution will work that does not recognize the rights of these two peoples to govern themselves as sovereign entities.


You are mostly correct. Actually the Philistines were first. Before both the Jews and Palestinians. Outside of relatively recent imperialism, territorial sovereignty should not be determined by whichever group of people happens to reside there first.

Philosophically speaking, the Earth is a commons for all mankind.

Practically speaking, we have these pesky nation-states that claim sovereignty over territories. We cannot change the past, and really that past is about as politically (ir)relevant as the history of the dispossession of the land of the Native Americans. Most of the original people from both parties are dead in both cases. As has been brought up before, it would be absurd to suggest that the United States "return" all the land to the remaining Native American descendants. That would require uprooting an entire society which is inhabited by a generation which had nothing to do with the crimes of their fathers.

What we must do instead is ignore all claims of ownership or divine right and find a workable solution for both parties which can prevent violence and maximize the quality of life for everyone. If such a solution cannot be found, then the current unfortunate state of things will continue.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians that they have been unable to project a unified front. South Africa was able to do so, and this is what allowed them to overcome the Apartheid regime. The factionalism probably hurts things more than anything.

Some Israeli officials have paid lip service to the idea of building up the infrastructure of the Palestinians but there has been little political will to actually do so. Instead they enforce embargos and elect conservative politicians. Building up the Palestinian infrastructure would be one of the best things that could happen, since it would allow the Palestinians to be freed from dependency on foreign aid and build a functioning economy that they could participate meaningfully in, thus preventing anomic violence and radicalism.

In general, we are beginning to see creative technological solutions for local production, and this is one area which is giving me hope that these sorts of conflicts might be resolved. Of course such manufacturing can always be used for nefarious purposes too, and indeed we are seeing the beginnings of open source warfare, but I do have faith in the creative spirit of humans when they are empowered with the proper knowledge and tools. Even when the culture is violently opposed to things like scientific advancement and ideas which challenge the status quo, those on the side of Reason have a way of winning out in the end, as we have seen in many places.

When we can make water abundant and create shelters with ease using internet-enabled open source production, much of the violent struggles for resources will fade from memory and then we can align ourselves with subgroups like emo or punk, and proceed to beat the crap out of each other because of that instead. Hopefully with lesser intensity :)

Edited by progressive, 01 October 2009 - 08:24 AM.


#83 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:41 AM

It's worth remembering that prior to Israel's recognization as an independent nation, the territory was controlled by the English, and Jewish nationalists committed "terrorist" acts of violence against the British authorities in a bid to force England out and speed recognition as a sovereign nation. The 6th PM of Israel, Begin, was personally involved in such attacks including bombing British governmental offices.

http://en.wikipedia....ct_with_Zionism

When we are talking about a land occupied by foreign troops, whether it's modern day Palestine by Israelis, Israel by the Brits over half a century ago, or colonial America by the English centuries ago, the line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" is in going to be determined by the vantage point of the observer.

The Palestinians were there first. The vast majority of persons of Jewish ethnicity currently residing in Israel were latecomers, emigrating there after the Holocaust. No solution will work that does not recognize the rights of these two peoples to govern themselves as sovereign entities.


You are mostly correct. Actually the Philistines were first. Before both the Jews and Palestinians. Outside of relatively recent imperialism, territorial sovereignty should not be determined by whichever group of people happens to reside there first.

Philosophically speaking, the Earth is a commons for all mankind.

Practically speaking, we have these pesky nation-states that claim sovereignty over territories. We cannot change the past, and really that past is about as politically (ir)relevant as the history of the dispossession of the land of the Native Americans. Most of the original people from both parties are dead in both cases. As has been brought up before, it would be absurd to suggest that the United States "return" all the land to the remaining Native American descendants. That would require uprooting an entire society which is inhabited by a generation which had nothing to do with the crimes of their fathers.

What we must do instead is ignore all claims of ownership or divine right and find a workable solution for both parties which can prevent violence and maximize the quality of life for everyone. If such a solution cannot be found, then the current unfortunate state of things will continue.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians that they have been unable to project a unified front. South Africa was able to do so, and this is what allowed them to overcome the Apartheid regime. The factionalism probably hurts things more than anything.

Some Israeli officials have paid lip service to the idea of building up the infrastructure of the Palestinians but there has been little political will to actually do so. Instead they enforce embargos and elect conservative politicians. Building up the Palestinian infrastructure would be one of the best things that could happen, since it would allow the Palestinians to be freed from dependency on foreign aid and build a functioning economy that they could participate meaningfully in, thus preventing anomic violence and radicalism.

In general, we are beginning to see creative technological solutions for local production, and this is one area which is giving me hope that these sorts of conflicts might be resolved. Of course such manufacturing can always be used for nefarious purposes too, and indeed we are seeing the beginnings of open source warfare, but I do have faith in the creative spirit of humans when they are empowered with the proper knowledge and tools. Even when the culture is violently opposed to things like scientific advancement and ideas which challenge the status quo, those on the side of Reason have a way of winning out in the end, as we have seen in many places.

When we can make water abundant and create shelters with ease using internet-enabled open source production, much of the violent struggles for resources will fade from memory and then we can align ourselves with subgroups like emo or punk, and proceed to beat the crap out of each other because of that instead. Hopefully with lesser intensity :)



Although investing in Palestinian infrastructure has the potential to dampen the security dilemma, it's doubtful that there would ever be sufficient political will, or that such an investment would be received with gratitude. Rather, the target population is much more likely to view it cynically as an attempt to mollify them into making concessions on issues of contention, to perpetuate their subjugation, and to forestall negotiations. Further, even if the project was well received, it would undoubtedly be sabotaged by one of several groups that have little desire for allowing a meaningful bilateral accord to be reached, and possess an uncompromising desire for supremacy over disputed land (which includes Israel proper). And even if Israel embarked on such a project, many (including myself) would likely be uncomfortable with the notion that the cost of reconstruction should be assumed largely by Israel itself, since the state and its constituents believe themselves to be in a perpetual state of besiegement, and that the plight of the Palestinians are a consequence of wars that were not of their choosing. If there is to be an attempt to reconstruct the Palestinian territories, it must be a project funded by the international community, and led by an actor possessing unimpeachable legitimacy with the target population. However, this certainly wouldn't be the first time that such a project was ever proposed, and for it to proceed beyond the planning stages, it would require a consensus among the Palestinian ruling elite, who have spurned offers in the past out of the fear that their position against Israel would be undermined. It is no coincidence, after all, that the refugee camps remain largely unmolested, because they are powerful tools for mobilization.

Edited by Rol82, 30 October 2010 - 02:23 AM.


#84 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:41 AM

Although investing in Palestinian infrastructure has the potential to dampen the security dilemma, it's doubtful that there would ever be sufficient political will, or that such an investment would be received with gratitude. Rather, the target population is much more likely to view it cynically as an attempt to mollify them into making concessions on issues of contention, to perpetuate their subjugation, and to forestall negotiations. Further, even if the project was well received, it would undoubtedly be sabotaged by one of several groups that have little desire for allowing a meaningful bilateral accord to be reached, and possess an uncompromising desire for supremacy over disputed territories (which includes Israel proper). And even if Israel embarked on such a project, many (including myself) would likely be uncomfortable with the notion that the cost of reconstruction should be assumed largely by Israel itself, since the state and its constituents believe themselves to be in a perpetual state of besiegement, and that the plight of the Palestinians are a consequence of wars that were not of their choosing. If there is to be an attempt to reconstruct the Palestinian territories, it must be a project funded by the international community, and led by an international actor possessing legitimacy with the target population. However, this certainly wouldn't be the first time that such a project was ever proposed, and for it to proceed beyond the planning stages, it would require a consensus among the Palestinian ruling elite, who have spurned offers in the past out of the fear that their position against Israel would be undermined. It is no coincidence, after all, that the refugee camps remain largely unmolested, because they remain powerful tools for mobilization.


I was not suggesting that Israel or any other nation-state be involved in development projects. I should have been more clear. I was referring to initiatives such as the FabFi which was produced by a community hackerspace in Jalalabad.

If Palestinians can learn to build open source technologies such as cheap wifi, solar thermal energy, agricultural tech, rainwater harvesting, water purification, and so on, then they can at least overcome a lot of the disease and hunger, and reduce the scrambling for scarce water resources, etc.

While this obviously wouldn't fix everything, it offers something far more tangible than political games, and can at least reduce the inter-community and intra-community conflicts over scarce resources.

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 28 October 2010 - 08:00 AM.


#85 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 29 October 2010 - 05:13 AM

Although investing in Palestinian infrastructure has the potential to dampen the security dilemma, it's doubtful that there would ever be sufficient political will, or that such an investment would be received with gratitude. Rather, the target population is much more likely to view it cynically as an attempt to mollify them into making concessions on issues of contention, to perpetuate their subjugation, and to forestall negotiations. Further, even if the project was well received, it would undoubtedly be sabotaged by one of several groups that have little desire for allowing a meaningful bilateral accord to be reached, and possess an uncompromising desire for supremacy over disputed territories (which includes Israel proper). And even if Israel embarked on such a project, many (including myself) would likely be uncomfortable with the notion that the cost of reconstruction should be assumed largely by Israel itself, since the state and its constituents believe themselves to be in a perpetual state of besiegement, and that the plight of the Palestinians are a consequence of wars that were not of their choosing. If there is to be an attempt to reconstruct the Palestinian territories, it must be a project funded by the international community, and led by an international actor possessing legitimacy with the target population. However, this certainly wouldn't be the first time that such a project was ever proposed, and for it to proceed beyond the planning stages, it would require a consensus among the Palestinian ruling elite, who have spurned offers in the past out of the fear that their position against Israel would be undermined. It is no coincidence, after all, that the refugee camps remain largely unmolested, because they remain powerful tools for mobilization.


I was not suggesting that Israel or any other nation-state be involved in development projects. I should have been more clear. I was referring to initiatives such as the FabFi which was produced by a community hackerspace in Jalalabad.

If Palestinians can learn to build open source technologies such as cheap wifi, solar thermal energy, agricultural tech, rainwater harvesting, water purification, and so on, then they can at least overcome a lot of the disease and hunger, and reduce the scrambling for scarce water resources, etc.

While this obviously wouldn't fix everything, it offers something far more tangible than political games, and can at least reduce the inter-community and intra-community conflicts over scarce resources.


Okay, that's not in the least bit controversial, and I think even Lieberman would support it in the form of a public-private partnership. And since there's much less of kleptocratic government in the territories, it could really get off the ground. I was only assuming that you were talking about something on a much larger scale.

Edited by Rol82, 29 October 2010 - 09:40 AM.


#86 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 October 2010 - 07:06 AM

Okay, that's not in the least bit controversial, and I think even Lieberman would support it in the form of a public-private partnership. And since there's much less of kelptocratic government in the territories, it could really get off the ground. I was only assuming that you were talking about something on a much larger scale.


These guys are blockading even basic construction materials, so I highly doubt they'd be receptive to the idea of a fablab where you can make just about anything at a low cost. To be honest, such fablabs may actually contribute somewhat to militant efforts, and really that is unavoidable, but you can't very well keep these people in stone age conditions indefinitely and expect things to improve... unless improving is not the goal. With some of these hawkish folks, I wonder...

These sorts of places aren't suitable for producing high grade weaponry anyways, but there are cheap remote control airplanes that can be converted into micro UAVs. Though fablabs can also make exactly the sorts of technologies which make fighting for things unnecessary, and I tend to think that would be the primary use if it were distributed widely enough, and out of the hands of hamas.

Having some public-private partnership thing with, say, UN-backing might be good for building confidence. Though ultimately I think the states need to be seen as obstacles and that independent activists should be the ones to do this. Any humanitarian aid from now on should be mainly focused on local energy, agriculture, and manufacturing technologies. Books and medicine is fine and good I suppose, but everyone knows about that, it is this other stuff that needs to get into the consciousness.

Edited by EmbraceUnity, 29 October 2010 - 07:11 AM.


#87 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 29 October 2010 - 08:46 AM

Okay, that's not in the least bit controversial, and I think even Lieberman would support it in the form of a public-private partnership. And since there's much less of kelptocratic government in the territories, it could really get off the ground. I was only assuming that you were talking about something on a much larger scale.


These guys are blockading even basic construction materials, so I highly doubt they'd be receptive to the idea of a fablab where you can make just about anything at a low cost. To be honest, such fablabs may actually contribute somewhat to militant efforts, and really that is unavoidable, but you can't very well keep these people in stone age conditions indefinitely and expect things to improve... unless improving is not the goal. With some of these hawkish folks, I wonder...

These sorts of places aren't suitable for producing high grade weaponry anyways, but there are cheap remote control airplanes that can be converted into micro UAVs. Though fablabs can also make exactly the sorts of technologies which make fighting for things unnecessary, and I tend to think that would be the primary use if it were distributed widely enough, and out of the hands of hamas.

Having some public-private partnership thing with, say, UN-backing might be good for building confidence. Though ultimately I think the states need to be seen as obstacles and that independent activists should be the ones to do this. Any humanitarian aid from now on should be mainly focused on local energy, agriculture, and manufacturing technologies. Books and medicine is fine and good I suppose, but everyone knows about that, it is this other stuff that needs to get into the consciousness.



They're restricting construction materials like concrete to the Gaza Strip, but their scrutiny of dual use items is considerably more relaxed at the border crossings into the West Bank, whose inhabitants haven't demonstrated a propensity for building platforms for the terrorizing Katyusha rockets. And say what you want about the Likud Party and Yisrael Beiteinu, but they've been emphatic about the necessity of rebuilding the Palestinian territories and promoting good governance as a prelude to peace. Indeed, it should be noted that the leader of the latter party, Avigdor Lieberman, didn't have to be cajoled into endorsing the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The position of Netanyahu, on the other hand, though, was more nuanced than the popular portrayal, since his reluctance was based on realistic doubts about the capacity of a Palestinian government to uphold (or even agree to) any terms of a lasting peace, the difficult to ignore skepticism of the Israeli voting public, and a legitimate fear of more pressing existential threats. Although their intransigence is deserving of scorn, they should be credited with improving bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority, relaxing border restrictions, and increasing the allotment of aid. All of which has greatly reduced the strains, and helped to enable the remarkable success of the Fayyad administration---which in spite of its gains, hasn't been forced, or demonstrated the inclination to make any serious concessions in negotiations with Israel.

But to compare life in the Palestinian territories to the stone age would be both vacuous and insulting---since there are some very cosmopolitan areas in the Palestinian territories. Indeed, with just examining simple measures such as the gross per capita income and rate of annual growth, the situation in the Palestinian Territories can be concluded to be at least superior to Yemen in terms of per capita income, and in regards to annual growth, more impressive than not only Yemen, but Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. These figures, mind you, includes the effects of the mutual decision of Egypt and Israel to maintain heavy restrictions on the borders of the Gaza Strip, whose government's stunning indifference to basic conditions for bilateral peace is deserving of the bulk of the blame for the wretched state of the Gaza Strip. And although it would certainly be pragmatic to remove nearly all restrictions on the borders with the Gaza Strip, I can appreciate the imperative of strengthening deterrence, and heeding the sentiments of the majority of domestic political opinion. The actual threat and potential capabilities of groups within the Palestinian Territories is beside the point, what matters is how their behavior affects the body politic in Israel, whose constituents have more than ample reason to be hysterical, and could be compelled into making dangerous miscalculations related to matters of war with state and non-state actors. Hamas knows the stakes, and they've deliberately chose to ignore them, because their prospects for legitimately prevailing in the general elections again is much less likely. So a little perspective would be in order please.

As for the relative wisdom of a public and private partnership, the civil society within the Palestinian territories is still slowly recovering from an ongoing trauma, and doesn't possess the necessary human or financial capital to seize the initiative for the project that you've outlined. For the time being, they're underdeveloped, tentatively content, and deeply apathetic and cynical. I see no other choice, but broadly speaking, the notion of relying on independent activism reeks of Cameron's "Big Society," which is a concept I'm highly dubious of, and waiting to be convinced of by satisfactory evidence. Government, in my view, is imperative for allowing individuals to become acquainted with the better components of their nature through the provision of direction, structure, and resources.

Edited by Rol82, 30 October 2010 - 02:11 AM.


#88 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 29 October 2010 - 06:31 PM

One does not understand that every action by western countries (including Israel) to win over the Palestinian people is probably seen as western imperialism. The conflict is not just centered on the actual material desires, but on the ideology of the people. Nothing is so simple as merely giving wealth to the people, assuming it will trinkle down to the populace and win over hearts. Wealth has a way of disguising itself and is certainly not as transparent as one would hope.

For Israel's part, Israel fears that the construction of these institutes [the hospitals, the schools, the homes] allows for further attacks against its civilians. It is given no reason to believe that Peace is in the minds of any of the Arab worlds. Who would anyways, when anti-Israel sentiments is almost like a rite of passage in the Arab world. Along with mandated military service, right-wing sentiment is almost a certainty. When all one sees is death, how can one think fondly of one's "enemy" or be optimistic of the future?

In an article from Al Jazeera, one sees that the Arab world sees Iran as less of a threat than Israel. (Link: The US will continue to fail to convince Arabs that Iran, not Israel, poses the greatest threat to regional stability.). This particular view makes an alliance with both worlds extremely difficult. Perhaps rightfully so. Even though I am Israeli by blood, I have not had to endure any of the bloodshed, or any of the ways that refuges live, and it seems that only the fool is truly content favoring bias.

Edited by mentatpsi, 29 October 2010 - 06:33 PM.


#89 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 29 October 2010 - 06:37 PM

Btw Rol82, beautifully stated.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users