Palestine

[Oberschutze]

i know this is more than likely gonna start a ruckus.

just throwin it out there.

my dad is palestinian, and ive spent time there. ive seen things happen that you dont see on cnn. im only 15. i wrote this to broaden peoples views.

i wrote this for school a while back and im eager to see what your opinions are on it. tell me what you think/know of the conflict.

p.s. go on youtube and look up palestine riots, death, israeli-palestinian conflict, etc and it will help broaden your view.

my dad hates jewish people no matter what, one could save his life and he wouldnt like him anyway... its the way he was raised, but please remember i have nothing against jews, in fact my best friend is jewish, so dont reply saying im a jew-hating bastard or w/e.

------------------------------------------




I just realized that there are more sides to it, and Arabic Muslims have no right to hate Jewish followers.





In 1948 Jewish Europeans were trying to find themselves a new home, because they weren't comfortable in the former anti-Jewish Nazi controlled territory. It made sense, considering 6 million Jews had been murdered during the Holocaust. Jews just didn't feel quite as relieved as they should have felt after the fall of the Third Reich. At that time, the British were in control of Palestine and Trans-Jordan as results of the first world war.

The British, being one of the major allies who defeated Nazi Germany in 1945, decided that they would do the world a "Great Deed" by opening up Palestine for Jewish immigration. Jews flooded from across Europe and other areas to live in their ancient holy land, where their ancestors were originated.

Now, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions. All three believe in the "God of Abraham". Palestine is the holy land of Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike. The followers of each faith coexisted peacefully for thousands of years IN PALESTINE, not the "Israel" that it is now called politically and falsely. This means that there were and are Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Muslims, and Palestinian Christians living in the SAME PLACE without violence, bloodshed, or political or religious conflicts.

When immigration opened up, thousands of Jews moved to Palestine. There soon became so many concentrated in a small area that tension rised between Palestinians and Jewish immigrants. In order to separate the two groups to prevent violence, the British mandate wanted two states, a Jewish immigrant haven, and a section of Palestinian homeland for original Palestinians. Palestinians of all religions rebuked the idea of a new Jewish state, but on May 14th, 1948, The Jewish state of Israel was formed within Palestine.

Both sides had an argument, and both sides had their own solution. The problem was, neither side liked each other's solution. Palestinians want the state of Israel to be wiped off the map, and the refugees want their land back. They want the occupation, innocent killings of men, women, and children, and all zionists removed from Palestine.

Which brings me to zionism.

Zionism is the real cause of all the violence and hatred. It was an ideology that arose in the early 1900's stating that the holy land should be rightfully handed over to the Jewish people of the world, and that it was their land to begin with. It also calls for the removal of the Palestinian people from Palestine, and that Jewish people have a "historical right" to settle there.

"Historically" a zionist is a hippocrite.

In the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Torah it is stated that Moses and his people were greeted in the promised land by a civilized people, who cared for them and coexisted with them with no problems whatsoever. Any guesses on who they were? These people were Canaanites, or in other words, Ancient Palestinians.

The members of the military who shoot innocent children, who demolish hundreds of homes in refugee camps, and who deny certain unalienable rights to thousands of Palestinians, are not members of an Israeli military. They are not part of a "Jewish" military as thousands of anti-Israeli Arabs and other anti-semitic peoples ignorantly assume. They are simply a zionist military, bent on securing the holy land for all Jewish people.

Palestinian Jews do not support zionism in any way. Many, including popular Rabbis, are against the state of Israel and recognize the holy land's history, rightfully Palestinian, yet belonging to the millions of people throughout the world who follow an Abrahamic faith. Judaism and zionism are two very different things, as many anti-semitic people tend to stereotype. They think "zionist" means "Jew" and vice versa. The people of so-called "Israel" are predominantly Jewish, but only a small portion of them are zionist.

The next time you are watching the news, take a look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It isn't a conflict with two sides battling over religion or territory.

It's a civil war, infected and ignited by an anti-Palestinian virus that brings discomfort and pain into the hearts of all Palestinians,

Muslim, Jewish, or Christian.

[Fallschirmjäger]

The hatred goes back to far,not that all on both sides hate each other im shure.But before the jews came after WW2 and started living there and wanting there own country all the troubles,wars started.Like before that the lived in peace right for sometime right,like under the turkish rule how where the jewish people who lived there treated?,like not that i know much about it,but never herd of any problems or wars with the turks?.

Maybe the only way is the younger people need to start to get on more,but dont see that even too much.Like see footage of young palestinans with guns or training to fight,older ones fighting the israel forces.And the israel youth go into the military compulsory,so see whats going on,some must change there views others dont.

[lazlazlaz1]

Firstly, Christianity and Judaism follow God, and Islam follow Allah. God is not Allah.

There is the Palestinian nation, it is called Jordan much of which belonged to Israel before being conquered by Rome.

Zionism in Britain came about much earlier than 1900, at some point in the 17th century.


In the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Torah it is stated that Moses and his people were greeted in the promised land by a civilized people, who cared for them and coexisted with them with no problems whatsoever. Any guesses on who they were?
Thats completely wrong. There was nothing peaceful about it. God told the Jewish people to take the land by force, and they did. No one co-existed, until the numerous times Israel/Judah was conquered.


[Zionism] also calls for the removal of the Palestinian people from Palestine
Not really. It just says there should be a country for the Jewish race.


It's a civil war, infected and ignited by an anti-Palestinian virus that brings discomfort and pain into the hearts of all Palestinians
Does that include the bombers? Or is that pain just the explosion? I think you miss the point that there is also a anti-Israel/Jew "virus" thing.

I gather from what you have said you do not think the state of Israel should exist. But then equally why should USA exist to pick one example? The conquest of North America was by far a worse occurance than the creation of Israel in 1948. Should then all immigrants to USA (i.e. all those not of North American Indian descent) go back to their original countries, or even be allowed to be blown up by bombers?
The same is true for any country that has ever conquered ground from another? Who is to say who should own what land? Thats why we have armies, the nation with the bigger and better army gets the land, makes sense to me.
So its just silly to say that Israel is an illegal country, you cannot say what war or conquest is illegal since its just your opinion. And technically Britain conquered that land so it was ours to give to whom we pleased.

[2ltben]

Both sides must be willing to set aside their hatred. This is not about religion at all, not in a practical sense at least. Israelis hate Palestinians because of militant suicide bombers and threats of genocide. Palestinians hate Israelis because of settlements, the Israeli army confiscating their homes and businesses, of restricting their travel, their economy, their access to clean food and water, and of killing civilians out of pure, unabashed retribution. That hatred started in 1948, it only got worse in 1967.

Militants on both sides are doing horrible things, the only difference is that the Israeli actions are sanctioned through a government. Palestinians didn't even have a government until the 90s.

Oh, and Zionism isn't the actual pro-Israeli movement. Ever since the first Arab-Israeli war, Arab radicals refused to refer to Israel by name, for that would imply recognizing it. They referred to it simply as "The Zionist Entity."

imo, until Israel not only stops expansion, but removed the settlements in whole, there cannot even begin to be peace. The colonization of the West Bank is pure and simple Imperialism, and the Israelis are pretty brutally repressing the Palestinians in the process. It used to be by the Army, now its done by a civilian organization. It makes it look like progress.

*edit*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6fn5NZ6LBk - She never answered the question on why they don't shoot them out of the sky. I'm sure there's an answer, she just didn't give one. She also never actually apologizes.

Euripedes said that you should never fight an enemy in such a manner that he cannot become your friend.

[lazlazlaz1]

The colonization of the West Bank is pure and simple Imperialism
what is wrong with Imperialism? Before you say it is unfair on the other country (generally, not just palestine), well sucks to be them if they lose. If they don't like it they should learn to fight better.



Euripedes said that you should never fight an enemy in such a manner that he cannot become your friend.
I also don't agree with that statement.

I'd also like to point out that Israel do provide utilities (electricity/water etc) to the Palestinian settlements. It is also worth noting that the area was barely producing any crops or related resources before 1948, which obviously benefits all who live there now.

Also, politically speaking I'm not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, its just the common opinion is one of anti-Israel so I like to stand against that. No one has the right to decide who is the more just side in a war, except the person who wins it.

[DavidUpton]

what is wrong with Imperialism? Before you say it is unfair on the other country (generally, not just palestine), well sucks to be them if they lose. If they don't like it they should learn to fight better.


I find myself slightly torn over this comment. On the one hand, my rather nationalist half tends to agree, but on the other hand my more reasonable half disagrees. Besides, according to your statement, you agree with the actions of Germany, Italy and Japan in WWII.

[lazlazlaz1]

They were fully entitled to invade other nations (don't confuse with me agreeing with the Nazi party's political stance). Your only right to any land you own is that no one else has taken it off you yet, so it was not illegal for Germany to invade Poland. A militaristic war cannot be illegal, i.e. one that is not based on genocide or similar political/ethical ideas since there are no strict international laws regarding it, only conventions and agreements.

[DavidUpton]

I suppose that is true. I have never known of any country to go through legal proceedings after its defeat (with the exception in the case of the aforementioned circumstances).

[Oberschutze]

i am palestinian, from the city of nablus

when you come home from school one day to find your house demolished along with all of your belongings,

to find your father has been imprisioned,

and then a week later your best friend was shot dead because he threw a pebble at a tank,

it infuriates me to hear people talk about how they like israel better because of their military technology and their "defending of freedom"

how is this defense of freedom?

by the way, in palestine we had no tapwater, it had to be purchased from an israeli supermarket in gallons. and electricity was only effective to a few neighborhoods, because 90% of the houses in the camps were either unwired or had faulty wiring. and before you speak about what israelis provide to palestinians, i suggest you live there half your life.

with all the things a palestinian has to fear, how does it match up to israeli's fears?

if youre israeli, you might worry about hezbollah rockets, which are katyushas and miss their targets on an EXTREME ratio... maybe of a suicide bombing, in which 260 people have been killed from... maybe from an foreign journalist who just wants to get the truth (15 journalists have been killed by the IDF)...

the world is unfortunately too ignorant at this time to comprehend that.

[OliverMarshall]

Firstly, Christianity and Judaism follow God, and Islam follow Allah. God is not Allah.

That's fairly ridiculous. Allah is the name of God in Arabic, the same way that the name of God in French is Dieu or in German it is Gott. It is only a different word for the same meaning. The Jewish word is also Gott.

I entirley support you Oberschutze. I believe that the Balfour Decleration was one of the stupidest ideas ever. Although I realise that Jews would have felt uncomfortable in Germany after the war, they could have moved to France, Britain or America. I have alot of Jewish friends so i'm not anti-semitic, but ISrael is a stupid idea. It is a one-religion state, a country founded upon a religion, which makes it the same type of country as the Islamic Republic of Iran or etc. This makes all who say that Israel is completeley democratic look completely ridiculous; i'm not sure if anyone here has watched The West Wing in the past but they had a couple of episodes on the conflict. One of the problems at the moment is that Israel oppresses Palestine, in the same way that Syria oppresses Lebanon. Israel controls the water and electricity supply into both parts of a divided Palestinian state. Israelis are just as ignorant that Palestine (the area) is not just of the Jewish Region but of Christianity and Islam aswell. I believe that Muslims now believe that in this age, Israel is not needed as it was before, there are many countries in the west where Jews can safely live so a Jewish state is not needed. We just need an end to the conflict, there are 7 million Jews surrounded by 106 million Arabs, just in the countries which it borders with; not to mention the Arab League with a population of 340 million. I'm sure that many people on the forums will not like me for having said any of that but i'm tired of seeing on the news ever day: Israeli tanks roll into Gaza, suicide bomb kills students in Tel Aviv, water supplies are cut to Gaza, etc.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1139/800pxisraelandpalestinezv8.png (http://imageshack.us)

[2ltben]

i am palestinian, from the city of nablus

when you come home from school one day to find your house demolished along with all of your belongings,

to find your father has been imprisioned,

and then a week later your best friend was shot dead because he threw a pebble at a tank,

it infuriates me to hear people talk about how they like israel better because of their military technology and their "defending of freedom"

how is this defense of freedom?

by the way, in palestine we had no tapwater, it had to be purchased from an israeli supermarket in gallons. and electricity was only effective to a few neighborhoods, because 90% of the houses in the camps were either unwired or had faulty wiring. and before you speak about what israelis provide to palestinians, i suggest you live there half your life.

with all the things a palestinian has to fear, how does it match up to israeli's fears?

if youre israeli, you might worry about hezbollah rockets, which are katyushas and miss their targets on an EXTREME ratio... maybe of a suicide bombing, in which 260 people have been killed from... maybe from an foreign journalist who just wants to get the truth (15 journalists have been killed by the IDF)...

the world is unfortunately too ignorant at this time to comprehend that.
I hope to spend a great deal of time in Palestine some day. I would hope it would be during a time of peace, but that will not stop me. Violence of any sort, whether it is by militant suicide bombers past the Green Line or someone throwing rocks down the street from a house that the Israeli officials just confiscated, serves only to provoke. They will thrash you, torture you, beat you senseless until you die. Then they will have your dead body, not your compliance. Civil disobedience is a careful thing, do not strike back. Never strike back. Let them strike you and keep striking you until the world sees what monsters they are. And when you obtain your victory, be it a victory of peace and reconciliation, do not inflict the same pains upon them that you had inflicted upon you. This I learned from a great man. It is unfortunate that my geography is not one of direct resistance.

lazlazlaz, since when does Imperialism not set the stage for genocide? Read Albert Beveridge, one of the leading American supporters of Imperialism and a US Senator during the Filipino-American War. Replace Anglo-Saxon by Aryan and you have Hitler, almost word for word. Imperialism implies racial superiority, counterargument to this is fallacy.

[masasa]

There are 2 ways to end this conflict, it is all up to Israel:

1. Israel commits genocide, drives all the palestinians away from their territories and kills the ones who stay.

Not pretty, but effective.

2. Israel stops all hostility against palestinians and gives them independence. Israel offers help to rebuild their infrastructure and so forth. If Israel gets hit by hezbollah rockets or by suicide bombers, they do not retaliate. They will work even harder to help palestinians.

Might not be effective in short term, but it will ensure peace in long term.

[Sgt So and So]

Funny, how the peace in the long term always seems to turn into another war. :P

[lazlazlaz1]

That's fairly ridiculous. Allah is the name of God in Arabic, the same way that the name of God in French is Dieu or in German it is Gott. It is only a different word for the same meaning. The Jewish word is also Gott.

Its not the word though is it, its about the being the name represents. Allah is not the same being as God, maybe Muslims believe He is, but from a Christian or Jewish point of view He is not.


lazlazlaz, since when does Imperialism not set the stage for genocide?
Napoleon was Imperialistic, and he didn't cause any genocide. The British Empire wasn't genocial, just oppressive in some cases.


If Israel did not respond at all, do you honestly think the attacks would just stop? Of course they wouldn't.


There are 2 ways to end this conflict, it is all up to Israel:

1. Israel commits genocide, drives all the palestinians away from their territories and kills the ones who stay.

Not pretty, but effective.
Maybe effective in the short term, but I really doubt it would help much since the rest of the Arab world would react against it.


2. Israel stops all hostility against palestinians and gives them independence. Israel offers help to rebuild their infrastructure and so forth. If Israel gets hit by hezbollah rockets or by suicide bombers, they do not retaliate. They will work even harder to help palestinians.
As I said above, not retaliating never helped anyone. It just causes you to be harmed more. Since Israel is a country they have every right to defend their borders, if they stopped fighting then they would just be overrun with more and more attacks until the nation no longer existed.

Its quite simple really, Israel is not just going to abadon itself and walk away to the West and they have no obligation to. The Arab and Islamic world(s) are not going to stop fighting Israel until it is no more, which they are fully entitled to do since they feel that land belongs to them.
The fighting will continue until one side or the other is gone.

Also, if the Jews moved to the West I don't think they would fare too well either due to growing amounts of anti-semitism especially in France.

[2ltben]

so it was not illegal for Germany to invade Poland.
Actually it was. They fabricated the casus belli incident. So did the Soviet Union, in almost exactly the same way, before they invaded Poland.


A militaristic war cannot be illegal, i.e. one that is not based on genocide or similar political/ethical ideas since there are no strict international laws regarding it, only conventions and agreements.
I'm going to assume you do not understand what international law is. I'm also going to assume you do not understand Just War theory or Proportional Response theory.


Its not the word though is it, its about the being the name represents. Allah is not the same being as God, maybe Muslims believe He is, but from a Christian or Jewish point of view He is not.
Again, your opinion is not the prevalent theory of the time. Jews and Christians by far accept that Allah is God or Yahweh.


Napoleon was Imperialistic, and he didn't cause any genocide. The British Empire wasn't genocial, just oppressive in some cases.
British not genocidal? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea of the massacres that happened in India?


If Israel did not respond at all, do you honestly think the attacks would just stop? Of course they wouldn't.
If Israel continued and the Palestinians stood there and took the attacks without killing a single Israeli, do you think Palestine would have independence? Within a year.


As I said above, not retaliating never helped anyone. It just causes you to be harmed more. Since Israel is a country they have every right to defend their borders, if they stopped fighting then they would just be overrun with more and more attacks until the nation no longer existed.
I take it you didn't study 20th century history. You are aware of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. are you not? Their entire principle was to stand there, be thrashed, and not respond violently. Without exception.


Its quite simple really, Israel is not just going to abadon itself and walk away to the West and they have no obligation to. The Arab and Islamic world(s) are not going to stop fighting Israel until it is no more, which they are fully entitled to do since they feel that land belongs to them.
The fighting will continue until one side or the other is gone.
You do not understand the situation then. No one wants one or another gone except for the radicals. That's why foreign diplomats work towards a Two-State Solution.


Also, if the Jews moved to the West I don't think they would fare too well either due to growing amounts of anti-semitism especially in France.
Most Israelis are Jews, not all Jews are Israelis.

Seriously, put down the Bible, turn off Fox News, and read a book.

[lazlazlaz1]

Actually it was. They fabricated the casus belli incident. So did the Soviet Union, in almost exactly the same way, before they invaded Poland.
Just because they lied doesn't make it illegal. My point is that there is no such thing as justification for war, since all war is just in the opinion of the invader.



I'm going to assume you do not understand what international law is. I'm also going to assume you do not understand Just War theory or Proportional Response theory.

Just War theory is an ethical theory, therefore not everyone will hold by it so it means nothing. Every persons ethics are different, you cannot base justification on one group of people's ethics.
I guess Proportional Response theory is one of not over-reacting to a situation and responding in a relevant way. Yes? Which again means nothing since who decides when someone has over-reacted or responded out of proportion to a situation? Even if someone knows they have responsed out of proportion, why shouldn't they?


Again, your opinion is not the prevalent theory of the time. Jews and Christians by far accept that Allah is God or Yahweh.
As a Christian it is my opinion, and of every Christian I have spoken to, I have yet to find one who doesn't agree with me.



British not genocidal? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea of the massacres that happened in India?
Inform me, since I've never read anything about genocide in the British Empire. All I know of is rebellions which were put down, in which case its not genocide, its war however wrong the methods of war were.


If Israel continued and the Palestinians stood there and took the attacks without killing a single Israeli, do you think Palestine would have independence? Within a year.
Unlikely really if you think about it. Since the vast majority of Israeli attacks are against known or suspected terrorist sites, if there were no terrorists there would be far less attacks if any at all.


I take it you didn't study 20th century history. You are aware of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. are you not? Their entire principle was to stand there, be thrashed, and not respond violently. Without exception.

I did and continue to do so. Ganhdi was a idiot. He may have had a nice way of going about things, but he was fighitng for an independant India which was coming in the next few years anyway. So he brought it about a couple of years earlier and got himself shot in the process, great.
Also did you know:

During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” “Collective suicide,” he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.”
How can you respect a man who said that?
Martin Luther King, Jr is the only pacificist I respect, since he actually achieved something. He demonstrated a great approach for a specific situation which occurs less often than otherwise. Churchill on the other hand showed us the approach to use for the rest of time. I respect King a little and Churchill a lot.
It is important to remember the situation both King and Ganhdi were in, under a generally liberal and free government. If they had tried their methods under an actually oppressive government such as Pol Pot or Mao they would have been either killed or locked up permanently.


You do not understand the situation then. No one wants one or another gone except for the radicals. That's why foreign diplomats work towards a Two-State Solution.
Unfortunately though the radicals on the Islamic side, or just fundamentalist to what the Qu'ran says, are those who have the most effect.
I heard an interesting interview recently of a member of a Palestinian political party (I'm unsure which one) who said that no matter what happens there will never be a Two-State solution since none of the people on the ground actually want it.



Most Israelis are Jews, not all Jews are Israelis.
I never said they were. Thats why anti-semitism is already a problem in the west.


Seriously, put down the Bible, turn off Fox News, and read a book.
I've never watched Fox News since I'm English, and all the British news channels that I've watched are actually anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. I've read books, been to conferences, been involved in charity organisations working for them and talked to people who have been and lived there. Both my parents are over there now at conferences relating to it, and how peace can and is actually be achieved through Christianity. Plus my elder brother is doing his dissertation on it and is also currently in Israel researching it.
It is a topic I've heard and researched a lot on.

[2ltben]

Just because they lied doesn't make it illegal. My point is that there is no such thing as justification for war, since all war is just in the opinion of the invader.
A casus belli is not a justification of war, merely a reason for it. There is no justification for war. And yes, falsifying a casus belli does make it illegitimate. Germany had been outright colonizing Poland since the Slavs migrated there. The Russians saw her as a doormat to Western civilization. Such is the way Poland has been since its inception.


Just War theory is an ethical theory, therefore not everyone will hold by it so it means nothing. Every persons ethics are different, you cannot base justification on one group of people's ethics.
I guess Proportional Response theory is one of not over-reacting to a situation and responding in a relevant way. Yes? Which again means nothing since who decides when someone has over-reacted or responded out of proportion to a situation? Even if someone knows they have responsed out of proportion, why shouldn't they?
Because would that action to anything but to provoke a response that it equal or greater?



As a Christian it is my opinion, and of every Christian I have spoken to, I have yet to find one who doesn't agree with me.
And those are the beliefs of those people and of yourself. You yourself said that belief counts for nothing.



Inform me, since I've never read anything about genocide in the British Empire. All I know of is rebellions which were put down, in which case its not genocide, its war however wrong the methods of war were.
The Amritsar massacre. The British brought in troops to disperse a crowd that had gathered to hear a man speaking in support Gandhitji's civil disobedience and nonviolence. Gatherings were illegal and considered sedition. The crowd stood there when the troops were marched in and began firing on them, there was really no way out of the compound they had gathered in. No warning was issued. Over one thousand people were shot down without mercy, no aid was given to the wounded, the man who lead the detachment was tried and not the least bit sympathetic or remoseful for his actions. Women and children were present and were among the dead and the officer was well aware of their presence.



Unlikely really if you think about it. Since the vast majority of Israeli attacks are against known or suspected terrorist sites, if there were no terrorists there would be far less attacks if any at all.
And when the Israeli's block travel? When they prevent a sick and dying man from getting medical treatment because the hospital is on the other side of the roadblock and denies the ambulance access? When they force a Palestinian family to leave its home because a Yezdi settlement will be built at that site? When they deny Palestinians electricity power and drinking water in retaliation for attacks? I say the Palestinians have every right to fight back, and that it is their duty to do so, that they should never obey the Israelis, but not through violence. Not to defeat them and throw them out of the country. When Israel gives Palestine its independence, it should be because they see the wisdom in doing so, and do so of their own free will. In this way, there will be no animosity, no vengeance, no desire for revenge.



I did and continue to do so. Ganhdi was a idiot. He may have had a nice way of going about things, but he was fighitng for an independant India which was coming in the next few years anyway. So he brought it about a couple of years earlier and got himself shot in the process, great.
India is free because of his actions, actions which began decades before he was even wholly committed to the idea of Hind Swaraj or Satyagraha. Pandit Nehru was handpicked by him, as Jinnah was of Pakistan. Panditji looked up to the man as a father. Bapu's failure was that British India was split into two, now three, nations. Panditji's failure was in assuming China would become a brother to them, that Pakistan would join as their comrade.


How can you respect a man who said that?
Because nonviolence worked against the Nazis, quite well in fact. It just happened so seldom and with so little attention, people assume that it did not happen at all.


Martin Luther King, Jr is the only pacificist I respect, since he actually achieved something. He demonstrated a great approach for a specific situation which occurs less often than otherwise. Churchill on the other hand showed us the approach to use for the rest of time. I respect King a little and Churchill a lot.
King used almost exactly the same methods Gandhi used. When people sat at lunch counters they got the shit beaten out of them, when they marched they were beaten by policemen and attacked by police dogs. They had high pressure waterhoses turned on them, they were shoved to the ground, kicked, tortured, hanged, and killed. They did not stop. They did not strike back. They won. African-Americans are now the equals of every other race in America. Their equals. They did this through their courage, their resolve, and their stubborn determination to act freely in the face of any odds in the name of truth with the goal not of defeating their opponent, merely changing their opponent's mind.


It is important to remember the situation both King and Ganhdi were in, under a generally liberal and free government. If they had tried their methods under an actually oppressive government such as Pol Pot or Mao they would have been either killed or locked up permanently.
Liberal and free to whites. They were killed, they were locked up. Their families were targetted, they suffered, and they died. Do you think lynchings stopped the second King marched on Selma?


I heard an interesting interview recently of a member of a Palestinian political party (I'm unsure which one) who said that no matter what happens there will never be a Two-State solution since none of the people on the ground actually want it.
Then it must be one's first priority to convince.


I've never watched Fox News since I'm English, and all the British news channels that I've watched are actually anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. I've read books, been to conferences, been involved in charity organisations working for them and talked to people who have been and lived there. Both my parents are over there now at conferences relating to it, and how peace can and is actually be achieved through Christianity. Plus my elder brother is doing his dissertation on it and is also currently in Israel researching it.
It is a topic I've heard and researched a lot on.
Through Christianity? I should wish to hear more of this.

[lazlazlaz1]

A casus belli is not a justification of war, merely a reason for it. There is no justification for war. And yes, falsifying a casus belli does make it illegitimate. Germany had been outright colonizing Poland since the Slavs migrated there. The Russians saw her as a doormat to Western civilization. Such is the way Poland has been since its inception.
Well if there is no justification for war as I agree, then how can it be illegal? If a casus belli is just a reason, then any reason will do.



Because would that action to anything but to provoke a response that it equal or greater?
It probably would, but thats beside the point, it is up to the aggressor to decide if it makes sense. But that is beyond politics, its a military decision.



And those are the beliefs of those people and of yourself. You yourself said that belief counts for nothing.
I said opinion counts for nothing, not belief. There is a difference. But my point was, that in my experience the vast majority of Christians and Jews believe the Christian/Jewish God is a different entity to Allah.



The Amritsar massacre. The British brought in troops to disperse a crowd that had gathered to hear a man speaking in support Gandhitji's civil disobedience and nonviolence. Gatherings were illegal and considered sedition. The crowd stood there when the troops were marched in and began firing on them, there was really no way out of the compound they had gathered in. No warning was issued. Over one thousand people were shot down without mercy, no aid was given to the wounded, the man who lead the detachment was tried and not the least bit sympathetic or remoseful for his actions. Women and children were present and were among the dead and the officer was well aware of their presence.
If the man was tried and found guilty then it is not an action sanctioned by the government, so it is not a genocide of the British Empire, it is a genocide of that man and his detachment.
Although I would agree that the British government was in part at fault for not ensuring things like that didn't happen, but it cannot be blamed entirely on them since they did not call for it as shown by the trial.



And when the Israeli's block travel? When they prevent a sick and dying man from getting medical treatment because the hospital is on the other side of the roadblock and denies the ambulance access? When they force a Palestinian family to leave its home because a Yezdi settlement will be built at that site? When they deny Palestinians electricity power and drinking water in retaliation for attacks? I say the Palestinians have every right to fight back, and that it is their duty to do so, that they should never obey the Israelis, but not through violence. Not to defeat them and throw them out of the country. When Israel gives Palestine its independence, it should be because they see the wisdom in doing so, and do so of their own free will. In this way, there will be no animosity, no vengeance, no desire for revenge.
The reason travel is blocked is to cut down the number of bombers who travel across the borders. If there had never been these bombers the travel would not have been blocked. Since there has been, then even if the bombings stopped entirely, it would be unlikely that the blocks would be removed immediately as that would leave Israel vulnerable.
I wholly agree with you that the Palestinians have every right to fight. But that doesn't mean the Israeli government doesn't have every right to do what it is doing also.
Your last point is also completely true, but it is again unlikely that will be the situation when/if it happens. If the Palestinians want a state of their own then they have every right to demand and fight for one. I would like to point out though that Jordan is 98% (roughly) Palestinian and was originally created as the Palestinian state by the British. Unfortunately we decided to put non-Palestinians in control of Jordan, which really didn't help.



India is free because of his actions, actions which began decades before he was even wholly committed to the idea of Hind Swaraj or Satyagraha. Pandit Nehru was handpicked by him, as Jinnah was of Pakistan. Panditji looked up to the man as a father. Bapu's failure was that British India was split into two, now three, nations. Panditji's failure was in assuming China would become a brother to them, that Pakistan would join as their comrade.
India would have been freed anyway, we were dissolving our Empire. I don't know of the people you talk of there, but I'll look them up later.


Because nonviolence worked against the Nazis, quite well in fact. It just happened so seldom and with so little attention, people assume that it did not happen at all.
Can you give examples for me to study?



King used almost exactly the same methods Gandhi used. When people sat at lunch counters they got the shit beaten out of them, when they marched they were beaten by policemen and attacked by police dogs. They had high pressure waterhoses turned on them, they were shoved to the ground, kicked, tortured, hanged, and killed. They did not stop. They did not strike back. They won. African-Americans are now the equals of every other race in America. Their equals. They did this through their courage, their resolve, and their stubborn determination to act freely in the face of any odds in the name of truth with the goal not of defeating their opponent, merely changing their opponent's mind.
I know his methods were the same, but the result was different. Racism in America may have taken much much longer to sort out than the freedom of India, and it was something that was much more important to do. Which is why I respect the man.



Liberal and free to whites. They were killed, they were locked up. Their families were targetted, they suffered, and they died. Do you think lynchings stopped the second King marched on Selma?
Thats why I said generally. But my point was that under the majority of governments at the time his actions would have been stopped very quickly and had little or no effect.


Then it must be one's first priority to convince.
Its quite hard to convince someone when they have been told and taught the opposite their whole life. But if it could be done, and if it would stop the violence then I would support it. However it wouldn't stop the violence, since its not just the Palestinians who are against Israel, the nations surrouding it and further are mostly against the nation of Israel. Thats why there have been a great deal of wars in the past 60 years -> wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_Conflict)



Through Christianity? I should wish to hear more of this.
There is a church in Israel which my parents church is linked to. Its main aim is to bring all the different people groups together in Christianity. It is now quite large and has Eqyptians to Messianic Jews (Jews who belive in Jesus) to Arab Palestinians to Westerners. All who live in peace together. It is also growing quickly too. A lot of the people who later join the church have been anti the other side, there are even some who have been involved in the violent organisations too.

[Corporate Ignorance]

Excuse me for interuppting, but I can't reastrain myself. I just can't understand when people speak about legitimate war, or illegal war, especially in the context of WW2. I always was astonished how historical facts can be presented in the "official" point of view of any given country. I just remmeber how our own Soviet system worked, and feel that Western "true history" is the same. I mean, every official historicl school tries to present their country in the best light, sometimes intentionally twisting facts and inventing very doubtful moral behind it.

Well,Lazlazlaz, one more thing...I should be more careful when speaking about British Empire and its "legal" presence in the world. It was EXTREMLTY brutal in its colonies- I can mention here only Inida, Africa, Middle East and China- the amount of suffering, brutal repression, the amount of stolen resources are unimaginable.

And the Head of States were not even hiding that.
British Empire invented concentration camps.

In the end of 19th century, after conquest of territory in South Africa, one of the African tribe leaders with his wife and children were brought to Britian and put into zoo, while content and slightly disturbed London elite walked around and pointed their fingers.


In 1937, Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians, I quote, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." That set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.

[lazlazlaz1]

Excuse me for interuppting, but I can't reastrain myself. I just can't understand when people speak about legitimate war, or illegal war, especially in the context of WW2. I always was astonished how historical facts can be presented in the "official" point of view of any given country. I just remmeber how our own Soviet system worked, and feel that Western "true history" is the same. I mean, every official historicl school tries to present their country in the best light, sometimes intentionally twisting facts and inventing very doubtful moral behind it.
Which is another reason why I don't believe in the notion of legitimacy or not of a war, its based on someones opinion.


Well,Lazlazlaz, one more thing...I should be more careful when speaking about British Empire and its "legal" presence in the world. It was EXTREMLTY brutal in its colonies- I can mention here only Inida, Africa, Middle East and China- the amount of suffering, brutal repression, the amount of stolen resources are unimaginable.
And the Head of States were not even hiding that.
British Empire invented concentration camps.

I don't think Britian had a legal right to do what it did, but it had every right to improve its own nation by using others. As does any nation have the right to do what it can to improve itself.
Britain did not invent the concentration camp. I know we used them in the Boer war, but it was actually the Spanish who invented them if you wish to blame someone.
In terms of Africa, slavery we did not invent. It was a widespread practise on the African continent before we got there. William Wilberforce, a Britain, was the main driving force behind stopping it too.
Friends of mine from Hong Kong said they preferred it under British rule, and wish it could go back.
I know that the British Empire did commit some crimes which I'm not proud of, but that is by outweighed by the benefits it brought.


In the end of 19th century, after conquest of territory in South Africa, one of the African tribe leaders with his wife and children were brought to Britian and put into zoo, while content and slightly disturbed London elite walked around and pointed their fingers.
The reason they were put into a zoo is because of the prevalent view of the time that they were inferior according to the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin, not because of the evil British Empire.


In 1937, Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians, I quote, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." That set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.
So Churchill was racist, as were most people at the time. In part I agree with him though. If a stronger race/nation/people group win the battle, then they won and the land is theirs. I don't agree that any race is inherently better or stronger than another, just different nations have developed at different speeds.
The reasons they said things like Palestinians do not exist is because there never was and never has been a sovereign nation of Palestine. So technically, since they are not seperate in race, nation or religion from the people around them there is no such thing as a Palestinian. Read this (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/13-468.aspx), it explains it quite well.

[2ltben]

Shit, Gandhi was a racist when he was just starting his Ahimsa "career" in South Africa. He referred to the native South Africans as "kaffirs" just like the whites and thought Indians in South Africa should be worthy of white South African rights as they were rightful citizens on the Empire (this was before nonviolence, mind you, he even served in the Boer War and fought for the Indian right to do so).

And yes, India would have had her independence, but in what form? Had there been no nonviolence, India would be in a state much more deplorable than it is today. It probably would have ended up being divided between Iran and China. Instead of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, it would have been balkanized to such a spectacular degree that the Balkans wouldn't be honored with the name of that term. And you can be damn sure that each of these balkanized princely states would have been warring constantly over the former British Raj provinces, access to salt and water and better farmlands. Take Sub-Saharan Africa and put it technologically at the level of Iran or Japan at the time and you'd have what the Indian Subcontinent would be.

And you speak of race like its something we didn't invent. A century ago, I probably would have been run out of my town for being some no-good dirty Polack. Today I'm just white.

[lazlazlaz1]

And yes, India would have had her independence, but in what form? Had there been no nonviolence, India would be in a state much more deplorable than it is today. It probably would have ended up being divided between Iran and China. Instead of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, it would have been balkanized to such a spectacular degree that the Balkans wouldn't be honored with the name of that term. And you can be damn sure that each of these balkanized princely states would have been warring constantly over the former British Raj provinces, access to salt and water and better farmlands. Take Sub-Saharan Africa and put it technologically at the level of Iran or Japan at the time and you'd have what the Indian Subcontinent would be.
It would have only become like that if the Indian people had let it become so. If Ganhdi had not done what he did, and Britain had stepped out leaving India as a single country, then there is no reason why it could not have become what it is today or better.


And you speak of race like its something we didn't invent. A century ago, I probably would have been run out of my town for being some no-good dirty Polack. Today I'm just white.

Well in a way it is something we didnt invent, since it is just the name given to seperate genetic "versions" of human kind. But yes in a way we have invented it, in that we have changed what we define as the different races.
For me though the more important defining factor in a person is their nationality. It is something people should be proud of, and if they are not they should work to improve their nation and thus make it something to be proud of. From which stems my view that people should in the majority of cases live and work in their home nation, exceptions being when natural disasters or human made disasters such as genocide occur. Don't take this the wrong way though, I have no problem with people immigrating to Britain, its just that if everyone does then their own nations will suffer. Especially since on the whole it is the more academic and richer people who do, as they are the ones who have the opportunity to do so. I also totally support people emmigrating temporarily to get a chance for a better education than they might have access to in their own country, as that would enable them to return and improve their home nation.

[OliverMarshall]

British Empire invented concentration camps.


Indeed but they were much different from the german or russian form, not being labour or death camps. The conditions were deploable in British ones and poor sanitation and starvation caused many deaths; but they were not there to kill people.

[2ltben]

Well in a way it is something we didnt invent, since it is just the name given to seperate genetic "versions" of human kind.
Not genetic. Its exclusively phenotypic and its definition is being modified at all times. "Hungarian" used to be a race, now its an ethnicity.


For me though the more important defining factor in a person is their nationality. It is something people should be proud of, and if they are not they should work to improve their nation and thus make it something to be proud of. From which stems my view that people should in the majority of cases live and work in their home nation, exceptions being when natural disasters or human made disasters such as genocide occur. Don't take this the wrong way though, I have no problem with people immigrating to Britain, its just that if everyone does then their own nations will suffer. Especially since on the whole it is the more academic and richer people who do, as they are the ones who have the opportunity to do so. I also totally support people emmigrating temporarily to get a chance for a better education than they might have access to in their own country, as that would enable them to return and improve their home nation.
I respect your right to be a nationalist, but I do not hold those views myself. My own belief is that sovereignty that is not derived from those governed is entirely illegitimate. Just because one nation loses a war and transfers the sovereignty of a region to another gives that conquering nation absolutely no right to exercise its de jure sovereignty. This is perfectly applied to Palestine. What business is it of Israel to force Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint to bulldoze neighborhoods and build exclaves for a radical organization? To deny them water, electricity, sanitation, shelter life because of the actions of a few? Yeah Israel won a war forty years ago, get over it and get the fuck out of their country before the St Peter's list of the dead gets even longer. And unlike on Earth, St Peter doesn't discriminate based on nationality. Jew, Muslim, or Christian, its a whole different sovereignty up there.

[lazlazlaz1]

This is perfectly applied to Palestine. What business is it of Israel to force Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint to bulldoze neighborhoods and build exclaves for a radical organization? To deny them water, electricity, sanitation, shelter life because of the actions of a few?

Well if you take that view, then what business was it of Rome to push the Jews out of their nation is the 1st century? And all the multiple people conquered it in the meantime till the Ottomans got it.
And what right did the Jews have to push the Canaanites et al out of the area before that, and I'm sure there were people there before the Canaanites too, who they conquered.
Thats why I don't agree with that view, because it has to stop somewhere. so I stop it at the most modern point (and so easiest to know accurately too) and say who ever conquered it last has the right to it, until they get overthrown by the someone else, perhaps even the people they just conquered. So if the Palestinian people won and destroyed the nation of Israle, they would have every right to claim the land as theirs. As it is currently though, Britain conquered it from the Ottomans, and we chose to give it to the Jews. The amount of land we actually gave in the end was far far less than we had promised in the Balfour declaration anyway.

Of course this is just my view, and the vast majority of people disagree with me.

[2ltben]

Well if you take that view, then what business was it of Rome to push the Jews out of their nation is the 1st century? And all the multiple people conquered it in the meantime till the Ottomans got it.
And what right did the Jews have to push the Canaanites et al out of the area before that, and I'm sure there were people there before the Canaanites too, who they conquered.
Thats why I don't agree with that view, because it has to stop somewhere. so I stop it at the most modern point (and so easiest to know accurately too) and say who ever conquered it last has the right to it, until they get overthrown by the someone else, perhaps even the people they just conquered. So if the Palestinian people won and destroyed the nation of Israle, they would have every right to claim the land as theirs. As it is currently though, Britain conquered it from the Ottomans, and we chose to give it to the Jews. The amount of land we actually gave in the end was far far less than we had promised in the Balfour declaration anyway.

Of course this is just my view, and the vast majority of people disagree with me.
You assume that my view wants Palestinian victory. I do not, I want no victory. Victory would imply that someone is defeated, I want to reach an agreement as respected neighbors, if not friends. In order to do this, Palestinians must make the Israelis realize, truthfully and without violence, that what they are doing is wrong. Israel will of course not respond to demands for independence, so the Palestinians must begin a campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience. Eventually Israel will see the wisdom in a Palestine free of Israeli rule.

What Israel did in the 20th century was wrong, but as it stands, there are Israelis living in Israel. Since a union of the two states did not work in 1948, Palestine, as it exists today as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, must strive for independence and the removal of Israeli exclaves. But they must not do this at the sacrifice of the Israelis, for Palestine is still intrinsically economically linked to Israel, that's where all the opportunity lies. Gaining independence just to make an enemy of Israel will only further devastate Palestine, create more poverty, breed more hatred and anger. It is just as wrong for the Palestinians to force Israelis from their homes as it is the Israelis forcing the Palestinians from theirs. Israelis must realize that Palestinians are dying, and the Palestinians must realize that Israelis are dying. Further, they must not take joy in this, these are people, regardless of their nationality.

[OliverMarshall]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7181658.stm

[lazlazlaz1]

Well, pre-1967 means a divided Jerusalem. Which is never ever ever going to happen.

[2ltben]

Well, pre-1967 means a divided Jerusalem. Which is never ever ever going to happen.
You realize that there is an East and West Jerusalem today, and that Israel is colonizing East Jerusalem, which is Palestinian.

[lazlazlaz1]

Except it is all under the government of Israel

[2ltben]

Except it is all under the government of Israel
As a military occupier until the Oslo Accords, when the PA was created and the occupation was passed on to an Israeli civilian agency, whose primary purpose is to oversee the construction and safety of Israeli exclaves.

[lazlazlaz1]

Well since there is no Palestinian nation then they cannot own the land, and if Israel are occupying it, then it belongs to them.

[2ltben]

Well since there is no Palestinian nation then they cannot own the land, and if Israel are occupying it, then it belongs to them.
If you're going to look at it that was, Jordan owns the land. If Israel was occupying the land, why is their presense in the West Bank and Gaza limited to checkpoints, military headquarters, and exclaves? Why are the Palestinians second-class citizens? Why is this not justification for suicide bombing? You say that, since Israel's occupation is legitimate through their use of force of arms, then I suppose someone strapping explosives to themselves and blowing themselves up in a coffee shop is perfectly legitimate since they're using force to fight back.

Everything goes, doesn't it Neitzsche? Hell, while we're at it, why don't we use force to defend our borders against illegal immigration. International law be damned because international law doesn't exist, and Mexico doesn't have the military strength to defend itself against even the reserve force of the United States military. Why don't we just solve the problem with illegal immigration by annexing Mexico? And while we're at it, why not Cuba? Eliminate that problem right off the bat, its not like Caracas or Tehran would have the gumption to launch a military attack if we send in some CIA men to kill the Castro brothers and establish a puppet government. Sure, the World Court can pass all the legislature it wants, that doesn't mean we have to respond to it.

If anything goes, where does it stop? International law is just that, the force of law applied on an international level. Sure, the President may never show his face in front of the World Court, but that doesn't mean the EU wouldn't go to war over it. Is that what you want? A real modern war, not this occupation crap we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, but actual conventional warfare where the United States stands a pretty good chance at losing? Stop living in your USMC fantasy world and grasp the reality of the situation. Yeah, force of arms means something, it means people will lose their lives over some bullshit call by someone who thinks he's above justice. International law is real, international law is growing, international law is justice.

[lazlazlaz1]

When did I say anything goes? I've always referred to an organised military force being used under a nations government.
Israels "occupation" (of their own land as given to them by Britain, or taken in war) is fine because they are a nation with a government that has a military force to hold the land.
Palestine can't occupy it, because Palestine doesn't exist.

[Oberschutze]

palestine exists, people have just forgotten that.

israel doesnt exist, they are just a bunch of immigrants who got organised against palestinians because they felt that olive farmers were a "threat to the welfare of jews"