remember when celticfox first got here and she was all nice and rosy and patient?

Now she's snide and evil and jaded like the rest of us.

You can't resist the power of the internets to make you a bastard.

Hey now I'm not being a total bitch. I'm not attacking his intelligence or name calling. But fuck, these are human rights violations. They should never be considered ok or supported. It's one of the big reasons I think we shouldn't give either Israel or Palestine money.

Oh I didn't even read the conversation, I was just noting the transition is nearing completion. Soon you'll be ALL CAPSING your political beliefs all white-knuckled grasping your mouse.

Oh goddess help me from that fate.

The idea that the right to land is based on occupation of it is ridiculous. if that were the case the entirety of the the American continents would be illegal occupation of land belonging to the native populations (minute, but still extant) and we should just turn it all over to them.

The early Zionist Jewish settlers in Palestine, BOUGHT land from the Arab landholders, and then kicked the Arab sharecroppers off the land so they could be replaced by Jewish settlers. While not exactly a nice policy it was legal and I think we'd all agree that they were within their rights to do so. (This by the way is really the initial cause of the whole Arab-Jewish conflict of today, prior to this Jews and Arabs lived more or less at peace in the region)

Over the following decades, due to British favoritism of the Jews (due to a strong Zionist lobby in the British Government) and investments of both labor and money by the Jews, the Jewish sections of Palestine were richer and better developed.

Despite the violence between the two groups prior to the pertinent UN resolution, in 1948 Israel declared independence WITHIN the borders as outlined in the UN resolution, and only acquired more territory after having war declared on them by the neighboring Arab states.

As far as the UN's right to "give" the territory to the Jews for a Jewish state, the British had officially given over the mandate to the UN. And since the British were the legal holders of the territory (WWI), the UN was completely within international law in dividing up the territory.

As far as Israel's policies since, I won't comment because my opinions on them are not based on rationality and fairness (as all good opinions should be) but rather on loyalty to my own people.

There is a disproportionately large number of Jews on WebDip. They must be fond of strategic thinking.

#inb4richJewjokes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7tupJRSi7M

Can we all agree that America needs to stop being world referee/policeman? Regional problems should be left to the governments of that region.

"The idea that the right to land is based on occupation of it is ridiculous."

Is it? Pretty sure that's what generally settles the argument in the end. What's ridiculous is to pretend that history hasn't dictated that if one culture/nation sees an opportunity to take from another culture/nation, might makes right and if the other guy can't remove you forcibly, it's pretty much yours.

For evidence, see pretty much every war ever.

Jews and Muslim/Christian Palestinians lived in relative harmony for centuries before the creation of Israel.

Gunfighter, I do not agree. I would not want to live in such a world (again).

Yellow, you misunderstood. Read his first paragraph again.

@Yellow, Its a good place to start, as far as the right to live there goes, but there is no support for it ever being honored with any significant amount of adoption at any point in history. How long does someone have to inhabit the land for it to be their's? A decade? A century? I don't have an alternative in mind, just saying it isn't and hasn't been the standard for all of recorded human history.

@largeham, yes but it would be erroneous to say the creation of the State of Israel is the source of the current conflict. I already identified the original cause for the discord, and since that moment both sides have been guilty of continuing and escalating the problem.

In fact the arabs have less claim to the land than the Israeli's do, from that argumentative standpoint, as the original inhabitants of Palestine were Canaanite, Philistine (the origin for the word Palestine), Phoenician, and the ancient Israeli's (who were most likely originally a canaanite group). The Arabs simply moved in and "stole" it from the Roman's (who left the original inhabitants more or less in place with the exception of the jews).

"In fact the arabs have less claim to the land than the Israeli's do, from that argumentative standpoint, as the original inhabitants of Palestine were Canaanite, Philistine (the origin for the word Palestine), Phoenician, and the ancient Israeli's (who were most likely originally a canaanite group)."

Nonsense. The Palestinians are a mix of the descendants of Jews who converted to Christianity and Islam and other people from surrounding areas, as happens in populations all over the world. And even if we buy the argument that the ancestors of the current Palestinians "stole" the land from the Romans, that was 2,000 years ago. The "English" haven't even been in England for 2,000 years, do the Welsh have a better claim to Kent?

All this talk about who has a better claim is a waste of time. The reality is that the Israelis are there and they will and ought to remain there. Period. At the same time, the Palestinians are also there and, barring a repeat of the population movement during the 1948 war, will and ought to remain there. Period. The challenge is finding a way for each of these peoples to have their own viable state, and for those two states to live in peace with each other.


It's difficult, but there is a framework. Border swaps so Israel keeps the bigger settlements and Palestine is compensated with land of similar value. A symbolic at best Right of Return for the descendants of Palestinians who fled what would become Israel during the 1948 war. A divided or internationalized Jerusalem. A viable, demilitarized Palestinian state. This could work and a settlement could be reached, but boneheads on both sides still hold out hope for a total victory and make peace impossible.

@Draug:

"One thing needs to be pointed out. Israel doesn't read the Bible. The Torah is only the OT plus other books. If they did (or at least the NT), they would find a different good who *doesn't* encourage killing those of a different faith. Jesus never taught that."

Fair enough, but I think that's splitting hairs a bit as you know what I mean, obviously the Torah/Hebrew Bible + other books (and that WAS the part of the Bible I was citing anyway, to again take my 1 Samuel example of God telling them to kill every man, woman and child of the Amalekites because they didn't worship him, and YES, I'm aware they attacked before, and that's also part of the rationale, there are other examples, I'm JUST giving a quick one because this is about a CURRENT group of Middle Eastern radicals fighting rather than ANCIENT Middle Eastern radicals fighting, lol, and it's not a religion thread, so I'll leave it there, with one further addendum--not even going to touch that NT comment, as people for, well, millenia have said "If you only read and follow the word of MY book you'd be less violent and more loving...now let me kill you for not reading it to prove how less violent and more loving I am!") ;)

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middle-east/2012/11/15/israel-moves-troops-toward-gaza/wtK0zbxIfiucSwcXSWQYjN/story.html

"Late in the day, Israel signaled a ground operation may be imminent as forces moved toward the border area with Gaza. At least 12 trucks were seen transporting tanks and armored personnel carriers, and a number of buses carrying soldiers arrived. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he had authorized the army to call-up additional reservists for possible action. The army said it was prepared to draft up to 30,000 additional troops.

‘‘I ordered the military today to widen the draft of reserve soldiers in order to be able to be ready for any development,’’ Barak said. Military officials said the moves were to prepare for the possibility of a ground invasion, but stressed no decision had been made. Israel TV stations, however, said a ground offensive was expected Friday.

The fighting, the heaviest in four years, has also killed 15 Palestinians in two days and brought life to a standstill on both sides of the border. School has been canceled and many were huddling indoors."

Doesn't appear to be anywhere near over this time...

Don't worry, everyone! The UN Middle East peace envoy is on the case! And unless the international community did something crazy like appoint a blood-thirsty egotistical war criminal who'd rather rake in the money on the US lecture circuit than do his job to the post he'll have it sorted out in a jiffy!

...oh...wait... they did...

Frankly, I think it's time to stop kidding ourselves...

And appoint Patrick Stewart to the task.

If as Captain Picard he can't solve the crisis, then he can just go Professor X and mentally lift all those rockets out of the way.

I prefer him as King Richard (Robin Hood: Men in Tights)

Robin Hood: Men in Rights...Star Trek...

Let's Patrick Stewart Split the difference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6DdBckx5gY

This is a direct result of the intervention in Libya.

Here's my thought:

This current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a REAL Twitter war, since each side declared war on the other with a tweet.

Haven't followed whole article but here is an article, emotional if nothing else, from haaretz that's worth reading.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/a-message-to-israel-s-leaders-don-t-defend-me-not-like-this.premium-1.478105

"This is a direct result of the intervention in Libya."

How do you figure that?

"Frankly, I think it's time to stop kidding ourselves...

And appoint Patrick Stewart to the task."

I can't agree with anything else you've said on this thread (insofar as I have read it), but I'm on board with that. He certainly couldn't do worse than anyone else who has taken a crack at the situation in the last 30 years.

"This is a direct result of the intervention in Libya."
I think the intervention in Libya was a travesty on many levels, but I don't see the link here. What's the direct connection?