obiwan... you're forgetting that even when Israel kicks all the Palestinians out they still have to deal with a poor international reputation and a league of Arab nations around them who are just as quick to draw their weapons, if not quicker. That will certainly not be the end of the conflict.

Marchosias, I thought we already debated this to the point of agreement but I find myself in disagreement with you again. You're logic really only justifies attacking extremists, which I completely agree with. It does not have anything to do with the fact that they are Muslim! You keep bringing Muslim into the equation with your quotations from the Koran. It's just not relevant to the issue that they're Muslim. Every religion can be used as general justification for any action... even if there are no passages that you interpret in the Bible that justifies the killing of unbelievers, let me tell you there are certainly people who could read the Bible and pull a different interpretation. That's the beauty of religion, it's malleability and ability to justify the moral zeitgeist. If you look at Christian history you'll find that while it's less so today there were many a time when unbelievers were terribly punished... to a point that would make Islamic attacks today seem like the first little piggy's house. It's not their religion that defines them... it's their tactics. So please, end your war on Muslim extremists and start your war on extremists in general, because while most may be Muslim, you're dangerously bordering on making them synonymous.

I'll say it again, it only happens that most extremists are Muslim... but that's because the Islamic people in general are much poorer than Christians or Jews... What extremists all have in common is that they are poor and feel they have been wronged, regardless of whether they actually have been wronged directly. You can point at 9/11, and I'll admit that was a relatively well funded operation but still much lower in scale than fielding an army... and those people were not motivated by their religion or attacking unbelievers, they were motivated politically by the injustices they felt were being perpetuated by America, injustices that may have justified their resentment, but certainly not their actions. They just can't afford to fight on the same terms that larger and more well equipped nations can.

In the end, while your retaliation may be justified, consider that many extremists are probably using your exact logic. You say if someone fired at your house you'd kill them. Consider if someone drove you out of your house killed your cousins and you were handed a rocket launcher. Tell me that you wouldn't take your revenge. In the end, retaliation just isn't effective. I'm no pacifist, but honestly, in terms of ending Muslim extremism you can't hope to end it by bombing them out of existence. Extremism is bred out of such circumstances... because while you may hope your weapons are accurate and your intelligence is accurate, most of the time one of the two is not and you will hit innocent civilians. You might say that it's inevitable because they're impossible to separate from the real extremists, but I will tell you that the relatives of those you killed will be far more likely to take up arms beside men they once reviled in order to take revenge, just as you would if someone attacked your home. You kill one terrorist, you spawn three more...

The solution to peace in this case is to be the bigger person and stop the conflict rather than retaliate and escalate the conflict. Israel needs to recognize that it can't keep retaliating if it ever wants a peaceful existence in the Middle East. It might need some outside help as long as that outside help is careful not to make the Arab nation's suspicions of Western interventionists turn into something more hideous.

I am calling on Israel to make steps toward peace because they are the stronger and richer of the two warring factions. They should be able to take great pride in being able to walk away from this conflict and not perpetuate a genocide and the ultimate hypocrisy.

Sadly though, I fear this is a Nash equilibrium, and while there are far greater benefits to be had for both of them if they co-operated, they are too afraid of the risks of co-operating but not receiving co-operation in reciprocation and would rather continue the warfare.

"and a league of Arab nations around them who are just as quick to draw their weapons, if not quicker. "

Its been a loooong time since an Arab nation drew their weapons on Israel. I'm not sure they are as quick as they once were.

"Israel needs to recognize that it can't keep retaliating if it ever wants a peaceful existence in the Middle East. It might need some outside help as long as that outside help is careful not to make the Arab nation's suspicions of Western interventionists turn into something more hideous."

Great pipe dream. Never can happen, but nice thought.

"Sadly though, I fear this is a Nash equilibrium, and while there are far greater benefits to be had for both of them if they co-operated, they are too afraid of the risks of co-operating but not receiving co-operation in reciprocation and would rather continue the warfare."

This is NOT a Nash equilibrium. Hamas has stated outright they don't want peace, they don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

There are plenty of Arab nations that are not at all sympathetic to the Zionist movement and certainly not happy that it's well equipped.

Hamas isn't Palestine. More and more Palestinians become sympathetic toward Hamas' cause the more and more they get bombed. If Israel didn't attack Palestine, Hamas would become relatively obsolete... as Palestine wouldn't need defending. Obviously the issue is complicated, but bombing doesn't actually simplify the issue, if anything it only causes more convolution.

One of the things that you all might consider, being Diplomacy players and all, is to look at the conflict as Diplomacy players.

To test the concept of religion as a causal issue ask yourselves this:
if the Palestinians and the Israelis were both of the same religion would there still be a conflict?

Is this a conflict of nationalities and and national interest with religion playing a supporting role rather than a causal roll?

Was the conflict between the Aztecs and the Spaniards one of religion?

Not sure if anyone has read this, but it gives a pretty good insight into the Israel / Palestine problem...

http://jestforkicks.blogspot.com/2008/12/as-arabs-see-jews.html

"As the Arabs see the Jews"
His Majesty King Abdullah,
The American Magazine
November, 1947

That's an excellent article Darwyn. It's well worth the time to read it.

I believe the majority opinion (which I do believe is right) is that continued war with Hamas, at least in this fashion, is essentially an endless cycle that can only go on forever bloodily.

To be honest, about the situation, I believe that things must get FAR worse before they get better. Israel simply cannot co-exist with, at the very least, Hamas; I don't want to say the Palestinians themselves, I really do hope that by some miracle peace can yet be achieved between the two, but it seems increasingly hopeless. Palestinians cannot survive in Gaza in its current state, no people can really survive without a country, and yet the Palestinians have it worse- they "have" a country so close that they are literally in walking distance, and yet they will be killed if they attempt to take it back.

And the Arab States, either by influence (Iran, for starters, encouraging the "destruction" of the "occupying Zionist regime in Palestine") or presence only inflame the problem.

The Middle East as a whole has a glut of powers entangled- Israel, Syria, Egypt, England, the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia- and far too many, to be frank. That is a list of seven powers; historically, the region has trouble if really more than two or three have such economic or military power.

Imagine seven Koi fish, grown about mid-way (about 8 in. each easily) in a small, 1 gallon tank. Koi are, by nature, peaceful, like many of the above powers, but with no room and limited resources (for the Koi, food and space, for the Powers, oil and land) they WILL start to kill each other off.

Suffice it to say that I believe a few governments will have to be radically restructured or overthrown or kicked out of the region before any peace is to occur.

A massive regional war must occur before peace, and a massive Middle Eastern War could very well spark a
World War in earnest.......

Tnx, Darwyn, for the article. King Abdullah was immensely wiser and more eloquent than me, not to mention more knowledgeable about the issue.

I wanted to point out one important fact mentioned there: Before 1921, there was not a trace of "religious" hatred by Arabs towards Jews. None.

And coincidentally, 1921 is around the time the first Zionist Jews began emmigrating to Palestine.

What right does Britain or the US have to give away foreign land, displacing a foreign people, for another group of foreign people?

What right do Zionist Jews have in demanding it?

obiwan, I see absolutely NO right in either case. As King Abdullah insightfully points out:

"This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!

Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, "homeland" of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.

Many Mexicans might claim Spain, "homeland" of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the "homeland" of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!

I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as valid—or just as fantastic—as the Jewish "historic connection" with Palestine. Most are more valid."

THAT, obiwan, is the crux of the problem. The sooner as you are able to get your head around that, the sooner peace will come.

Regardless of whether Zionists and Britain had a right to settle Jews there, they are there now. And they aren't leaving. You can continue to try to point blame at Zionism or Balfour, but its done. If it was found that the English illegal occupied NJ and it rightfully belonged to the Chippewa Indians, would you expect America to withdraw from NJ?

They state of Israel is not moving. Accept it and try to deal with the reality of what is there now. (Incidentally, I am NOT supporting the idea that Israel is NOT rightfully for the Jewish people. I just believe it is irrelevant to the situation now. )

I'm not suggesting that Israel move. I agree, Israel is there to stay.

My point is, that there will be no solution without acknowledging the crux of the problem. Israel's entire existence lies solely with it's religious and historical justification. We can both see how ridiculous that is. No amount of obfuscation of this fact will lead to peace.

It is far from irrelevant. There's been 60 years of violence and resentment ALL stemming from an absolutely ridiculous claim. Zionist Jews, the US and Britain started this mess and only they can properly fix it.

This isn't an Arab problem to solve. However right or wrong, they are simply dealing with it.

Well, I don't see that problem EVER getting acknowledged. Even if it were true, that there is no historical context for Israel, Israel (and its allies in the US) can't says 'You're right, we shouldn't be here.'

In addition, both Jordan and Egypt have recognized Israel's right exists. Kind of hard then for Israel to say they don't have a right to exist.

Wouldn't moving Israel solve the problem?

Manhattan was paid for, when Dutch took it from the natives.
Alaska was paid for, when US took it from the Russians.
However small prices those were, but some value exchanged hands.

Would it not be fair, for UK, US, Israel and International Jewelry to ask Arabs how much they want for the Land of Palestine?

Or, if they hear the answer that the land is not for sale, they should be prepared to fight for it.... until... until someone decides to nuke them away from there.

They can't really expect the UN to protect them from that fate, when they themselves don't respect most of the UN resolutions...

"In addition, both Jordan and Egypt have recognized Israel's right exists. Kind of hard then for Israel to say they don't have a right to exist."

Yes, after some wars and some serious negotiations. And peace accords.
What will happen if radical islamists become a ruling power in Egypt?

'International Jewelry'?

You know, Jews from around the world. The ones involved in Banking & Diamond business.

*bracing for another Anti-Semite accusation*

Denzl73, if the Arabs are to be financial compensated for Israel, which Arabs should be compensated. All Arabs? Even Egyptians or Syrians? Or just those living in Israel and Palenstine? If the latter, which of those Arabs? Many of those Arabs are descendents of Arabs who moved to the region from other Arab countries at the end of the 19th century and during the 20th century to take advantage of economic opportunities in the region. Does the land belong to them anymore than the descendants of Jewish people who have been living on that land for at least the same amount of time. I am not arguing for against anything here, I am just exploring this idea.

"Israel (and its allies in the US) can't says 'You're right, we shouldn't be here.' "

Can't or won't?

"Kind of hard then for Israel to say they don't have a right to exist."

That's different than saying that they have a right to exist in Palestine.

I'm in full agreement that a homeland for Jews be made. The UN chartered it's existence...but it has since grown, displacing even more Arabs.

Israel has been condemned and has defied more UN resolutions than any other nation. Nearly all of which are directed toward their treatment of Palestinians.

typo... if the Arabs are to be *financially compensated...

So Darwyn, am I correct in assuming you think Israel should be moved?

No, that is not correct. What is done is done. We can only move forward.

Acknowledgment of the fact that their claim to Palestine is ridiculous is the first step to coexistence, I think.

I wonder though, is there something you can't grasp about the audacity and arrogance of forcing an entire people out of their homes because of a ridiculous claim?

How would you feel?

"What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst - enough to dominate your country - merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?

Our answer is the same.

And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you?

Ours will be the same."

And you wonder why there's been bloodshed for so many years?

Spyman, of course it wouldn't be simple to pay for the land. It would be much easier to start apologizing for the atrocities.
Germany apologized to every European nation and Israel for what Hitler and Nazis did.
Turkey still haven't apologized for the massacre of Armenians.
Pope apologized for the wrongs done in the name of Christianity.
Ability to see own wrongs and apologize for that is a sign of maturity of the nation.

As for the financial compensation, I think all those who were displaced since 1947, or had their relatives killed, or are now under some kind of occupation, deserve that kind of compensation.

My family got few thousand Euro in 2001 from Germany because my grandmother was taken as a forced labor from Yugoslavia to Germany between 1942 and 1945 :)

I fail to see how acknowledging the fact that they don't have the right to exist will enable peace. In fact, I believe just the opposite.

And after King Abdullah's eloquent words, 40 years later, his grandson concluded a peace treaty with Israel recognizing their right to exist.

As for my audacity, if you read through my posts, I don't think I ever said that Britain did the right thing and promised Israel to the Jewish people. I don't think I ever said they did the wrong thing either.

@Denzel73 -
The ruling nationalist party has an overwhelming majority in Egypt, its style of democracy is actually comparable to Russian democracy (maybe a little better considering 20% of the seats are independant/muslim alliance). Basically, Egyptian government is not under a serious threat of a radical or theocratic uprising.

In Jordan the monarch is in control. The parliament does have power and the PM is a significant figure but the king appoints the second house. This of course ignores the even more important fact that the military is loyal to the monarchy rather than the parliament.

My point - Jordan and Egypt's governments won't change. Both are led by strong military-backed semi-democratic governments which are relatively west-friendly. Both have a majority of their population sympathetic to the Palestinians but the people in control feel that peace is more important. Egypt is also the power backing the cease-fire deals between Hamas and Israel, as well as participating in the blockade.

@Spyman -
Fiscal compensation may be a solution for Palestinians who've had land stolen from the half-a-million Jewish settlers in the West Bank. It wouldn't be too difficult to track who owned what land and if the Israeli government creates plans to do so and prevents other settlers forcibly taking land it may be able to soothe some people's greivances. Making it policy to compensate people who owned land which was stolen could be an essential step if the Israeli want peace.

Israel HAS the right to exist, just because they DO exist and are capable of defending that.

Britain gave something that wasn't their to give away. But, being the colonial empire for centuries, maybe they failed to see that world really didn't belong to them.

The right thing to do after Holocaust was probably emptying Bavaria of Germans and forming an Alpine Jewish state. Why not? Millions of Germans were moved westward from Poland and Baltic states to make way for Russian expansion to the west...

Or New Jersey... There's more Jews in the US than in Israel, anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Population