Chrispminis, you, too, make good and valid arguments, but I find quite a few flaws in your position as well- two key ones being your lack of disticntion between living on and occupying land and your continued support of a "dead client," so to speak.

When I make the "temple-road-etc." distinctions, I am attempting to illustrate the difference between occupying and living on a piece of land. In the former case, it is simply a group of human beings who happen to be in a certain place at a certain time; there is nothing about the area that they have shaped nor any infastructures built that distinguishes the land as uniquely "their land."

Occupying peoples are those that are either nomadic in nature. They do not have a specific home per se, but rather the entire world is their home, in a sense.

Those who live upon the land and settle the area have a claim to the land because of the fact they have made it their own.

Consider your home. It is YOUR unique space fashioned by your hand to reflect your cultural and other such tastes, from religious pictures in some homes to posters of Jerry Rice leaping to make a catch in another.

A contractor built the home, technically it has been used before, but you are the first person to buy and outright own the home, and so it is yours.

Now imagine that a gang of ten people wielding semi-automatic guns force you out of your home and use it as an outpost for the local mob.



NOW the police flush them out at length, and the home is vacant once again; it still is legally yours, but it in ruins as couches are shot up, the TV is destroyed, and that wonderful poster of Jerry Rice has been torn to shreds.

YOU are in witness-protection at the moment.

NOW a homeless family comes in and squats in the home, fixing it up and such and thus modeling it to fit their won tastes. The bank assumes you dead or gone (the bank is rather thick in this scenario, we'll say), and so the new family of squatters, with the father having just landed a job, gets the house deed.

NOW your time in witness-protection is up, and you expect to come home to a house that is ruined but still yours- and someone else is there. You file a complaint, a lawsuit for the house, the witness-protection program thing is revealed, and the house becomes rightfully yours.


However, that homeless family isn't going to leave so easily- they've settled in, and they don't want to be out on the street again (that job the father has is just enough for the family to make ends meet, so no savings and no credit, they can't buy another house like this.) You point out to that family that you were here first, should've been here the whole time, and the only reason you left is because you wre being shot at and were forced out. There are plenty of the homeless family's relations in the neighborhood, but they don't want to trouble them, plus they don't exactly get along with all of the relatives.

So you and the father have a huge argument, and a huge fist-fight ensues where you and the father get bloodied noses and both of you are still fighting when the cops come, and you intent to keep fighting until one of you leaves.



Maybe not the best example per se, rough around the edges, but I think it's point is clear.

I have plenty more to say, but first want to hear what you've to say (and I have to submit job applications now in real-life.) ;)

those israelis are fascists!! they deserve at least an embargo, or nato bombardment. i hope iran builds some nukes soon

@ alamothe. I guess you want a nuclear war, at least in the middle east. In which case Iran would also be targeting Palestians, not just Israelies.

Wow, a NATO bombardment of Israel. Why would you ever want something like that, to say nothing of Atomic Ayatollahs?

@obiwanobiwan

I have read your analogy with interest, I won't pretend to know enough about the Arab/Isreali problem, but would like to comment on your analogy.

I live in a house built on land with a lot of history. Some of the land was seized from the estate of a Catholic family in around 1625. A good protestant family moved in and lived here for many generations. Most of the family were believed wiped out by a fire but it later turns out that distant relatives should of inherited the land. However, at the time these relatives couldn't be traced so the Crown became the owners by default. It was sold on and divided up many times to form the housing estate in which I now live. The deeds to my plot were alledgely gambled away in a (illegal) poker game. The loser however (being a man of his word) still handed over the deeds.

Last week the decendants of the oroginal Catholic family who had their land seized, together with decendants from the other two families turn up at my door and ask me to hand back the house. As the whole of it is mortaged to the bank, it makes very little difference to me...but who should I hand the keys to?

I was thinking of maybe having a mass brawl, I'm quite a big bloke and would fancy my chances. What do you think?

i don't want nuclear war, i just want the killings to stop. you can't treat people like animals even if they are palestinians! why are the jews who suffered a holocaust doing the same thing to others? i don't get it

obiwan:
The majority of posts have repeated some of the same statements about some country intervening in the conflict and your opinion that if anyone should be evicted from the area it should be the Palestinians. I think it is obvious by the lack of objections that no one disputes that there should be an intervention and few care to dispute your opinion.

However you seem to ignore or at least you haven't addressed your opinion on other possible solutions as far as I remember. I do not see how the current situation can be solved only by continuous warfare, and the other two possible partial solutions involve the surrender of Hamas or the agreement of Israel to some of the demanded terms. I think any solution is unlikely in the near future. If Israel agreed to some of the terms at least the important ones, such as full sovereignty of Gaza and West Bank and a dmz Jerusalem, Hamas would not be satisfied, but the a many of the Palestinian people would. This would decrease the influence of Hamas and the violence. I believe there are two examples previously mentioned that clearly illustrate this: the issue between Ireland and Great Britain, which was a similar situation, and Egypt and Jordan, once two of the greatest aggressors against Israel, have accepted the existence of Israel. Why can't the conflict between Israel and Palestine also be resolved peacefully?

As for your comparisons, I actually liked your multi-colored eurasia one; it was certainly better than the one after it which is essentially the same comparison and also too local to be compared to a conflict between nations.

However I do not believe that this was enough justification for Israel to establish their state. I doubt I can effectively debate this as chrispminis did. You are attempting to justify the establishment of the state of Israel with the reasoning that the Jews established their culture there first and they have more need for a homeland. The problem with this is, it ignores the basic human rights for a home for one group in favor of a homeland for another.

It is admirable to have that pride and desire for a homeland for the Jews, but each individual Palestinian family had a desire to keep their home and their land. Why were those Palestinians punished for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago.

@alamothe

WOW, not only throwing facism in there, which, though it isn't of course linked exclusively to the Nazis that is certainly the most prominent case, so linking Israel, land of the Jews to the killers of the Jews- that has to be one of the coldest things anyone's said on this thread, I now feel much better about my stance..........

And HOW are they facist, exactly- that's not their legal or government structure at all; they're based off the American structure in great part, due in no small part to the fact America is very much responsible for Israel's creation and continued life (it is very questionable, to say the leat, that Israel could have made it this far or perhaps even survived without US recognition and aid.)

Also- NATO bombing Israel? So the Western Powers that are led by the US, a firm, almost see-no-evil backer of Israel (I'll admit it, we're slanted) and the UK, which is at least somehwat split on the issue, and other prominant powers of the West that have profitied by Israel's existance are going to nike their own baby?

Oy vey- explain THAT logic, please..............

@ Maniac & urallLESBIANS:

Valid point about my stance, I suppose I have not given the Palestinians enough thought or attention- I'll try and do some of that now; I can't give a good postion on the Palestinians at the moment because I myself am a bit conflicted, so I will pose my problem of understanding to the thread, and you all may answer me; in a sense, since I'm Zionist, maybe it is a bit like trying to make Israel understand, as I share a coomon misunderstanding, it would seem, at leat in your eyes.........

I've already stated, admittedly ad nauseum, what makes the Jews a culture and thus why Zionistis like me and Israelis believe they should have the land. You all know my postion and rationale on this, and I think the majority of you find, to varying degrees, my postion to have validity, though, again, some see my postion as wholy correct, some partly, some only barely correct.

My question is this:

I know why the land is important to the Jews- it is an integral part of their culture. But there are other things to being Jewish besides owning a strip of land in that area.

My question is this: What makes a Palestinian? If I know what makes a Jew, and a Zionist Jew to be more specific, can you explain what makes a Palestinian different?

I said that there is more to a Jew than Israel- for example, take that way, and the Israeli Jews in the area are still certainly different, to a certain and recognizable degree, than the rest of the Arabic-Persian Muslims in the area.

In short, Israel does not, by itself, make a Jew; they are a seperate people, and Israel completes them.

But what about Palestinians? Are Palestinians Palestinans WITHOUT Palestine/Gaza/The West Bank? Are they SIGNIFICANTLY AND RECOGNIZABLY different from the other Arabic-Persian Muslims in the region? Or, are they, without their land, really in essence the same in most ways as Iranians, Saudis, Iraqis, Lebanese, etc.

If it is the former, that there IS something about the Palestinians that makes them thus besides their land, and the land just completes them and gives them a home like it does for the Israeli Jews, than I want to know- that could very well make me more sympathetic.

But if it is the latter, as I suppose it to be mostly (for these things are never yes or no, former or latter, black and white), that all that makes on Palestinian and different from others is the soil upon which they were born, then I really must stand by my stance, that being that since both have claims, but it means more to Israeli Jews because it completes them and gives them a home that is known to be rich in their history and DOES NOT MAKE THEM an Israeli Jew, but rather means so much to them that it accentuates them and makes them whole as a people.

I hope I've articulated my postion and query well enough.......

And it IS regrettable that the Israelis have sent in ground forces; this will turn very bloody, again, for the umpteenth time, to all European players of php Diplomacy that decry Israel:

WHY ARE YOU NOT STEPPING IN?!

Why aren't Europeans stepping in?
Those who are perceived non-neutral are not welcome as a peace keeping forces.
The last time British and French troops were near Gaza, they attacked Egypt alongside Israel in 1956.
The last time USMC were landed in the region, they got a truck-bomb in their barracks in Lebanon.
There's 100 Croatian soldiers in Golan Heights, and strangely, nobody is attacking them.
There's 250 Croatian soldiers in Afghanistan for 4 years now, and strangely, there was not a single casualty .

The message to take away from all this: GO CROATIA!

Well geez, no one attacked anyone in the Golan.

In 1948, was there a difference between an Arab living in the West Bank and an Arab living in the East Bank (aka Jordan)? Was there a separate culture, ethinicity, language?

I'd like to see US troops peacekeeping Golan ;)

DJ, in '48, there was no real difference, Eastern ones were Cisjordanians and Western ones were Transjordanians. Much like Bavarians and Austrians....

@obiwan -
Palestinian is a nationality. The importance for a Palestinian of living in Palestine afaik is that their ancestors have lived there for as long as far as any records go. Palestine is the home of the Palestinians and expecting anyone to simply leave the home of their family for generations is a lot more unreasonable than you make it out to be. That's of course ignoring the fact that the Palestinians actually own the land they live on. Expecting people to simply sell off their assets and emigrate to another country is ridiculous.

Besides, the idea that Israel is important to a Jew's identity is justification for giving them Palestine is just short of saying that Israeli's deserve to have Israel because they want it more. That in itself is simply stupid, let alone ridiculous from a secular legal-system's stand point.

I also don't think you realize the scale of the situation if Palestinians just decided to leave Palestine. The Egyptians are blockading the Gaza strip right now to prevent a flood of refugees. No country - even one of the Arab countries you claim are 'eager' to accept them - wants to take a load of refugees. Your previous suggestion would basically leave Palestinians in the same situation as post-WWII Jews. There are over 5 million Palestinians in Israel, nobody wants to take 5 million refugees. In fact, nobody would want to take half a million refugees. Then again, maybe we could cut Belgium in half and put all the Palestinians there. That won't cause any problems, will it?

@ Obiwan
Are you saying that the palestinians are the same as all the other arabs?
They themselves do not consider themselves to be the same, much in the same way that the Spanish do not consider themsleves to be the same as the Germans.

why does race have to come into it anyway? they are all people.
have you considered what it would be like if you were one of the civilians in the Gaza strip?

Israel says that the killing of innocent civilians is a necessary part of destroying Hamas. do you think Israel would bomb Gaza if there was a large jewish population there?

if the israeli government wouldn't bomb the jewish population to destroy hamas then they are racist, as they seem quite happy to bomb arabs.

@Benjamin -
The Jewish population is being represented by the Israeli government. The Israeli government is not elected to protect Gazans - its elected to protect the Jewish population.

I do more or less agree with your first two paragraphs though. the situation is just not as black & white as your second two make out.

Gaza had it coming. Lobbing rockets into Israel is not a good idea.

as far as i'm concerned it is the responsibility of any powerful government to preserve peace, not blow up civilians. have the jewish Israelis already forgotten what it is like to be victims of mass murder?

@diplomat
gaza had to do something as its people were starving from the blockade.
The people elected Hamas as a last resort to solve their problems. if israel acted more resposibly then the middle east crisis would have ended decades ago.

@obiwan
An example of the problems of a mass-exodus on the people emigrating and their destination can be seen in the Mariel Boatlift. Remember, the Cuba-America immigration during the time included 125,000 people. Can you imagine what would happen in a Palestinian exodus? After seeing all the problems coming from the immigration of 125,000 people to a country of 300,000,000 can you really see it as a beneficial thing? Imagine the scale of it, there are 50x as many Palestinians to deal with.

"Gaza had it coming. Lobbing rockets into Israel is not a good idea."

By the same standard, US soldiers in Iraq had it coming. Occupying a foreign country and driving around is not a good idea. 4,000-some casualties bad idea.

May I remind that Hamas considers lobbing rockets a retaliation for 2 years of blockade, among other things? A blockade is an act of war, too.

people keep saying "what would usa do if mexico was to rocket america" or "what would britian do if ireland were to rocked britain".

has anyone considered what their country would do if it were blockaded by a country with a superior country, and powerful allies?

what would Hawaii do if it were blockaded by Russia and America refused to help?

typeo:

... blockaded by a country with superior ARMED FORCES ...

Remember that Hamas was elected as a terrorist organization. IIRC before the establishment of a blockade and with the promise of fighting Israel. The Israeli reaction was in response to the unfavourable election results.

That being said if Israel was more pro-active in acheiving peace settlements in the past decades, not settling on occupied land and treating Palestinians as second-class citizens - Hamas wouldn't have been elected. Hamas was elected primarily because the more progressive organizations weren't going anywhere - in large part because Israel stood in the way. So in that sense the election of Hamas was actually out of desperation but due to the exhaustion of viable options rather than the Israeli blockade.

its quite similar to the IRA. and we solved that problem (eventually) by talking to them.

And that bring us back to - negotiation...

Archonix, that's not entirely true. One of the major reasons for Hamas's election victory was the Fatah was viewed as corrupt.

@Benjamin - it took a long while to talk to the IRA and I'm not sure if we could catagorise the situation as similar, the IRA didn't seek the distruction of the whole of the UK only for a part of it to be ruled by someone else.