Six-Day War 40th anniversary

[Syndyre]

I see no justification at any time; least of all 40 or 60 years of 'essentially civil war' with no peace or wish to peace from either side. Whichever way 'the arabs' disagreed with the setting up of Israel, "the terms of that agreement." Their invasion and Israels continued occupation of 'their' territory has simply fueled a fire that rages incessantly. The argument for the 'non-existence' of Israel is not to separate jews from their homeland but to protest the setting up of a separate state which is simply a fuel to sectarianism and violence (exactly how it has been for 60 years.) And ultimately which ever way you look at it, or primarily looking at the maps there is no doubt Israel is way beyond any 'border' agreed in 48 nevermind any 'vowed' disavowal of Israel in the first place.

It definitely has fueled a fire my contention was simply that the Arabs were the one the originally started the proverbial fire, in 1948 the Israelis accepted the UN partition, had the Arabs recognised this state and not invaded things may have been very different today. Israel is way beyond the 1948 border sure, but considering the various wars they've had to fight and the times they've been attacked can you blame them for holding on to it as leverage, to facilitate what's often called the "land for peace" process? They unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and yet that doesn't stop Hamas etc. from continually firing Qassam rockets at Israel from the territory they withdrew from, or from holding one of its soldiers hostage in the territory.

Indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat. According to UPI, Israel supported Hamas starting in the late 1970s as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization"

This may or may not be true, I'm disinclined to place too much credibility in a Wiki on such a contentious subject, but assuming it is true its a policy that obviously backfired, it doesn't justify Hamas's actions.

"The Hamas movement is prepared to stop terror against Israeli civilians if Israel stops killing Palestinian civilians ... We have told (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister) Abu Mazen in our meetings that there is an opportunity to stop targeting Israeli civilians if the Israelis stop assassinations and raids and stop brutalizing Palestinian civlilians."

"Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

Of course its easy to make such statements but reality seems to show otherwise. What the second paragraph is essentially saying is that they don't have a problem with Jews as long as they're not in Israel.

However, on February 13, 2005, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal declared that Hamas would stop armed struggle against Israel if Israel recognized the 1967 borders, withdrew from all Palestinian territories and accept the demand for Palestinian "Right of Return"
-
Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state, unlike the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has recognized it since 1988, and calls it the "Zionist entity", a common hostile term in Arab political rhetoric.

Its easy to make a statement like that knowing full well the existence of Israel as a Jewish state would cease to exist if they allowed a "right of return", something the Israelis would never accept so there's no chance of them actually being forced to stick to their statement.

To return to an earlier paragraph:
Indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat. According to UPI, Israel supported Hamas starting in the late 1970s as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization".

On that simple reading Israel has never wanted peace (otherwise why undermine the PLO and foster discontent through muslim brotherhood and hamas nevermind any support of counties like Saudi Arabia who 'supposedly' fund these organisations in the first place?)

Its quite a logical jump to say based on that statement that Israel has never wanted peace, obviously if you can undermine your enemy and weaken them it'll be easier to achieve peace, its essentially what the ANC tried to do here. Where does Saudi Arabia come into it?

On the contrary, in South Africa - as in Algeria, Zambia or Zimbabwe - it is understood that self-determination of a colonized people cannot be equated with a settler state. It is sleight of hand to suggest that, having dispossessed the population by force, the settlers now have an equivalent claim to the conquered territory.

If this is universally understood elsewhere, why this indecent exceptionalism when it comes to Israel?

Well historically Jews have lived in the area that is now Israel which I suppose is a marked difference, I think the major issue though is that after the catastrophe of WW2 Jews and the rest of the world felt a Jewish nation-state was essential in order to provide security and in order to prevent a repeat of something akin to the Holocaust, which isn't an unreasonable demand.

The majority wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Fatah, set forth the program for the establishment of a "democratic, secular Palestine". This slogan called for the dismantling of the Zionist Israeli state and the establishment of a new state in Palestine in which Jews, Christians, and Arabs would live as equals without discrimination.

The Hidden History of Zionism

This may be a very nice sentiment but considering Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbours and many Palestinians aren't exactly what could be considered friendly either what guarantee of safety do they have in this new state? None essentially. Would they still be able to offer a right of return to all Jews, allowing them to escape persecution in the rest of the world if necessary. Doubtful. Indeed referring again to your reference to settler populations in the rest of Africa etc. their fate would seem to be enough to put Israel off this plan...

 

[Alan]

From that same wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[3][4][5] Vehemently anti-Israel and, according to many, anti-Semitic[6] its charter states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."[7]

 

[Syndyre]

From that same wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Such tolerance!

 

[Alan]

Such tolerance!

Kilo must have missed that bit

 

[Xarog]

It definitely has fueled a fire my contention was simply that the Arabs were the one the originally started the proverbial fire, in 1948 the Israelis accepted the UN partition, had the Arabs recognised this state and not invaded things may have been very different today. Israel is way beyond the 1948 border sure, but considering the various wars they've had to fight and the times they've been attacked can you blame them for holding on to it as leverage, to facilitate what's often called the "land for peace" process? They unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and yet that doesn't stop Hamas etc. from continually firing Qassam rockets at Israel from the territory they withdrew from, or from holding one of its soldiers hostage in the territory.

Why start there? The history of Israel is well over 100 years old. As a side note : Jewish terrorists were only too happy to bomb british hotels before they got what they wanted.

But to get to the actual point : It's rather stupid to hold onto something for leverage to facilitate a piece movement when holding onto that something is causing most of the outrage in the first place.

This may or may not be true, I'm disinclined to place too much credibility in a Wiki on such a contentious subject, but assuming it is true its a policy that obviously backfired, it doesn't justify Hamas's actions.

Wiki is certainly not the only place where the evidence for the links between Israel and Hamas exist.

You are partly right though; Israel's creation of Hamas would not justify Hamas' actions. However, the fact that Israel is besieging the palestinian population and generally making their lives a living hell in an attempt to break their resistance to the Israeli attempts at building a 'Greater Israel' through arbitrary detention, denying the civilian populace freedom of movement, by splitting up families, by establishing a stranglehold on the economy through various measures does entitle the Palestinians as a whole to resist Israel's hostile and unreasonable moves. The sad thing is that the tactics Hamas uses is the only tactics available to actively resist the Israeli occupation. I am sure that Hamas would much rather have access to the modern armour and fighter planes that Israel currently enjoys access to.

Its quite a logical jump to say based on that statement that Israel has never wanted peace, obviously if you can undermine your enemy and weaken them it'll be easier to achieve peace, its essentially what the ANC tried to do here. Where does Saudi Arabia come into it?

Except that in this instance, Israel was undermining the actual peace process itself.

I cannot recall of a single instance of the ANC attempting anything that fits that description.

(As a side note, you may wish to do some research on the birth of Zionism and what Zionism actually means as a political movement. You might find that the claim that Israel doesn't want peace isn't as unreasonable as you currently think.)

Well historically Jews have lived in the area that is now Israel which I suppose is a marked difference, I think the major issue though is that after the catastrophe of WW2 Jews and the rest of the world felt a Jewish nation-state was essential in order to provide security and in order to prevent a repeat of something akin to the Holocaust, which isn't an unreasonable demand.

The Zionist movement has been around nearly one hundred and thirty years. WW2 didn't start anything, it merely served as a catalyst.

Secondly, the Palestinians have also historically been living in the area that is now Israel. I fail to see why one subset of the historical population of an area should receive preference as far as settlement is concerned over another subset of the historical population on the basis of historically living there.

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/stand_up_stand_up_for_herod_01323.html

This may be a very nice sentiment but considering Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbours-

Ever ask why? Or are you so entirely certain that the arabs are mindless fanatics that hate for absolutely no rational reason that this question never occured to you?

-and many Palestinians aren't exactly what could be considered friendly either what guarantee of safety do they have in this new state?

Again, why?

None essentially.

I'd like to know what guarantee of safety you get for living in S.A. or anywhere for that matter. It's impossible to guarantee the safety of anyone, absolutely. Plus there's plenty of Israeli Arabs already living within Israeli proper.

Would they still be able to offer a right of return to all Jews, allowing them to escape persecution in the rest of the world if necessary. Doubtful.

So? Since when did discrimination become a good thing? Israel is still practising Apartheid policies just like South Africa did. As far as being a state goes it is an abomination which should not exist, and in existing, should be unanimously denounced.

Who would sit by and silently tolerate a nation which granted a right of 'return' for white people but not black people?

 

[Xarog]

Yeah, there's no way that site could be biased, right?

Though really some of the claims are quite funny. Apparently attacking foreign soldiers in your own country constitutes a 'terror attack'

 

[Xarog]

Alright then lets disregard that site then - are all the other news sites also biased that report on atrocities committed by islamists?

Since they don't ignore the possible political motivations and don't immediately assume that the actions were incited solely because the perpetrators are fanatical religious fundamentalists, no they aren't.

 

[Xarog]

We'll now that we know we can trust what we see on the news, just note how much mayhem the islamists are causing these days - it's time the world stood up to the islamists and those that promote and support them.

Or maybe the 'islamists' are just people who actually have some legitimate grievances in general with regard to how the west has collectively interfered with their lives over the last 150 years or so.

 

[Xarog]

See, there you go discounting the political aspect all over again.

It's rather pointless trying to dissuade you from your faith, so I'm just going to call it quits here.