19
   

Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 04:02 pm
@Glennn,
Your perception that you are clever by a half has become very tedious.

This exchange is over.

Interpret it as you will.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 04:04 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I see . . .
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 04:16 pm
@Glennn,
Good...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 06:48 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
I thought I made it clear that Israel is building settlements on occupied territory. In your world, the Palestinians should just lay down and let the Israelis continue with their land theft, or they are guilty of unacceptable aggression.

But even that is not the point. In your world, the occupied have no right to resistance. They actually do. Your question was a transparent attempt to put both parties in the same light when it comes to who is to blame for the violence. Do you understand now?

The Palestinians are not being occupied.

The Palestinians were offered their own state, based on 1967 borders, and they were offered it over and over and over and over again. Every single time, the Palestinians chose to reject having their own state and instead wage perpetual war on Israel.

The Israelis are not stealing anything. Palestinian aggression means that Israel gets to keep the land.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 06:51 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot. Do you believe that Israel's breaking of a ceasefire with Hamas indicates the Israeli regime's lack of desire for peace? Or do you think it indicates something else?

Your denial of Israel's peace offers legitimizes the settlements. Thanks for the help!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 06:55 pm
@perennialloner,
perennialloner wrote:
these "well meaning gentiles" you speak of decided the Arabs should pay for European crimes.

That wasn't it at all. Israel got created where it did because the Jews are indigenous to the West Bank.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 06:59 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
My definition of peace is when the Israeli regime stops its land theft and abides by International Law.

The rest of humanity defines peace as the Palestinians not being violent.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 08:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I interpret it as you being too stupid to recognize a fact. Or too disingenuous.
0 Replies
 
perennialloner
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 08:43 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
That wasn't it at all. Israel got created where it did because the Jews are indigenous to the West Bank.


That's the rhetoric they used, yeah. That doesn't mean the Arabs didn't pay for European crimes. That also doesn't mean the "well meaning gentiles" didn't empower Jewish migration with the Balfour Declaration. Then, the Holocaust solidified the Jews as the ones entitled. That is why Israel was created in 1948.
0 Replies
 
perennialloner
 
  5  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2016 08:53 pm
@oralloy,
I guess it's harder to tell the intention of Zionism in the beginning. Was it for Jews to occupy the uninhabited spaces of the land, where they could maintain some autonomy, co-existing with the Arabs in "their" ancestral homeland. Was it always an intentional displacement of the Arabs to takeover land already occupied. Is it the Arab reaction to a peaceful Jewish migration to free spaces at fault, the Palestinian refugees a tragic, secondary effect and Zionism blameless? Or is the Zionist movement, which led to the creation of Israel, unapologetically and selfishly, European colonialism, always looking to extend its reach, even if it means killing thousands of innocent children along the way?

There are documents showing that Zionist expansion and Palestinian displacement was deliberately carried out and the Palestinians deliberately mislead. And given the way Israel has continually dealt with their Palestinian "problem," I know what I think.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 11:39 am

There is a new initiative proposed. I don't know if it will be accepted by the Israeli government though. It proposes unilateral actions that Israel can take that will both improve their security and make a negotiated two-state solution more likely in the future should the Palestinians ever decide to choose peace.

Part 1:
http://www.twostatesecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Security-First-CIS.pdf

Part 2:
http://www.twostatesecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CNAS-Report.pdf

Parts of it I like, and in fact read as if the ideas were taken from my posts. Parts of the initiative I am more ambivalent about. One idea I don't like.


The parts that I like are:

a) The proposal to finish construction of the Security Fence, including in areas where Israel is currently being pressured not to finish it, and to declare it as Israel's official national border. This will undercut any move by West Bank Palestinians to claim a right to vote in Israeli elections.

b) The proposal for Israel to retain military control over areas B and C for as long as the Palestinians refuse to peacefully negotiate a two-state solution. This land will hypothetically be transferred to the Palestinians if they ever peacefully negotiate a two-state solution, but as centuries pass without the Palestinians ever making peace, Israel will become the de facto owners of this land.


The parts that I am more ambivalent about are:

a) The proposal to halt all settlement expansion east of the Security Fence. While it is true that this land would be given to the Palestinians as part of a negotiated two-state solution, in reality the Palestinians are never going to make peace. I would prefer to see Israel put this land to good use.

b) The proposal to limit settlement expansion west of the Security Fence to the construction of new high-rise apartment buildings in existing settlements. Same reason as above.


The part of the initiative that I don't like is the idea to have American soldiers patrol the Jordan river. These patrols should continue to be done by Israeli soldiers.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 01:34 pm
@perennialloner,
perennialloner wrote:

Quote:
Are you calling me a solipsist? You are side-stepping my basic premise that the Jews in Israel have had their fill of murderous gentiles for the last two millenia. So, well meaning gentiles have assisted them in becoming a competent nation, able to protect themselves. Not so well meaning gentiles begrudge them the land they are sitting on, partially due to wars meant to annihilate them.


these "murderous gentiles" you speak of are not the Palestinians, who were small land-owning families.

these "well meaning gentiles" you speak of decided the Arabs should pay for European crimes. They had an agenda, which Israel factored into.


So, I guess, from your above comment, Arabs can be part of the family of nations, but should not be asked to share a little of their "sand" as big as New Jersey? In effect, I believe an argument can be made that allowing Israel to live in peace is the price to join the family of nations. And yes, European crimes caused the situation; however, Europeans did not want to pay for their crimes, so to speak, since after WWII they mostly wanted no returning Jews that survived, But you very neatly do not empathize with the situation of the surviving Jews; typical gentile analysis, in my opinion.
perennialloner
 
  4  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 02:34 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
should not be asked to share a little of their "sand" as big as New Jersey


uh, first of all, the Palestinians weren't asked a thing about their land. that discussion happened independent of them.
second, it's not a little bit of their land. it's my opinion that the Zionists were on a mission to get as much land in the region as they possibly could--in total disregard for the indigenous population. the Palestinians were blindsided.

As for my being unsympathetic, you're wrong. I am sympathetic (to the situation of the surviving Jews), not to a country, which has resulted in the disenfranchisement and displacement of persons, who had no say in the underhanded promises regarding their land.
Even if the Palestinians had a responsibility to the surviving Jews, as you say, they weren't given the opportunity to understand that responsibility.

It's clear that you aren't sympathetic to the Palestinian situation. And it's easy for you, as you only open yourself to Jewish suffering, as if it's the only suffering that matters/exists.


catbeasy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 03:02 pm
@perennialloner,
Well put.

I think that folks who lean a little too heavily on the side of being supporters of Israel conflate exactly what you have articulated: The issue of Jews versus the country of Israel. To accept this distinction is tough because doing so loses the cache to be gained in the argument by making people who attempt any support for non-Jewish folk in the region out to be 'against the Jews' or 'anti- semitic'. This without any purview of how those same people think about Jews in other regions.

Aside from those Jews who are interested parties (those that stand to gain land, resources, etc), I expect that folks on both sides would want a proper, moral resolution. As usual its the majority 'normal' folks who get caught in the crossfire courtesy of my imperialist ancestors.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 04:03 pm
@perennialloner,
perennialloner wrote:
it's my opinion that the Zionists were on a mission to get as much land in the region as they possibly could--in total disregard for the indigenous population.

The Zionists *are* the indigenous population.


perennialloner wrote:
It's clear that you aren't sympathetic to the Palestinian situation. And it's easy for you, as you only open yourself to Jewish suffering, as if it's the only suffering that matters/exists.

Most Americans started off sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. We were all for a two-state solution that would allow *both* sides to prosper. But endless Palestinian aggression in the face of a reasonable two-state solution has wiped out much of that sympathy.

Palestinian cheering for the 9/11 attacks after we had done so much to help them didn't help matters.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 04:07 pm
@perennialloner,
In a reconnaissance report of Palestine to Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, Leo Motzkin wrote:


"Completely accurate statistics about the number of inhabitants do not presently exist. One must admit that the density of the population does not give the visitor much cause for cheer. In whole stretches throughout the land one constantly comes across large Arab villages, and it is an established fact that the most fertile areas of our country are occupied by Arabs..."
(Protocol of the Second Zionist Congress, Pg. 103)


His assumptions about "our country" illuminate the earliest Zionists' mindset about Palestine.

In his June 12, 1895 diary entry, Herzl wrote:


"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us."


The Zionists have based their policies on these percepts from the very begining of their efforts.
0 Replies
 
perennialloner
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 05:13 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The Zionists *are* the indigenous population.


Assuming every Zionist is a Jew with origins in Israel, they still aren't indigenous population. There were people in the region long before Judaism was invented 3500 years ago, unless you mean to tell me all those people became Jews.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 05:21 pm
@perennialloner,
Thanks for stating facts.

Answers
Relevance
Rabbi for you
Best Answer: Palestinians occupied the coastal strip from Gaza to Haifa with a depth of 50 miles. They were originally Europeans.
Israelis were called in the old times Hebrews or Habiru ( a nomadic people mentioned in Assyro-Babylonian literature: possibly the early Hebrews.) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/habiru came from Babel and settled in the land of Canan West of the Dead Sea.
Habirus were nomadic people and they moved to Egypt where they settled for 430 years and then returned back after hiding in Sinai for 40 years escaping from Pharaoh who drove them out of Egypt to south Sinai as North Sinai, Palestine and the land of Canan were part of the Egyptian Empire at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypt_1450_BC.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hitt_Egypt_Perseus.png
As soon as Pharaoh died, they moved to Canan again till the Romans drove them out from the land.
The mention of Palestine( Philistines, the name it is know of in the Middle East till now) in the Torah means that Palestine was there even before Judaism.
Both nations were enemies and had severe fights between them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant#Captured_by_the_Philistines
So actually I see Israelis as vistors to the land, they come and go every now and then.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 06:05 pm
@perennialloner,
perennialloner wrote:
Assuming every Zionist is a Jew with origins in Israel,

So assumed.


perennialloner wrote:
they still aren't indigenous population. There were people in the region long before Judaism was invented 3500 years ago, unless you mean to tell me all those people became Jews.

Do we deny indigenous rights to Native Americans because there were people there even before them?

At any rate, I do mean to tell you that. Canaanite culture ended at the end of the Bronze Age, and a bunch of smaller Iron Age cultures arose from the former Canaanites. The Israelites were the Iron Age culture formed by former Canaanites living in the West Bank area.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2016 06:15 pm
@oralloy,
Comparing apples and oranges. The Americas had very few native peoples living here compared to Europe. The people of Europe originated in Africa that eventually migrated throughout Europe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 08:05:55