One year since the attacks on the Gaza strip

[chicah 20]

 I don't know how the news coverage was where you live, but here; the 27th of december 2008, only a few days after Christmas, Israeli forces invaded the Gaza Strip. This was the beginning of almost a month of intense bombings, of levelling schools and houses and leaving thousands of Palestinians without a home. The official reason? Rockets some Palestinans had launched towards the Israelis, which the Israelis claimed broke the truce they had with Hamas. There are several lies in that one sentence. First of all, the Israelis broke the truce. According to an article published in London Review of Books the 29th of january 2009, and the American jew Henry Siegman, Israeli soldiers had, in november 2008, went into Gaza and killed six Palestinians. It was not an open act of war, but it was committed by soldiers and thus it violated the truce. Then the Palestinians answered by firing rockets, which led to the Israelis invading the Gaza Strip and pretty much leaving it in ruins. A total of 13 Israelis died during this period, while 1400 Palestinians died.

To me, it doesn't matter which side you're on, this is FACT, and one can't deny facts. Facts are truth, but a lot of countries would prefer if the truth stayed hidden on occasions such as this. They'd rather the West believed that all Palestinians are evil terrorists, they'd rather the rest of the world didn't mind violating all human rights as long as the people who had to suffer weren't allies. The Palestinians democratcially elected Hamas in 2006. Hundreds of international observers all concluded there was nothing dodgy about the election, it was a real, democratic election; and it could've been a beacon of hope for the Arabic countries: Democratic elections are possible. But the Palestinians, who had hoped for support from the Western countries for conducting a democratic election, realized it didn't matter if they aimed for the democracy these Western countries were so proudly "spreading" around the world, because they had elected a party these countries didn't like. And democracy or not, it didn't matter as long as they didn't vote for the "right party", the one they were SUPPOSED to vote for, if they wanted Western support. 

To me, it's horrendous that millions of people all over the world close their eyes to the sufferings of thousands of Palestinians, because those children are evidently not worth as much as Israeli children. Back when the jews were forced to wear a yellow star, back when their children were seen as "worthless", we all agreed it was horrible, and we all supported the jews afterwards. And there is no doubt that what they have experienced throughout history was awful. Which is why it is so ironic that they, of all the people in the world, have branded Palestinian civilians as worthless. They've blocked the borders, so not even a paintbrush will get into Gaza. The Egyptian border is also closed. The Palestinians on the Gaza Strip live in a prison where nothing comes in our out, smuggling through the smuggling tunnels is dangerous and the Israelis are stopping the smugglers before they reach the civilians in Gaza. You would think the Israelis had the compassion and history to know that a discrimination like this, that collective punishment (which is prohibited by the Geneve Convention) is no good and only creates hatred. It seems that they have forgotten their history.

But, let's not generalize: there are plenty of Israelis and jews who know that this is going in the wrong direction. A UN commission concluded the Gaza attacks had the intention of terrorizing the civilians, making their economical ability as weak as possible amongst other things. This commission was lead by Jewish justice Richard Goldstone. The Jewish historian Benny Morris has, a little unwillingly, had to realize that there have been several massacres on Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and settlers, even before the official establishment of Israel. Human rights organizations all over the world - including Israel - are trying to open our eyes to see that as long as civilians are dying in this scale, politics doesnt matter, this is horrible and we should put a stop to it. But one year has gone by, and nothing, NOTHING has happened. I wonder how many more years has to go by before we realize what kind of acts our countries' passivity or active support of the Israeli government has lead to and will lead to if we don't grow some balls.

This was mostly to release the frustration and anger I've felt the last few days, and really the past year, seeing how little progress we see in the Middle East. And if someone wants to comment or disagree, if you actually read all of this (sorry for it being so long!), then please do.

[Duke87 1,070]

The Isrealis, yes, are known for being very forceful in their methods of dealing with threats. Hard to blame them. If my country was surrounded by people who wanted to take it over or wipe it off the face fo the Earth, I'd be pretty trigger-happy too.

The innocent civilians of Palestine suffer at the hands of Israel. I'm not going to deny that. And yet... I get the sense that if they stopped using such force, it would be their downfall. There would be no more Israel. It'd all be Palestine, and you'd have another diaspora, since the new government sure as hell wouldn't be very tolerant of the Israelis. Maybe that would be for the better. It's hard to say. The problem is that you have territory which two groups of people both consider rightfully theirs... there really is no good solution to that.

[Meg 368]

Obviously, I don't have the solution to this conflict nor do I claim to have all of the facts.   But, I will provide a few comments from a Western viewpoint.  or, to put it more accurately, viewpoints that some Westerners have.  I do not pretend to speak for everyone.

First, no, the news coverage here is not as detailed as you are describing.   It can be difficult to keep track of all of the various ways and times that people in that part of the world blow each other up.  and they usually seem to be blaming the other guy for starting it.  At least, that is a common perception.

As for the election of Hamas, that left many people scratching their heads.   Hamas is considered to be a terrorist organization.   When people chose to be governed by a terrorist organization, what is that saying?  Some people couldn't wrap their heads around it at all; others concluded that it was an endorsement of terrorism.

As for the rest of the world sitting back while Jewish people were wearing yellow stars and being stuffed into concentration camps, many Americans of the WWII generation claim that they didn't know.  When my mom said that I basically didn't believe her.  She pointed out that the portable minicam wasn't available then and the first war we saw up close and personal was Vietnam.  Prior to that, the channels of communication were very narrow.  That is difficult to understand in this day and age but, time was, people in different parts of the world had limited ways of communicating with each other.

There is some "progress" that Palestinians are making in the Western psyche, such as it is.  They are now being acknowledged as "Palestinians".  When I was a kid that word was not used at all.  The perception seemed to be that there was no such thing.   They were referred to as "Arabs".   It is only fairly recently (past 15 - 20 years, maybe?) that the word "Palestinian" appeared at all in US newspapers and newscast.

Just goes to show how large the gulf is in terms of various parts of the world understanding each other.

[sneakeypete 16]

You could probably go back and find that the Israeli incursion into palestine that set off the rockets was in response to something, which again was in response to somethign else, etc. but you'd miss the fact of the matter: neither side tried to defuse the situation. If the palestinian government was so serious about peace, they did they not just hold themselves back from retaliating to incursions, and likewise, Isreal should not have attacked at all either. However, i see no way to claim that one side has moral superiority over the other, at all.

[chicah 20]

sneakeypete: Hamas did, in fact, suggest a truce after the six Palestinians had been killed, and before the rockets , but the deal included the Israelis would have to pull back their settlements, and evidently, that wasn't too popular.

Meg: Good to hear. I don't support Hamas fully either, but I can understand that - in a desperate situation - they were who the Palestinians elected. And neither UN nor the Norwegian government consider Hamas a terrorist organization. But that's not really the point. The point is, they were still elected, and we should still aknowledge that and work with it - not just deny it. Because "we don't negotiate with terrorists" must be the stupidest theory ever launched by the American governtment. The way NOT to end this is to pretend Hamas are terrorists who weren't properly elected.

Oh, and I notice THIS is really where I am an extremist. I don't consider myself to be an extremist in most cases, this might be an exception. Everything has two sides, the other side to this turned out to kill mostly civilians.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: chicah

Meg: Good to hear. I don't support Hamas fully either, but I can understand that - in a desperate situation - they were who the Palestinians elected.  quote>

I do not understand this.  Could you elaborate?   In a truly free, democratic election, why would the populace chose to be ruled by a terrorist organization?   Was that really the best choice available?

As a not-so-side note:  I believe that democracy can not be imposed on a country.  Democracy is a grass roots, from the ground up proposition.  It does not work for those who do not want it.   By electing Hamas, the message that was sent to the west was "okay, we'll play along but we really like having our terrorists in control."

In other words "democratically elected terrorists" sounds like either a contradiction in terms or a sign that the population really isn't all that interested in living free of terrorist activity.   (and, yes, I know it isn't that simple.)

And neither UN nor the Norwegian government consider Hamas a terrorist organization. But that's not really the point. The point is, they were still elected, and we should still aknowledge that and work with it - not just deny it.   Because "we don't negotiate with terrorists" must be the stupidest theory ever launched by the American governtment. The way NOT to end this is to pretend Hamas are terrorists who weren't properly elected. quote>

So the answer is to pretend that they are not terrorists?  I'm not saying the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy is the best way to go, especially in a region where terrorism is given the population's stamp of approval.  (That is what the election of Hamas looks like.)   But what exactly are we supposed to do with a group that is out to obliterate another group by violent means?  or has the Hamas charter changed?

Oh, and I notice THIS is really where I am an extremist. I don't consider myself to be an extremist in most cases, this might be an exception. Everything has two sides, the other side to this turned out to kill mostly civilians.quote>

Extremist in what way exactly?   and how does extremism help?   It seems to me that extremism in its various forms and flavors is a leading cause of problems in the world today.

[fukuda 351]

I certainly will not support the ultra right-wing israelian government.. Their actions speak for themselves, moderate jews are fleeing from Jerusalem (don't dare driving your car during the Sabbath, you are literally risking your life) and Israel, which is turning into a more and more radicalized country every day..

But I certainly won't support Hamas either. Mafia movement, aiming rockets to civilian targets instead of any military target, publicly supporting hate and radical Islam. No, being an elected faction does not suppress anything of that, same thing for Israel..

You would need to go past the moral events horizon several times to seriously support any of these errr "ideologies"..

Oh, and we usually don't negotiate too well with people who are openly backed by a government which has promised to destroy us (yes, Iran)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

I do not understand this. {...} In a truly free, democratic election, why would the populace chose to be ruled by a terrorist organization?   Was that really the best choice available?quote>

The term "terrorist" is subjective. I would not take the Palestienans electing Hamas to indicate that they approve terrorism, I would take it to indicate that they do not consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. I have talked to people here (US, New York Area) who firmly hold that Hamas only takes justified action in defending their people, and that branding them as terrorists is merely for propaganda purposes so as to give the Isrealis continuing to attack the Palestinians the appearance of legitmacy.

Or, think about it from a Palestinian perspective: they don't like the Isrealis, they feel oppressed by them... a governing body which will fight and attack Israel starts to look awfully attractive to a lot of people. "Terrorists" don't seem so bad when they're fighting for you rather than against you.

what exactly are we supposed to do with a group that is out to obliterate another group by violent means?quote>

"Stop giving them reason to want to obliterate you" would be one response... although, I daresay that often isn't reasonable or even possible.

[thepokemaniac 18]

Well, first of all, I COMMEND Chicah on your unbiased opinions of this issue. This is very important to me, as I am Palestinian-American. I do NOT and will NOT support Hamas, nor will I support Fettah. They are both corrupt, and the PLO is no help to us either.

As duke said, "Palestinians do not like Israelis" is a generally true statement. However, not all Palestinians feel this way. I do not feel this way. However, with this being said, I am not prepared to go out and be fine and dandy with Israel either. Their actions are inexcusable. Especially if who they are fighting are very primitive in their weaponry and have little means of fighting back.

And I am willing to say that what Hamas did is also terrible, but what hasn't been publicized very much is that the tunnels they dig under the border with Egypt are for supplies, most of it is actually food and other basic items. Some of it however is weapons. Unfortunately, that is the saddest part, how two people who used to live together for hundreds of years end up fighting each other.

Israel has affected my family and me very much, on a personal level. We used to own many hundreds of acres of land in the West Bank, then the army took it away and built a military base on it. Some of my family has been killed my the Israeli army due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, not because they were involved in any malicious activity.

In the new generation of Palestinians and Israelis, I can see some hope. They need to be taught love, kindness, and respect, something I know Christianity, Islam, and Judaism teach. To respect each other and live without violence. They need to be taught to coexist peacefully as they had before, and not look to violence and war as an answer.

True, the road to peace may be long, but I'm sure that with help from both sides, a peaceful resolution will be made.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The term "terrorist" is subjective. I would not take the Palestienans electing Hamas to indicate that they approve terrorism, I would take it to indicate that they do not consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. I have talked to people here (US, New York Area) who firmly hold that Hamas only takes justified action in defending their people, and that branding them as terrorists is merely for propaganda purposes so as to give the Isrealis continuing to attack the Palestinians the appearance of legitmacy.

Or, think about it from a Palestinian perspective: they don't like the Isrealis, they feel oppressed by them... a governing body which will fight and attack Israel starts to look awfully attractive to a lot of people. "Terrorists" don't seem so bad when they're fighting for you rather than against you. quote>

Point taken. 

Perhaps someone could explain the Hamas charter to me.

  

what exactly are we supposed to do with a group that is out to obliterate another group by violent means?quote>

"Stop giving them reason to want to obliterate you" would be one response... although, I daresay that often isn't reasonable or even possible. quote>

Unfortunately, that's true.

Originally posted by: thepokemaniac

Unfortunately, that is the saddest part, how two people who used to live together for hundreds of years end up fighting each other. quote>

Indeed.

Israel has affected my family and me very much, on a personal level. We used to own many hundreds of acres of land in the West Bank, then the army took it away and built a military base on it. Some of my family has been killed my the Israeli army due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, not because they were involved in any malicious activity.  quote>

I am sorry for your loss.  Life there appears to be difficult and fragile, no matter who you are or where you are.

In the new generation of Palestinians and Israelis, I can see some hope. They need to be taught love, kindness, and respect, something I know Christianity, Islam, and Judaism teach. To respect each other and live without violence. They need to be taught to coexist peacefully as they had before, and not look to violence and war as an answer.

True, the road to peace may be long, but I'm sure that with help from both sides, a peaceful resolution will be made.quote>

I hope you are right.

[chicah 20]

Meg: Duke explained it well, it seems.

I think Hamas do a lot of bad things, some of the worst are their policy to destroy Israel, which is merely destructive, and the war tactics. But them "hiding behind civilians" isn't a reason to kill civilians, IMO. And the civilians would stop electing them if they did that all the time. No, they try to stay on the good side of the population - which is why they've been making those tunnels, some of which have been extremely important for the population in Gaza, and they've been rebuilding bombed-out schools, etc., and I think that's mainly where their popularity comes from - they do a lot of good things for their people, and since Israel elected a right-wing govt who do not want to cooperate at all, they showed that "hey, in that case, we won't cooperate either". The situation now sucks, with two governments who want to kill each other - but my point is, Hamas have done surprisingly good, and I think we should work with them no matter what we think of their policies or their aims. Because working with a legally elected government is really the only way to make progress, instead of denying that particular government was elected, which it actually was.

Meg: On a sidenote, why would I consider Hamas a terrorist organization when neither my country's government or the UN do? The term terrorist is subjective. Some call them freedom fighters, the people who disagree with them call them terrorists. And what I meant with the extremity, even though I agree it often leads to problems, is that I find that I get very heated up on this issue, and I to a great length support basically anything the Palestinians are doing to free themselves. Everyone has the right to defend themselves towards an invasion. And if you thought blocking people behind walls stopped in 1989, think again - the wall around the Gaza Strip is horrible and Israel should be forced to tear it down. How do you expect a people to negotiate with you, how do you expect a peaceful solution if you build a wall around them? The truth is, you don't. You expect violence. And when violence is expected, it happens.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: chicah

sneakeypete: Hamas did, in fact, suggest a truce after the six Palestinians had been killed, and before the rockets , but the deal included the Israelis would have to pull back their settlements, and evidently, that wasn't too popular.quote>

Yes, and though Isreal might not have accepted it, Hamas wasn't forced to fire rockets.

Originally posted by: chicah

Oh, and I notice THIS is really where I am an extremist. I don't consider myself to be an extremist in most cases, this might be an exception. Everything has two sides, the other side to this turned out to kill mostly civilians.quote>

One side might have killed a lot of civilans (i have not done much reading on the issue, so i am not sure of the % of people killed who were combatants), however, the other was targeting only civilians.

All i'm saying is, both sides are just as horrible as eachother.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

A plague on both their houses.  This is a civil war in the House of Abraham and neither deserve any consideration for repeated acts of fratricide.  Archeological evidence shows that the ancient peoples from whom both claim descent were resident in this area for thousands of years barring conquests from the outside.  Too many stiff necks and not enough olive branches emanate from both sides.

Now, let us seek a solution.  Both sides must be equally unhappy, but accepting of the solution.

First, Jerusalem is an old Jewish city.  Probably founded by King David or his descendants by improving a village or goat crossing that had been there centuries before.  Let the Muslims be tolerated in Jerusalem, but they can hold sovereignty only by right of conquest, not right of construction.  Therefore, let there be no further nonsense about East Jerusalem.

Next, let every Muslim who cannot show Palestinian ancestry to the time of Abraham go home to wherever they originated.  This should reduce overcrowding in Palestine.

Third, let the original boundaries declared in the Balfour Declaration be cast in concrete.  No conquered lands may be retained by either side.

Now, let each side chose a representative.  Let us chain them together, throw them into a dark room.  The one who lives is the winner.  The winner gets to choose the name of the land, either Palestine or Israel.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

All i'm saying is, both sides are just as horrible as eachother.

quote>

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I like neither. Both Hamas and the Israeli government are a bunch of stubborn mules with opposable thumbs and too many weapons. Hamas is too fundamentalist and violent, Israel is too expansionist and violent. Both peoples deserve a country of their own, but the populace of both need new governments and a slap upside the head.

Barbarossaquote>

I agree with those two posts 100%.

The way I see it, Israel and Palestine are just acting like a couple whiney kids fighting over a swingset.

[thepokemaniac 18]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

A plague on both their houses.  This is a civil war in the House of Abraham and neither deserve any consideration for repeated acts of fratricide.  Archeological evidence shows that the ancient peoples from whom both claim descent were resident in this area for thousands of years barring conquests from the outside.  Too many stiff necks and not enough olive branches emanate from both sides.

Now, let us seek a solution.  Both sides must be equally unhappy, but accepting of the solution.

First, Jerusalem is an old Jewish city.  Probably founded by King David or his descendants by improving a village or goat crossing that had been there centuries before.  Let the Muslims be tolerated in Jerusalem, but they can hold sovereignty only by right of conquest, not right of construction.  Therefore, let there be no further nonsense about East Jerusalem.

Next, let every Muslim who cannot show Palestinian ancestry to the time of Abraham go home to wherever they originated.  This should reduce overcrowding in Palestine.

Third, let the original boundaries declared in the Balfour Declaration be cast in concrete.  No conquered lands may be retained by either side.

Now, let each side chose a representative.  Let us chain them together, throw them into a dark room.  The one who lives is the winner.  The winner gets to choose the name of the land, either Palestine or Israel.

quote>

Well there is a simpler solution...

Coexistance perhaps? 

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: thepokemaniac

Well there is a simpler solution...

Coexistance perhaps? 

quote>

There is even a bumper sticker about it

[chicah 20]

Good bumper sticker. When it comes to the issue of Jerusalem, I liked the UN's idea; to keep it as an international zone, governed by the UN. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have extremely important ties to that city, and the reason it was originally a Jewish city is because Judaism is the oldest of those three religions. I do not think any of the religions have a "right" to the city more than the others, all three religions can claim they should have the city because of the historical and religious claims. I honestly think the Jerusalem issue will NEVER be resolved, both sides have to accept they'll lose it and it'll be an international zone.

And I detect large doses of irony in N_O_Body's post.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Meg

[...]especially in a region where terrorism is given the population's stamp of approval.  (That is what the election of Hamas looks like.)[...]

  

quote>

Using a strict sense of the word terrorism, namely as actions designed to instill fear in the civilian populace, Hamas (and Hezbollah of Lebanon) are obviously terrorists.

However, it's very easy to sit in the West (or the East, or large parts of Africa or Latin America, too), and claim that terrorism has the "population's stamp of approval". The reality is that Palestine is a broken state, entity, or whatever you would describe it as, and Hamas is the only organisation with some credibility in the area. As long as they are fulfilling the most basic needs of the voters, like paying compensation for victims of Israeli raids, providing shelter, etc., they are the best choice. The probably have quite an efficient propaganda office too.

I would be careful to say that terrorism has the population's stamp of approval in the US, though a Pakistani in Swat valley or Afghani would probably disagree. And rightfully so, when American bombs are eradicating attendants of wedding receptions, the schools, infrastructure, and the American economy which I think most voters in the US are thinking about when electing their representatives, are not that interesting to them.

Even if you're able to withstand the propaganda, you would probably think that a few Israeli lives are nothing as long as Hamas is able to help you get by when your father is killed, mother crippled, brother blinded and sister living as an asylum seeker somewhere.

[hym 358]

IMO, the problem with the "Coexist" idea is that it is out of touch with basic reality.  Humans have been waging wars for over 5,000 years, and there is no realistic reason to believe that will change in our lifetimes, if it ever changes at all.  Some people will say "If we can just get past the 'us' and 'them' thinking, it will all change," but we will never get past that.  Dreams of one day living in a peaceful/united earth are not attainable.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

IMO, the problem with the "Coexist" idea is that it is out of touch with basic reality.  Humans have been waging wars for over 5,000 years, and there is no realistic reason to believe that will change in our lifetimes, if it ever changes at all.  Some people will say "If we can just get past the 'us' and 'them' thinking, it will all change," but we will never get past that.  Dreams of one day living in a peaceful/united earth are not attainable.quote>

 

And people call me pessimistic.

Time was that I would have agreed with you.   When I was growing up, we were being told that it wasn't a question of "if", it was a question of "when" the United States and the Soviet Union would be engaged in a nuclear war with each other.  But ya know what?   Somehow, we found the wherewithall to avoid that.

Yes, war has changed a bit over the centuries.  These days, you don't often see armies on battlefields going at each other with bayonets.  Is human nature inherently violent and war-like?  Yeah, probably.  There seems to be a lot of evidence to support that position. 

But I have also come to believe that "it's in every one of us to be wise".  The answer is inside of us.   I first heard that decades ago but I'm only now starting to get it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Meg, I think you have the right of it.  Funny, isn't it, that the older you get the less radical you become?  Maybe it is because we are tired or too experienced with seeing the young folks make the same blunders over and over again?

The mess in Palestine, according to recent archeology, doesn't even belong to the ones who are fighting over the bones of the people who once lived there in peace (armed, that is).  The worst of it is that most of the present Israelis are of the Diaspora, and have little true claim to the land because of genetic dilution.

[fukuda 351]

Yes, we were violent and war-prone even before becoming humans. However, civilization itself is based on controlling this kind of behaviour. One of the first thing old civilizations did was establishing laws on how to judge people and strict rules about behaviour. It may be excessive violence, human sacrifice, cannibalism, uncontrolled and bloody vengeance, whatever; they were replaced by symbolism: innocuous religious practices, symbolic battles where no one was really hurt or killed, etc.

Yes, living in a civilized society implies accepting rules and learning to suppress violent feelings. And yes, it is possible to achieve, there's hope for them. It unluckily may require blood and slaughter for them both to realize it or even the pressure or third agents, but it's not impossible.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Meg, I think you have the right of it.  Funny, isn't it, that the older you get the less radical you become?  quote>

Some people mellow out as they get older.   Others, not so much.

Maybe it is because we are tired or too experienced with seeing the young folks make the same blunders over and over again? quote>

I don't know that it's the same blunders over and over again.  Each generation has its own set of challenges.

My mom used fret because we were growing up in turbulent times.  She was particularly concerned about the sometimes violent process of court ordered desegregation of the school system.  She thought we "shouldn't have to go through" it.   Then she remembered that, in her younger years, she went through the great depression and WWII.  Eventually she concluded that each generation has it's own stuff to get through.

She reached this conclusion after reading an article called "You were never my age!".  The point of the article was that parents could talk about "back when I was your age" all they want but, in many ways, they were never their kid's age.

My mother was never a teenager who had to deal with court ordered busing, drugs in the classrooms, and nuclear war.  Just like I was never a teenager who had to deal with high school gossip that can go viral on a global scale, divorced parents who have remarried and have another crop of kids, or terrorist attacks.

Does each generation make some of the same blunders over again?  Sure, they do.  But can we, as adults, truly claim that we know what it's like to be in their shoes?   No way.   Some of it is the same old stuff.  Some of it is majorly different.

The mess in Palestine, according to recent archeology, doesn't even belong to the ones who are fighting over the bones of the people who once lived there in peace (armed, that is).  The worst of it is that most of the present Israelis are of the Diaspora, and have little true claim to the land because of genetic dilution.quote>

Genetic dilution?   That sounds creepily related to racial purity.  Let's not go there.

If your point is about ethnic groups and their homelands, I have to admit it's something I do not fully understand.  The desire to have a one-to-one correspondence between an ethnic group and a government makes no sense to me.  Probably because Americans are an ethnically mixed lot and most of us don't have a one-to-one correspondence between an ethnic group and an individual person.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Meg, my point is that among the Diaspora it is almost impossible to find a Jew who is really a Semite.  The Romans did a real job on them, and scattered them over the known world.  Lots of genetic intermixing resulted, and so the present non-Sabra Israeli has no more claim to the land than I.  Their only connection is in the Seder prayers "next year in Jerusalem".

Homelands are precious, but what is your homeland if you have been living peacefully somewhere, are a citizen of that country, and have been civically active?  Why should you pull up your roots and move to a desert country at the far end of the Med on religious grounds, giving up your good existence for a problematic one?

As for racial purity, I think we settled that one in 1945.  All of us mongrels and mutants in the Americas are not so different from everyone else.  I am a proud Canadian because I am immersed in my culture.  You are just as embedded in your American culture.  This makes it hard for us to understand people who rip themselves away from a comfortable existence to run to a piece of disputed land because of ideology.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

So the big question is do you have racial claim to a homeland your people have not inhabited for 1000 years?

Someone said we ( humans ) have an US VS Them metality that we just cant get beyond. I think thats very true, we need to get out of that mindset

and into a more global mindset. When that will happen is anyones guess when people still get hot headed over things that happened 100s of years ago and realy cant do anything about.

There is hope though, Scotland and Ireland seem to have settled thier long standing animosity's with GB rather calmly in recent years.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

They h

 Homelands are precious, but what is your homeland if you have been living peacefully somewhere, are a citizen of that country, and have been civically active?  Why should you pull up your roots and move to a desert country at the far end of the Med on religious grounds, giving up your good existence for a problematic one?

quote>

They haven't lived "peacefully" in Europe, we've stuck them in ghettos since time immemorial, that didn't start with Krakow. They haven't been mixing much, there were sever restrictions on marriage in Europe long before 1935. Ashkenazi jews are as interesting as Icelandics when it comes to genetics, due to them not mixing much. This is rumoured to give them both a higher IQ on average, as well as higher number of specific diseases.

When Norway first got its own constitution, in 1814, it was regarded as one of the more democratic and egalitarian around. Still, for no other reason than Jews being Jews (we didn't exactly have a lot of them), they were barred from entering the realm (though some areas chose to ignore the provisions, as it was bad for business having such practices).

[Wrightguy0 40]

I don't really know what to say, i hate what happened, the collective punishment of the palistinan people, the invasion, those damned concrete barricades, Why? WHY? how is it we can let a people suffer like that and just sit and watch, i mean everything is the same as it was back in the thirtes, there is no reason for this at all.

The fact that nothing has been done over the last year saddens me greatly i know i'm getting emotional, but this is too much for my empathetic nature

who cares what Hamas has done, they'll lay down their arms if they're met with compassion and understanding, at least they seem to know they have a responsibility to their people and people in power, are blind to this. Israel is not right in this conflict, there is no "good" side, but i feel a lot more for the palistinians at this moment.

Everyone needs to just sit down, and open their minds

[Airtime&Gravity 0]

Originally posted by: Meg

Perhaps someone could explain the Hamas charter to me.

  

quote>

As said before, Hamas has a political and a "military" wing.  The millitary wing is what is considered the terrorist wing, although Hamas supporters see them as defending Palestine from a country seen as occupying Palestinian land.  As bad as Hamas is, they are still far better than some of the other terrorist groups trying to take control of the gaza strip.

While I understand Israel needed to defend itself from the rocket attacks, the force used was very excessive.  Only around a dozen Israelies died, and while scores of civilians died.  Even with Israel warning the citizens to leave, they had nowhere to go.  Egypt and Israel Israel has their borders with Gaza closed and Israel has a naval blockade of gaza.  It is because of this that the tunnels were built.  While they were being used to bring in weapons, they were also used to bring in food, medical supplies, and other stuff necessary for life.  This is one reason why the rocket attacks happened.  Also, these rockets, while sometimes deadly, are for the most part harmless.  They rarely killed Israeli citizens, and Hamas got lucky a couple of times, two to my knowledge, where some somewhat serious damage was done.  Granted, these rockets were still deadly, so I can see why the Israeli citizens were terrorized.  Both sides did something wrong, so don't get the idea that I'm trying to justify the actions of Hamas.

I want to see a Palestinian state, but with the rocket attacks continuing and Israel continuing to build settlements, which are illeagl, I doubt it will happen any time soon.