|
| | 
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 9:35 PM
Posts: 7,585
Visits: 9,899
|
| | Well, when the allies defeated Nazi Europe, they took over and imposed their social order onto those "annexed" territories. International Law seems to have no problem with that, although I do hear people grumble about how "controlling" the U.S. presence (and military bases) are in Europe. The thing is, International Law also does not condone sneak attacking a neighbor as a way to "drive them into the sea," and International Law does recognize the expediency of things like strategically bombing, denying the enemy the use of territory which would facilitate future hostilities, etc., etc. all in the name of self-defense. If Israel had been the one to initiate hostilities and annexed the territory in that context I would agree with your sympathy for the "Palestinians." The fact is, Israel took territory from her neighbors when she was sneak attacked (repeatedly) by pretty much everyone one of her surrounding neighbors. Taking that territory could justifiably be argued to have been a strategically expedient thing to do in the interest of self-preservation, i.e., making any future repeated sneak attacks less likely to succeed. If the Palestinians have any real complaint, I think it is with the British for having setup Israel as the last of the colonial powers. However, that again is totally rhetorical and nonsensical. None of us want to pay for the mistakes of our ancestors. The only real solution is that the people in that part of the world reject violence as a means to "resolve" their problems. |
--
"'The front' is wherever you stop running away. Get used to it. This is what modern warfare looks like." K T Cat |  |  |
| |
| | 
Impeached by a patch
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 7:22 AM
Posts: 1,839
Visits: 3,513
|
| | |
| | 
Conscript Rabbi
 
Last Seen:
Today @ 1:02 AM
Posts: 2,169
Visits: 8,530
|
| The movement of Arabs in and out of Palestine/Israel is, the way I see it, a very mixed bag.
When in the end of the 19th century the influx of Jews begins, Palestine is totally underdeveloped and contains an impoverished rural population governed by the Turks and clans which have their sheiks living in places like Damascus, Beirut and Cairo.
As of that point, the area starts developing and apart from the Jewish influx, there is also an Arab influx - people coming to the new economic opportunities. The elite, begins to live in the major towns, while holding pied-a-terre in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
When the Jewish and Arab communities begin to clash, as of 1929, the elites are the first to leave - back abroad to Beirut, Damascus and Cairo. And then we have 1948. the conflict between the ethnic communities inside the territory turns into a conflict between states. But one must never forget that this is basically a community conflict. The attacking states for all practical purposes, represent one community in the conflict (the Arabs) and Israel, the other (the Jewish).
Here is where versions start to vary. Arabs claims they were kicked off the land and Israel claims that the Arab refugees left because their leaders abroad told them to do so - expecting a bloody war and they wanted them to be safe out of the way. From what historic research I know, examples of both can be found, but neither version of a systematic driving off, or systematic decree to leave can be proven. So, I think, if you go into the personal stories of all the refugees, you will find examples of a wide variety of reasons, just as you have in any war.
After the war and definitely since 1977, the conflict is back to its original state. No longer a war between states, but rather a conflict between communities. it is also a conflict that is largely won by the Jews and lost by the Arabs. However, the conflict is not over yet. The refugees and the Arab population in the territory, are still a herd of future flare ups. None, or at least very few, have admitted defeat and accept the new status and are willing to live peacefully in the Israeli state.
From the side of the Jews there is the inevitable suspicion that the conflict may still be lost and therefore, strengthening of the Arab population is very frightening.
And what of the Arab states that attacked in 1948 and 1973? They wanted to be the protectors of the Arab community and help them win the conflict, but they are not willing to take them in, now that they have lost the conflict? Understandable also, but a contribution to the plight of the refugees no less than that of Israel's, I say. |
--
Hypocrisy is sin's reverence to virtue
-.-.-.-.-.-
↑ Grab this Headline Animator |   | |
| |
| | lame duck
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 11:44 AM
Posts: 1,802
Visits: 4,333
|
| | |
| | 
Udderly ridiculous
Last Seen:
Today @ 1:59 PM
Posts: 3,924
Visits: 4,735
|
| | |
| | lame duck
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 11:44 AM
Posts: 1,802
Visits: 4,333
|
| | |
| | lame duck
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 11:44 AM
Posts: 1,802
Visits: 4,333
|
| | |
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Today @ 7:47 PM
Posts: 4,494
Visits: 11,167
|
| | Okay, so we want to look at now do we? Which side can end the conflict TODAY? Well, if the Palestinians wanted peace, couldn't they have it? If they wanted sovereignty, couldn't they have it? Wasn't the Palestinian Authority created to accomplish this? So when the PA turns out to be a corrupt body, the Palestinians then take out their anger on Israel. In 2000, President Bill Clinton, to his credit, tried to play middle man. Arafat was offered 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. 95%! He did not accept, nor did he even make a counter offer. In 2005 Israel dismantles all settlements in Gaza, yet Palestinian terror (violent jihad) continues and the PA has done little to stop it. Which side, in recent history, has done more to at least try and give ground? So, after these attempts at peace, you still are on the fence about the Jihad against Israel? |
--
-A government that is powerful enough to do anything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us. -Fred Thompson
-There are two races of people, the decent and the indecent. - Victor Frankel
-They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Benjamin Franklin
Consequences
 | | | |
| |
| |
Impeached by a patch
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 7:22 AM
Posts: 1,839
Visits: 3,513
|
| | |
|
|
|
