Iranian election

[scaeagles]

Here's the one reason that while as a people I feel sorry for the Palestinians, but do not fault Israel nearly so much as their neighbors.

Israel came into possession of of disputed territories after the were invaded in 1967 during the 6 day war. They were not the aggressors. These territories are now vitally important to them in terms of national defense. I do no blame them for looking to hang on to possession of them.

I do not believe it simply comes down to a Palestinian state. Arafat was offered a full 98% of all the territory he wanted and yet refused. This happened during the Clinton years. Why refuse that if you are Arafat and your goal isreally a Palestinian state? I think it is because he was, and a large portion of the Palestinian leadership still is, for the elimination of Israel as a state. Iran has threatened to obliterate them. Hamas is sworn to kill Jews.

I am certainly no expert in the creation of present day Israel except that there was an international agreement to do so in...1947? Not exactly sure. To the extent that the creation of Israel screwed over Palestinians I cannot speak but suppose that I wouldn't have been happy should I have lived there. This is indeed history and Israel isn't going away.

It seems to me as if cease fires are typically broken by Hamas or whomever, and Israel is supposed to simply accept missiles randomly launched into their country. They respond with overwhleming force......I might expect any country to do so.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Here's the one reason that while as a people I feel sorry for the Palestinians, but do not fault Israel nearly so much as their neighbors.

Israel came into possession of of disputed territories after the were invaded in 1967 during the 6 day war. They were not the aggressors. These territories are now vitally important to them in terms of national defense. I do no blame them for looking to hang on to possession of them.

I do not believe it simply comes down to a Palestinian state. Arafat was offered a full 98% of all the territory he wanted and yet refused. This happened during the Clinton years. Why refuse that if you are Arafat and your goal isreally a Palestinian state? I think it is because he was, and a large portion of the Palestinian leadership still is, for the elimination of Israel as a state. Iran has threatened to obliterate them. Hamas is sworn to kill Jews.

I am certainly no expert in the creation of present day Israel except that there was an international agreement to do so in...1947? Not exactly sure. To the extent that the creation of Israel screwed over Palestinians I cannot speak but suppose that I wouldn't have been happy should I have lived there. This is indeed history and Israel isn't going away.

It seems to me as if cease fires are typically broken by Hamas or whomever, and Israel is supposed to simply accept missiles randomly launched into their country. They respond with overwhleming force......I might expect any country to do so.

Yeah, this is the standard line that Jews everywhere are told. The thing is that when the international community (via Britian who technically owned the land) gave the territory to the Jews in 1948 they did not care who was already living there, and the people already living there were practically tribal villages without any idea what was going on. They did not have a united country or united culture, and now they had nowhere to live. It's much like simply telling the American Indians to pack up and move because we bought their land from an outside entity who had laid claim to it, except that we actually had a place for them to go.

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the tactics of the Palestinians. I think they have come to thrive on their victimhood. Any people who send children into battle and then cry foul when they are killed so that they can scrounge sympathy has some serious issues. But even so, more war OBVIOUSLY isn't the solution. I mean, hello, we all know what's been going on there for decades. Just within my lifetime it's abundantly clear that tit-for-tat simply creates another tit to tat and it will never end.

Here's a simpler way to look at it, through an American lens. These people are not represented by their government. The government is decidedly a "Jewish State" and by definition is not for them. They wish to have their own. Makes some sense to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Iran has threatened to obliterate them. Hamas is sworn to kill Jews.

I am certainly no expert in the creation of present day Israel except that there was an international agreement to do so in...1947? Not exactly sure. To the extent that the creation of Israel screwed over Palestinians I cannot speak but suppose that I wouldn't have been happy should I have lived there. This is indeed history and Israel isn't going away.

Interesting that you claim such certainty in knowing the motivations and goals of the people involved while also claiming know knowledge of the history involved. 60 years is hardly a blip in the thousands of years of conflict in the region, so what happened then most certainly remains relevant. and his hardly just history. And the fact that you mention Iran in this discussion really shows a lack of understanding as Iranians are NOT Palestinians, they aren't even Arabs. They may nominally play the role of ally against a common enemy, but Ahmedinijad's lunacy has little to no connection to whether a 2 state solution is a viable option or not.

As iSm points out, and I've argued before, if you're going to paint the Palestinians with the wide brush of wanting to wipe the Jews out, than the Israeli Jews are certainly in need of that same coat of paint. Because they are in control and HAVE their own state, they can play the part of the maligned victim, only defending itself from the viscious attacks of terrorists (which of course they have a right to do as long as they are actually targeting militants and not just indiscriminantly bombing using the weak "but they put children in the line of fire!" excuse). And because they know their bluff won't be called they can smuggly offer peace, knowing full well it won't be accepted because the Palestinians have no faith that Israel will keep their side of the bargain.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Interesting that you claim such certainty in knowing the motivations and goals of the people involved while also claiming know knowledge of the history involved. 60 years is hardly a blip in the thousands of years of conflict in the region, so what happened then most certainly remains relevant. and his hardly just history. And the fact that you mention Iran in this discussion really shows a lack of understanding as Iranians are NOT Palestinians, they aren't even Arabs. They may nominally play the role of ally against a common enemy, but Ahmedinijad's lunacy has little to no connection to whether a 2 state solution is a viable option or not.

Hmmm...Iran is state sponsor of terrorism. They sponsor Hamas. Hamas is quite widely involved with the Palestinians and the entire conflict. I didn't think that really needed to be spelled out in discussing Iran and the Palestinians, but apparently it did.

I don't need any sort of magic insight into what Hamas wants to do. It's in their charter. So that's not too hard to figure out either. I don't need any terrific insight into Ahmahdenijad. He has said he wants to obliterate Israel.

So Ahmahdinejad feeding weapons and support to Hamas, and Hamas playing a large roll in the leadership of the Palestinians, and Iran saying it wants Israels destroyed, and Hamas having sworn to kill Jews....Yeah, I'd say they are pretty well linked and it matters a whole hell of a lot to the leadership (and people) in Israel.

Let's do this - let's have Hamas take that out of their charter, and let's have Ahmahdenijad say he doesn't want to destroy Israel as a starting point. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.