Well, we seem to be going around in circles on the whole Israel vs Palestine, issue.

It seems people divide themselves along the lines of whom they apportion the most blame to, with some even going so far as claiming "just cause", for acts of war, that would normally repel us all, or at least most of us.

So, let's put our blame apportioning, and justifications out on the table, in one thread, I'll start.

Well we could do a hypothetical exercise, and guess what the region would be like, if the Jews had not been granted the area by the UN. in 1947.
Would it all be peace and love?
Who knows, but the fact that of all the arab nations in the region, only Jordan, offered citizenship to displaced Palestinians, while the rest interred them in refugee camps, tends to suggest that old tribal rivalries may well have escalated into outright hostilities between different Arab, and Islamic factions.
Unfortunately, talk of the great 'brotherly love', of the muslim ummah, rarely seems to make the transition from sentiment to action.

For those who want a basic primer on the history of Israel, here is a link to the Wikipoedia page on it.

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

So while we of course, would not be seeing the current crisis, if the jews had not been granted the area by the UN, we can only guess what internal Arabic/Muslim power struggles, may have ensued, most of us remember the horrific atrocities of the Iran-Iraq war back in the 1970's and '80's, when muslim against muslim conflict, produced some of the most deplorable, inhumane warfare in our lifetime.

It should also be pointed out, at this point, that back in the late 1940's, the Arab world did not merely roll over and acquiesce to the UN directive.
No of course they didn't, they attacked the fledgling state with a united arab assault, which most assumed would simply annihilate the jews, as they were a new country, with absolutely no military history, while the arabs were always fierce warrior states.

What happened?

They got done like a sunday roast.

So we have the infant state defend itself, and win it's first battle, in the perpetual war of it's very right to exist, but we know that the arabs did not accept their defeat, so attacked again, and were defeated, and again, and were defeated, and so it goes.

Historically, the side that wins the war, usually gets to make the rules, and the other side has to put up with that, because they lost, but the arabs just seem to have trouble, grasping that concept.

So, humiliated by their consistent defeats, whenever they engage in traditional warfare with Israel, they decide upon a new course of action, Terrorism.

This is what the state of Israel faces today, continual, ongoing, terrorist attacks on it's land, and it's people.
So, after years and years of these terrorist attacks, the Israelis have decided to try and at least minimise the ability of the Palestinians to use their border region to launch these terrorist attacks on them, bu invading these border areas, and breaking up the Hamas, terrorist network, which coordinates, and carries out these attacks.
Unfortunately, because of the terrorists' tactics of insinuating themselves into the general civilian population, there are far more civilian casualties on the Palestinian side, than anyone would want to see, including the Israelis, but when pushed into such a corner, they are forced to fight this way.
Of course the Israelis would prefer a more humane way to achieve their objective, but since their opposition refuses to negotiate, and seeks the utter destruction of their country, they are left with very limited options.

So, you can see clearly that my sympathies in this conflict, lies with the Israelis, but that does not mean that I support any Zionist agenda, or that I do not condemn many prior actions of the Israelis.
Israel has often treated the palestinians very poorly, and were rightly condemned for it when they did, but that is not the issue we are facing today, and it is this current crisis which we are addressing here.


OK, that is my justification for the Israelis part in this conflict, now would anyone like to add to that, or alternately, give their reasoning as to why the Palestinians are in the right?

I will be interested to hear your opinions on the matter.

Quote:


What area exactly do you think they were 'granted' in 1947?

They were granted less than 50%, and today occupy over 78%....

It seems your whole idea on the history is a little deficient, to say the least, mozzaok. Don't let that stop you from making wide sweeping generalisations about the issue, and suggesting hair brained schemes for how it might be solved.

Quote:


I doubt it has anything to do with tribal rivalries. There's no tribes in Palestine for instance who would've even interacting with tribes in Egypt, nor Lebanon, nor Syria in the way you're suggesting. It sounds nice though doesn't it... tribal rivalries.

Quote:


Since pretty much all Arab governments are pro-Western lackeys, I hardly think making statements relating to the "brotherly love of the Muslim Ummah" are relevant. People across the Muslim and Arab world have been protesting in support of Gaza, and have been lobbying their governments to do something. Unfortunately they aren't allowed, as they're all on the US payroll.

The refusal to allow Palestinians citizenship is based on a few issues (neither of which is valid from an Islamic viewpoint, I might add). First, the Arab governments don't even wanna look after their own people, let alone more. Secondly, if the Palestinians are given citizenship in other Arab countries, then Palestine is lost. You, and your Zionist mates know this, and that's why you always, without fail, raise this issue.

Quote:


That's a pretty messed up, and unhistorical account. Just to give a few examples. They try to promote the idea that an "israeli state" existed pretty much all throughout history. When in fact Jews had pretty much no presence there for about 1800 years, during the Christian and Muslim periods.

"From 1260 to 1300 Israel became the frontier between Mongol invaders (who were Crusader allies) and the Mamluks of Egypt."

Anyone would think from reading this that there existed a Jewish state called Israel between Egypt and the Mongols. What a lot of crap. The Mameluk state was a state that encompassed all the land between modern day Syria and Egypt, there was no Jewish state there since Roman times, and no sizeable Jewish population there again until the early 1900's.

"When the British conquered the area in 1917, they named it "Palestine" and defined the boundaries to include modern Israel and Jordan."

Nonsense, Jordan was only briefly included officially as part of the Mandate of Palestine in 1922, for a period of one whole year.

"In 1844, Jews constituted the largest population group in Jerusalem and by 1890 an absolute majority in the city, although as a whole the Jewish population made up far less than 10% of the region."

More outright lies. Jews were NEVER a majority in Jerusalem until 1967 when they took it from the Jordanians.

Right up until 1945, when the British last surveyed the population during the mandate, Arabs were 60% (42% Muslims, 18% Christians) of Jerusalem, Jews 40%.

Arabs owned 98% (84% Muslims, 14% Christians) of the land and Jews only 2% of the land in Jerusalem.

If you want to get something a little less biased, try reading the wiki articles for Palestine and British Mandate of Palestine. They are a lot more historic, and give the full picture, rather than just the Biblical fantasy and modern day Zionist revisionism.

Quote:


Please answer honestly, if Indonesia established a new state in Qld. don't you think the rest of Australia would be justified in uniting to remove it? Please, just answer it honestly. Let's see if your reasoning really has any basis, or if it's just a load of crap, that you unequallly apply to others, but would never apply to yourself.

Quote:


Exactly... a new country in someone elses land... Good point mozza.

Quote:


Come on, Jews were well trained militarily. The British  during the mandate period for instance, trained Jews in warfare. Not to mention European nations began giving them weapons. Till the point today the USA has armed them to be the 4th. most power military on earth (according to some estimates). What kind of s responsible superpower goes around arming people in conflict to such an extent??? And then claims to be an independant and objective 'peace broker' in the conflict??? Are people so stupid as to not see through this kind of crap? Imagine if China armed Sudan to the teeth, then said "We're going to try and bring peace to Darfur"

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 10:25am:




+++++++++

Thanks for putting your point of view here Abu, it was a pretty well constructed argument, from the point of view of why you believe that Israel has no right to exist.

The fact of the matter is that they do exist, and I would far rather hear your justifications for why Hamas is right to send suicide bombers into Israel.
I would also like to find out if you think they are right to fire rockets into Israel.

I assume that you do condone both those actions, but please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that point, but in the case that I am not, what action do you believe Israel is justified to take, in trying to protect the security of it's people?

We have heard the Israeli PM state that they have no wish to harm any Palestinian civilians, just to provide security and peace for their own citizens, and that sounds eminently fair to me.

Quote:


So we have the word of the Israeli PM, that as soon as they are not attacked, and the terrorist group is not re-armed, they will stop their attacks on Hamas, which unfortunately results in the horrible collateral damage of civilian casualties.

What was the Hamas response to a cease fire proposal?

As I said at the start, I am interested in hearing peoples justifications for this current conflict, and am hoping you can contribute more than just a pro forma Islamist diatribe on why Israel should be obliterated.

sprint-re-cyclist,

Quote:


A few points to consider

1) There are no actual Muslim states, they are all post-colonialist wannabe-states that have no military, no training, no money. They are completely dependant upon foreign aide for their existence in some cases. Egypt for instance is the second largest recipient of US aid after Israel. And in fact the Egyptian aid is for Israel too, as it's pay-off money to keep Egypt out of any conflict of interest with Israel.

2) Israel has been armed to the teeth by European/American powers since it's inception. Also the British trained the original Zionist terrorist groups, who later formed the IDF.

3) US airlifts and military assistance have been rendered to the Zionists to prevent them from being defeated during their  'wars' with the Arabs.

4) As has been mentioned on this forum before, the Israeli forces were larger than the Arab forces. Just because there was more countries doesn't mean a thing. The Zionist troops were more in number, better armed and better trained.

mozzaok,

Quote:


Thank you mozzaok. I think if anyone really examined the facts of the situation in their entirety, and were able to imagine themselves in the Palestinians position, then they'd have no choice but to side with them. As for the Israelis, I really honestly don't believe they have any leg to stand on, other than perpetuating the original injustice (and this was my opinion prior to becoming Muslim also). They're there now, so they have to fight for their existence there, that's about the best argument that can be wielded in their favour. And the fact they keep bringing in so many more people, and putting them into settlements inside what little land the Palestinians have left, whilst at the same time denying the Palestinians any hope of returning, makes it quite clear they're not interested in righting past wrongs, they're interested only in continuing and exacerbating them.

Quote:


Firstly, suicide missions are not permissible in Islam, so I cannot provide a justification for them, they are wrong. However, if you mean for resisting Israel, then yes I believe they are under occupation (all of the land is occupied) and must resit the occupation of their homes, and their continued expulsion  from their homes. Are you aware that Israel has demolished over 18,000 Palestinian homes? That's 18,000 families, who've just had their entire life savings and shelter and family base completely demolished. In most of those cases, the Israeli government then claims their land and builds settlements or military outposts or Jewish-only roads on them. This isn't something that happened 60 years ago and is finished,  it keeps happening, day in and day out. Your view that it's purely water under the bridge, get over it and move on is just wrong, it continues to happen today. The Palestinians are resisting very real and very present hostilities today, here and now.

Quote:


Certainly more right than Israel has to fire rockets into Gaza.

Quote:


An occupying military force has no right to any security. Bringing civilians with you into the occupation zone doesn't give you that right either. It's quite ironic that Palestinians are accused of using human shields, when pretty much every single Jew there is a human shield, brought in to bolster the occupation and legitimise an unjust military action.

The only way we could make some equivalent between the two, would've been if Palestinian fighters went to Poland, Lithuania or any other country Jews lived in, and began engaging in military actions against them, then the two would have some equivalence.

Quote:


So why bulldoze their homes? Why build new settlements day after day on their land? Why even be there in the first place if they wish them no harm. He might mean "We wish them no more further harm beyond the harm we've already committed" but even that would be wrong, as they continue engaging in these hostile activities. The attack on Gaza is just a flare up of a situation that has existed non-stop since the 1940's. It has never ceased for the Palestinians. The targetted assassinations, the mass deportations, the home demolitions, the tanks running over their cars, the check points, the snipers who take out their citizens, then pass it off as militants etc. (which ex-IDF soldiers have admitted is often lies, and they take out random civilians at times, for 'fun')

Quote:


Coming to someone elses land, 'transferring' them out, and then claiming "Stop fighting me, I just want peace and security" is a bit rich don't you think?

Quote:


All Hamas asked them for was to end the blockade. I think if they agreed to that, Hamas would agree to another ceasefire immmediately. Don't you think Ghszans should have a right to peace and security in basic issues such as water, food, electricity, medicine etc? Or do the rights only go one way in your view?

Quote:


Hamas proposed a ceasefire before the last one even expired, they said all you need to do is to lift the blockade. Isn't a blockade considered a hostile act of war? After all, Israel used this pretext for launching a war on the Arabs, when Egypt blockaded them in Eilat....

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 3:37am:

My definition of the Jewish cause of right did not require that Israel must exist in its current location per se. Their righteous cause is that of defending themselves from systematic murder and persecution which for them required the existence of a Jewish state… existing somewhere. The Holocaust was not the only moment of great persecution, just the most recent and most graphic. Over the last 2 millennia, every nation in Christian Europe has had its history of murderous anti-Semitism and insofar as the past is a guide to the future, Jews then and now have every reason to believe that sooner or later Europeans would do it to them again. (It seems that anti-Semitism has the macabre capacity to take root in strange places. Can anyone explain Japanese anti-Semitism?).

Yes, in an ideal world it would have been more morally palatable for a Jewish state to have been created in a (dare I say it) terra nullius or somewhere in Europe, however, Israel was established in the Middle East and has grown into a viable, stable, democratic and powerful nation. It could not be dismantled at any price that any nation could afford. There is no future for Palestinian armed conflict to assert what they have a right to assert – their right to maintain their claim to land from which they believe they were dispossessed. I believe also that continued armed resistance reinforces the argument of extreme elements within Israel that the very proximity of Palestinian presence is a permanent security threat.   

But should that mean there can never be peace? Can the Palestinian people maintain a spiritual sense of a whole Palestine in their hearts and also accept the actualities in the cold light? Or must they fight down to the last Palestinian for an outcome they cannot hope to realise?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 2:50am:




abu,

Your statements here, are riddled with error.


Google,
"The 1948 American Embargo on Arms to Palestine"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22The+1948+American+Embargo+on+Arms+to+...



The 1948 War
by Mitchell Bard
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html



From memory, the Israeli 'air force' in 1948 consisted of one [WW11 era] Messersmitt, and several crop dusting planes.

By all accounts the Jews were lacking in arms, but not courage.

The fledgling state of Israel was attacked by armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt.

With many volunteers coming from other Arab states, bolstering this formidable array of combatants against Israel.




abu,

Why did the Arabs lose in 1948 again????i