terrorist action of israel vs apathy

I aint picking sides. Just linking food for thought.

No you ARE picking sides...it says very clearly in the first frame of that clip that it is zionist propaganda

i looked at the face book page you posted a link to and it was demonising hamas

Hamas were created by Israel to ensure that peace is never achieved...do you understand?

The people behind israel do not want peace with the palestineans...they want to create an enlarged israel and they are playing different groups off against each other

These people are also involved with ISIS as well as Hamas

The victims are the regular Palestinean people who are caught between the two grinding stones of Israel and hamas

The reason people need to expose israel's expansionist aims is that the only way to stop their violence against the palestinean people is to withdraw support for Israel

It is because israel is supported by the US and other powerful backers that it is able to carry on its ethnic cleansing. If the public remove support for israel then their governments must stop supporting israel or they will lose their democratic mandate and then israel will need to compromise with the palestineans

At the moment israel, through AIPAC controls the US congress because the bankers who own the federal reserve and who created the balfour declaration run the US economy and mainstream media

This all must be exposed to save the palestinean people as well as saving the regular israeli people who will also get sucked into these conflicts, not to mention the US american people who's countyr is currently being destroyed by the zionists who run it

No one is asking for the israelis to make themselves defenceless....i am asking israeli people to join with the rest of the world in rejecting the central bankers and their secret society network and to make peace with the palestineans

hamas must be seen as an Israeli tool
 
I see Hamas as a constant threat to Israeli security. I've taken sides. I would make the Gaza Strip a DMZ. I would have been tired of trying to play the politician a looooooooong time ago.
I'd take Gaza Strip. Enough already.
 
I see Hamas as a constant threat to Israeli security. I've taken sides. I would make the Gaza Strip a DMZ. I would have been tired of trying to play the politician a looooooooong time ago.
I'd take Gaza Strip. Enough already.

I dont think the Israelis want the hassel of that, I think they would like, and are doing it this time, to visit such destruction upon the militants and their missile bases and works and tunnels that it will take a couple generations at least to get to the point they had been at in terms of redeveloping a military (probably paramilitary, lets be honest) capacity, then leave the Palestinians to their plight and have the UN or some international other take care to of trying to police and provide during the resultant humanitarian disaster.
 
I dont think the Israelis want the hassel of that, I think they would like, and are doing it this time, to visit such destruction upon the militants and their missile bases and works and tunnels that it will take a couple generations at least to get to the point they had been at in terms of redeveloping a military (probably paramilitary, lets be honest) capacity, then leave the Palestinians to their plight and have the UN or some international other take care to of trying to police and provide during the resultant humanitarian disaster.

I'm just saying what I would do. As long as the hatred for Israel remains in Iran, arms and ordnance will be smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Iran will see to it there is a front against Israel from the area, unless it is occupied.

Take care of the Palestinians and rid them of their rulers who will not take care of them. I would put a final stop to the madness, and in so doing make the Palestinian people see I was not their enemy. Help Egypt with their problems in Sinai, showing them I was not their enemy. People will start to see how much of the problems in the Middle East are coming from Iran's hatred.
There are refugees almost everywhere in the world, but Egypt and Israel should work together to help those willing to stop fighting them. The ones that want to fight need to go.
 
I'm just saying what I would do. As long as the hatred for Israel remains in Iran, arms and ordnance will be smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Iran will see to it there is a front against Israel from the area, unless it is occupied.

The hatred is from israel towards Iran

It is israel that has been threatening to bomb iran

Israel has many nuclear bombs Iran has none

Iran does not have a Rothschild controlled central bank so Israel wants to destroy the Iranian government. To do this Israel wants to isolate Iran by getting rid of its neighbours and allies such as Syria and Lebanon and Palestine. Iran can only protect itself from nuclear Israel and its zionist controlled donor the US by putting missiles in those countries to act as a dissinsentive to prevent Israel from invading Iran

Here's a map showing zio-controlled US military bases around Iran:

us-bases-iran11.jpg


Take care of the Palestinians and rid them of their rulers who will not take care of them.

They don't want to take care of the palestineans they want to eradicate them and take their land

Here's a map of their land acquisitions:
israel-palestine_map_19225_2469.jpg




I would put a final stop to the madness, and in so doing make the Palestinian people see I was not their enemy. Help Egypt with their problems in Sinai, showing them I was not their enemy. People will start to see how much of the problems in the Middle East are coming from Iran's hatred.

No its not Iran whos behind the genocide in gaza, it's not iran who's behind ISIS, it's not Iran who's behind all the violence...its the zionist controlled countries of the US and Israel:

Iran-vs-USA.jpg



There are refugees almost everywhere in the world, but Egypt and Israel should work together to help those willing to stop fighting them. The ones that want to fight need to go.

The refugess have been displaced by the zionist aggression whether in palestine or iraq etc
 
[video=youtube;_ZY8m0cm1oY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY&hd=1[/video]

I aint picking sides. Just linking food for thought.

You won't look at the facts.
 
I'm just saying what I would do. As long as the hatred for Israel remains in Iran, arms and ordnance will be smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Iran will see to it there is a front against Israel from the area, unless it is occupied.

Take care of the Palestinians and rid them of their rulers who will not take care of them. I would put a final stop to the madness, and in so doing make the Palestinian people see I was not their enemy. Help Egypt with their problems in Sinai, showing them I was not their enemy. People will start to see how much of the problems in the Middle East are coming from Iran's hatred.
There are refugees almost everywhere in the world, but Egypt and Israel should work together to help those willing to stop fighting them. The ones that want to fight need to go.

I think that the strategy of the western powers in the middle east since 9/11 has been to eliminate Iran, consider the whole of the Arab spring, and even the ISIS offensive, it's all lead to the rise of Sunni power in the middle east, rather than shiite power which the Iranian revolution and regime have represented.

It will mean that either Iran will be over thrown or it could have an enemy other than Israel and the Jews to think about.

To my mind there's no mistake that this has all been worked out, I think that the intelligence communities in the UK and US got the message after 9/11 that they couldnt ignore the middle east or the legacies of the cold war such as the state of Afghanistan, I actually think that there could have been an Israeli role but it wouldnt even have to be proactive, it could simply have been one of refusing to flag the issue or ignoring eminant threats and I think that because its a matter of record that Israeli computer hackers sought to implicate Saddam's Gulf and stimulate war with the US on that front before that happened.

In a lot of ways it didnt matter, the US military-industrial complex and other interests needed the alternative to "red menace" anyway.

So far as eliminating the leaders that are bad for the Palestinians out of some kind of paternalistic motive, that's not going to work, the Palestinians flocked to Hamas because Arafat was killed and they suspected Israel, who knows, the supposed "moderates" in Israel were eliminated too at the time by assasins.
 
I think that the strategy of the western powers in the middle east since 9/11 has been to eliminate Iran, consider the whole of the Arab spring, and even the ISIS offensive, it's all lead to the rise of Sunni power in the middle east, rather than shiite power which the Iranian revolution and regime have represented.

It will mean that either Iran will be over thrown or it could have an enemy other than Israel and the Jews to think about.

To my mind there's no mistake that this has all been worked out, I think that the intelligence communities in the UK and US got the message after 9/11 that they couldnt ignore the middle east or the legacies of the cold war such as the state of Afghanistan, I actually think that there could have been an Israeli role but it wouldnt even have to be proactive, it could simply have been one of refusing to flag the issue or ignoring eminant threats and I think that because its a matter of record that Israeli computer hackers sought to implicate Saddam's Gulf and stimulate war with the US on that front before that happened.

In a lot of ways it didnt matter, the US military-industrial complex and other interests needed the alternative to "red menace" anyway.

So far as eliminating the leaders that are bad for the Palestinians out of some kind of paternalistic motive, that's not going to work, the Palestinians flocked to Hamas because Arafat was killed and they suspected Israel, who knows, the supposed "moderates" in Israel were eliminated too at the time by assasins.

I agree strongly with the bolded part

Concerning the last part the Israelis poisoned Arafat and before that they created hamas to be opposition to arafat

Concerning 'israel's' involvement in all this......the people who control Israel (and their economy is controlled by a handful of powerful oligarchic families) are the same people who control the US federal reserve and AIPAC which in turn has bought the US congress so it's too vague to say 'israel' is involved....it's a network of families that have business interests most notibly in OIL and BANKING who are the 'military industrial complex' and their business interests and political affiliations are not bound by borders

They have influence and businesses in the US, Israel and the commonwealth countries (and others but these 'western' countries is where they have their strongest grip) and they are bound together by various umbrella organisations such as the round table group and the council on foreign relations

This network will fund ISIS, invade gaza with the Israeli military, undermine syria through funding and arming rebels, get rid of ghaddafi, invade afghanistan and Iraq with the US military, control the federal reserve bank, launder drug money, control the drug trade and so on and so on and it will appear to people watching the corporate media that all these groups are independent but actually when you follow the money they are all controlled by the same hidden hand network
 
@Lark I don't know your background or how intelligent you may be. I'm not sharing information to be condescending, I'm sharing information that changed my mind.

My posts aren't meant to be offensive, there is no need to be so dismissive.
The dismissive, indifferent attitude only creates a bigger mess for the next generation to deal with. Indifference is irresponsible, and it isn't kind.

We are in the same boat anyway, so lets keep the peace as best we know how.

I grew up asking a lot of questions, but still, my opinions where shaped by mis-information. I was manipulated into believing the things I thought to be true.

I didn't know how much I didn't know.
Many people today are trapped in the same mentality.

I am now sharing information that we have not been allowed to hear. I certainly don't know it all, but I know that now.
Most people don't know how much they don't know, and that's a tricky thing to deal with when we have these discussions.
Information has been twisted or censored for a long time, the consequences have been devastating.

Thankfully there are some brave men and women who speak out despite the ridicule, hate, and life long persecution.

Have you watched any of the videos, Lark? I am sharing videos of people who share their real life experiences, they need to be seen.

Everyone, please realize that these people are facing persecution for coming out with their stories, they are trying to expose the reality of the situation we face.
These people are motivated to share truths that the mainstream media continuously denies. How can we ignore their voices?

Are we afraid to listen to a story that may challenge our beliefs? Many people are, but there is no need to fear.
We are stronger when we are flexible, we must not allow ourselves to become so rigid.
There is another side to the story, be brave enough to consider the validity of another perspective.
We aren't infallible after all, it's ok to make internal adjustments, to upgrade our operating system.

The man who filmed 5 Broken Cameras was in constant danger as he filmed, and he recorded some of the most compelling footage I have ever seen.
His camera probably saved his life at least once, stoping a bullet from hitting his face. The courage of this guy, and the resilience of these people is astounding.
He films the Israeli soldiers as they arrest his friends and his brothers, as they take children from their homes in the middle of the night.
He is in the crossfire as he films heavily armed soldiers shooting at peaceful protesters, young and old, women and children.
The army shoots gas at them, burns their Olive trees...
The acts of these violent people against this peaceful population is alarming.

5 Broken Cameras doesn't even show how bad life is for the people held captive in Gaza.

It is impossible to watch a film like this and then listen to the testimony of Israeli soldiers 'breaking the silence' and still argue for "Israel's right to defend themselves". I challenge anyone to do so.

When we stop dehumanizing the 'enemy', we see a very different reality.
It's too bad that the news from the mainstream only serves to put people into a state of fear.

This crisis is relevant for you and I, these criminal acts are being sponsored by our government.
It's our money funding the bombs, tanks, air force, and chemical weapons in Israel.

The plight of the Palestinian people is a Human struggle. This is the front lines of a war on Humanity.
@justme Did you watch any of the videos I've shared? If you haven't, I highly recommend this one.

[video=youtube;3K-mGWy9iUg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K-mGWy9iUg[/video]
 
What the Fight in Israel Is All About-

For anyone who is interested in the truth...

image.webp

Why are Israel and Palestine fighting?

The fight between Jews and Arabs over Israel and Palestine goes back to 1922. The Romans had given Palestine its name when they conquered it from the Jews nearly 2,000 years earlier. After the Romans were thrown out Palestine was part of one Arab or other Moslem empire after another since the 7th century. Finally, in the 400 years before it became available in 1922, Palestine had been a small part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. But in World War I the British and French defeated Germany and the Ottoman Empire and stripped them of their colonies. Thus the League of Nations had to decide what nations should become sovereign in Palestine and the rest of the vast lands lost by the Turks. The League awarded more than 90% of these lands to Arab states, with Britain and France as temporary trustees.

[video=youtube;416pU5kWlZ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=416pU5kWlZ4&sns=em[/video]


But there were two claimants to sparsely populated Palestine. The Arab countries insisted that since it had been ruled by Moslems for more than a millennium, and since its small population of less than a million inhabitants were mostly Arabs, Palestine should become part of an Arab country, presumably Syria. The British government, following the policy it had announced 5 years earlier in the Balfour Declaration, urged that Palestine be set aside as the site for a homeland for the Jewish people. They argued that Jewish kingdoms had ruled various parts of Palestine for over a thousand years and that the land and especially Jerusalem the ancient Jewish capital were central to the Jewish religion. Furthermore they pointed out that the Jewish people had been praying to return to the land for nearly 2,000 years, and that throughout those millennia there were always Jews living in the land and returning to the land. They added that while the Arabs had a number of countries, with millions of square miles, the Jews suffered from having no homeland at all. Also the small numbers of Jews who had come to Palestine in previous decades had begun to build up the country — attracting many Arabs from neighboring countries — and that the Jews could be expected to provide economic development and a lawful society which would help the development of the whole region.

At the time no one suggested turning the land — which had never been a separate country–over to the Arabs who lived there, who were not thought of as a separate people. The inhabitants thought of themselves as Moslems, or in a few cases as Christians, and as Arabs. They had loyalties to family and clan, but not to the region of Palestine which had been divided into various Ottoman districts, in none of which had Jerusalem been the capital.

Despite the claim of the Arab countries, and the fact that most inhabitants were Arabs, the League of Nations ruled that Great Britain should become the Mandatory government of Palestine to provide for Jewish settlement of the land so that it could again become the site of a Jewish homeland. It was widely believed that the Jews needed a homeland to be protected from persecution. The League also provided that the British should protect the local inhabitants’ civil rights — as distinguished from political or national rights.

The Arab countries and the local Arab residents did not accept the decision of the League of Nations — although they did not deny the authority of the League from which they had received so much benefit. Concerning Palestine the Arabs have never accepted any international decision. Nor have they been willing to negotiate or to accept any division or compromise. From the beginning their position has been that this is all “Arab land” or “Palestinian land” and they have refused to negotiate or to recognize any ruling to the contrary. (As part of the Oslo process they said that they were willing to make a compromise, but when negotiations came to a head at Camp David in 2000 they refused to make any counter-offers and instead began the current terror offensive three months later.)

Whether or not the League of Nations was wrong to decide that Palestine should become a Jewish homeland, the effect of that decision is that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who came to Palestine from the creation of the Mandate in 1922 until the birth of the State of Israel in 1948 came pursuant to the international law that existed at the time. They came not as colonials, and not to take land away from another people, but to fulfill the decision of the League of Nations that Jews should be encouraged to settle in Palestine. And they bought the land on which they settled. The Arabs who fought against the Jewish settlers and refugees may have thought of themselves as protecting their own country from invaders, but according to international law it wasn’t their country (and it never had been in the past) and they were fighting against the existing law.

In fact there has never been any “Palestinian land” anywhere because there has never been a Palestinian country. But a majority of the people of the Kingdom of Jordan, which had been created out of the Eastern part of Mandatory Palestine, are Palestinians. While Arabs — that is native Arabic-speakers who consider themselves part of Arab history — had been a majority in Palestine for hundreds of years before it became part of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine had never been a separate Arab country; it had always been an unseparated part of other countries or empires. Except for Egypt, the idea of separate Arab countries — or nationalities — distinct from Islam or Arab — is less than two centuries old. Palestine had been an “Arab land” only in the sense of being part of various Arab empires, just as it had been part of Egyptian or Persian or Greek empires before. But no Arab government had paid much attention to Palestine or to Jerusalem. And no government that had ever been sovereign in Palestine since the Jewish kingdoms now claims the land.

Under the British Mandate hundreds of thousands of Jews accepted the invitation to settle in Palestine. But the Arabs refused to accept the League’s Mandate and fought against the Jewish settlers. The British Mandatory government was unwilling to devote the necessary resources to enforce the law and the Jews often had to defend themselves to avoid being killed. Some years later when Britain was defending itself against the onslaught of Hitler’s Germany it felt that it needed help from the Arab countries. Therefore despite the Jews need for a place to go to escape from murder by the Germans, and despite the British responsibility under the Mandate to use Palestine as a homeland for the Jews, Britain yielded to Arab pressure and refused to allow Jews to escape to Palestine, and as a result hundreds of thousands of Jews who could have been saved were killed by the Germans.

In 1945 after the end of World War II great pressure was put on Britain to allow the Jewish survivors of the holocaust to come to Palestine, but because of their political interests the British continued to obey the Arab demand to exclude the Jews despite the provisions of the Mandate. The Palestinian Jews began a guerrilla war against the British government and by 1947 the British decided that they would give up their Mandate and go home. To deal with the potential vacuum of authority the UN General Assembly recommended that Western Palestine be divided into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem to be an international territory for ten years. (Eastern Palestine had earlier been separated and given to King Abdullah to become Jordan.)

Contrary to a common impression the Jews were not given Palestine as compensation for being victims of the Holocaust. Palestine had been established as a Jewish homeland by the League of Nations a generation earlier. After the Holocaust the UN suggested a smaller territory for the survivors of the Holocaust and for the Jewish people than had been set by the League. And Israel actually got only the land its forces succeeded in holding in the fighting against the Arab armies. No land was given to Israel because of the Holocaust or as a result of a UN decision.

In the UN discussions the Arab countries had opposed both making Palestine a single binational state for Arabs and for Jews, and dividing it into two states. They insisted that it become a single Arab country. And they refused to accept the UN recommendation that two states be created, and did not allow the new Arab state recommended by the UN for part of Palestine to come into existence. Instead, on the day that the British Mandate expired five Arab countries sent their armies into Palestine to eliminate the Jews and divide the land among themselves.

The Jewish community in Palestine accepted the UN recommendation to divide Palestine and declared the State of Israel and its willingness to give its Arab inhabitants equal rights and to live in peace with its Arab neighbors. But from its first day Israel had to fight to exist. It was under attack by Arab armies who took whatever land they could, regardless of the UN partition recommendation, and killed or removed all Jews from whatever land they occupied.

The fighting continued, off and on, for over a year until the UN finally succeeded in negotiating an armistice along the lines the forces held when the fighting stopped. These borders lasted from 1949 until 1967 and are called the ’67 borders. The Armistice left Western Palestine divided into three pieces: Israel, the Gaza strip, which is a small piece of land along the Mediterranean shore which was occupied by the Egyptian army but not incorporated into Egypt, and “the West Bank,” the part of the Mandate territory between Israel and the West of the Jordan River, which was occupied by Jordan. Jordan tried to incorporate the West Bank into Jordan — changing its own name from Transjordan, but none of the Arab countries recognized the area as part of Jordan. The only countries which recognized Jordan’s claim were Britain and Pakistan, and later Jordan gave up its claim.

During the 1948-9 war, between Israel and the Arab states which attacked Israel, about 600,000 Arabs who had been living in the area which became Israel left their homes for neighboring Arab countries. Some were forced to leave by the Israeli army, but the majority left to avoid the fighting and because they were urged or even forced to do so by the Arab governments and their own leaders, despite the fact that many were urged by their Jewish neighbors to remain and live in peace in Israel. These 600,000 were the start of “the Arab refugee problem.”

Because of the creation of Israel and the Arab war against it, Jewish communities in Arab countries, some of which dated back more than a thousand years, were uprooted, and more than 600,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes and property in Arab countries. Almost all of these Jewish refugees settled in Israel, which also accepted about an equal number of refugees from Europe. During its first few years tiny Israel, with an initial population of only about 600,000 Jews, and an area about the size of New Jersey, took in over a million refugees.

The Arab countries, with a population of over 50 million and an area bigger than the U.S., refused to accept any Arab refugees, even though they spoke the same language, shared the same culture, and practiced the same religion. While they couldn’t fight militarily at the time, the Arab countries continued their effort to destroy Israel in other ways. They knew that keeping the Arab refugees in refugee camps, and not allowing them the choice of resettling in Arab countries, would preserve those people as a weapon against Israel.

In the years after World War II there were more than 20 million refugees in all parts of the world and all of them were resettled except for the .6 million Arab refugees. The Arab refugees were made to continue as refugees, mostly in camps, by the Arab countries in order to serve these countries’ war against Israel. Their number has grown in the last 50 years to over 3 million. They are the fastest growing population in the world, and the biggest practical obstacle to achieving a settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

In the Spring of 1967 the Arab countries, led by Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, prepared to attack Israel and, in their own words, “throw the Jews into the sea.” The UN forces stationed between Egypt and Israel in the Sinai desert obeyed Nasser’s demand to get out of his way, and the Egyptian military moved into the Sinai toward Israel. Egypt closed the Tiran Straits to ships going to or from Israel, refusing all diplomatic efforts by the US to fulfill the US commitment to Israel to keep its sea lanes open.

Before the Egyptian attack was launched Israel preempted with air attacks that destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and with armored attacks into the Sinai. At the same time Israel notified the King of Jordan that Israel would not attack the territory he occupied and urged him to maintain peace with Israel. Jordan, however, yielded to Arab pressure and joined the attack against Israel sending its army against Jewish Jerusalem.

The result was that in six days Israel’s armies threw Egypt out of Gaza and the Sinai, threw Jordan out of Jerusalem and the West Bank, and threw Syria out of the Golan Heights, from which they had been shooting at Israel from time to time since 1949, and very heavily during the six-day war, thus the area controlled by Israel was more than tripled.

The UN Security Council effort to resolve the war resulted in UNSC Resolution 242 which called on the Arab states to make peace with Israel and left the question of borders to be resolved by negotiations between the parties on the basis of two guidelines: that the borders be “secure and recognized” and that Israel remove its forces from “territories” that they had occupied in the war. The Security Council rejected proposals to change the word “territories” into “all the territories” or into “the territories.” (The French, Arab, and Russian translation of the Resolution used the phrase “the territories,” but the UN practice in case of conflict between different translations is to follow the language in which the Resolution was negotiated, which was English.)

To this day the Palestinians and all the Arab countries insist that UNSC Res. 242 requires that Israel get out of all the territories acquired in 1967, just as they continue to insist that the League of Nations Mandate to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine was invalid. But Lord Caradon of England, and Eugene Rostow of the U.S., two of the principal diplomats responsible for negotiating the Resolution, and most independent international legal experts, have written that Res 242 was not intended to, and does not, require Israel to return to the ’67 borders. Such a requirement would be inconsistent with the phrase “secure and recognized” borders, both because those borders are not secure and because no description of the borders would be needed if the Resolution were referring to the preexisting borders.

After the Security Council passed Res. 242 the Arab countries met at Khartoum and issued their famous “three noes:” no negotiations, no recognition, and no peace. But ten years later, in 1977, President Sadat of Egypt, after being secretly assured by Israel that it was willing to return the Sinai to Egypt, came to Israel and proposed that Egypt and Israel make peace with each other. The following year in negotiations at Camp David a peace treaty was negotiated and Israel returned the entire Sinai to Egypt, and Egypt became the first Arab state to recognize Israel and to comply with Res. 242.

The Golan Heights continues to be in Israel’s hands, and in 1981 it was annexed by Israel. In several negotiations in recent years Israel has offered to return this area to Syria but no agreement was reached and Syria continues to be at war with Israel, supporting terrorist attacks on Israel through Lebanon which it illegally controls and which is occupied by Syrian armed forces.

The main conflict today centers around the 1600 sq mi of territory west of the Jordan River that Jordan had occupied from 1949 to 1967. Since Jordan had thrown all the Jews out of that territory, in 1967 this area contained 600,000 Arabs and no Jews. During the 19 years the area was occupied by Jordan the population had declined because of Palestinian emigration. But beginning in 1967, because of the Israeli occupation, the outflow of Palestinians was reversed, and health conditions greatly improved, so that the Arab population has since grown to 2 million, and the Jewish population has risen to some 550,000 including the parts of Jerusalem added to Israel in 1967.

The Palestinian demand that Israel restore the ’67 borders would require that more than half a million people give up their homes and the neighborhoods and schools and synagogues they have built and lived in, on formerly empty land, most of them for more than 20 years, including more than half the Jewish population of Jerusalem.

The Jews settled in five groups of places outside the borders of 1967. First Jerusalem was unified and its borders slightly expanded to be more defensible and the newly acquired parts of it were annexed into Israel. Some 300,000 Israelis now live in parts of Jerusalem that had been occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967; the Palestinians refer to these residents of Jerusalem as “settlers.”

Second, several communities resettled places in the area of Gush Etzion from which Jews had been driven out by the Jordanian army in 1948. And a new suburban town, Efrat, was created in this area. This area, a few miles from Jerusalem, now has a Jewish population of about 30,000.

Third, two major suburban towns or cities were established, Ariel, 18 miles east of Tel Aviv, and Maale Adumim, 5 miles east of Jerusalem. Together these large towns have a population of close to 40,000. There are also perhaps a half dozen smaller suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with up to 20,000 residents each, mostly just outside of the ’67 border of Israel.

Fourth there is the Jordan Valley which, except for Jericho, was empty in 1967, because essentially all the Arab population of the West Bank lived in the cities and villages near the ridgeline from north of Nablus to south of Hebron. Israel immediately decided that it would use the Jordan valley area to protect its Eastern border and established a series of farming communities in this flat, hot, arid below-sea-level area to anchor its military presence and support the protection of the border. And in addition some other small settlements were created on strategic hilltops overlooking the Valley.

Finally there are about a hundred smaller settlements. Most are very small communities located on hilltops between Arab villages or near Arab cities. Some were located for strategic reasons, others for religious. The Israeli communities established in Judea and Samaria, which is the traditional name for the West Bank, are built on land where there had been no Arab settlement. It was empty land, owned by the state and neither farmed nor used for pasture by the Arabs who had lived in nearby areas for generations. Altogether there are some 35,000 Israelis living in these smaller settlements which are separate from the main areas of settlement and from Israel — although some of them are small towns of several thousand people.

While generally the residents of the bigger, more suburban communities moved there to get less expensive space in rural surroundings, and the residents of the smaller settlements live there for ideological or religious reasons, there are many exceptions to both generalizations.

The result is a crazy quilt of Jews and Arabs living each surrounded by the other. There is no line that can be drawn to divide the groups so that each will live in a single contiguous territory. Especially so long as Israel stays in the Jordan Valley, either Jews will have to cross over Arab territory or Arabs will have to cross over Jewish territory, or both.

The Palestinians have several arguments to support their position. First, they say that all of Palestine (including the part which is now Israel) was theirs and wrongfully taken away from them — that is, that the League of Nations decision was wrong or invalid. Therefore, they say, that by accepting only the land that was outside of Israel before the war in 1967 they have given up 75% of their land and cannot be asked to compromise further. There are two problems with this argument: first, they never owned any part of Palestine to give up; and second, they never really gave up their claim to Israel, always teaching their children that all of Israel was Palestine.

The second Palestinian argument is that they interpret UNSC Res. 242 as requiring Israel to give up all the territories it acquired in 1967. But, as discussed before, that is not the meaning of Res. 242; it was not the intention of those who wrote Res 242, nor is it the words of 242.

Finally the Palestinians say that the Jews came to Israel as foreign colonizers who had no right to the land because Jews had never been in the land before the Arabs (Moslems) came to it. For example, they say, that what Jews call the Temple Mount never had a Jewish temple on it; it was empty land when the Arabs built the Dome of the Rock and El Aqsa Mosque in the 7th century. They deny that there is a Jewish people. They do not admit to their own people the historical reality that there are two peoples with deep roots in the land.

In fact Moslem sources have always recognized that the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque were built on the Temple Mount because it was a site that had been made holy by the Jewish temple. The recent Palestinian denial of an historical Jewish connection to the Temple Mount is also a denial of a Christian connection and a rejection of the New Testament’s reports of Christ at the Temple.

The Palestinians insist on “justice,” but they mean what would be just if the facts were what they tell their people. If the Jews were colonial strangers to the land, who came to take it from its Arab owners, without legal right or prior attachment to the land, then certainly justice would require that the Jews leave the land to its rightful owners.

The world decided in UN Res 242, as it had in the General Assembly partition resolution in 1948, that there are two peoples, Jews and Arabs with just claims to the land and that they must divide it between them. While the Palestinians have recognized that Israel exists they have never accepted that Israel and the Jews have legitimate claims in the land. They tell their people that Israel is a colonial invader with no roots in the land. It is hard to understand how there can be effective negotiations for Israel and Palestine to live in peace next to each other in this small piece of land before the Palestinians accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state and become willing to live in peace with it.

At the end of September 2000 after rejecting the proposal by Israel and the US to create a Palestinian state on more than 95% of the West Bank and Gaza plus the part of Jerusalem where Arabs now live, the Palestinians started a campaign of murder and terror against Israel. For a few months at the beginning of this campaign the Palestinians used crowds of civilians armed with rocks and firebombs, with snipers backing them up, and often with children in the front, to attack Israeli border guards or other targets. But after a short time the crowds dropped out and the attack was limited to individuals and small groups of shooters or bombers. They attacked cars and buses on the roads in the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli kibbutzim in Gaza, soldiers on or off duty in Israel and in the Gaza and the West Bank, and civilian crowds in places like pizzerias and cafes wherever they could be found in Israel. It was not an attack on the Israeli military and most of the victims were civilians, frequently women, children, and old people.

The Palestinians said that they were opposed to terror, but they argued that attacks against Israeli women and children was not terror because such attacks are Palestinian resistance to occupation. They view all disputed territory, that is, any place that they claim and that Israel doesn’t give to them, as occupied territory. (Their logic is that they regard it as their land, but it is controlled by Israel, so it must be “occupied land.”) And they regard any action they take against Israelis as resistance to occupation. By their definition whatever is resistance to occupation can’t be terrorism, even exploding bombs in discotheques in the heart of Israel.

To prevent terrorism Israel at various times prevented Palestinians from moving from one town to another, or established check points on roads that had been used to attack Israelis, or prevented Palestinians from coming into Israel. These and similar actions imposed great hardships on many Palestinians. And often checkpoints and inspections and other security measures were implemented by Israeli soldiers with disrespect or insults to Palestinians.

The Palestinians insist that none of the Israeli security measures are justified — because Israel has no right to defend against resistance to occupation — and so they feel that all Israeli security measures are acts of “terror” and aggression against the Palestinian people. In fact some of the “security measures” have little value for increasing security and are taken by Israel because of its frustration at not being able to stop Palestinian murder, and in hope that if the Palestinian population is sufficiently inconvenienced it will oppose the terror attacks that lead to the inconvenience and suffering.

An independent observer might try to evaluate Israeli security measures to decide which are reasonable steps to prevent additional murders of Israeli citizens, but the Palestinian position is that all Israeli security measures are gratuitous attacks against Palestinians for which Palestinians are entitled to take revenge by killing additional Israeli civilians. Thus subsequent attack on Israeli buses are not only legitimate resistance to occupation, but also justified retaliation for Israeli security measures (defined by the Palestinians as terrorism). What is often called the “cycle of violence” is a Palestinian bombing of a café, followed by an Israeli blockade of the town from where the bomber came, or an Israeli killing of a Palestinian terrorist leader, followed by a Palestinian bombing of a bus.

Israel says that terror attacks against civilians are different than attacks against terrorists, and are not to be weighed against each other. The Israeli view is that terror is wrong (and illegal) however just the cause for which it is being used, and that the victims of terror are morally and legally entitled to take whatever security measures (but not terror) are necessary to stop the terror. “Excessive force” means more force than necessary to stop the terror. Palestinians say that Israeli security measures are terrorism and that Israeli “terrorism” is not justified by Palestinian resistance to occupation.

In April, 2002, after the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel that had begun 18 months earlier culminated in a series of five suicide bombings in Israel in five days, killing over 100 people, including 29 who were attending a Passover supper in a hotel in Netanya, Israel began a massive campaign against the terrorist forces. The Israel army surrounded major Palestinian cities that had been the sources of the attacks on Israel and military units went into the cities to capture the headquarters and facilities of the Palestinian forces that had been attacking Israel. The Israelis captured and destroyed illegal weapons and workshops for the production of explosives for suicide bombers, and they arrested hundreds of Palestinians wanted for their crimes against Israelis and many of the leaders of the terrorist organizations.

Since some of the main terrorist bases were located in civilian areas, so-called “refugee camps,” and were protected by fighters and suicide bombers, as well as large numbers of mines and booby-traps, the Israeli operation was dangerous and time-consuming. The Israelis risked the lives of their soldiers to avoid using artillery and air power in ways that would have produced more Palestinian civilian deaths, and in Jenin alone lost 24 soldiers.

Israel has now adopted a policy of sending forces into the Palestinian occupied areas whenever necessary to capture leaders of the terrorist forces, to destroy important terrorist facilities, and especially to stop plans to bomb Israeli civilians. The result has been a drastic reduction in the rate of successful attacks against Israelis — although the number of foiled attacks demonstrates that the Palestinians have not ceased to try to kill as many Israelis as they can.

The war seems likely to continue at least as long as the Palestinians continue to get political and financial support from the democracies and from Iran and the Arab countries. Both the Palestinian leadership and population — if polls adequately reflect popular opinion — prefer fighting to living peacefully with Israel, even if the settlements have been removed and there is a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. So Israel has to fight until there is a change in the situation, and it is now considering various ways to adapting to make the fighting less destructive.

(Copyright © The Media Line, Ltd 11/08/02)
 
The Romans had given Palestine its name when they conquered it from the Jews

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.[SUP][6][/SUP] Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley ....The term was first used to denote an official province in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina). There is circumstantial evidence linking Hadrian with the name change,[SUP][17][/SUP] although the precise date is not certain,[SUP][17][/SUP] and the assertion of some scholars that the name change was intended "to complete the dissociation with Judaea"[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP] is disputed.[SUP][20][/SUP]
.
 
What the Fight in Israel Is All About-

For anyone who is interested in the truth...

View attachment 21729

Why are Israel and Palestine fighting?

The fight between Jews and Arabs over Israel and Palestine goes back to 1922. The Romans had given Palestine its name when they conquered it from the Jews nearly 2,000 years earlier. After the Romans were thrown out Palestine was part of one Arab or other Moslem empire after another since the 7th century. Finally, in the 400 years before it became available in 1922, Palestine had been a small part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. But in World War I the British and French defeated Germany and the Ottoman Empire and stripped them of their colonies. Thus the League of Nations had to decide what nations should become sovereign in Palestine and the rest of the vast lands lost by the Turks. The League awarded more than 90% of these lands to Arab states, with Britain and France as temporary trustees.

[video=youtube;416pU5kWlZ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=416pU5kWlZ4&sns=em[/video]


But there were two claimants to sparsely populated Palestine. The Arab countries insisted that since it had been ruled by Moslems for more than a millennium, and since its small population of less than a million inhabitants were mostly Arabs, Palestine should become part of an Arab country, presumably Syria. The British government, following the policy it had announced 5 years earlier in the Balfour Declaration, urged that Palestine be set aside as the site for a homeland for the Jewish people. They argued that Jewish kingdoms had ruled various parts of Palestine for over a thousand years and that the land and especially Jerusalem the ancient Jewish capital were central to the Jewish religion. Furthermore they pointed out that the Jewish people had been praying to return to the land for nearly 2,000 years, and that throughout those millennia there were always Jews living in the land and returning to the land. They added that while the Arabs had a number of countries, with millions of square miles, the Jews suffered from having no homeland at all. Also the small numbers of Jews who had come to Palestine in previous decades had begun to build up the country – attracting many Arabs from neighboring countries – and that the Jews could be expected to provide economic development and a lawful society which would help the development of the whole region.

At the time no one suggested turning the land – which had never been a separate country—over to the Arabs who lived there, who were not thought of as a separate people. The inhabitants thought of themselves as Moslems, or in a few cases as Christians, and as Arabs. They had loyalties to family and clan, but not to the region of Palestine which had been divided into various Ottoman districts, in none of which had Jerusalem been the capital.

Despite the claim of the Arab countries, and the fact that most inhabitants were Arabs, the League of Nations ruled that Great Britain should become the Mandatory government of Palestine to provide for Jewish settlement of the land so that it could again become the site of a Jewish homeland. It was widely believed that the Jews needed a homeland to be protected from persecution. The League also provided that the British should protect the local inhabitants’ civil rights – as distinguished from political or national rights.

The Arab countries and the local Arab residents did not accept the decision of the League of Nations – although they did not deny the authority of the League from which they had received so much benefit. Concerning Palestine the Arabs have never accepted any international decision. Nor have they been willing to negotiate or to accept any division or compromise. From the beginning their position has been that this is all “Arab land” or “Palestinian land” and they have refused to negotiate or to recognize any ruling to the contrary. (As part of the Oslo process they said that they were willing to make a compromise, but when negotiations came to a head at Camp David in 2000 they refused to make any counter-offers and instead began the current terror offensive three months later.)

Whether or not the League of Nations was wrong to decide that Palestine should become a Jewish homeland, the effect of that decision is that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who came to Palestine from the creation of the Mandate in 1922 until the birth of the State of Israel in 1948 came pursuant to the international law that existed at the time. They came not as colonials, and not to take land away from another people, but to fulfill the decision of the League of Nations that Jews should be encouraged to settle in Palestine. And they bought the land on which they settled. The Arabs who fought against the Jewish settlers and refugees may have thought of themselves as protecting their own country from invaders, but according to international law it wasn’t their country (and it never had been in the past) and they were fighting against the existing law.

In fact there has never been any “Palestinian land” anywhere because there has never been a Palestinian country. But a majority of the people of the Kingdom of Jordan, which had been created out of the Eastern part of Mandatory Palestine, are Palestinians. While Arabs – that is native Arabic-speakers who consider themselves part of Arab history – had been a majority in Palestine for hundreds of years before it became part of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine had never been a separate Arab country; it had always been an unseparated part of other countries or empires. Except for Egypt, the idea of separate Arab countries – or nationalities – distinct from Islam or Arab – is less than two centuries old. Palestine had been an “Arab land” only in the sense of being part of various Arab empires, just as it had been part of Egyptian or Persian or Greek empires before. But no Arab government had paid much attention to Palestine or to Jerusalem. And no government that had ever been sovereign in Palestine since the Jewish kingdoms now claims the land.

Under the British Mandate hundreds of thousands of Jews accepted the invitation to settle in Palestine. But the Arabs refused to accept the League’s Mandate and fought against the Jewish settlers. The British Mandatory government was unwilling to devote the necessary resources to enforce the law and the Jews often had to defend themselves to avoid being killed. Some years later when Britain was defending itself against the onslaught of Hitler’s Germany it felt that it needed help from the Arab countries. Therefore despite the Jews need for a place to go to escape from murder by the Germans, and despite the British responsibility under the Mandate to use Palestine as a homeland for the Jews, Britain yielded to Arab pressure and refused to allow Jews to escape to Palestine, and as a result hundreds of thousands of Jews who could have been saved were killed by the Germans.

In 1945 after the end of World War II great pressure was put on Britain to allow the Jewish survivors of the holocaust to come to Palestine, but because of their political interests the British continued to obey the Arab demand to exclude the Jews despite the provisions of the Mandate. The Palestinian Jews began a guerrilla war against the British government and by 1947 the British decided that they would give up their Mandate and go home. To deal with the potential vacuum of authority the UN General Assembly recommended that Western Palestine be divided into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem to be an international territory for ten years. (Eastern Palestine had earlier been separated and given to King Abdullah to become Jordan.)

Contrary to a common impression the Jews were not given Palestine as compensation for being victims of the Holocaust. Palestine had been established as a Jewish homeland by the League of Nations a generation earlier. After the Holocaust the UN suggested a smaller territory for the survivors of the Holocaust and for the Jewish people than had been set by the League. And Israel actually got only the land its forces succeeded in holding in the fighting against the Arab armies. No land was given to Israel because of the Holocaust or as a result of a UN decision.

In the UN discussions the Arab countries had opposed both making Palestine a single binational state for Arabs and for Jews, and dividing it into two states. They insisted that it become a single Arab country. And they refused to accept the UN recommendation that two states be created, and did not allow the new Arab state recommended by the UN for part of Palestine to come into existence. Instead, on the day that the British Mandate expired five Arab countries sent their armies into Palestine to eliminate the Jews and divide the land among themselves.

The Jewish community in Palestine accepted the UN recommendation to divide Palestine and declared the State of Israel and its willingness to give its Arab inhabitants equal rights and to live in peace with its Arab neighbors. But from its first day Israel had to fight to exist. It was under attack by Arab armies who took whatever land they could, regardless of the UN partition recommendation, and killed or removed all Jews from whatever land they occupied.

The fighting continued, off and on, for over a year until the UN finally succeeded in negotiating an armistice along the lines the forces held when the fighting stopped. These borders lasted from 1949 until 1967 and are called the ’67 borders. The Armistice left Western Palestine divided into three pieces: Israel, the Gaza strip, which is a small piece of land along the Mediterranean shore which was occupied by the Egyptian army but not incorporated into Egypt, and “the West Bank,” the part of the Mandate territory between Israel and the West of the Jordan River, which was occupied by Jordan. Jordan tried to incorporate the West Bank into Jordan – changing its own name from Transjordan, but none of the Arab countries recognized the area as part of Jordan. The only countries which recognized Jordan’s claim were Britain and Pakistan, and later Jordan gave up its claim.

During the 1948-9 war, between Israel and the Arab states which attacked Israel, about 600,000 Arabs who had been living in the area which became Israel left their homes for neighboring Arab countries. Some were forced to leave by the Israeli army, but the majority left to avoid the fighting and because they were urged or even forced to do so by the Arab governments and their own leaders, despite the fact that many were urged by their Jewish neighbors to remain and live in peace in Israel. These 600,000 were the start of “the Arab refugee problem.”

Because of the creation of Israel and the Arab war against it, Jewish communities in Arab countries, some of which dated back more than a thousand years, were uprooted, and more than 600,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes and property in Arab countries. Almost all of these Jewish refugees settled in Israel, which also accepted about an equal number of refugees from Europe. During its first few years tiny Israel, with an initial population of only about 600,000 Jews, and an area about the size of New Jersey, took in over a million refugees.

The Arab countries, with a population of over 50 million and an area bigger than the U.S., refused to accept any Arab refugees, even though they spoke the same language, shared the same culture, and practiced the same religion. While they couldn’t fight militarily at the time, the Arab countries continued their effort to destroy Israel in other ways. They knew that keeping the Arab refugees in refugee camps, and not allowing them the choice of resettling in Arab countries, would preserve those people as a weapon against Israel.

In the years after World War II there were more than 20 million refugees in all parts of the world and all of them were resettled except for the .6 million Arab refugees. The Arab refugees were made to continue as refugees, mostly in camps, by the Arab countries in order to serve these countries’ war against Israel. Their number has grown in the last 50 years to over 3 million. They are the fastest growing population in the world, and the biggest practical obstacle to achieving a settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

In the Spring of 1967 the Arab countries, led by Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, prepared to attack Israel and, in their own words, “throw the Jews into the sea.” The UN forces stationed between Egypt and Israel in the Sinai desert obeyed Nasser’s demand to get out of his way, and the Egyptian military moved into the Sinai toward Israel. Egypt closed the Tiran Straits to ships going to or from Israel, refusing all diplomatic efforts by the US to fulfill the US commitment to Israel to keep its sea lanes open.

Before the Egyptian attack was launched Israel preempted with air attacks that destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and with armored attacks into the Sinai. At the same time Israel notified the King of Jordan that Israel would not attack the territory he occupied and urged him to maintain peace with Israel. Jordan, however, yielded to Arab pressure and joined the attack against Israel sending its army against Jewish Jerusalem.

The result was that in six days Israel’s armies threw Egypt out of Gaza and the Sinai, threw Jordan out of Jerusalem and the West Bank, and threw Syria out of the Golan Heights, from which they had been shooting at Israel from time to time since 1949, and very heavily during the six-day war, thus the area controlled by Israel was more than tripled.

The UN Security Council effort to resolve the war resulted in UNSC Resolution 242 which called on the Arab states to make peace with Israel and left the question of borders to be resolved by negotiations between the parties on the basis of two guidelines: that the borders be “secure and recognized” and that Israel remove its forces from “territories” that they had occupied in the war. The Security Council rejected proposals to change the word “territories” into “all the territories” or into “the territories.” (The French, Arab, and Russian translation of the Resolution used the phrase “the territories,” but the UN practice in case of conflict between different translations is to follow the language in which the Resolution was negotiated, which was English.)

To this day the Palestinians and all the Arab countries insist that UNSC Res. 242 requires that Israel get out of all the territories acquired in 1967, just as they continue to insist that the League of Nations Mandate to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine was invalid. But Lord Caradon of England, and Eugene Rostow of the U.S., two of the principal diplomats responsible for negotiating the Resolution, and most independent international legal experts, have written that Res 242 was not intended to, and does not, require Israel to return to the ’67 borders. Such a requirement would be inconsistent with the phrase “secure and recognized” borders, both because those borders are not secure and because no description of the borders would be needed if the Resolution were referring to the preexisting borders.

After the Security Council passed Res. 242 the Arab countries met at Khartoum and issued their famous “three noes:” no negotiations, no recognition, and no peace. But ten years later, in 1977, President Sadat of Egypt, after being secretly assured by Israel that it was willing to return the Sinai to Egypt, came to Israel and proposed that Egypt and Israel make peace with each other. The following year in negotiations at Camp David a peace treaty was negotiated and Israel returned the entire Sinai to Egypt, and Egypt became the first Arab state to recognize Israel and to comply with Res. 242.

The Golan Heights continues to be in Israel’s hands, and in 1981 it was annexed by Israel. In several negotiations in recent years Israel has offered to return this area to Syria but no agreement was reached and Syria continues to be at war with Israel, supporting terrorist attacks on Israel through Lebanon which it illegally controls and which is occupied by Syrian armed forces.

The main conflict today centers around the 1600 sq mi of territory west of the Jordan River that Jordan had occupied from 1949 to 1967. Since Jordan had thrown all the Jews out of that territory, in 1967 this area contained 600,000 Arabs and no Jews. During the 19 years the area was occupied by Jordan the population had declined because of Palestinian emigration. But beginning in 1967, because of the Israeli occupation, the outflow of Palestinians was reversed, and health conditions greatly improved, so that the Arab population has since grown to 2 million, and the Jewish population has risen to some 550,000 including the parts of Jerusalem added to Israel in 1967.

The Palestinian demand that Israel restore the ’67 borders would require that more than half a million people give up their homes and the neighborhoods and schools and synagogues they have built and lived in, on formerly empty land, most of them for more than 20 years, including more than half the Jewish population of Jerusalem.

The Jews settled in five groups of places outside the borders of 1967. First Jerusalem was unified and its borders slightly expanded to be more defensible and the newly acquired parts of it were annexed into Israel. Some 300,000 Israelis now live in parts of Jerusalem that had been occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967; the Palestinians refer to these residents of Jerusalem as “settlers.”

Second, several communities resettled places in the area of Gush Etzion from which Jews had been driven out by the Jordanian army in 1948. And a new suburban town, Efrat, was created in this area. This area, a few miles from Jerusalem, now has a Jewish population of about 30,000.

Third, two major suburban towns or cities were established, Ariel, 18 miles east of Tel Aviv, and Maale Adumim, 5 miles east of Jerusalem. Together these large towns have a population of close to 40,000. There are also perhaps a half dozen smaller suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with up to 20,000 residents each, mostly just outside of the ’67 border of Israel.

Fourth there is the Jordan Valley which, except for Jericho, was empty in 1967, because essentially all the Arab population of the West Bank lived in the cities and villages near the ridgeline from north of Nablus to south of Hebron. Israel immediately decided that it would use the Jordan valley area to protect its Eastern border and established a series of farming communities in this flat, hot, arid below-sea-level area to anchor its military presence and support the protection of the border. And in addition some other small settlements were created on strategic hilltops overlooking the Valley.

Finally there are about a hundred smaller settlements. Most are very small communities located on hilltops between Arab villages or near Arab cities. Some were located for strategic reasons, others for religious. The Israeli communities established in Judea and Samaria, which is the traditional name for the West Bank, are built on land where there had been no Arab settlement. It was empty land, owned by the state and neither farmed nor used for pasture by the Arabs who had lived in nearby areas for generations. Altogether there are some 35,000 Israelis living in these smaller settlements which are separate from the main areas of settlement and from Israel – although some of them are small towns of several thousand people.

While generally the residents of the bigger, more suburban communities moved there to get less expensive space in rural surroundings, and the residents of the smaller settlements live there for ideological or religious reasons, there are many exceptions to both generalizations.

The result is a crazy quilt of Jews and Arabs living each surrounded by the other. There is no line that can be drawn to divide the groups so that each will live in a single contiguous territory. Especially so long as Israel stays in the Jordan Valley, either Jews will have to cross over Arab territory or Arabs will have to cross over Jewish territory, or both.

The Palestinians have several arguments to support their position. First, they say that all of Palestine (including the part which is now Israel) was theirs and wrongfully taken away from them – that is, that the League of Nations decision was wrong or invalid. Therefore, they say, that by accepting only the land that was outside of Israel before the war in 1967 they have given up 75% of their land and cannot be asked to compromise further. There are two problems with this argument: first, they never owned any part of Palestine to give up; and second, they never really gave up their claim to Israel, always teaching their children that all of Israel was Palestine.

The second Palestinian argument is that they interpret UNSC Res. 242 as requiring Israel to give up all the territories it acquired in 1967. But, as discussed before, that is not the meaning of Res. 242; it was not the intention of those who wrote Res 242, nor is it the words of 242.

Finally the Palestinians say that the Jews came to Israel as foreign colonizers who had no right to the land because Jews had never been in the land before the Arabs (Moslems) came to it. For example, they say, that what Jews call the Temple Mount never had a Jewish temple on it; it was empty land when the Arabs built the Dome of the Rock and El Aqsa Mosque in the 7th century. They deny that there is a Jewish people. They do not admit to their own people the historical reality that there are two peoples with deep roots in the land.

In fact Moslem sources have always recognized that the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque were built on the Temple Mount because it was a site that had been made holy by the Jewish temple. The recent Palestinian denial of an historical Jewish connection to the Temple Mount is also a denial of a Christian connection and a rejection of the New Testament’s reports of Christ at the Temple.

The Palestinians insist on “justice,” but they mean what would be just if the facts were what they tell their people. If the Jews were colonial strangers to the land, who came to take it from its Arab owners, without legal right or prior attachment to the land, then certainly justice would require that the Jews leave the land to its rightful owners.

The world decided in UN Res 242, as it had in the General Assembly partition resolution in 1948, that there are two peoples, Jews and Arabs with just claims to the land and that they must divide it between them. While the Palestinians have recognized that Israel exists they have never accepted that Israel and the Jews have legitimate claims in the land. They tell their people that Israel is a colonial invader with no roots in the land. It is hard to understand how there can be effective negotiations for Israel and Palestine to live in peace next to each other in this small piece of land before the Palestinians accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state and become willing to live in peace with it.

At the end of September 2000 after rejecting the proposal by Israel and the US to create a Palestinian state on more than 95% of the West Bank and Gaza plus the part of Jerusalem where Arabs now live, the Palestinians started a campaign of murder and terror against Israel. For a few months at the beginning of this campaign the Palestinians used crowds of civilians armed with rocks and firebombs, with snipers backing them up, and often with children in the front, to attack Israeli border guards or other targets. But after a short time the crowds dropped out and the attack was limited to individuals and small groups of shooters or bombers. They attacked cars and buses on the roads in the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli kibbutzim in Gaza, soldiers on or off duty in Israel and in the Gaza and the West Bank, and civilian crowds in places like pizzerias and cafes wherever they could be found in Israel. It was not an attack on the Israeli military and most of the victims were civilians, frequently women, children, and old people.

The Palestinians said that they were opposed to terror, but they argued that attacks against Israeli women and children was not terror because such attacks are Palestinian resistance to occupation. They view all disputed territory, that is, any place that they claim and that Israel doesn’t give to them, as occupied territory. (Their logic is that they regard it as their land, but it is controlled by Israel, so it must be “occupied land.”) And they regard any action they take against Israelis as resistance to occupation. By their definition whatever is resistance to occupation can’t be terrorism, even exploding bombs in discotheques in the heart of Israel.

To prevent terrorism Israel at various times prevented Palestinians from moving from one town to another, or established check points on roads that had been used to attack Israelis, or prevented Palestinians from coming into Israel. These and similar actions imposed great hardships on many Palestinians. And often checkpoints and inspections and other security measures were implemented by Israeli soldiers with disrespect or insults to Palestinians.

The Palestinians insist that none of the Israeli security measures are justified – because Israel has no right to defend against resistance to occupation – and so they feel that all Israeli security measures are acts of “terror” and aggression against the Palestinian people. In fact some of the “security measures” have little value for increasing security and are taken by Israel because of its frustration at not being able to stop Palestinian murder, and in hope that if the Palestinian population is sufficiently inconvenienced it will oppose the terror attacks that lead to the inconvenience and suffering.

An independent observer might try to evaluate Israeli security measures to decide which are reasonable steps to prevent additional murders of Israeli citizens, but the Palestinian position is that all Israeli security measures are gratuitous attacks against Palestinians for which Palestinians are entitled to take revenge by killing additional Israeli civilians. Thus subsequent attack on Israeli buses are not only legitimate resistance to occupation, but also justified retaliation for Israeli security measures (defined by the Palestinians as terrorism). What is often called the “cycle of violence” is a Palestinian bombing of a café, followed by an Israeli blockade of the town from where the bomber came, or an Israeli killing of a Palestinian terrorist leader, followed by a Palestinian bombing of a bus.

Israel says that terror attacks against civilians are different than attacks against terrorists, and are not to be weighed against each other. The Israeli view is that terror is wrong (and illegal) however just the cause for which it is being used, and that the victims of terror are morally and legally entitled to take whatever security measures (but not terror) are necessary to stop the terror. “Excessive force” means more force than necessary to stop the terror. Palestinians say that Israeli security measures are terrorism and that Israeli “terrorism” is not justified by Palestinian resistance to occupation.

In April, 2002, after the Palestinian terror campaign against Israel that had begun 18 months earlier culminated in a series of five suicide bombings in Israel in five days, killing over 100 people, including 29 who were attending a Passover supper in a hotel in Netanya, Israel began a massive campaign against the terrorist forces. The Israel army surrounded major Palestinian cities that had been the sources of the attacks on Israel and military units went into the cities to capture the headquarters and facilities of the Palestinian forces that had been attacking Israel. The Israelis captured and destroyed illegal weapons and workshops for the production of explosives for suicide bombers, and they arrested hundreds of Palestinians wanted for their crimes against Israelis and many of the leaders of the terrorist organizations.

Since some of the main terrorist bases were located in civilian areas, so-called “refugee camps,” and were protected by fighters and suicide bombers, as well as large numbers of mines and booby-traps, the Israeli operation was dangerous and time-consuming. The Israelis risked the lives of their soldiers to avoid using artillery and air power in ways that would have produced more Palestinian civilian deaths, and in Jenin alone lost 24 soldiers.

Israel has now adopted a policy of sending forces into the Palestinian occupied areas whenever necessary to capture leaders of the terrorist forces, to destroy important terrorist facilities, and especially to stop plans to bomb Israeli civilians. The result has been a drastic reduction in the rate of successful attacks against Israelis – although the number of foiled attacks demonstrates that the Palestinians have not ceased to try to kill as many Israelis as they can.

The war seems likely to continue at least as long as the Palestinians continue to get political and financial support from the democracies and from Iran and the Arab countries. Both the Palestinian leadership and population – if polls adequately reflect popular opinion – prefer fighting to living peacefully with Israel, even if the settlements have been removed and there is a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. So Israel has to fight until there is a change in the situation, and it is now considering various ways to adapting to make the fighting less destructive.

(Copyright © The Media Line, Ltd 11/08/02)

Thank you for reminding me about how the cutting up of the Ottoman Empire has much to do with the current day conflicts. The states were almost tailor made to make regional exploitation easier by the allied powers, something that they mostly gave up after Suez (oh yeah, which country was it that said y'all crazy when that went down?). The regional political instability also made the Israeli boogeyman a favored punching bag for political exploitation by the Arab powers for unification, even though many of the Arabs look upon the Palestinians as dirty and barely Arab (a political invention unto itself for the same reasons).

Of course, saying that both sides have been in the wrong is the fast track to getting shot or marginalized by the crazies on both sides. It barely matters whoever would be in the legal right anymore to actually coming to a peaceful solution -- one that doesn't require the elimination of one or the other side. I will say again, because I feel it deserved to be stressed, it was Palestinian families who sheltered Jews from other Palestinians when all of this was starting to go down and Palestinians were looking for Jews to scapegoat and slaughter for their problems. If nothing else, frankly I feel that the Israeli Jews owe those families at least to have their land back or some form of thanks. As for the other uncomfortable truth, you could put and reverse any ethnic groups into the position that Israelis and Palestinians are in now and come to similar results. Israel is constantly threatened on all sides by powers who would love the popularity of throwing them into the sea, and the Palestinians live in such appalling conditions that it's somewhat surprising that any of them aren't off on crazy trips trying to blow things up. Throw into the mix all of the cold war shenanigans of Russia and the U.S., civilians casually blown up and killed by everybody, and it's almost a miracle the place isn't more of a killing ground.

Anybody militarizing the Golan Heights is a mistake if you want to avoid war/conflict, as its strategic/tactical position is obvious to anyone who cares about such things, and anybody occupying it only serves to make the other party feel threatened.

@just me, it would be buried somewhere unknown now if I still have it, and despite being lengthier, it wouldn't be able to summarize my thoughts much better than I have. I have read a fair amount by Israelis, Palestinians, and interested others of various stripes, have a decent background of modern and Ottoman middle-eastern history, and I can sympathize with both sides. For the sake of emotional and conceptual stability/simplicity, it's tempting to pigeon-hole one or the other based on one's pre-existing conceptions of the world.

Edit: and then throw in a good dose of nobody wanting to deal with all of the Jewish refugees after WWII. So more to the point of the OP, I feel it's disingenuous to pay special attention to the wrongs of one or the other.
 
Last edited:
So more to the point of the OP, I feel it's disingenuous to pay special attention to the wrongs of one or the other.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have encountered so much information detailing Israel's oppressive occupation, total military dominance, and war crimes. I have not found any such information about the Palestinian people. They have no organized forces. Gaza is a civilian population with a few scattered rebels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, there is no moral justification for the severe bombardment of Gaza that we are witnessing now.

@CrazyBeautiful The man pushing that info has made several propaganda videos.
In his latest animation/lecture he posits that the whole conflict exists because of the hatred of Jews.
Arabs and Jews got along fine for hundreds of years before the zionist state of "Israel" was ever created.
Anti-semitism is the first thing they use to manipulate the masses. Israel could pave the way for peace if they wanted it.
Truth is, they don't want peace. Their illegal settlements have made it nearly impossible for palestinians to have a free state.

The following is borrowed from Bernhard Guenther.

One thing I hear a lot or see on facebook posts is how so many people talk about a "balanced" view on this Israel-Palestine conflict, claiming that both sides have equal fault and both need to make
equal effort and compromises so they can all "just get along" and have "peace". This is a reflection of not understanding the true history about this conflict nor understanding the true history of Zionism. The Zionist Israeli government has a very different understanding of what needs to be done for "peace" than most people seem to be aware of. That is the result of western propaganda (influenced by racist Zionist ideologies) which we also see reflected in the media and educational system which teaches distorted history. It also ties into the disease of "political correctness".

It is very important for anyone to understand who argues for a "balanced" view that in this case there is no balanced view where both sides supposedly have equal fault. It's about truth and facts and not falling into the "middle ground" fallacy: "You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth. Sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie." It's also the fallacy of putting ones logic (conclusions) before grammar (research).

Miko Peled, who was born in Jerusalem into an influential Israeli Zionist family, son of a famous General in the Israeli Army, and who now speaks out against Zionism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, cutting through the myths, lies, and propaganda we have been conditioned with for half a century, also makes this disclaimer at the beginning of his talks:

"The issue itself isn't a balanced issue. There can not be a balanced presentation on this and if anybody claims that their presentation is balanced, they're either misleading themselves or misleading their audience."

Then there is of course the fear of many people to speak out against Israel, because of what others may think of them, afraid of being called an anti-semite based on the "eternal victim" card of the Jewish people. This is how the people police themselves, being conditioned with lies and propaganda.

And so most people parrot a very distorted view of reality and history or refrain from "choosing sides" and justify it as taking the "high road", or as a sign of "spirituality" and "compassion". But essentially they are lying to themselves unconsciously, not aware of the conditioned corrupted view of history and reality they have taken on, essentially supporting the lies and ongoing ethnic cleansing in Palestine."

- An honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel

[video=youtube;etXAm-OylQQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ[/video]
 
Last edited:
The insider origins of anti-Israelism
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
11/12/2013

Bashing Israel as a racist, failed state in Boston or Berlin doesn’t make anyone less racist in Israel.

image.webp


Every week brings news of a controversy involving an ostensibly Jewish or Israeli institution playing host to radical anti-Zionism, anti-Israelism or even anti-Semitism.

For instance, a week ago it was revealed that a Montreal Jewish festival had disinvited a noted anti-Birthright activist named Sarah Woolf. At Limmud in South Africa earlier this year there was some debate over the anti-JNF film Village under the forest. There was controversy over a conference for the Palestinian “right of return” being hosted at the Eretz Israel museum.

Australian Limmud also cancelled a talk by “Vivienne Porzsolt, a spokeswoman for Jews Against the Occupation, who was detained in Israel last year en route to the flotilla to Gaza; Avigail Abarbanel, the editor of Beyond Tribal Loyalties, who renounced her Israeli citizenship in 2001; and Peter Slezak, a co-founder of the far-left advocacy group Independent Australian Jewish Voices (The Forward).”

The narrative we are presented with each time is that this is “surprising” or “ironic.” Supposedly a Jewish community center, Israeli cultural event or Israeli museum serving as a venue for people who think the State of Israel should be dismantled or radically altered is a contradiction in terms.

However, radical critique of Israel is not an outsider phenomenon; while it may be a minority voice, that minority is often the elite of the Jewish and Israeli community.

They are “outside-insiders”: those masquerading as outsider critics but who in fact were groomed by and recognized as part of the elite Zionist structure.

(The “inside-outsider” was used by Jeremy Suri to describe Henry Kissinger, an outsider as an immigrant who became an inside player in US administration.) For example, Avraham Burg, a resident of the posh community of Nataf near Jerusalem, was a head of the Jewish Agency and a Knesset Speaker who then “suddenly” became a radical critic of Israel in 2007, launching a book that he first thought of titling “Hitler won,” in which he excoriated Israel.

He gave an interview to Haaretz in which he advised Israelis to obtain foreign passorts, and said the Law of Return that allows Jews to immigrate to Israel should be cancelled. He was celebrated abroad, in The Independent, The New York Times and elsewhere, as a daring apostate.

Ze’ev Bielski, the chairman of the Jewish Agency, responded that Burg’s statements caused him “pain over a person who was considered to have great promise for the future of the State of Israel. Pain over a person raised and educated in this country in a Jewish Zionist family, one of the leaders of Israel’s younger generation.”

Burg has since been on speaking tours, and on November 11 was at Harvard’s Quincy House giving the Samuel L. and Jodidi Lecture at the Weatheread Center. For an “apostate” he’s done quite well for himself.

Burg’s narrative of growing up in a traditional Zionist home and then becoming a critic isn’t the exception, it is the rule.

Alon Liel, former Foreign Ministry director-general, claimed in a February conference that, “In the situation that exists today, until a Palestinian state is created, we are actually one state. This joint state — in the hope that the status quo is temporary — is an apartheid state.” His comments were greeted with shock.

He told his listeners: “As someone who knows the original apartheid well, and also knows the State of Israel quite well — I was born here, grew up here, served and fought for it for 30 years — someone like me knows that Zionism isn’t apartheid and the State of Israel that I grew up in wasn’t an apartheid state.”

Similarly, Burg claimed “My generation, born in the ’50s.... Back then, Americans and Israelis talked about democracy, human rights, respect for other nations and human solidarity. It was an age of dreamers and builders who sought to create a new world, one without prejudice, racism or discrimination.... Where is that righteous America? Whatever happened to the good old Israel?” Miko Peled peddles his insider status as a key to his identity in his book The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine: “It was 1948 in Jerusalem and Zika Katsnelson- Peled, my mother, was 22 years old. She was a daughter of the Zionist elite. Her father, Dr. Avraham Katsnelson, was a member of the provisional Zionist government in Palestine and later a signatory of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.” His father was the Israeli general Matti Peled.

Miko’s sister, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, was quoted at Mondoweiss as saying “Apartheid in Israel and Palestine, imposed and practised by the Israeli security forces, is enabled by the most profound racism, practised every day, in every domain of life.”

It is a mistake to pretend that these are outsider opinions.

They were generated and sculpted by the very leaders and founders of Zionism, by Israeli generals and a family that signed the declaration of independence.

These views didn’t just come out of nowhere, either, they formed over time, in coffee houses and in the homes of the elites, on the kibbutzim and in the universities.

OPPOSITION TO Zionism is in fact a central feature of Zionism; opposition to and “daring” criticism of the State of Israel is integral to being an insider in Israel.

Abdul Kareem, a commenter at the website of Americans for Middle East Understanding, notes, “I found it hard to believe that Miko, coming from such a background, could present such a moral story.”

But Karim misunderstands the source and nature of these views. They do not contrast with the background, they are rooted deeply in it.

Many other radical critics, like Oren Yiftachel, who compares Jewish communities in Israel to “pure” white settler states like Australia and Canada, proudly describes being raised on a kibbutz “in a northern Israeli kibbutz, where socialism was not a curse and social justice was not a mere theory.”

Meron Benvenisiti, another critic, was the deputy mayor of Jerusalem.

Dror Feiler emigrated to Sweden in the 1970s and renounced his citizenship.

He was on the Gaza flotilla.

But in a recent article it is revealed his mother was a founder of Kibbutz Yad Hana.

In fact, most of the leaders of Israeli anti-Israel NGOs, the radical critics who shout “apartheid” or go on speaking tours of the US, such as the recent one by Breaking the Silence at Harvard University, are composed of those raised on kibbutz or “traditional Zionist families.” They attended the best Israeli high schools and universities. They pose as outsiders, but are the ultimate insiders. To list them all would take too long, but all you have to do is ask, the next time you hear about some radical Israel critic, “where did he or she grow up?” You will find that most probably, they or their parents were generals, leading academics, director-generals of ministries, or bureaucrats in various state-funded institutions.

THE SAME holds true in the Diaspora. Most of the radical critics are insiders. A new film being shown by the NGO Zochrot includes the biography of “Alice Rothchild, an American Jew raised on the tragedies of the Holocaust and the dream of a Jewish homeland in Israel. The film follows my personal journey as I begin to understand the Palestinian narrative.”

Peter Beinart, when he wrote about closing his blog Open Zion, describes the careers of many of his employees; “Our first employee, Elisheva Goldberg, was a high school AIPAC activist transformed by meeting Palestinians while studying at yeshiva in the West Bank.”

The fact is that anti-Zionism and critique of Israel are the ultimate insider’s career path. Those insiders who become anti-Zionist or radical critics rarely offer constructive criticism, and this differentiates them from the descendants of other founding generations.

The founders of the American Republic didn’t turn on that republic in a generation and go on speaking tours condemning it.

Critics of Israeli policy could be constructive; a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians is in everyone’s interest, and combating racism is a good thing. But the way in which many of these insiders go about it, becoming more famous at Harvard and in London than they are in Israel, seems counterproductive, to say the least.

Bashing Israel as a racist, failed state in Boston or Berlin doesn’t make anyone less racist in Israel. Responsible insiders work for change from within, but unfortunately the Jewish community and Israel is not cultivating a responsible elite culture of critique, but an irresponsible one.
 
"Believe my information, not the other persons"

We all know that no information is sacred. We see in our own new history books false information being put in to advance one political party or stance today more than ever. So how can anyone ever know whats true?

I personally use a lot of observation and intuition. I generally find it to be fairly accurate. For instance the IRS scandal... democrats delaying saying look the other way nothing is going on. Liberal news stations supporting that stance until one day...oh! Look, the conservative news stations were right again.

Between the two, I support
 
The only true supporters of the "Palestinian refugees" have been those who use them as pawns or for supplies. Over the years, not one Arab hand has offered a viable solution because they will not accept Israel.

The Arabs that live in Israel as Israelis live well. What goes with Israel turns green and produces water. What goes against Israel turns to stubble and sand. If the Israelis were to take care of those people that did not want to fight them, there would be peace. If the Arabs would accept Israel they would see this. In the meantime, they are being used and Israel does not try to kill a refugee unless they are wielding arms and the likes. The fact remains: all supposed leaders of Gaza spend their time and efforts trying to destroy that which would only help them.

Bleeding hearts should first take the time to understand why things are the way they are.
 
[MENTION=2719]justme[/MENTION] "Israel" is not ISRAEL! We have been manipulated into supporting this state no matter what atrocities they commit.
I think that the people of Israel are largely ignorant of their own governments crimes themselves.

I am not against the Israeli people, it is the State of Israel acting against it's own people.

You speak as though none will prosper unless they support Israel, it sounds familiar, like an opinion based on an interpretation of the scripture.

But Jesus never was concerned about establishing a political state, and he certainly doesn't support exclusion, or hatred against any people, so why do we assume his desire is for a nationalist government of Israel now? What about the "New Jerusalem", all people being grafted in?

Honestly, do you support every policy of Israel? What do you say of the widely documented evidence of brutality, and war crimes?

Did you know the military has been supporting illegal settlements on Palestinian territory for decades?
Theres a UN report of settlers burning or cutting down over 7500 olive trees in 2012 alone. Why this cruelty against a struggling people?

The systematic harassing, imprisoning, and killing of non violent, unarmed civilians, and children, is undeniable.
The native people are being de-humanized and degraded by Israel's inhumane policy.

This injustice is largely hidden from us in America.
Please, do not let your hearts grow cold. We need so much love in the world today.

Today is a wonderful day to consider a new perspective, and to challenge old assumptions. Our news has been censored after all, be open to new information.
It isn't easy to let go of the emotional addiction to our hate and fear, but this is the necessary inner work we must do in order to see objectively.

[video=youtube;2cfo7DwAnTc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cfo7DwAnTc[/video]
 
[video=youtube;FqKu5rSTyP8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqKu5rSTyP8[/video]

[video=youtube;z0DPcmDsCQ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DPcmDsCQ4[/video]

Bottom line is, regardless of 'who started it' and 'who is right' at this point, there is a huge discrepancy in power. Israel is the victor in a playground fight that has taken the fight too far because it's seeing red, but everyone else is standing around and not saying anything because on the whole, its a democratic country built on western ideals that it supposedly shares with the rich and powerful cool kid, the United States. It must have a good reason for doing the things it does, right? I mean, the Jews, they're known to be good people. And good people never do wrong, they never lose control and they never make mistakes.

But that's the problem. As Jon Stewart so aptly illustrated in the second video, you so much as side-eye Israel and you're branded a Jew-Hater. This 'you're either with us or without us' mentality is precisely what is keeping this conflict going. We're in a position to be able to see balance, and yet, we're choosing a binary view. Heck, look at the extreme language in this thread. The defensiveness and derision. These are people who are dying out there. Jew and Palestinian. And they're dying because we're more interested in taking sides and proving who's right and who's wrong rather than achieving peace.

Why do you think either side is escalating in conflict? When you feel like most of the world is against you, it will only make you want to fight back harder. When you feel like the whole world is with you (or at least, the most powerful parts of the world), you feel like you can do whatever the hell you want.

There won't be peace so long as this incongruency continues.
 
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have encountered so much information detailing Israel's oppressive occupation, total military dominance, and war crimes. I have not found any such information about the Palestinian people. They have no organized forces. Gaza is a civilian population with a few scattered rebels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, there is no moral justification for the severe bombardment of Gaza that we are witnessing now.

What. This is a joke, right? There is no possible way you could be serious about this.

If you are, then I have seriously overestimated your google search abilities.

And if you don't mind me asking, where are you from, [MENTION=963]myself[/MENTION]? Were you born in the U.S. or abroad? Do you have family living in Israel or nearby? Besides coming from online propaganda, does your information come from living this situation or having family that is over there going through it right now?

I know you don't have to answer these questions, but I'm curious.

Also, the information I provided in regards to why they are fighting in the first place is not propaganda...they are historical facts. For the record.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, the information I provided in regards to why they are fighting in the first place is not propaganda...they are historical facts. For the record.

If we believe our information is the only correct source of information, we may unintentionally end up blocking ourselves from receiving additional bits of information.
We experience cognitive dissonance when presented with facts that contradicts what we already believe to be true.

In an automatic response to our discomfort, we often reject new information, and sometimes express anger and attack the messenger.

It's important that we keep our cool and not let cognitive dissonance disturb our critical thinking ability.

This is the inner work every responsible person must do.

I'd be happy to meet you in tiny chat sometime, I will share more about myself there. We might even become friends : )

I'll message you next time I go in tc. Feel free to message me too.


@TheDaringHatTrick (swoon) What a delight to have your voice in this thread! <3 Thank you for sharing : )
 
Back
Top