response is to wail about the suffering this will cause the poor, common Palestinians. Not feeling terribly
today (besides, it's a Fwench phrase), I say the Palestinians have earned their suffering by voting Hamas into power.
1
By God! That'll get their foreign aid cut by 10-15%! That'll fix 'em! They'll have to resort to killing Jews with knives and clubs if they keep getting their funding cut.
Posted by: goesh at February 08, 2006 01:29 PM (vX0fY)
2
>>>"I say the Palestinians have earned their suffering by voting Hamas into power."
As they have earned virtually all of their suffering.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 01:41 PM (8e/V4)
3
islam is evil. allah is evil. Neither deserve to be capitalized as they both are inferior to western culture and western thought.
kw
Posted by: kaiserwilhelm at February 08, 2006 02:08 PM (HcSOz)
4
Well, we certainly didn't see
that coming. And in related news, a blue-ribbon panel has announced that water is wet.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 08, 2006 02:31 PM (0yYS2)
5
So when the Jews were ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, both pre and post 1947, that was somehow the Palestinians fault as well, right?
I'm curious as to how many JR readers would accept such subjection.
So, what does it take to make providing aid to Israel illegal?
Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 08, 2006 02:47 PM (SHPL6)
6
If the Israelis are carrying out ethnic cleansing like Sohail claims, then they certainly stink at it. Just look at how many palestinians are left and how many arabs there are living prosperously inside Israel. Somebody needs to go over there and teach them how it's done - like the Sudanese Arabs perhaps. Heck, it could even be a UN program.
Posted by: Graeme at February 08, 2006 03:34 PM (Zwihh)
7
>>>So when the Jews were ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, both pre and post 1947, that was somehow the Palestinians fault as well, right?
In fact, yes. It was the fault of the "palestinians" (that term being an historical fiction). The "cleansing" actually started when the Arab armies invaded Palestine after the "palestinians" rejected the U.N. partition plan that would have given them a state (the Jews voted to approve it). And the efforts to cleanse the Jews continued when the Arab armies declared their intention to ethnically cleanse the Jews and drive them into the sea (No better than Nazis, these Arabs). The rest is history, of course-- a history of one lost opportunity after another on the part of the palestinians. Whenever there is a chance to shoot themselves in the foot, the palestinians will leap at the opportunity.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 03:40 PM (8e/V4)
8
Imagine if Mexicans started to migrate en masse to California. (Hehe, not too hard to imagine.) They form such a large number and become a vocal political voting block. A manifesto then emerges with an ideology known as, say, Mexi-Zionism, which among other things advocates the establishment of an independant Spanish-speaking Mexican state in California.
This ideology considers California the ancestral homeland of the Mexicans and does not recognize it as a U.S. state, nor recognizes the "how the west was won" stuff or any other treaties.
This new state declares independance, and America uses the military to retake California. However, China supports the Mexi-Zionist movement with billions of dollars of aid and provides military back-up. America is repelled and the new state is formed but also expands its borders (with Chinese tanks) by 30% into Nevada, Arizona, Oregon etc. Over time, this new state begins to build settlement in all these areas.
The new state welcomes Mexicans from all over and annexes all the Americans into heavily guarded areas which are deliberatly isolated from the rest of California. Say Orange County and La Jolla which are now crammed with Americans who do not have citizenship in this new state. Some Americans become "refugees" in Arizona, Nevada etc. and long for the days they can return home to California.
Everytime the Americans in California (an independant Mexican state now) act up with a riot, protest, or sit-in, the new state uses force (with Chinese military supplies) to crush the disturbance. America offers all the Americans in this new state to move to any other American state, but they don't want to as California is their beloved home, so instead they "resist" the "occupation." The American "resistance" uses whatever rudimentary means they have...stones, sticks, shotguns, and the occaisional home-made bomb.
Now, wouldn't you be angry at those who have annexed California and declared a separate state, and also China for supporting them? The above hypothetical is very analogical to what has happened to the Palestinians. Although some major differences, eg the Palestinians don't have the ability and military to fight the occupation, and Palestinians don't have huge areas of other territory where they could move to.
What solution would you advocate in the above hypothetical? Is that solution consistent with what you advocate for the Israel-Palestine situation?
Think wider.
(Btw, sorry about the long post.)
Posted by: Dissonance at February 08, 2006 04:52 PM (/MxB3)
9
Jesusland, I believe your assertion is incorrect.
The "Palestinians" are not an historical fiction. I assume you meant that "Palestinian" referred to the indigenous Arab peoples not representing a complete state, but somehow that didn't prevent Balfour referring to the land as "Palestine", nor the British from referring to Palestine as a state under their supervision and control.
The cleansing I referred to actually started before the state of Israel was declared, and this effort was undertaken by Jewish
terrorists operating in the region at the time. Note that they killed British, Arabs and even Jews to achieve their goals, exactly like Islamist terrorists of today. Now, because they are more powerful and funded by America, they are merely defending themselves, while the Palestinians are terrorists. Of course, we'll leave aside the fact that the supporting principle behind the Jewish terrorism was the Zionist movement, a movement seeking to intentionally displace a peoples to adopt a land as one's own (much like the early settlers would have done to the native American population).
Something else you mentioned also seemed a little imbalanced: even if the Arab states subsequently sought to drive the Jews into the sea, why would they then retaliate and target the (relatively harmless and much weaker) Palestinians for cleansing (something you don't deny)?
Of course you talk of the UN mandate to separate Palestine as if the UN had a right to do so. The entire argument of the Middle East is based upon this singular arrogance: that the European-dominated UN had the right to determine the outcome of the Palestinian people (as disorganized as they may have been). Have we the same right over any of the currently warring African peoples? Has anyone the same right over us?
I like Dissonance's thought experiment, and have one of my own to offer:
One day the Chinese may become much more organized and technologically advanced than America, and they declare their mandate to establish a new territory on US soil (in hushed manifestos), then proceed with a targetted emigration plan. Of course they would do all this claiming that you are not organized enough nor civilized enough. Plus they would claim a right of return as, arguably, they discovered the land first (a Chinese vessel is suspected to have stumbled upon the Americas before Columbus). They would relegate the term "American" to an historical fiction, of course. Since they will own most of the technology of the world and will number far more than Americans, what they say will feature more prominently in international media.
Given the rate at which the American government is shortchanging it's educational programmes, by that time America will be about 100 years behind the Chinese, so the rest of the world will decide to hand off the fate of the Americans to the UN, against the wish of Americans. When you protest and riot against the superior Chinese and the UN's decision to divide America, the rest of the world will call you terrorists and uncivilized, but Americans will call themselves heroes and martyrs, believing that they are reliving the glory days of the fight for independence from the British.
I wonder, in such a case whether you would change your viewpoint or not. Would you settle for a two-state solution? If so, how would you go about it?
I realize the two scenarios are not identical, and you'll probably be inclined to dismiss it as hyperbole, but in principle the two situations are one and the same.
I am not saying that there exists a solution better than that of the two-state solution in the case of the Middle East, but my goal is to illustrate that the anti-Arab attidude you've exhibited and that is prominent on JR needs to change.
There is far more to consider than what you think.
Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 08, 2006 05:00 PM (SHPL6)
10
>>>Imagine if Mexicans started to migrate en masse to California. (Hehe, not too hard to imagine.) They form such a large number and become a vocal political voting block.
Ever heard of Aztlan? That's exactly what they're trying to do-- use the demographic tsunami to declare an aztlanist state. Amazingly, the aztlanists are virulently anti-Zionist, even though they are "zionist" wannabes themselves. But nobody has ever accused the Left of being consistent.
But methinks you are thinking too "widely", and that's why your analogy fails. The U.S., unlike palestine, is a sovereign nation, with borders, and an established political system. Palestine was no better than a disputed territory, a backwater governed by one empire after another since Roman times. Politically, it has been up for grabs for centuries. Not a country by any definition of the word. Nobody need have been cleansed because of the U.N. partition plan. The natives already living there (both Arab and Jew) would have lived in peace under both a Jewish state, and an Arab state, with some demographic overlap. The "cleansing" only occurred because the Arabs voted against it and invaded with the purpose of driving the Jews into the sea. War cleansed the Arab and Jewish populations, not the U.N. partition plan. Today both people would be living side by side in peace but for Arab beligerence. Even today, the palestinians will not allow a single Jew to live in their state, even though millions of Arabs live in Israel. Their mindset has not changed one bit. They deserve whatever is coming to them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 05:10 PM (8e/V4)
11
Jesusland: The fact that Palestine was not what you believe a sovreign state is (even though the British gave it borders) did not give the UN authority to govern the fate of the peoples residing there.
Also, you're ignoring the terror campaign that the Jews had undertaken to oust the British whom they felt sided with the Arabs. This fact in combination with the Zionist manifesto is proof enough that the Jews wanted their own state, and on the land claimed by someone else (whether you believe it to be a country or not).
I agree that had the British and the UN not meddled, we might find Arab and Jew living side by side in peace (this was so in earlier times), but that is not the case. Now, after all is said and done, after the Jews rose to dominance and got their state it is unfair to say the Arabs will not allow Jews in their state, while the Jews will allow the Arabs. Is that a favour upon the Arabs... a favour upon the weaker peoples from the more powerful Jews?
Millions of Arabs can live in Israel now because the combination of mistakes by the Arabs, Zionist atrocities, and UN and British meddling have left the Palestinian territories a ghetto. Who would feel safe there? Who can get a job there? Of course, there is also the fact that some Arabs may legitimately own some land within Israel, while all the Jewish lands are already within the borders of Israel and so no Jews have any thought to live in Palestinian territory.
Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 08, 2006 05:37 PM (SHPL6)
12
Jesusland Carlos: Thank you for your civil and thoughtful response.
The issue of Palestinians' historical claims is a sticky one. There is much evidence suppression, and many historical distortions.
However, just because a piece of land was a British colony and ruled by "others" for a period does not mean the land was forfeited to the New World Order of the West to dispose of as it saw fit. And a muddied claim to land should not mean that it is given away to the all the Jewish refugees after WWII because Europe wants them to be someone else's problem. That being said, the Jews are there now, and a two state solution seems the most practical.
The notion of sovreignty and whose sovreignty we should recognize is much more complex than "borders and a political system." The U.S. constitution recognizes that it is the people who are sovereign. The Palestinians have an ancient culture, identity, and strive for self-determination. The mere fact that they have been denied sovereignty by many past rulers does not mean we should persevere to deny them.
At one time it was the Americans who were fighting for self-determination and being called 'terrorists' in a poor 'back water' by the British. How things have changed.
Posted by: Dissonance at February 08, 2006 05:56 PM (/MxB3)
13
Sohail,
the British were reviled by both sides for their broken promises, not just by the Jews. And I do not ignore that terrorism was conducted by both sides. But let me remind you that the Hebron riots of 1929 in which almost 80 Jews were massacred occurred before the birth of the Irgun or Hagganah, long before Deir Yassin, and even before a single Jewish bomb was detonated anywhere in Palestine. In fact it was the numerous massacres of Jews which provided the impetus for Jewish self-defense militias like the Hagganah.
I insist that this could have been settled peaceably decades ago but for Arab intransigence (just like today, no different). And you may cite the "zionist manifesto" and whatever it may say, but I will cite Jewish support for the U.N. two-state solution. And my citation controls because it is one thing to SAY something, and quite another to DO something. Jewish deeds are on the record vis a vis the two-state solution. And so are Arab ones-- against it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 05:57 PM (8e/V4)
14
Hmmm...if I remember my history correctly, Jews and Christians were living in what Mirza refers to as Palestine when some men with a new religion came riding out of the desert under the guises of a new religion.
The Jews were established in this area for thousands of years and they deserve a state, and if they take by conquest what was taken from them by conquest, so be it. The "Palestinians", who are Arabs, have Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and I could go on and on. One tiny spit of land out of millions of square miles occupied by Arabs won't hurt a thing, and for the life of me I can't understand why the Arabs want to keep this thing going on, to their own detriment.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 08, 2006 06:03 PM (rUyw4)
15
jesusland
jews are arabs its just the religion they haveand they were in in arab countries and jesuse was arab no like he was an american and thats why all the arab countries are next to each ohter because it was called the ANDALOS AND please read before talkin ppl.so palestine belongs to arabs and please read history ...jews got kicked out of us and eroup so england and the us decides to send them to palestine and then change the name to isreal in 52 now please tell me whos took whos land
Posted by: ashley at February 08, 2006 06:11 PM (WygfI)
16
>>>jesuse was arab
lmao! Right. And your real name is "ashley".
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 06:28 PM (8e/V4)
17
Dissonance, do you have documentation of the American revolutionaries who traveled to England and sought out English women and children to blow up with suicidal black powder charges? Or maybe there were special colonial babyhunter brigades?
Are any woodcuts of these holy martyrs still extant?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 08, 2006 06:33 PM (RHG+K)
18
>>>That being said, the Jews are there now, and a two state solution seems the most practical.
Dissonance,
If you believe that, then your views on Hamas can't be very different than mine are. They represent the very worst the palestinians have to offer.
And by the way, as I tell all Leftwing visitors, even though we're a "rightwing hate site", you'll be treated civilly here if you come here civilly.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 06:35 PM (8e/V4)
19
Hamas is a terrorist organisation, that itself should ensure they are denied aid from western countries. Let them use their own money to fund suicide murderers
Posted by: MathewK at February 08, 2006 07:25 PM (pVHqF)
20
Muslims took the Jews land. The Jews had been living there for hundreds of years before there was a Mohammed. Muslims took the Holy Land by force in 632AD, so Muslims should not complain about them taking it back in 1947. The Jews only have a very tiny strip of land compared to hundreds of thousands of square miles that the Muslims have. What is wrong with the Jews having a very tiny piece of land for their own?
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 08, 2006 09:53 PM (rUyw4)
21
Palestinian mobs in the grip of Cartoon Hysteria have driven away some of their best friends:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 08, 2006 11:58 PM (8e/V4)
22
If I remember correctly, around 1920 the Arabs initially attacked Jewish settlements comprised of families who had been in the region for two thousand years and not the "Zionist newcomers" - decades before those "magic dates" always referred to of 1947 and 1967. And every time I hear the argument about how "all that land was taken from them" it infuriates me that they make no distinction between what was done wrong in that respect and "all that land that Palestinians
willingly sold to them".
This area was never "all" Muslim, Palestinian or even Arab. And it amazes me how people are only willing to go so far back to start the basis of their arguments. How much of this land was taken from Jews who had been there long before the birth of Islam or Christianity? How far back are we willing to go to say who is right?
This problem did not start in the 20th century or even the 9th century. It just so happens that this is where three religions were born and if we want to argue semantics and use the "who was there first" argument, Jews were there long before the other two. How much land was "stolen" from them we'll never know.
So yes, they have a right to be there as well as Christians and Muslims. And the Muslims have no right to make the other two leave nor to subjugate them to inferior status.
Posted by: Oyster at February 09, 2006 07:22 AM (YudAC)
23
JJ, you got it exactly right.
Posted by: Oyster at February 09, 2006 07:42 AM (YudAC)
24
Jesusland Carlos -- what's with all the "jesuslands"?
You mention that the Palestinians attacked the Jews as early as 1920, but this after the Balfour Declaration, and during the mass influx of Jews. This was also when Palestine was declared a British mandate. To the Palestinian people it must have seemed as if they were losing control of their land, their self-determination, their self-governance (however remedial it may have been). Obviously it is absolutely reprehensible to have attacked the Jews, but I'm trying to offer some insight into what they were seeing. It's not as simple as you state, that they just attacked the Jews for no reason. I also think it's futile to compare the misdeeds of the Palestinians against that of the Jews in terms of violence. All violence was reprehensible no matter who it was against, and no matter who perpetrated it, and parties from both the Arabs and Jews were guilty of committing unjustified crimes against the other and against the British.
I acknowledge that the Arabs in the region made some mistakes though, but even if they were hostile to the incoming Jews, how does that bear upon current events, upon the following subjugation of their people, upon the acts of the British and the UN?
The issue is still that of self-determination, and the Palestinian people were denied that. I do not say that Jews should not live there, just that it was wrong for them to act on a planned takeover of the region, and then wonder why the Palestinians don't like that. I mean, the Zionists essentially said, "we're going to take (back) this land, we expect the British to either help us or get out of the way, and there's nothing anyone can do about it". This, of course, is a simplification of Zionism, but the results speak for themselves.
I call it the Palestinian's land because frankly, if we go back far enough we end up in a muddle of land claims, so let's constrain the discussion to modern times of internationally recognized states and peoples. Palestine was a well-recognized region even before the the British mandate. For you to say "well the Jews were evicted thousands of years ago" is a bit moot. Granted they have a historical attraction to the land, and they should be free to live there and to worship as they please (as they did even during Muslim rule way back when).
That the Jews had no land of their own is not sufficient reason to state that they have a right over Palestinian land, I'm sorry. No one peoples are
entitled to rule over place or peoples. The two-state solution that you say the Palestinians have rejected is a little after the fact, and beyond the primary attrocity: the denial of the Palestinians self-determination. For that, as stated, I fault the arrogance of the British and the UN, the plotting of the Zionists, and the incompetence and lack of unity of the Arab peoples (albeit to a lesser extent).
To go back to the thought experiments offered by Dissonance and I, would you guilt the Americans for not agreeing to a two-state solution, or for opposing it? Then for all their violent opposition thereafter, would you say it was their fault?
Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 09, 2006 08:51 AM (SHPL6)
25
Sohail,
Jesusland is where we live (i.e., the Red states).
Today in Europe, native Europeans are already feeling the heat of the muslim demographic tsunami. In 20 years, muslims will be a majority in some major European cities (like Antwerp, I believe). Should they be massacred? Of course we would all recoil in horror, but afterwards I could offer you some "insight" into the murderer's motivations and that would put your mind at ease again. Because obviously there must have been a reason for the massacre. Like the muslims of palestine, Europeans too will feel threatened in a few years and launch their own jihad against muslims. No difference. Or do you believe that immigration is a one way street and only muslims have a right to feel threatened?
My point is simple, actually. And that is that muslims who felt threatened by peaceful and legal Jewish immigration had no business massacring Jews. No muslims were displaced by this peaceful immigration. And no muslims would have been displaced by the Partition Plan eitber. It was WAR that displaced the peoples. War started by whom? The Arabs. Arabs who believe that immigration is a one way street. Kuffars need not apply for visas.
Re "self-determination", that is something totally lacking throughout the middle east. Arabs have never known it because those lands have always been ruled by autocrats (except for Iraq presently). Nonetheless, the U.N. Partition Plan would have given palestinians that "self-determination" in their own Palestinian state. Arabs remaining on the Israelis side would also have had a voice in an Israeli democracy, and vice versa presumably. They would have been two peoples living in peace BUT for Arab pride and double standards.
The Arabs, like the zionists, made their own inflammatory statements, and backed them up with deeds (like trying to "drive Jews into the sea). I used to have an extensive list of such quotes. I would rather not have to hunt them down to prove my point. Instead let's focus on what the parties actually DID. What did the zionists actually DO? Immigrated legally, purchased land, formed self-defense militias in response to terror by the muslim majority, voted for a two-state solution, defended themselves against Arab armies, gave Israeli Arabs the vote. What did Arabs do? Massacre, invade, and expell 700,000 Jews from their lands all over the middle east. Not just words, but DEEDS that today are part of the historical record.
And today the Israelis have withdrawn from Gaza -- a bad idea, apparently. Because how did the palestinians repay them? By electing HAMAS. Deeds.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 09, 2006 09:48 AM (8e/V4)
26
The "Palestinian People" are Arabs, just the same as the Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. They have no claim to self-determination because they are part and parcel to the Arabs, who have self-determination in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, need I go on.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 09, 2006 10:28 AM (rUyw4)
27
Sohail, I belive your comment should have been directed toward me as you started off with my point in reference to 1920.
Anyone with common sense knows there have been errors on both sides. We mostly differ in respect to who has made the most mistakes.
The fact is Hamas has rejected the recognition of an established state. A state that the UN (an organization all look to for affirmation and endorsement due to their perceived lack of bias) even recognizes. At a time when Sharon is now considered all but dead and Arafat IS dead, two bitter enemies - a situation that now for all intents and purposes should set the stage for promise in coming to terms - the Palestinian people have decided to elect a group who has been part of the problem rather than the solution.
We can't "constrain the discussion to modern times" because the entire context is lost when you do. Hence my point,
"...it amazes me how people are only willing to go so far back to start the basis of their arguments." It's like the fallacy of poverty being the cause of terrorism. Some say poverty is the root cause of terrorism, which beeds more poverty, which breeds more terrorism. It's a circle that you can't jump in at one point and arbitrarily call it the starting point because something else caused the poverty and the terrorism.
Yeah, I see things from the perspective you speak of. But I also see it as lacking enough basis in morality. The Palestinians have lived under outside rule for centuries. They have never been self-governed. Outside rule kept the Jews subjected for them which fed their notion of being a superior race by the simple virtue of being Muslim. They never had to rule themselves as equal partners with others in the world. And they refuse to start now.
There are different perspectives to everything, but they are not all equally moral. The Palestinians have no one to blame more than the ruling class Muslims in the region who rendered them powerless to become a separate identity for so long.
Posted by: Oyster at February 09, 2006 11:06 AM (sMLtC)
28
Joe, thatÂ’s some good stuff.
Sohail, you seem like a very reasonable man. Therefore IÂ’m interested to know what someone like you sees as a solution to this problem. Is there a lasting peace agreement that is acceptable to you that leaves Israel intact?
Posted by: Brad at February 09, 2006 11:22 AM (BJYNn)
29
>>>Hence my point, "...it amazes me how people are only willing to go so far back to start the basis of their arguments.
Oyster,
sohail is only interested in going back in time to quote zionists words, not to recognize Arab deeds.
Ok, let's not go back in time. What have the palestinians done lately to further their own cause? Nothing. Quite the opposite. That's my point.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 09, 2006 11:26 AM (8e/V4)
30
Thanks for your comments, all.
I apologize if I appear to be ignoring Arab deeds, because I don't intend to. I am simply in opposition to the anti-Arab angle that prevails on JR. I do recognize the mistake of the Arabs and the Palestinians. I oppose Hamas' creed of violence, however I understand their position in denying the existance of Israel (even though I may not agree with it).
Oyster: I disagree with your point that one cannot step into the cycle at a particular point. I haven't chosen an arbitrary point in the cycle of misdeeds in which to step. The present-day dilemma can be directly and apparently correlated to the events leading up to and following the Balfur Declaration. That is a fact. If you want to go further back to submit that the Palestinians haven't successfully governed their own state ever, I think that's valid and relevant, but only to a degree, and not to a degree great enough to overshadow the fact that the Palestinians have been denied the opportunity and means to self-determination.
I agree that there are different perspectives to this issue, and that we should be looking forward.
To
Brad and
Jesusland Carlos, I'm not exactly sure what the prospects for peace are in the Middle East. Going forward, Hamas and the Palestinians definitely need to lay down their arms, but so does Israel. If both sides believe themselves to be superior, then let the superior party lay down their arms first. Personally I put the onus on Israel though as they possess the greater military might and they control the board.
What I'd ideally like to see is a territory jointly governed by both peoples, both peoples living amongst each other. Let the country be Israel or Palestine, it's irrelevant... what's relevant is that both peoples need to co-exist. I'd ideally like to see the Palestinians invited back to their homes and compensated, a concerted effort to have them integrated and given jobs. But in order for this to happen, the Muslim bloc must give up their pride and the Jewish bloc needs to give up the Zionist agenda wholesale. The new state should be neither a Jewish one, nor a Muslim one. What's crucial is that both sides acknowledge where they went wrong, and that will hopefully open the doors to a little more brotherhood. Once this is done, the extremist element on both sides can be rooted out and opposed by both Arabs and Jews.
The next best option may
have to be a two-state solution, and definitely the Palestinians should prepare themselves for such an eventuality.
All I ask is that you appreciate where they (the Palestinians) are coming from and what they have gone through. They may not have done anything to further their own cause recently, but look at what they've gone through. The people who were given their land 60 yrs ago are also the ones that receive an inordinate amount of funding which they used to better themselves and to further suppress the Palestinians. The Palestinian situation is not an easy one. The Palestinian territories are a ghetto, and it is very difficult to overcome the prevailing psychological barriers. What would help is a little less inequity, not to mention the semblance of an apology from Israel... something to acknowledge the injustice. Sometimes land is not enough.
I ask you again, what would you all do in a situation to that of the Palestinians? Would you be as receptive to a two-state solution with China or Mexico? It is not an easy prospect to face.
With a little empathy for the plight of
both peoples I think we can have a far more constructive discussion and hopefully peaceful resolution.
By the way, I'm late to do it, but I thank you all as well for the reasonable discussion. I'm often appalled at the views and opinions I read on JR, but you guys seem to be more reasonable. Yes, even you
Carlos.
Posted by: Sohail Mirza at February 09, 2006 12:34 PM (SHPL6)
31
sohail,
I do sympathize with palestinians on an individual micro level. It pains me to see the sorrow in the faces of their elderly and children-- just as when I see it among the Jews. No less.
It's the palestinian people on the larger macro level that I'm frustrated with and have no sympathy for. As a people, they have chosen poorly again and again. Or maybe it's just their leaders. Regardless, the people pay the price.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 09, 2006 01:03 PM (8e/V4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
