Israel-Gaza Strip conflict - who is to blame?

[Ten oz]

I'm just going off the 'top of my head' here and haven't done the required research so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Three major wars were fought between Israel and her Arab neighbours, in 1948, 1967 and 1973. In the last one Egypt and Syria were defeated by the Israelies and Egypt actually entered into a peace treaty with Israel shortly thereafter. Israel returned all captured lands such as the Sinai peninsula and the Golan heights.

They have returned the west bank and Gaza to the palestinians, and even displaced their settlements in gaza to do do so. You are right, however, their settlements have grown in other areas and show no sign of letting up. I do fault them for this, but with the caveat that most palestinians in Israeli settled lands receive excellent treatment and only leave by their own choice. There is way less violence in the co-habited areas than in the separated areas like Gaza.

 

During the last century Americans, with their 'manifest destiny' mantra expanded into the south-west and settled in parts of Texas and California, parts of Mexico at the time. The Mexicans tried to retake Texas by armed force and were defeated, at which point the US annexed both states ( to be fair they may have bought parts of them from Spain, not Mexico ). They have never given these areas back, and even put up a fence, or wall if you wish, along the border to prevent the passage of Mexicans into their own former lands.

 

Does this sound familiar ? Is the US an aparthaid state as Israel is accused of being ?

 

But at least the US has learned its lesson this century and does not keep any territory gained in war any more. What about Germany with the French territories of Alsace and Lorrane after the war of 1870 ? What about the French occupation of the Rhineland after WW1 ? What about the Italians and the Tyrrol region and Trieste they took from Austria-Hungary after WW1 ? What about the Russians and their occupation of the whole eastern block and East Germany after WW2 ? What about China and Tibet ? Or all the people displaced from their homes during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, or the Congo ?

 

Why is no one clamoring for the return of these lands to their former people as Israel is being asked to ?

Mexico has a per square mile population density of 145 people while Gaza strip has one of 9,713 people. Had the United States taken so much land that the people of Mexico had none left to manage I think there would have been many ongoing conflicts over it since. At the time of the Mexican American War there were only something like 75,000 Mexicans living in the states. That is 75,000 people total living in California, Arizona, Utah, Neveda, New Mexico, etc. Even with the loss of the land Mexico remained one of the largest countries in the world land wise. Still is today. Plus Mexico itself, like the United States, was all stolen land. Stolen by the Spanish while the United States was stolen by the English. Mexico, like the United States, had only recently become a country. There were no true historical roots to any of the land for either side. An estimated 25,000 people died fighting in that war.

 

Manifest Denstiny was a terrible thing and I don't think any would argue otherwise. If the United States tried take more land from Mexico there would be a military conflict. The world community would not tolerate it either. The Mexican American War was over 160yrs ago. It does not justify the taking of land today.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Ten oz

[DimaMazin]

Mexico has a per square mile population density of 145 people while Gaza strip has one of 9,713 people. Had the United States taken so much land that the people of Mexico had none left to manage I think there would have been many ongoing conflicts over it since. At the time of the Mexican American War there were only something like 75,000 Mexicans living in the states. That is 75,000 people total living in California, Arizona, Utah, Neveda, New Mexico, etc. Even with the loss of the land Mexico remained one of the largest countries in the world land wise. Still is today. Plus Mexico itself, like the United States, was all stolen land. Stolen by the Spanish while the United States was stolen by the English. Mexico, like the United States, had only recently become a country. There were no true historical roots to any of the land for either side. An estimated 25,000 people died fighting in that war.

 

Manifest Denstiny was a terrible thing and I don't think any would argue otherwise. If the United States tried take more land from Mexico there would be a military conflict. The world community would not tolerate it either. The Mexican American War was over 160yrs ago. It does not justify the taking of land today.

Did Israel take the land without Palestinians which lived in the land?

[Ten oz]

Did Israel take the land without Palestinians which lived in the land?

I am not sure I understand the question? Land is used for a lot of things. When a people's are living in a population density of over 9,000 people per square mile they don't have much free land for anything but homes. Things like agriculture, energy production, resource mining, basic economic expansion, and etc require usable space. Even simple things that parks and sport areas require space. The Palestines have very little space and very little land. It is unclear if they could even support a society with what they currently have even if a two state solution was reached.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

Dimazin, your complete lack of empathy towards your fellow humans perhaps goes a long way to explain why such conflicts continue; in answering your question, it would be an emphatic yes King, Ghandi, Mandela etc. take your pick.

[John Cuthber]

Did Israel take the land without Palestinians which lived in the land?

Do you mean "Did the Israelis chase out the Palestinians from that land?"

 

Yes, they did.

[DimaMazin]

I am not sure I understand the question? Land is used for a lot of things. When a people's are living in a population density of over 9,000 people per square mile they don't have much free land for anything but homes. Things like agriculture, energy production, resource mining, basic economic expansion, and etc require usable space. Even simple things that parks and sport areas require space. The Palestines have very little space and very little land. It is unclear if they could even support a society with what they currently have even if a two state solution was reached.

Even Russians were arriving there.

Dimazin, your complete lack of empathy towards your fellow humans perhaps goes a long way to explain why such conflicts continue; in answering your question, it would be an emphatic yes King, Ghandi, Mandela etc. take your pick.

Why Palestinians have no own hero?

Do you mean "Did the Israelis chase out the Palestinians from that land?"

 

Yes, they did.

You have answered your question.My question is without answer.

[dimreepr]

Why Palestinians have no own hero?

 

 

 

In a world that currently exceeds 7 billion, and a recent history that throws up just a handful of such people, is it any wonder that a population of just over 4 million, combined, doesn’t produce such a person?

[MigL]

No John, the Israelis did not chase out the Palestinians.

In 1947 the UN recommended that a Jewish state be set up since the British, having tabled the Balfour Declaration, were limiting the numbers of Jews coming in as it interfered with their economic interests at the time ( the Suez canal and trade with its colonies depended on good relations with the arabs ).

It was mostly the surrounding Arab states that reacted violently in Dec 1947 and forced the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. This led to a mass exodus of Palestinians from the area as they rightly or wrongly feared for their safety in a war zone controlled by the enemy of their people. Well it turns out that after 'their people' lost the war, they didn't want the Palestinians either, and they've been without a state ever since.

 

And ten oz, is population density the new criteria for determining whether a population is displaced from their homeland or not ?

And granted, US- Mexico is an old example, but what about more recent ones like Chechnian independance from Russia ? Why did the world and the UN side with the Russians and not the Chechnian terrorists ? Why is Israel always treated differently ?

[John Cuthber]

Even Russians were arriving there.

Why Palestinians have no own hero?

You have answered your question.My question is without answer.

Your question

"Did Israel take the land without Palestinians which lived in the land?"

did not make sense. I was trying to understand it.

What did you mean?

No John, the Israelis did not chase out the Palestinians.

 

Really?

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

Edited August 17, 2014 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

No John, the Israelis did not chase out the Palestinians.

In 1947 the UN recommended that a Jewish state be set up since the British, having tabled the Balfour Declaration, were limiting the numbers of Jews coming in as it interfered with their economic interests at the time ( the Suez canal and trade with its colonies depended on good relations with the arabs ).

It was mostly the surrounding Arab states that reacted violently in Dec 1947 and forced the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. This led to a mass exodus of Palestinians from the area as they rightly or wrongly feared for their safety in a war zone controlled by the enemy of their people. Well it turns out that after 'their people' lost the war, they didn't want the Palestinians either, and they've been without a state ever since.

 

And ten oz, is population density the new criteria for determining whether a population is displaced from their homeland or not ?

And granted, US- Mexico is an old example, but what about more recent ones like Chechnian independance from Russia ? Why did the world and the UN side with the Russians and not the Chechnian terrorists ? Why is Israel always treated differently ?

 

 

Just because the world has, historically, turned a blind eye to similar annexations, doesn’t mean it should continue to do so.

Edited August 17, 2014 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

 

And ten oz, is population density the new criteria for determining whether a population is displaced from their homeland or not ?

And granted, US- Mexico is an old example, but what about more recent ones like Chechnian independance from Russia ? Why did the world and the UN side with the Russians and not the Chechnian terrorists ? Why is Israel always treated differently ?

No population density isn't the criteria for determining anything. It does reflect how much space people in a country have though. Land is a resource. Mexico was not left without land. Palestinians are slowly losing what little land they ever had. My point about population density was that the two aren't apples to apples comparisons. Both Mexico and The United States had and have enormous amounts of land. If the area in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians was anywhere near the size of the disputed areas of the Mexican American War there would've been a two state solution a long time ago.

Besides, no one here is claiming the United States didn't mistreat people. From the brutality against the natives to slavery the United States has a long history of things to be ashamed of. I am not sure how you think that lends credibility to the actions of countries in conflicts today? I am not terribly familiar with the Russian Chechen conflict but it seems that the Chechen relationship with Islamic Terrorist groups is why the western world sided with Russia. Again, I don't understand what that has to do with Israel today?

[MigL]

And again, the fact that the world considers them illegal, as do I incidentally, does not mean that the Palestinians were forced out.

There is a difference, John. Really !

 

Dimreepr and Ten oz, again, in view of similar annexations, why is Israel singled out ?

By the way, I especially liked how you rationalized the fact that the world sided with Russia against the Chechens because they are considered terrorists. Tell me, Ten oz, what does the world consider Hamas ? Peaceful protesters like Ghandi and Mandela or terrorists ? Again, double standards.

Edited August 17, 2014 by MigL

[CharonY]

And again, the fact that the world considers them illegal, as do I incidentally, does not mean that the Palestinians were forced out.

There is a difference, John. Really !

 

 

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus:

 

 

Edgar O'Ballance, a military historian, adds,

Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them.... From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah.... No longer was there any "reasonable persuasion". Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory.... Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them

[dimreepr]

Dimreepr and Ten oz, again, in view of similar annexations, why is Israel singled out ?

 

 

 

It’s because that’s the topic of this discussion.

[DimaMazin]

Do you mean "Did the Israelis chase out the Palestinians from that land?"

 

Yes, they did.

Palestinians don't chase out the own terrorists, it proves that they have superfluous land.

 

 

 

In a world that currently exceeds 7 billion, and a recent history that throws up just a handful of such people, is it any wonder that a population of just over 4 million, combined, doesn’t produce such a person?

A probability does not work for creation of advanced people, especially when you build mosques instead of universities.

 

 

Just because the world has, historically, turned a blind eye to similar annexations, doesn’t mean it should continue to do so.

There were other reasons too.

[Ten oz]

Dimreepr and Ten oz, again, in view of similar annexations, why is Israel singled out ?

Israel being singled out? I am not sure what you are referencing? Are you talking about the opinions of posters in this thread or are you implying something about the world community?

 

By the way, I especially liked how you rationalized the fact that the world sided with Russia against the Chechens because they are considered terrorists. Tell me, Ten oz, what does the world consider Hamas ?

 

I did not rationalize it. You asked me a question and I answered it noting I was not terribly familair with the subject. No value judgements were made. Please don't extrapolate.

I am not terribly familiar with the Russian Chechen conflict but it seems that the Chechen relationship with Islamic Terrorist groups is why the western world sided with Russia. Again, I don't understand what that has to do with Israel today?

Tell me, Ten oz, what does the world consider Hamas ?

 

Hamas are considered terrorists. That is partly why the United States supplies Israel with 3 billion dollars worth of military aid per year. Since World War II ended no other country has received more military support from the United States than Israel has. From purchasing equipment, sharing nuclear technology, to joint training missions the United States has supported Israel. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_military_relations

I do not understand the connection you are trying to make between the way Israel is treated in relationship to Hamas and the Russian Chechen conflict?

 

 

Peaceful protesters like Ghandi and Mandela or terrorists ? Again, double standards.

Ghandi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King pushed for major transformations in government and law. What major transformations do you think I am advocating? I just want to see Israel ease up on their response and stop advancing on land. I am not advocating Israel give chunks of land up. I just want to see Israel killing less civilians. It should not take a Ghandi or Mandela to achieve that.

Hamas are bad actors. That doesn't mean any response to them is a good. Hamas can be bad actors and Israel can be responding poorly. Both can exist at once.

[DimaMazin]

Hamas are bad actors. That doesn't mean any response to them is a good.

Peace response to them isn't a good.

[dimreepr]

Peace response to them isn't a good.

 

 

This reply just indicates prejudice and that is born of ignorance; they are humans just like all of us.

 

Do you really think they wouldn't welcome peace; given the choice would you rather war?

Edited August 18, 2014 by dimreepr

[DimaMazin]

 

 

This reply just indicates prejudice and that is born of ignorance; they are humans just like all of us.

 

Do you really think they wouldn't welcome peace; given the choice would you rather war?

I don't need to be under power of idiots.

[dimreepr]

I don't need to be under power of idiots.

 

 

 

Who are the idiots?

[DimaMazin]

 

 

 

Who are the idiots?

Terrorists would welcome peace if they have power above us.They are just dangerous idiots for me.

[dimreepr]

Terrorists would welcome peace if they have power above us.They are just dangerous idiots for me.

 

 

The ignorance of a child is understandable; they have yet to be taught.

 

The ignorance of a bully is understandable; they were made that way.

 

The ignorance of the educated is just wilful; that, I don’t understand.

 

Which are you?

[John Cuthber]

Palestinians don't chase out the own terrorists, it proves that they have superfluous land.

 

At best, that is a non sequitur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

But to qualify as that, there would need to be evidence of the premise.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

 

 

The ignorance of a child is understandable; they have yet to be taught.

 

The ignorance of a bully is understandable; they were made that way.

 

The ignorance of the educated is just wilful; that, I don’t understand.

 

Which are you?

Define reality.

At best, that is a non sequitur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

But to qualify as that, there would need to be evidence of the premise.

The same about lack of land. It is just counterbalance.

Edited August 19, 2014 by DimaMazin

[ewmon]

The crux of the matter is that both sides (Jews and Muslims) have their own religions (Judaism and Islam) that consider certain tracts of land as holy to them, and so, they want to own and control those tracts.

 

Unfortunately, there is a tract of land in Jerusalem that both sides consider as holy. The Jews call it the Temple Mount, and the Muslims call it the Noble Sanctuary. For centuries, the Muslims have owned and controlled this tract of land, and their Dome of the Rock currently sits there. Understandably, this is completely unacceptable to the Jews .

 

Personally, I think that the Muslims are being a bit piggish (no insult intended), seeing as how they consider three tracts of land as holy — Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem, whereas the Jews only have Jerusalem (unless you include New York City and Miami — jk!).

Edited August 19, 2014 by ewmon