Israel confirms settlement growth

[ecoli]

Where did you find this graph?

 

I found it on some website...I can't remember, but you'll notice, the original source is clearly indicated. The IDF via the US consulate,

[Static]

No. I'm simply looking at the reasons that Israel is taking certain actions.

 

 

 

 

Read my entire post before commenting on it. If you can be bothered to do that you will see that i quite clearly state that Israels actions can be criticsed on moral grounds.

 

 

 

I'm perfectly aware that these settlements infuriate the Palestinians. If you had bothered to read my post you will see that i state that the result of these settlements is to weaken the Palestinians.

 

 

If you response to posts without actually bothering to read or understand them it makes you look stupid. Try and remember that in future.

 

You said -

 

The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security.

 

Now' date=' they aren't "taking" any land. If you had actually read the article, it clearly states -

 

The Israeli government has confirmed plans to increase the size of its largest settlement in the West Bank.

 

You really should read the initial articles before commenting on them, because it just makes you look stupid. /Aardvark

 

The historic enemies of Israel? Revisionism may be a fun pastime, but perhaps you should try sticking to the actual facts before making such false assertions and expecting to be taken even remotely seriously. When have the Jews and the Palestinians been in conflict before? In fact, the term "Palestinian" never even came into use until a hundred years ago, my dear.

 

And you've failed to address how expanding on existing settlements could possibly increase Israeli security. Anything that would add more fuel to the fire can hardly increase their security.

 

It could be argued that such actions are wrong on moral grounds, but on grounds of securing the long term existence of Israel it has a practical justification.

 

"Securing the long term existence of Israel?" Keeping in mind that the sole nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel, this is an utter conjecture.

[ecoli]

"Securing the long term existence of Israel?" Keeping in mind that the sole nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel' date=' this is an utter conjecture.[/quote']

 

And yet, the only time Israel even came close to using it, was when they were surrounded by all sides by invading armies of the surrounding Arab countries, in an effort to secure the exestance of Israel.

 

US is a nuclear power...yet they don't have any trouble keeping their lands. Nuclear weapons has nothing to do with it.

[Static]

Small numbers??? What are you taking about?? Look, for example May, 2002. Between 15 and 20 terrorists were executed. How can you say this isn't a lot? How many people must die before Israel is considered justified in protecting it's people?

 

By your standards, since over 3500 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the intifada, a ratio of 3 Palestinians to every Jew killed, then any Palestinian is justified in killing any Israeli because it's to "protect their own people?"

 

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

 

It looks like someone needs a history lesson. If you think Palestinians are the indegenous people of the area' date=' you are sadly mistaken. (Although, please note I have no objections to them being there now)

 

A timeline of Jerusalem: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/jerutime.html

 

You'll notice that Muslims didn't even occupy the area until almost 5,000 years after the area was first settled.[/quote']

 

The word Muslim isn't synonomous with Arab, for one. And when the Arabs first arrived in Palestine/Israel is absolutely irrelevant.

 

Fact: they have lived their for hundreds and hundreds of years.

 

Fact: the Zionists started migrating to what is now Israel in the 1800s.

 

Perhaps in your eyes "indigenous" means having lived in a certain place since the beggining of time. I can't think of many "indigenous" peoples, if that's the case.

 

And yet, the only time Israel even came close to using it, was when they were surrounded by all sides by invading armies of the surrounding Arab countries, in an effort to secure the exestance of Israel.

 

US is a nuclear power...yet they don't have any trouble keeping their lands. Nuclear weapons has nothing to do with it.

 

You're missing the point. He's arguing that the expansion of the settlements is an effort to secure Israel's existence. I'm pointing out the obvious absurdity of this argument.

[budullewraagh]

"Boo hoo."

that's the most ignorant thing i've heard in recent weeks. try to be intellectual.

 

"For Israel it self evidently is."

but we are to consider more than just israel, now aren't we? the palestinians are people, no?

 

out of curiosity, what exactly is your personal stance on this issue?

[ecoli]

By your standards' date=' since over 3500 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the intifada, a ratio of [i']3 Palestinians to every Jew killed[/i], then any Palestinian is justified in killing any Israeli because it's to "protect their own people?"

 

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

 

http://www.amicidisraele.org/english/figures.htm

 

I answer your website with another one...that says the many "civilian" deaths of the palestinians were actually combatants actively fighting the IDF, and were killed in combat.

 

The word Muslim isn't synonomous with Arab, for one. And when the Arabs first arrived in Palestine/Israel is absolutely irrelevant.

 

It's not irrelevant if your labelling them indegenous.

 

 

Fact: they have lived their for hundreds and hundreds of years.

 

Fact: the Zionists started migrating to what is now Israel in the 1800s.

 

Perhaps in your eyes "indigenous" means having lived in a certain place since the beggining of time. I can't think of many "indigenous" peoples' date=' if that's the case.[/quote']

 

Exactly my point. How could you call them indegenous if the Hebrews were their even before the Palestinians.

 

You're missing the point. He's arguing that the expansion of the settlements is an effort to secure Israel's existence. I'm pointing out the obvious absurdity of this argument.

 

It's not an absurd argument. It's a completely valid one. How can you argue that Israel is secure because it has nuclear weapons that it has never, and would never use. It makes no sense.

[ecoli]

but we are to consider more than just israel' date=' now aren't we? the palestinians are people, no?[/quote']

 

Obviously...but the palestinians are not helping their own cause by resisting Israeli rule.

 

All the evidence is there...and plenty palestinians see it too. Not all of them want to see the Israeli's dead.

 

Israel is an economically strong, democratic nation. It has contributed to the arts, science, technology, engineering. It turned much of the desert back into forest land. It has a strong agricultural backbone too.

 

Before the extremists changed things, the Muslims and Jews lived side by side in peace, in Israel...especially in the 80's. Did you know their are palestinian member's of the Israeli parliment?

 

What other country in the Middle East has contributed so much to the world? Hmm...can't think of any. I garuntee if Israel had oil reserves we would not be having this debate right now.

[budullewraagh]

" Obviously...but the palestinians are not helping their own cause by resisting Israeli rule."

i don't agree at all

 

"Israel is an economically strong, democratic nation. It has contributed to the arts, science, technology, engineering. It turned much of the desert back into forest land. It has a strong agricultural backbone too."

so if the united states were to invade bolivia tomorrow, you'd support such measures?

 

"Did you know their are palestinian member's of the Israeli parliment?"

did you know that the likud party is an overrepresented minority?

 

"What other country in the Middle East has contributed so much to the world? Hmm...can't think of any."

this is absolutely absurd. first, israel would be nothing without spoon-feeding from the us and britain. more importantly, since when can a country annex land because it contributes more to the world than the other country? sounds to me like nazi germany, except a little less reasonable. btw, could you give examples of what israel has done for the world? also, we have to realize that the palestinians should be given credit for many breakthroughs in mathematics, chemistry, physics, medicine and art

[ecoli]

I know Palestinians have helped in the areas of science, and have contributed to scientific breakthroughs.

 

FOR EXAMPLE; a Nobel prize in chemistry (2004), developing new drugs for alheimers disease, inventing instant messaging, developing advanded 3d face recognition, new techs in treating spinal cord injury, home of the Wiezman institute (one of the biggest research facilities in the world), creation of a biomolecular computer, development of better armour (used by US troops in Iraq), development of advanced tracking systems (used by US dep't of homeland security), those private museum tour headphone things, computer software that helps train with real time desicion making and execution...

 

I think I made my point. Some of these I pulled off google...but most of them are from http://www.israel21c.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=HomePage

 

Many Palestinians are part of these projects, but do you think they would have been doing stuff like these without Israel? I don't think so.

 

If you think Israel is just spoon feeding off of the US and Europe, your sadly mistaken. Maybe, at first the US and Europe helped Israel get off it's feet, but certainly not any more. No, the hardworking, dedicated citizens of Israel (Jews AND Muslims AND Christians) have brought Israel to where they are today. And the Palestinian extremists, you know the ones that think they need to blow up buses and pizza parlors to get attention, are ruining that.

[budullewraagh]

"but do you think they would have been doing stuff like these without Israel?"

if israel hadn't laid palestine to waste, possibly yes. if israel weren't spoon-fed money, i am confident they would not have come this far.

 

"Maybe, at first the US and Europe helped Israel get off it's feet, but certainly not any more."

really?

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

"U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact

Summary

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid

Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans

$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)

$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments

$1,650,000,000

Grand Total

$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli

$14,630

Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.

Aid to Israel

Grand Total

$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.

$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers

$134,791,507,200

Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli

$23,240"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2513159.stm

"Israel is not saying how much money it is looking for, but the domestic media speculate that it could be as much as $14bn, of which $4bn would be military aid and $10bn loan guarantees."

http://www.globes.co.il/DocsEn/did=358192.htm

"Estimates: US Could Budget Tens of Millions of Dollars to Develop Anti-Missile Laser in Israel"

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/835957/posts

"Israel aid in US 2004 draft budget: At least $2.776b"

 

"No, the hardworking, dedicated citizens of Israel (Jews AND Muslims AND Christians) have brought Israel to where they are today. And the Palestinian extremists, you know the ones that think they need to blow up buses and pizza parlors to get attention, are ruining that."

with much aid. some palestinian extremists are pissed off that israel has destroyed their economy, annexed their land, raped burned and pillaged, etc. and israel is pissed off that palestinians blow them up. both sides are guilty of crimes against humanity. it has to be recognized, however, that the number of documented casualties sustained by the palestinians is triple the amount sustained by israel. also, we must recognize that since palestine is underrepresented and in ruins, there are many more uncounted. it must be recognized that hamas, hezbollah and the israeli army are guilty of terrorism

[ecoli]

if israel hadn't laid palestine to waste' date=' possibly yes. if israel weren't spoon-fed money, i am confident they would not have come this far.

[/quote']

 

That's an innacurate statement... The West bank may in shambles, but all of Israel used to be called Palestine...it's certainly not laid to waste.

 

How can you say that Israel destroyed Palestine's economy? Before Israel, Palestinains didn't HAVE an economy. Before the Israeli government, Palestine was British controlled-desert.

 

Sure things suck now...but that's becasue the economy's on a downswing...international boycotts and disproval will do that to a country.

[Aardvark]

Now' date=' they aren't "taking" any land. If you had actually read the article, it clearly states -

 

 

 

You really should read the initial articles before commenting on them, because it just makes you look stupid. /Aardvark[/quote']

 

If you know of anyway to expand settlements without taking land then please share it with the world.

 

Otherwise i shall have to assume that you are being both pedantic and wrong. A bad combination.

The historic enemies of Israel? Revisionism may be a fun pastime' date=' but perhaps you should try sticking to the actual facts before making such false assertions and expecting to be taken even remotely seriously. When have the Jews and the Palestinians been in conflict before? In fact, the term "Palestinian" never even came into use until a hundred years ago, my dear. [/quote']

 

Revisionism? Oh dear.

 

For your benefit, a quick run down of the history of eminity between Israel/Zionism and Palestinians.

 

 

1917. The Balfour declaration. The promise of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, already the home of large numbers of Palestinians.

 

The 1920s and 30s.

 

Greatly increased Jewish immigration.

 

Kibbutz movement established . The establishment of Jewish armed militas, Betar youth movement and the ETZEL (National Military Organization).

 

Increasing tension overflowing into bloodshed from 1920 onwards with large numbers dead on both sides in 'inter communal violence'

 

1947. Arab rejection of UN partition of Palestine.

 

1948. Israeli independence promptly followed by invasion of neighbouring Arab states in support of Palestinians.

 

1950s and 60s. Continuous Palestinian guerilla attacks on Israel.

 

1967. Pre emptive Israeli attack upon Egypt and Syria.

 

1973. Surprise attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria.

 

1987. Intifada. Large scale uprising of Palestinians against Israel in the 'occupied territories'

 

That's a very brief run and slimmed down of the run down of the historic emenity between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

 

 

As you can see Israelis/Zionists have been in conflict with Palestinians since at least 1917. Those are the facts.

 

Perhaps you need to brush up with your history book before making posts about matters you appear not to know very much about.

 

And you've failed to address how expanding on existing settlements could possibly increase Israeli security. Anything[/i'] that would add more fuel to the fire can hardly increase their security.

 

If you had bothered to read my post you will see that i specifically address how expanding settlements could increase Israels security.

 

Just to repeat, 'Presumably more land under Israels control means more taxes, more economic activity and most importantly, more Israelis.

 

Israel is a small country. The more land and the higher the population the stronger and deeper rooted it will be. The action of taking that land will also displace and weaken the Palestinians who are the historic enemies of Israel. Therefore it is apparent that increasing settlements is a means of securing Israels long term security.'

 

Quite clearly that is an address of the matter of how these settlements could add to Israels security.

 

Please read and try and understand peoples posts before commenting on them. Otherwise you are left looking stupid. Especialy when you repeat the mistake.

 

 

"Securing the long term existence of Israel?" Keeping in mind that the sole nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel' date=' this is an utter conjecture.[/quote']

 

Firstly, Israel isn't guaranteed to be the only nuclear power in the region for ever.

 

Secondly, Israel might want to find means other than nuclear war to ensure security.

 

Unless you are assuming that Israel is a genocidal nation willing to settle its problems with nuclear war. In which case your opinions would be so absurd as not to warrant any further discussion.

 

 

Feel free to comment on my post. But please have the courtesy to actually read it first this time.

[ecoli]

" it has to be recognized, however, that the number of documented casualties sustained by the palestinians is triple the amount sustained by israel.

See above posts. Most of the Palestinian dead were people fighting the IDF...casualties of war, not civilians.

[budullewraagh]

"That's an innacurate statement... The West bank may in shambles, but all of Israel used to be called Palestine...it's certainly not laid to waste.

 

How can you say that Israel destroyed Palestine's economy? Before Israel, Palestinains didn't HAVE an economy. Before the Israeli government, Palestine was British controlled-desert.

 

Sure things suck now...but that's becasue the economy's on a downswing...international boycotts and disproval will do that to a country."

 

that first sentence doesn't say anything. you're referring to something i wasn't referring to.

 

palestine did indeed have an economy. it was destroyed when their banks, houses, hospitals, food storage facilities, etc were eliminated by the israeli army. it was destroyed when israel started putting rediculous curfews on the palestinian people.

 

"See above posts. Most of the Palestinian dead were people fighting the IDF...casualties of war, not civilians."

that accounts for how many? 100? 200? i'm talking about thousands. let's not be stupid here.

[Aardvark]

"Boo hoo."

that's the most ignorant thing i've heard in recent weeks. try to be intellectual.

 

Stating that my asking a question 'pisses people off' is a pretty ignorant and unintellectual rsponse. If people are pissed of by my simply asking questions then tough luck.

 

I repeat' date=' if you are pissed off by my asking a question, then, boo hoo.

 

"For Israel it self evidently is."

but we are to consider more than just israel, now aren't we? the palestinians are people, no?

 

The matter under discussion was the motives of Israel in expanding settlements.

 

If you had bothered to read my post before making a knee jerk response you will have seen that i clearly stated that Israels actions could be criticised on moral grounds.

 

out of curiosity' date=' what exactly is your personal stance on this issue?[/quote']

 

My personal stance is that the only long term solution is a two state division. As Israelis and Palestinians have such a history of emnity a very big wall should be built. On one side should be the Israelis and on the otherside should be the Palestinians.

 

There will be inevitable arguments about where exactly the wall should be built and who gets which bit of land and it would be in Israels long term interest to try and deal with such disputes in a reasonable manner. However, considering how small Israel is and how it is surrounded by much larger, highly hostile countries with a track record of trying to completely destroy Israel it is only fair that Israel should seek to ensure its existence by securing enough living space for its population.

 

That will mean that some Palestinians will suffer but survival is the ultimate morality and eventually a peace based on strength should be mutually advantageous to all the peoples of the region.

 

 

out of curiosity, what exactly is your personal stance on this issue?

[ecoli]

palestine did indeed have an economy. it was destroyed when their banks' date=' houses, hospitals, food storage facilities, etc were eliminated by the israeli army. it was destroyed when israel started putting rediculous curfews on the palestinian people.[/quote']

 

I'm talking pre-1948, before modern-day Israel. Those curfews were set to decrease terrorist activity. Rediculous - no; excessive - maybe.

 

 

that accounts for how many? 100? 200? i'm talking about thousands. let's not be stupid here.

 

Oh so am I. According to the information posted above, 64% of the Palestinian dead are fighters, as opposed to; 78% of Israeli's that are killed are citizens.

[budullewraagh]

"I'm talking pre-1948, before modern-day Israel. Those curfews were set to decrease terrorist activity. Rediculous - no; excessive - maybe."

why talk pre-1948? i don't see the reason for you to do so.

no, those curfews were set to screw the palestinians. just how good is a curfew exactly?

 

"Oh so am I. According to the information posted above, 64% of the Palestinian dead are fighters, as opposed to; 78% of Israeli's that are killed are citizens."

define "figher." define "citizen." consider your sources. think about it carefully

[ecoli]

why talk pre-1948? i don't see the reason for you to do so.

 

because that's the year the state of Israel was established

 

no, those curfews were set to screw the palestinians. just how good is a curfew exactly?

 

No...those curfews were set to curb terrorist activity...and innocent Palestinians have to suffer becasue of it.

 

define "figher." define "citizen." consider your sources. think about it carefully

 

Fighter - the person in a mask that is shooting at Israeli soldiers. The Terrorist that straps bombs to himself and walks into a bus and blows himself up.

 

civilian - the person who is enjoying a slice of pizza at a local pizzeria ands get blown up by the bomb.

The Palestinian who has to follow a curfew because other Palestinans feel the need to turn to violence to have their demands met.

[budullewraagh]

"because that's the year the state of Israel was established"

yes, yes that is true. i still don't understand the significance

 

"No...those curfews were set to curb terrorist activity...and innocent Palestinians have to suffer becasue of it. "

again i ask you: how do these curb terrorism?

 

let's do some math (assuming your numbers are accurate):

64% of palestinians dead are fighters.

100-64=36% civilians

78% of israelis dead are civilians

100-78=22% militants

if they were in equal numbers, you'd find that 2.166 israeli civilians would die per palestinian civilian. but we're neglecting the fact that 3x the number of palestinians die, so actually many, many more palestinian civilians have been killed than israeli citizens.

 

you have to consider. the palestinians are so pissed off because their houses, hospitals, banks, etc are being blown up. they are left to waste and hamas offers them food, shelter, etc in return for their services. what's better, condemning your family to death on the streets or fighting and dying so your children and wife can live? most "militants" don't have a choice

[ecoli]

ok...one more point before I go to sleep...

The reason why there in this position in the first place...extremists want the land for themselves. Palestinian terrorists want the Israeli gov't disestablished, and will not rest until their all dead or gone.

 

The majority of the people, Israelis and Palestinians want people, but this is impossible because jihad has become an accepted practice.

 

The situation is Israel arrived, because the Palestinians were not given equal treatment...much like blacks in the US, in the 50's and 60's, or the British occupation of India. However, the palestinians have no Martin Luther King's or Gahndi's. No strong leaders that promote peace. Only violence.

 

There are many Israeli leftists who are more then willing to give Palestinians their rights, and/or land. But the only way to accomplish this is both sides agree to stop fighting.

 

This situation is not entirely Israel's fault, as you are seemingly suggesting (don't confuse governmental policy with what many of the people want), nor is it entirely the Palestinian's fault. The extremists on both sides have to realize that they can coexist peacefully.

[budullewraagh]

"The reason why there in this position in the first place...extremists want the land for themselves. Palestinian terrorists want the Israeli gov't disestablished, and will not rest until their all dead or gone."

they want their land back. it's understandable. it's just another wound to have even more of their land slowly annexed. you have to realize that there are crazy zionists out there that want to get rid of the islamic population in palestine.

 

"The majority of the people, Israelis and Palestinians want people, but this is impossible because jihad has become an accepted practice."

yes, hamas, hezbollah and the israeli army are waging jihad

 

"The situation is Israel arrived, because the Palestinians were not given equal treatment...much like blacks in the US, in the 50's and 60's, or the British occupation of India. However, the palestinians have no Martin Luther King's or Gahndi's. No strong leaders that promote peace. Only violence."

yes, and it is unfortunate. they need a nation to stick up for them. where's the us?

 

"There are many Israeli leftists who are more then willing to give Palestinians their rights, and/or land. But the only way to accomplish this is both sides agree to stop fighting."

and everytime they agree to stop, something happens. both sides are guilty of ending ceasefires prematurely.

 

"This situation is not entirely Israel's fault, as you are seemingly suggesting (don't confuse governmental policy with what many of the people want), nor is it entirely the Palestinian's fault. The extremists on both sides have to realize that they can coexist peacefully."

i'm just making sure we have the facts presented accurately. some of your conclusions were very farfetched and i commented and gave input on my views of the situation. the palestinians need to be recognized and helped. otherwise peace will never come from this terrible situation

[ecoli]

The US is too afraid of being accused of taking sides... The populaced is split on who to support.

 

The US needs to support both sides. Right now, it's not doing much of anything.

[budullewraagh]

the us already has taken sides. see my source.

[Sayonara]

If you know of anyway to expand settlements without taking land then please share it with the world.

Build upwards. Or maybe downwards.

[Static]

http://www.amicidisraele.org/english/figures.htm

 

I answer your website with another one...that says the many "civilian" deaths of the palestinians were actually combatants actively fighting the IDF' date=' and were killed in combat. [/quote']

 

Thank you for the link, I have it bookmarked for a later read. Although, I must point out that even if 55% of Palestinians that have been killed are combatants, that's still at least 1700 innocent civilians killed on the Palestinian side to over 1000 dead Israeli's. Now, I want to be careful to not be mistaken as attempting to provide any kind of justification for the scum that the Palestinian "militants" are (personally, I think that the term "militants" is too kind), but what I am saying is that the numbers on the Palestinian side are not proportional.

 

I know that what makes it so complicated is that the "militants" are of course targeting civilians while the Israeli army isn't.

 

Exactly my point. How could you call them indegenous if the Hebrews were their even before the Palestinians.

 

Honestly, I'm not going to get into the whole "who was there first" argument with you, because personally, I consider it highly irrelevant to modern times. I don't think either of us have the ability to travel back to the very beginnings of time to find out whose people occupied where first, nor do I believe that to be relevant at all. Fact of the matter: both the Jews and the Palestinians live on the land that is Israel now, and THAT'S what matters.

 

It's not an absurd argument. It's a completely valid one. How can you argue that Israel is secure because it has nuclear weapons that it has never, and would never use. It makes no sense.

 

Perhaps you have definitive proof that the Israeli's would never use their nukes?

 

If you know of anyway to expand settlements without taking land then please share it with the world.

 

Otherwise i shall have to assume that you are being both pedantic and wrong. A bad combination.

 

By expanding existing settlements, one would assume that they're expanding upon land they've already taken. Israel has a much smaller landmass than most states in the US, and land isn't in abundance over there (hence why the Palestinians and Jews are fighting over a strip of land smaller than the stae of New Jersey?). It's not like they can simply kick Palestinians out of their homes and take their land without major pr concerns. I assume they'll simply move many more settlers in, as that's how they generally "expand" the settlements.

 

Revisionism? Oh dear.

 

For your benefit, a quick run down of the history of eminity between Israel/Zionism and Palestinians.

 

 

1917. The Balfour declaration. The promise of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, already the home of large numbers of Palestinians.

 

The 1920s and 30s.

 

Greatly increased Jewish immigration.

 

Kibbutz movement established . The establishment of Jewish armed militas, Betar youth movement and the ETZEL (National Military Organization).

 

Increasing tension overflowing into bloodshed from 1920 onwards with large numbers dead on both sides in 'inter communal violence'

 

1947. Arab rejection of UN partition of Palestine.

 

1948. Israeli independence promptly followed by invasion of neighbouring Arab states in support of Palestinians.

 

1950s and 60s. Continuous Palestinian guerilla attacks on Israel.

 

1967. Pre emptive Israeli attack upon Egypt and Syria.

 

1973. Surprise attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria.

 

1987. Intifada. Large scale uprising of Palestinians against Israel in the 'occupied territories'

 

That's a very brief run and slimmed down of the run down of the historic emenity between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

 

 

As you can see Israelis/Zionists have been in conflict with Palestinians since at least 1917. Those are the facts.

 

Perhaps you need to brush up with your history book before making posts about matters you appear not to know very much about.

 

Excuse me. Most people only use a term like "historic" when they're talking about things that have been happening for at least hundreds of years (or hell, outside of the past couple centuries)?

 

Please read and try and understand peoples posts before commenting on them. Otherwise you are left looking stupid. Especialy when you repeat the mistake.

 

I definitely read and understood your post. I just thoroughly disagree with your assertions that more Israeli's = more security.

 

I think the best way for the Israeli's AND Palestinian's to ensure their security is through the peace process. That means both sides must be willing to compromise/make concessions.

 

Firstly, Israel isn't guaranteed to be the only nuclear power in the region for ever.

 

First, the notion of any Middle Eastern nations acquiring nukes is so incredibly detatched from reality (Geez, we saw what happened the last time an Arab country was assumed to have WMD) that it's hardly worth entertaining the thought.

 

Secondly, Israel might want to find means other than nuclear war to ensure security.

 

Isn't this the stated objective of all nuclear powers?

 

Unless you are assuming that Israel is a genocidal nation willing to settle its problems with nuclear war. In which case your opinions would be so absurd as not to warrant any further discussion.

 

Conjectures are definitively your strong point, are they not? Perhaps you would like to direct me to somewhere where I've even implied that I think this could be the case?