Droog suggested it, I'll bring it. I'll posit that the primary onus of the Palestinians' suffering comes not from "apartheid" Israel but from the uncaring machinations of the arab states. Start with a quote:

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."
- Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas

As always the situation is both incredibly simple and yet far more complex than easily summed up.  Isreal could not exist with dispossessing the people who already occupied the land.  No person, no race of people, no religion has a 'right' to land. Sad to say, but the law of the jungle applies to nations as clearly as it does to beasts.  The right to exist and to hold land only extends as far as your ability to keep it in the face of opposition.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is wearing rose tinted glasses.

The fact is that the Palestinians have suffered. They have brought a great deal of suffering upon themselves, to be sure. Second and third generation Palestinians are staying in overcrowded refugee camps, not because they lack the means to leave, but because they refuse to go until they get what they are 'entitled to', say Grandfather's house.  First generation refugees still hold the keys to houses that in all probablility do not exist any longer.   Thus, from the Isreali perspective, the proper solution is to clear out the refugee camps by force, which would lead to horrific casualities, and condemnation from busybody nations that have held ancestral lands for centuries now (in many cases, anyway).   Had Isreal been formed a century earlier, no one would have cared (except maybe the ottomans) about the plight of the palestinians, just as they didn't care about the plight of the american Indians or the Austrialian aborigines.

The Palestinians have naturally been used for politcal aims by the various arab nations, not out of actual concern for Palestinian welfare (if you think that, you obviously have not been paying attention to the tribal politics in Iraq...), but rather out of concern over this new 'power player' in local politics, and greed for their land/resources. Yes, greed.

Interesting Tidbit: Yasser Arafat was eqyptian.

This is, essentially, true. The arab states condemn israel's treatment of the palastinians loudly in public, while quietly treating them even worse in their own countries.

But hey, it gives the arabs (muslims) an excuse to condemn israel and tell the people they rule that all their problems, and the world's problems, are of israeli origin.

So the masses keep on chanting "Death to Israel" instead of getting otgether and overthrowing the ruling families that soak up all the oil money and keep the peasants down.

I think Spike has explained the situation. Is that the end of the thread?

Edit: double-post

One day, the two will have to live next door to one another more or less in peace. In their position, I'd start today.

Wars always end some day. People are sometimes apt to forget that, and fight as though there's never going to be a peace. Other people are terrified there may be peace some day, and so make sure to fight in such a way there can't be a peace.

The Palestinians in power are not keen on peace. There are two reasons for this.

The first is because like the Irish in 1921, they're divided as to what peace to accept. They're only getting half of what they want. Some say, that'll do for now, let's move on. Others say, "all or nothing!" Many times I've predicted that were a peace to be signed tomorrow, the first thing the Palestinians would do is to have a civil war over that peace treaty. The Irish did it, after all. Seems like they're not even waiting for the peace to be signed, though. Premature insurrection, always embarassing when you shoot off too early.

The second is that with conflict with the Israelis, the Palestinians are important in the world. Without conflict, they'd be just another corrupt Third World dictatorship lining up for handouts from the West. With the conflict, they're first in line, without it, they'd move to the back.

For their part, the Israelis have made the mistake of allowing religious parties, and a voting system which allows them the balance of power in their unicameral legislature. This makes making peace with the neighbours difficult. It does happen eventually, though. Israel gave up half its controlled territory to Egypt, after all, and displaced thousands of settlers at gunpoint. I think perhaps they've let it go too far this time, though - 400,000 would be harder to move.

For both sides, I'm reminded of the words of Machiavelli, that the most unhappy state is one which can neither accept a peace nor sustain a war.

It's remarkable how much the proposed Israel - PA borders look like the 1947 UN Partition Plan. So much bloodshed, effort and expense just to get back where they started...

It's not commonly appreciated just how tiny the whole place is. I have run across Israel in less than a day, from the Mediterranean to the borders of the West Bank. It would have taken just a morning, but you can't go directly. What do you do if you want two animals to fight? Put them in a cage that's too small for both of them. Israel and Palestine are two very small cages, and both states have a lot of rats in them.

For my own part, naturally as a Jew I am a Zionist. You can't really not be, as  Jew, can't really think that Israel should cease to exist, tomorrow. But I wouldn't be keen on living there. Italy, Ireland, even somewhere like Hungary - these are European countries, so I'd have a basis of cultural understanding. But Israel's a Middle Eastern country. It's closer culturally to Egypt or Syria than it is to France or Poland. There were plenty of times and places where I felt connected to Israel, but overall, I don't think it could ever be home. Just... meshuggener. Crazy, in that manic, obsessive sort of way.

JB claimed that all wars end eventually. I wish that were true, but war in the mideast has been a standard state of affair for a long, long time, and short of one side being eliminated I don't see it ending.

I'm on Israel's side, as I see them as a rational democracy who has really tried and tried to make peace. Personally I believe outsiders, like saudi arabia and iran, are the ones who keep stirring shit up whenever the possibility of peace rears it's head, but then again, when Ahud Barak, former israeli PM, offered the pallistinians virtually everything they wanted, yezzir imarat turned his nose up at it.

The bottom line is that many groups, like hezbollah, have made it clear they want israel eliminated and will settle for nothing less than that, and it's not hyperbole. it takes two sides to make peace, and it seems that only israel is willing.

Quote from: JimBobOz... But I wouldn't be keen on living there. Italy, Ireland, even somewhere like Hungary - these are European countries, so I'd have a basis of cultural understanding. ...

Well you're welcome to come to Ireland!  If you move into my neighbourhood, you'll be very close to Dublin's oldest Jewish bakery.

There are two ways to get a permanent peace in Israel:

1. Ethnic cleansing on a fairly grand scale.

2. The one-state solution.

Quote from: Dominus NoxI'm on Israel's side, as I see them as a rational democracy who has really tried and tried to make peace. Personally I believe outsiders, like saudi arabia and iran, are the ones who keep stirring shit up whenever the possibility of peace rears it's head, but then again, when Ahud Barak, former israeli PM, offered the pallistinians virtually everything they wanted, yezzir imarat turned his nose up at it.

I suggest you read some history on the conflict. This will tell you that the warmongering and religious fanaticism is far from a one-sided affair. It will also tell you that terrorist attacks by Zionists (yes, zionists, not Israelis or jews) was responsible for the pullout of British troops and pretty much set the map as it is now. At least up to the six day war.

Google the King David hotel.

On another note, i saw a report from an Israeli human rights group today (i'll try and find a link) that said that 660 palestinians were killed this year. 141 were children and an estamated 320 casualties had no links whatsover to any kind of militant group. To put that in context, those casualty figures are not far off of those suffered by the US military in Iraq this year.

EDIT: Link added http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6215769.stm

Many places in the world had conflicts for a long time, and then settled down. The Low Countries in the 17th and 18th centuries were thought of as the Balkans were in the 19th and 20th centuries, yet now the Netherlands and Belgium are peaceful liberal democracies. Spain had nothing but revolutions and civil war for a century, then fifty years of military dictatorship, but now... And so on.

Wars always end. Plenty of them take decades to end, and a lot of human misery is caused in the meantime, but they do end.

The simple fact is that unless one side intends to commit genocide, then eventually they have to settle down and live next door to one another.

Again, both sides have put themselves in a position where they can neither accept peace nor sustain a war. I don't know how they can get out of this, but they must do so.

For personal reasons beyond my own ethnicity, it's a painful topic for me. But I think I can say objectively that I don't give a shit who started it - and that's the debate Dominus Nox and One Horse Town are warming up for. I don't care who started it, I want it finished. When a man sees his house burning down, he doesn't stop to discuss how the fire started, he rushes to put the fire out. Let the historians sort it out a couple of centuries from now.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor personal reasons beyond my own ethnicity, it's a painful topic for me. But I think I can say objectively that I don't give a shit who started it - and that's the debate Dominus Nox and One Horse Town are warming up for. I don't care who started it, I want it finished. When a man sees his house burning down, he doesn't stop to discuss how the fire started, he rushes to put the fire out. Let the historians sort it out a couple of centuries from now.

Not at all. I agree that who started it is irrelevant at this stage and i support neither side exclusively. I support both.

A peace needs trust and trust requires understanding and to reach understanding, you need to be objective and see both sides of any given dispute.

There is no right and wrong here; there's too much baggage carried by both sides in the conflict. The challenge is to put aside moral indignation and thoughts of right and wrong and start engaging in meaningful political debate that leads to a settlement. To do that, you need a little empathy. Once you've got that, you can start understanding...

Until both the Islaelis and the Palestinians start showing some empathy towards each other, then the cycle of violence will continue (which was the point of the link) and the headlines will always bear bad news. Mothers, fathers and siblings will contiue to grow up in a society of hate fueled by tit for tat attacks and killings.

Maybe its my cynical side, but I don't see a lasting peace until one side or the other does something drastic and atrocious.  I keep thinking of all those Bosnians and Serbians fighting a four hundred year old ethnic war... And I don't think they are done, I think they are simply waiting for the watchdogs to  loosen up on the leashes.  

I support interracial dating in the US for one reason alone: its the only way to eliminate the rift permanently, to fuse one culture from the 'many'.  Otherwise I couldn't give two figs what you hairless monkeys do with your noodly appendages.

Quote from: JimBobOzOne day, the two will have to live next door to one another more or less in peace.

QuoteIt's not commonly appreciated just how tiny the whole place is. I have run across Israel in less than a day, from the Mediterranean to the borders of the West Bank. It would have taken just a morning, but you can't go directly. What do you do if you want two animals to fight? Put them in a cage that's too small for both of them. Israel and Palestine are two very small cages, and both states have a lot of rats in them.

Your second quote explains why the first quote is not necessarily true.  I mean shit, they've been at it since at least the slaughter of the Canaanites, so why stop now? Or ever? Even God agrees that the "holy land" isn't big enough for both peoples (I mean, he did order the Israelites to slaughter ALL of the Canaanites; and then punished the Israelites for centuries for having spared some of them against God's express orders of murdering every last man, woman and child).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditagainst God's express orders of murdering every last man, woman and child).

RPGPundit

See, even God agrees with me. Only an atrocity can spare us endless war.  I've been proven right by the mightiest of all generals, the wisest of all philosphers...

And you all dismiss me when I suggest I'm gonna have to lay down a smiting.