American civilians are legitimate targets in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[FinnAgain]

@amanset

Sorry I can’t agree with that, especially on the second point when you consider the sheer amount of deaths and indiscriminate bombings by the Israelis.

You’re making up a claim that Israel has engaged in any indiscriminate bombings. Not a good way to conduct a debate.

@amanset

But the first, as to “who started it” is only really simplified if you consider the Palestinians and Arabs in general to be the same people.

Or note that the Palestinian leadership was allied with the Nazis and helped develop the Final Solution.

@amanset

Look at the wall, for God’s sake. From Wikipedia:

Yep, the Armistice Line isn’t a legal border, the Palestinians never had sovereignty over the West Bank, even under centuries of Ottoman rule much of the land was Miri. The UNRWA itself classifies anybody as Palestinian if they lived in the area for as little as two years prior to 1948. Etc, etc, etc.

@amanset

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are in areas that were captured during the Six Day War, which arguably (as no-one ever agrees on these things) was started by the Israelis.

You can argue anything you want. You can argue that 9/11 was orchestrated by George Bush with controlled demolitions and that the moon landing was a hoax. The facts are that Israel did not start the war in '67 and those who claim it did are either deliberately advancing an agenda or repeating untrue claims without realizing it.

@amanset

Anyway the ins and out of wars past are up for debate. What isn’t up for debate is the wall. It is indisputable. It is a fact. You just have to look at a map to see how it encroaches upon Palestinian territory.

Even better would be to show any period in the entire history of humanity when there was any such thing as “Palestinian territory”. To hear Hamas tell is, for instance, all of the Levant is to be considered a Waqf and all of it must be ‘liberated’ from Israel.

The simple fact of the matter is that privately owned land was exceedingly rare in the Levant during the roughly roughly four centuries before 1948, most of the Arab population to the area were themselves immigrants and tenants rather than owners of the land and Mulk land was the property of the sovereign in any case.

@amanset

Imagine if, say, Canada decided to build a wall to keep out Americans but decided to build it on the American side of the border, at points up to twenty kilometres from the border. How do you think the American government would react?

Poorly.
Now imagine the legal situation if we used an accurate analogy and one nation captured land in a defensive war, and that land’s sovereign powers abandoned it and the vast majority of the people who claimed ownership of the land never actually held any such ownership, ever. If the town I live in disintegrated as a legal entity and was then incorporated into a neighboring district, does that mean that all renters own their apartments?

@amanset

And that’s where we differ. My position has always been that they are as bad as each other and no-one has any business funding either of them militarily whilst they are acting the way they are.

Yes yes, the official elected group Hamas openly supports the genocide of the Jews and the Palestinian leadership in the 30’s and 40’s was allied with Adolph Hitler and planned on exterminating the Jews in the Middle East and helped formulate the plans to exterminate them in Europe. Currently state sponsored TV in PA territory teaches children to aspire to murder and death in combat. Sermons are routinely given saying that Jews are evil and should be killed.
But on the other hand, Israel has repeatedly offered peace, offered to give back the '67 gains in exchange for peace, offered 97% of all the land the PA was asking for in exchange for peace.

Obviously, they’re just as bad as each other.

@amanset

Unfortunately Israel’s complete disregard for the lives of ANY Palestinians

Is a claim you’re making up along with your fabrication of “indiscriminate” bombings. Maybe Alessan can come in and point out the fact yet again, but the IDF does indeed take possible casualties into account when planning operations and does indeed scrub those plans when the casualties would be too high.

@amanset

you are making yourself look quite ignorant

I dinnae think that word means what you think it means.

[

The main legal channel for land requisition as unused state land is to be found in the 1858 Ottoman law. The essential part of the Ottoman land law was initially adopted by the British mandate legislation and later by the Jordanian legislation, and was therefore in vigour at the time of West Bank annexation in 1967. Lands under ultimate state ownership were defined as miri, cropland close to inhabited areas and suitable for agriculture, and mawat, land far away from villages, in principle empty unused land. In both cases, the legal status could be ambiguous. In the case of miri land, according to the Ottoman law anybody who operates the land for ten continuous years acquires rights of use, but if the land is not farmed for three years, it can be withdrawn and passed on to somebody else. According to a restrictive interpretation of the Ottoman law, it was thus possible to seize any miri land not farmed for three consecutive years, and miri land farmed for less than ten years, as well as much of the land defined as mawat.

](Land tenure policies in the Near East)

[XT]

I thought maybe a brief history lesson may be just the ticket, at least for those in the peanut gallery who may be following along and who may be open to a taste of the reality of the situation. I’m going to use this cite (haven’t used this one before in any of the OTHER threads exactly like this that I’ve found myself engaging in before):

First, some wise words:

This page is Part I of the MidEastWeb history of the Israeli-Palestinian or Israeli-Arab conflict. For Part II click here: History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict since the Oslo Accords.

History, and different perceptions of history, are perhaps the most important factors in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Accounts of history, interpreting history in different ways, are used to justify claims and to negate claims, to vilify the enemy and to glorify “our own” side. Dozens of accounts have been written. Most of the accounts on the Web are intended to convince rather than to inform.

This very brief account is intended as a balanced overview and introduction to Palestinian and Israeli history, and the history of the conflict. It is unlikely that anyone has written or will write an “objective” and definitive summary that would be accepted by everyone, but it is hoped that this document will provide a fair introduction.

It would be wrong to try to use this history to determine “who is right,” though many “histories” have certainly been written by partisans of either side, with precisely that purpose in mind. Those who are interested in advocacy, in collecting “points” for their side, cannot find the truth except by accident. If they find it, and it is inconvenient, they will bury it again. This account intends to inform, and nothing more. Two separate documents explain how I think we should gather facts and learn about the conflict, and the importance of words in making Middle East history, as well as in understanding it. A timeline provides details of many events not discussed in this history, and source documents provide additional background. Serious students will also refer to the bibliography for more information and different viewpoints, and will always seek out primary source documents to verify whatever claims are made about those documents or about quotes from those documents.

Going to skip all the tedious ancient history and get to the meat of the thing. Where did all this conflict stuff come from?

The Rise of Zionism - Jews had never stopped coming to “the Holy land” or Palestine in small numbers throughout the exile. Palestine also remained the center of Jewish worship and a part of Jewish culture. However, the Jewish connection with the land was mostly abstract and connected with dreams of messianic redemption.

…

The Zionist movement became a formal organization in 1897 with the first Zionist congress in Basle, organized by Theodor Herzl. Herzl’s grandfather was acquainted with the writings of Alcalay, and it is very probable that Herzl was influenced by them. The Zionists wished to establish a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine under Turkish or German rule. Initially, most Zionists were not concerned about the Arab population, which they ignored, or thought would agree to voluntary transfer to other Arab countries. In any case, they envisioned the population of Palestine by millions of European Jews who would soon form a decisive majority in the land. The Zionists established farm communities in Palestine at Petah Tikva, Zichron Jacob, Rishon Letzion and elsewhere. Later they established the new city of Tel Aviv, north of Jaffa. At the same time, Palestine’s Arab population grew rapidly. By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at about 700,000. About 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 to 100,000 were Jews.

BTW, the Arab population grew during that same period due to immigration. This is a key point that isn’t really discussed often. Also, the label ‘Arab’ is a bit misleading here as it encompasses many different tribal groups. Note that there were no ‘Palestinian’s’ there as there was no Palestine.

World War I - During World War I (1914-1918), the Ottoman Empire joined Germany and Austria-Hungary against the Allies. An Ottoman military government ruled Palestine. The war was hard on both Jewish and Arab populations, owing to outbreaks of cholera and typhus; however, it was more difficult for the Jews. For a time, the Turkish military governor ordered internment and deportation of all foreign nationals. A large number of Jews were Russian nationals. They had been able to enter Palestine as Russian nationals because of the concessions Turkey had granted to Russian citizens, and they had used this method to overcome restrictions on immigration. They had also maintained Russian citizenship to avoid being drafted into the Turkish army. Therefore, a large number of Jews were forced to flee Palestine during the war. A small group founded the NILI underground that fed intelligence information to the British, in order to free the land of Turkish rule. The Turks eventually caught members of the NILI group, but the information they provided is said to have helped the British invasion effort.

Britain and France planned to divide the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East among themselves after the war. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 called for part of Palestine to be under British rule, part to be placed under a joint Allied government, and for Syria and Lebanon to be given to the France. However, Britain also offered to back Arab demands for postwar independence from the Ottomans in return for Arab support for the Allies and seems to have promised the same territories to the Arabs. In 1916, Arabs led by T.E. Lawrence and backed by Sharif Husayn revolted against the Ottomans in the belief that Britain would help establish Arab independence in the Middle East. Lawrence’s exploits and their importance in the war against Turkey were somewhat exaggerated by himself and by the enterprising publicist Lowell Thomas. The United States and other countries pressed for Arab self-determination. The Arabs, and many in the British government including Lawrence, believed that the Arabs had been short-changed by the British promise to give Syria to the French, and likewise by the promise of Palestine as a Jewish homeland. The Arabs claimed that Palestine was included in the area promised to them, but the British denied this.

Note here that the British promised the land to both the Jews and the Arabs. The key point here though is that the BRITISH promised the land because the land had been taken from the Turks through force of arms. You can’t promise something to someone who already has it. Again, no Palestine because it didn’t exist as a nation.

Now we get into the meat of the thing.

The Balfour Declaration - In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration was a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild, based on a request of the Zionist organization in Great Britain. The declaration stated Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. The declaration was the result of lobbying by the small British Zionist movement, especially by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who had emigrated from Russia to Britain, but it was motivated by British strategic considerations. Paradoxically, perhaps, a major motivation for the declaration may have been the belief, inspired by anti-Semitism, that international Jewry would come to the aid of the British if they declared themselves in favor of a Jewish homeland, and the fear that the Germans were about to issue such a declaration.

After the war, the League of Nations divided much of the Ottoman Empire into mandated territories. The British and French saw the Mandates as instruments of imperial ambitions. US President Wilson insisted that the mandates must foster eventual independence. The British were anxious to keep Palestine away from the French, and decided to ask for a mandate that would implement the Jewish national home of the Balfour declaration, a project that would be supported by the Americans. The Arabs opposed the idea of a Jewish national home, considering that the areas now called Palestine were their land. The Arabs felt they were in danger of dispossession by the Zionists, and did not relish living under Jewish rule.

Arabs lobbied the American King-Crane commission, in favor of annexation of the Palestine mandate area to Syria, and later formed a national movement to combat the terms of the Mandate. At the instigation of US President Wilson, the King Crane commission had been sent to hear the views of the inhabitants. At the commission hearings, Aref Pasha Dajani expressed this opinion about the Jews, “Their history and their past proves that it is impossible to live with them. In all the countries where they are at present, they are not wanted…because they always arrive to suck the blood of everybody…”

So…there was a difference of opinion (obviously) on who exactly should receive the spoils of war. Both the Jews and the Arabs had been promised the lands, both felt that it should be theirs (and for the same reason…they had supported the British against the Turks). One thing this leaves out is the Arab riots during this period that were aimed squarely at the Jews which is the reason for the formation of the Jewish militant faction. The Jews finally got tired of being kicked around essentially and decided at this point to fight back. Both sides were (rightfully) disillusioned by the Europeans in general and the British specifically, both thought (again rightfully) they had been ill used and promises made to them were broken.

There is a section right below the one I quoted above discussing the formation of the British Mandate but I’m going to mostly skip over this in an effort to keep this reasonably short. One quote I will include:

The British hoped to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine, as required by the mandate. The Jews were alarmed by the prospect of such institutions, which would have an Arab majority. However, the Arabs would not accept proposals for such institutions if they included any Jews at all, and so no institutions were created. The Arabs wanted as little as possible to do with the Jews and the mandate, and would not participate in municipal councils, nor even in the Arab Agency that the British wanted to set up. Ormsby-Gore, undersecretary of state for the colonies concluded, “Palestine is largely inhabited by unreasonable people.”

Sort of says it all right there IMHO.

Arab Riots and Jewish immigration - In the spring of 1920, spring of 1921 and summer of 1929, Arab nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa. The violence led to the formation of the Haganah Jewish self-defense organization in 1920. The riots of 1920 and 1921 reflected opposition to the Balfour declaration and fears that the Arabs of Palestine would be dispossessed, and were probably attempts to show the British that Palestine as a Jewish National home would be ungovernable. The major instigators were Hajj Amin El Husseini, later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and eventually a Nazi collaborator, and Arif -El Arif, a prominent Palestinian journalist. The riots of 1929 occurred against the background of Jewish-Arab nationalist antagonism. The Arabs claimed that Jewish immigration and land purchases were displacing and dispossessing the Arabs of Palestine. However, economic, population and other indicators suggest that objectively, the Arabs of Palestine benefited from the Mandate and Zionist investment. Arab standard of living increased faster in Palestine than other areas, and population grew prodigiously throughout the Mandate years. (see Zionism and its Impact). The riots were also fueled by false rumors that the Jews intended to build a synagogue at the wailing wall, or otherwise encroach upon the Muslim rule over the Temple Mount compound, including the Al-Aqsa mosque. The pogroms led to evacuation of most of the Jewish community of Hebron. . The British responded with the Passfield White Paper. The white paper attempted to stop immigration to Palestine based on the recommendations of the Hope Simpson report. That report stated that in the best case, following extensive economic development, the land could support immigration of another 20,000 families in total. Otherwise further Jewish immigration would infringe on the position of the existing Arab population. However, British MPs and the Zionist movement sharply criticized the new policy and PM Ramsay McDonald issued a “clarification” stating that Jewish immigration would not be stopped.

Arab Revolt and the White Paper - In 1936 widespread rioting, later known as the Arab Revolt or Great Uprising, broke out. The revolt was kindled when British forces killed Izz al din El Qassam in a gun battle. Izz al Din El Qassam was a Syrian preacher who had emigrated to Palestine and was agitating against the British and the Jews. The revolt was coopted by the Husseini family and by Fawzi El Kaukji, a former Turkish officer, and it was possibly financed in part by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Thousands of Arabs and hundreds of Jews were killed in the revolt, which spread rapidly owing to initial unpreparedness of the British authorities. About half the 5,000 residents of the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem were forced to flee, and the remnant of the Hebron Jewish community was evacuated as well.

There is a whole section on the situation leading up to and including WWII and the Holocaust. I’m not going to include much from this section, again in an effort to shorten this already massive post.

United Resistance - In the summer of 1945, the Labor party came to power in Great Britain. They had promised that they would reverse the British White Paper and would support a Jewish state in Palestine. However, they presently reneged on their promise, and continued and redoubled efforts to stop Jewish immigration. The Haganah attempted to bring immigrants into Palestine illegally. The rival Zionist underground groups now united, and all of them, in particular the Irgun and Lehi (“Stern gang”) dissident terrorist groups, used force to try to drive the British out of Palestine. This included bombing of trains, train stations, an officers club and British headquarters in the King David Hotel, as well as kidnapping and murder of British personnel. In Britain, newspapers and politicians began to demand that the government settle the conflict and stop endangering the lives of British troops.

The US and other countries brought pressure to bear on the British to allow immigration. An Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry recommended allowing 100,000 Jews to immigrate immediately to Palestine. The Arabs brought pressure on the British to block such immigration. The British found Palestine to be ungovernable and returned the mandate to the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations. The report of the Anglo-American Committee provided a detailed summary of the British mandate period and the security situation in Palestine, as well as a report on the effects of the Holocaust and the condition of European Jewry.

Partition - The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under international administration The UN General Assembly adopted this plan on Nov. 29, 1947 as UN Resolution (GA 181), owing to support of both the US and the Soviet Union, and in particular, the personal support of US President Harry S. Truman. Many factors contributed to Truman’s decision to support partition, including domestic politics and intense Zionist lobbying, no doubt. Truman wrote in his diary, however, “I think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell.”

The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it. The resolution divided the land into two approximately equal portions in a complicated scheme with zig-zag borders (see map at right and see Partition Map and detailed partition map of UNSCOP Proposal and final map: UN Palestine Partition Plan Map - 1947). The intention was an economic union between the two states with open borders. At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was “crown lands” belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency. There were about 600,000 Jews in Palestine, almost all living in the areas allotted to the Jewish state or in the internationalized zone of Jerusalem, and about 1.2 million Arabs. The allocation of land by Resolution 181 was intended to produce two areas with Jewish and Arab majorities respectively. Jerusalem and environs were to be internationalized. The relatively large Jewish population of Jerusalem and the surroundings, about 100,000, were geographically cut off from the rest of the Jewish state, separated by a relatively large area, the “corridor,” allotted to the Palestinian state. The corridor included the populous Arab towns of Lod and Ramla and the smaller towns of Qoloniyeh, Emaus, Qastel and others that guarded the road to Jerusalem. (Click for Large Detailed Map)

It soon became evident that the scheme could not work. Mutual antagonism would make it impossible for either community to tolerate the other. The UN was unwilling and unable to force implementation of the internationalization of Jerusalem. The Arab League, at the instigation of Haj Amin Al-Husseini, declared a war to rid Palestine of the Jews. In fact however, the Arab countries each had separate agendas. Abdullah, king of Jordan, had an informal and secret agreement with Israel, negotiated with Golda Meir, to annex the portions of Palestine allocated to the Palestinian state in the West Bank, and prevent formation of a Palestinian state. Syria wanted to annex the northern part of Palestine, including Jewish and Arab areas.

I’m going to end the post here (since when I tried to post more it told me the word count was too high). A careful reading of the cite though gives a pretty decent idea of the complex history of the region. Far from the (to paraphrase) ‘The Israeli’s stole the land of the Palestinians’, things were much more complex and nuanced in the real history.

If needs be I’ll tackle the war of independence and why exactly those dirty Israeli’s built their fence. My hope though is that people can read the cite and do some frigging research on their own to find the answers to those and other questions and erroneous assertions brought up in this and similar threads (the short answer to the fence question of course is: to keep suicide bombers from trotting into malls and bus stations and blowing the crap out of Israeli civilians).

Finally, one final irony I will note mostly for my own amusement. Note the British role in all of this…and note the assertions of amanset who is (IIRC) a Brit.

-XT

[Little_Nemo]

I’ll admit I haven’t read through the entire thread but I have difficulty comprehanding the mindset of the OP. I can’t see how anyone can deserve to be the target of a terrorist attack. If I didn’t know anything else about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except that the Palestinians felt that I was a legitimate target, that fact alone would be enough for me to support Israel.

I don’t see why so many people are always saying how Israel must compromise and must make concessions to the Palestinians. I feel the Palestinians need to start the process by making some concessions to Israel. First, they should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Second, they should completely renounce any policy of attacking Israel, militarily or by terrorism. Third, they should actually act on these ideas and not just give them lip service as a temporary tactic - Palestinian authorities must take action against Palestinians who use their territory as a base for attacks on Israel and refuse to ally themselves with groups in other countries which attack Israel. Then, with this minimum, there might be a foundation for negotiations over other issues.

Personally, as somebody who’s not an Israeli or a Palestinian (or a Jew or Muslim) and has no direct interest in the conflict, the pattern seems to be that the Palestinians attack Israel and then Israel is supposed to give them something to make them stop. If they’re offered enough, the Palestinians are occasionally willing to temporarily halt their attacks while they reload and make a new list of demands.

[Rand_Rover]

@Little_Nemo

I’ll admit I haven’t read through the entire thread but I have difficulty comprehanding the mindset of the OP. I can’t see how anyone can deserve to be the target of a terrorist attack. If I didn’t know anything else about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except that the Palestinians felt that I was a legitimate target, that fact alone would be enough for me to support Israel.

I don’t see why so many people are always saying how Israel must compromise and must make concessions to the Palestinians. I feel the Palestinians need to start the process by making some concessions to Israel. First, they should recognize Israel’s right to exist.
<snip>

The whole “right to exist” thing with Israel has always given me a bad case of the :rolleyes: because the “right to exist” doesn’t exist.

In one sense, no country has the “right to exist”–it’s not like there’s a body or power above that of countries that hands out charters for the right to found and maintain a country. If a country wants to exist then it may have to fight for its existence. Some countries start out life in a more difficult position on that score (e.g., Israel).

In another sense, every country has the “right to exist,” and it doesn’t matter whether anyone else recognizes it. Saying that Country A should recognize Country B’s right to exist is meaningless. It’s just a proxy for saying that Country A should stop attacking Country B or encouraging others to attack it, etc. Why not just say that directly instead of running it through this “right to exist” BS thought process?

[XT]

Think of it in terms of reality then. Israel IS a nation, it’s not going away, and the Palestinian’s, due to their own choices and some really bad luck will never, ever, ever, get the whole shooting match for themselves. I seriously doubt they EVER would have gotten it all regardless (I think the lions share would have gone to Jordan, with Egypt and Syria and perhaps even Lebanon getting a piece of the pie)…but it’s a moot point now. At the best they will get less than they would have gotten had they simply gone along with the original UN partition plan.

And the Palestinian’s have to acknowledge that if they ever want there to be peace. Of course, I think most of them do. The problem being that a small but significant portion of their population can’t or won’t wrap their heads around this fact and will continue to fight on no matter what.

-XT

[Little_Nemo]

The whole “right to exist” thing with Israel has always given me a bad case of the because the “right to exist” doesn’t exist.

Then to be more specific, I think the Palestinians should declare that they personally are no longer going to seek Israel’s elimination.

[EasyPhil]

It seems that the Israeli’s attacked first, but of course it wasn’t really an attack:

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen

Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.

One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.

“This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat,” the Israeli military said in a statement. “There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organisation.”

[clairobscur]

@razncain

start spending time more constructive besides digging hundreds of tunnels.

The tunnels are a necessity (if you believe they’re used only to bring weapons into Gaza, you’re completely wrong)

How many of them actually have a real full-time job instead of depending on hand-outs?

I believe the unemployment rate in Gaza is in the 65%-75% range.

The best way the world can help the Palestinian people in my opinion, is not give them one more penny of welfare aid.

Ludicrous. (No, I’m not going to elaborate. Feel free to ignore my comment)

[FinnAgain]

@spoke-

What switcheroo?

Ya know, the whole substituting a six year old study for a new one?

@spoke-

But hey, thanks for catching my error, and thus showing that we have not one but TWO studies showing that Americans prefer, by a wide margin, that their government adopt a position of neutrality in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute.

Interesting nonpology. Of course, it doesn’t address how you confused “2002” with “2008”. I’m sure it’s one of those mistakes that ‘just happens’. You click on a link, fail to read the study at all, and then just go ahead and cite it. Happens all the time, I’m sure.

You’re also still, to put it charitably, using a rather silly argument. The question is still vague.
It’s also worth pointing out that the ‘even handedness’ of the participants is, again, not what you are claiming. Those who wanted equal aid to Israel and Palestine only wanted it after the PA came to terms with Israel via a peace agreement. So even the 'even handed 'brigade did not want to equalize aid until the PA had already renounced terrorism and gone through Final Status negotiations. How many people, now, would say that demanding that the PA accept Israel’s negotiated terms before we provide equal aid is, in fact, favoring Israel? (Beginning to understand why “even handed” is hopelessly vague?)

The 2002 study also uses leading questions that even a grad student should be ashamed to use.

If Israel does not fully withdraw its troops from the towns it re-cently took over, do you favor or oppose telling Israel not to use US-provided battlefield weapons in these operations?”

If you’re designing a study, you don’t lead participants to the answer you want. A proper question would have been to ask participants “If Israel does not withdraw… what do you think that the US should do?” The question the study used was designed to solicit a specific response.

So yes, there are two poorly worded studies which contradict virtually all the other data out there.

@spoke-

The polls you have cited don’t get to that question at all.

That another “Whoops, how could I have noticed that 2002 is not 2008 and that it didn’t contain the statistic I was talking about, anywhere?!?” moment?

The first poll I cited clearly shows that rather than vague even handed generalizations, when asked about specifics, 25% wanted the US to have no relations at all with the PA and 44% only wanted relations if it recognized Israel. 57% said that we should give them no aid at all and 30% said we should give them aid only if they recognize Israel.

The second cite I provided shows that year after year after year, US citizens vastly favor Israel over the Palestinians. When asked if US policies favored Israel, 47% said that they were fair (ya know, even handed?), while only 27% thought they favored Israel. 44% believed that God Himself gave the land to Israel. It goes on to point out that Americans show “very weak support for the Palestinian cause.”

And those are just two cites. There are quite a few more. You have two outliers with poor phrasing. Not exactly convincing.

[Sevastopol]

@xtisme

Think of it in terms of reality then. Israel IS a nation, it’s not going away …

Within living memory there was no such nation. It’s reasonable to believe that circumstance will imminently recur. It is possible to disagree whether it will, but that doesn’t make the opposite view unreasoning.

[newcrasher]

Blueprint for Middle East Peace

(links to video)

[Little_Nemo]

Within living memory there was no such nation. It’s reasonable to believe that circumstance will imminently recur. It is possible to disagree whether it will, but that doesn’t make the opposite view unreasoning.

By my quick count, of the 193 sovereign countries in the world, 126 of them became nations within “living memory”. So what’s your point?

The problem with Palestinians arguing “we were here first” is that they weren’t. Obviously, the Jews were there before any Muslims or Christians showed up.

And I’m interested in your “reasonable” belief that Israel will not exist in the near future. What do you base this on? Obviously there are people who wish this were ture but they haven’t be successful in the last sixty years. Why should they be more successful now?

[Spoke]

@FinnAgain

The first poll I cited clearly shows that rather than vague even handed generalizations, when asked about specifics, 25% wanted the US to have no relations at all with the PA and 44% only wanted relations if it recognized Israel. 57% said that we should give them no aid at all and 30% said we should give them aid only if they recognize Israel.

The second cite I provided shows that year after year after year, US citizens vastly favor Israel over the Palestinians. When asked if US policies favored Israel, 47% said that they were fair (ya know, even handed?), while only 27% thought they favored Israel. 44% believed that God Himself gave the land to Israel. It goes on to point out that Americans show “very weak support for the Palestinian cause.”

And those are just two cites. There are quite a few more. You have two outliers with poor phrasing. Not exactly convincing.

FinnAgain, the question your polls don’t reach is whether the US should be taking sides in this dispute at all.

[Rand_Rover]

newcrasher, now that you’re back to the thread, care to explain why you apparenlty disagree with your own title?

[newcrasher]

@Rand_Rover

newcrasher, now that you’re back to the thread, care to explain why you apparenlty disagree with your own title?

I was trying to illustrate a point by being absurd. I do NOT believe civilians are legitimate targets. I believe in the sanctity of all, to me it is not acceptable to take life. It is precious. I was also trying to illustrate that we as Americans are involved whether we realize it or not, and should not be surprised when someone with less respect for life than I have decides the bring the fight to the financiers.

I know the path of this thread has frustrated you. You are looking for logic, for clean answers in a situation that defies logic, that has no clean answers. It is like trying to imagine two solid spheres occupying the same space, impossible to conceive. I believe all of the following, but they cannot co-exist in the current conflict:

Israeli life is precious.
Palestinian life is precious.
The Jewish people have a right to exist in a safe and secure state in the Holy Land.
The Palestinian people have a right to exist in a safe and secure state in the Holy Land.
Any course of action by Israel that results in direct or collateral deaths of innocents is unacceptable.
Any course of action by the Palestinians that results in direct or collateral deaths of innocents is unacceptable.
A solution must be found that accepts all of these precepts.

The current thinking on both sides cannot accept that all of these ideas can co-exist. Until our thinking changes, and we have leaders who can respect the other side’s rights, we will have the same conflict, and the same discussion.

[Rand_Rover]

I think I understand you, and I would be surprised if anyone here disagrees with any of your points (I certainly don’t).

It appears that you (like Dio) believe that a country’s actions vis-a-vis another country should comport to a set of moral standards or ethical rules, and you are frustrated that neither side’s actions comports to those rules in your opinion. Things become easier when you realize that there’s no reason that a country must act morally; rather, each country just does what’s in its best interest. You can then be upset if Israel does something that is not in your best interest (e.g., because maybe you think its reaction to the recent rocket attacks has been too harsh), but that doesn’t mean Israel has done anything wrong.

In other words, I think the only legitimate criticism of a country’s actions is that the actions are not truly in that country’s best interests (i.e., an argument that the country has misapprehended its interests or the likely results of its actions). Just saying that Israel shouldn’t do something because you think it violates some ethos seems to me to just be empty words.

[Shodan]

@newcrasher

Israeli life is precious.
Palestinian life is precious.

I think much of the problem is that Hamas disagrees with both of these.

They certainly don’t agree with the first. Trouble is, they don’t agree with the second either, or they wouldn’t hide their rocket launchers where ever destroying them would kill innocent Palestinians.

@Golda Meir

Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us

Because until they do, they will keep sending suicide bombers.

One of the people killed by the Israelis, Nizar Rayan, was one of those encouraging “martyrs” among the PA, including his own son.

Regards,
Shodan

[FinnAgain]

@spoke-

FinnAgain, the question your polls don’t reach is whether the US should be taking sides in this dispute at all.

No, that’s a fabrication. And a rather flimsy one, considering I already quoted where the studies addressed exactly that question.

I already quoted survey results saying that we shouldn’t even talk to Hamas until they recognize Israel, or that we shouldn’t talk to them at all.
I already quoted survey results saying that we shouldn’t give aid to the PA until it agrees to accept Israel’s legitimacy or that we shouldn’t give them any aid at all.
I already quoted survey results saying that nearly half of their respondents already said that we don’t take either side, and so they obviously felt that in order to not take sides the status quo could be maintained.

If you want to pretend that none of that has to do with ‘taking sides’, that’s your call. But I’m not going to waste my time anymore on this silly game.

Oh, and:

@Rand_Rover

I think I understand you, and I would be surprised if anyone here disagrees with any of your points (I certainly don’t).

I disagree with the claim that the 4th Geneva Convention sets forth rules which are “unacceptable”. I think it’s probably the best document we have to guide armed conflict.

[BrainGlutton]

@newcrasher

I believe all of the following, but they cannot co-exist in the current conflict:

Israeli life is precious.
Palestinian life is precious.
The Jewish people have a right to exist in a safe and secure state in the Holy Land.
The Palestinian people have a right to exist in a safe and secure state in the Holy Land.
Any course of action by Israel that results in direct or collateral deaths of innocents is unacceptable.
Any course of action by the Palestinians that results in direct or collateral deaths of innocents is unacceptable.
A solution must be found that accepts all of these precepts.

I’m afraid only a one-state solution would do all of that; and it is almost certainly politically impossible to implement.

[BrainGlutton]

@Rand_Rover

Things become easier when you realize that there’s no reason that a country must act morally . . .

Eh? There’s no less reason that a country must act morally than that an individual must act morally. Arguably, more, since a country’s collective actions have much more far-reaching consequences than an individual’s.