Well, Monty, let me preface this by saying that I’m not stepping in to defend the OP, but here goes.
Palestine is not a country right now, but it’s not too difficult to imagine that from a Muslim perspective, it is a nation with a legitimate right to existence, with a legitimate people. The current -and unfortunate- impasse in the Israeli/Palestine peace talks notwithstanding, the territory we no call Israel has been fought over by both Israelis and Palestinians for many centuries. I’m sure you and I disagree on how much of a claim to the territory each group can make, but to dismiss Palestine as “not a country” doesn’t really aid the debate, IMHO.
“The PLO tossed out the chance for a decent and honest peaceful co-existance.”
Well, that’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it? If I’m not mistaken, the PLO refused to sign a peace treaty that did offer them a fair share of land, but also meant that Jerusalem would be entirely Israelian. Since Jerusalem is a holy city to both the claiming groups, it’s plain unrealistic to expect one of them to just give it up. And the subsequent reporting in some of the Western media that the PLO rejected a fair deal, painting them as greedy bastards who couldn’t accept a decent compromise, has just been plain disingenious. If you ask me, the only way to resolve the Jerusalem aspect is to make it a UN city rather than an Israeli or Palestinian one, but that’s another debate for another time.
“Thirdly, it is the Arab countries who foster the hatred you espouse against Israel.”
Hmmm. Bit of a wide brush there. Making this issue seem so one-sided is hardly realistic. Depending on whichever government had office, Israel themselves have been no angels either. It’s a simple historic fact that under a (predominantly) Labour government, Israel made bigger and better steps on the path to peace than under a predominantly Likut government. Yitzak Rabin -may he rest in peace- was the ultimate example of this. Many’s a time I’ve wondered what the situation would be now had he been able to finish what he started. He, too, was no friend of Arafat, but he realised the bigger issues at stake. An impression I don’t get from statesmen like Nehtanyahu and shudder Sharon. Indeed, I can easily see how the politics of the latter two leaders can lead people in surrounding Muslim countries to believe that what Israel practices is agression rather than preservation.
“Fourthly, all Israel wants is defensible borders and peace.”
For the good of all mankind, I sincerely hope that the Israeli politicians who truly express those sentiments in their policies will come to power once again. Right now, I’m having a hard time agreeing with your statement. I wouldn’t go as far to state that peace and defensible borders isn’t what the average Israeli wants (I’m quite sure it is), but I currently don’t see how the Israeli government reflects this.
Inssanah opened two other threads that at least started out with a reasonable command of english. Were those the words of someone else? Or does this poster have english skills when it suits him/her?
I guess it doesn’t matter. Inssanah has alienated even those who would normally be sympathetic.
Personally, I still think h/she is pulling our legs.
The more the OP posts, the more dubious I get. There are intelligent posters and arguments on both sides of the war and middle east questions. The OP isn’t one of the them. Just another bigoted one-trick pony.
The real question is- if you can figure out the color fuction, why the fuck can’t you turn off your fucking ALLCAPS button. Yeesh.
Coldfire: I would love to agree with you on point number 1. Matter of fact, I kind of am on record of wishing for there to be two nations–Israel & Palestine. The real problem, going from “a Muslim perspective,” is that one must determine which Muslim perspective you wish to go from. Remember that there were Arab Muslim countries which did not see the area currently granted to the PLA as Palestine.
Oh, and just because I find it amusing, I now must inform the OP that her apparently creative use of the colour function (I base my assertion that she has been so doing from the content of other posts in this thread) is completely lost on me as I’m severely colour-blind.
Not to be taking any side here, but this paragraph is not historically accurate. Israelis and Palestinians have not been fighting for many centuries. The hostility between the Israelis and the Palestinians dates back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when the British government declared support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine with the proviso that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” This broke an agreement the British had already made in 1915 with Hussein ibn Ali, the Shaif of Mecca, ceding control of Arab lands to him and his family in return for their support against Turkey in WWI. And of course the Sykes-Picot Treaty in 1916 had already made that agreement moot anyway.
Hey, it’s complicated.
In any event, prior to WWI there had been Arab resistance to the Jewish colonists emigrating to Palestine, but nothing like the raw hatred we see today.
Oh, yeah, it sure is complicated. Not disputing your cites, gobear -those trearies are at the heart of today’s problems in the region- but it is not historically inaccurate to suggest that the history of both Palestine and Israel (and the inherent hostilities) goes back a little further than the WWI era.
This site gives a brief version of the history of the area, from roughly 1500 BC until the Sykes-Picot treaty. Not suggesting you don’t know this, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
