gaza

[meteor]

will Obama sort out the middle east

 

[kopfhorer1]

I expect that he's probably more able, not to mention willing, than his predecessor (whose cred in the middle east isn't so great right now). The fact that Mr. Obama is a black man might put the involved parties more at ease than would be the case with a white anglo Fundamentalist.

 

[Cbarton]

They've only been trying to attack and eliminate Israel since 1949. Suddenly Obama's mere presence is going to change things? Get Real! Peace is only going to occur in the Middle East when Israel is finally allowed to defeat their enemies and win the war.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love the Obama-rama Traveling Salvation Show to succeed. But, just because he is African-American isn't gonna cause Hamas or Hezzbollah (sp? on each) to shake at the knees. The Palestinians have been planning this for 30+ years. Obama-rama's effect will be the same as Carter's, Clinton's, and the Bush's (either one). Not much.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

I have to agree with The Hawk here. The Mid-East has been screwed up for the past 4000 years. Everybody has a hand in it. Hope on a Rope is not going to change anything. They're already burning his picture in Iran. His being African-American is completely irrelevant. His not being a Muslim is probably more of an impediment than former Presidents being unabashed Christians. In their eyes he turned away from Islam.

As for Gaza, until Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist peace is a pipe dream. Israel is not going anywhere. Hamas position is politically illogical. The Israelis are not going to all just pack up and move to South America.

Israel has the right to defend itself against the rockets being launched into their territory.

 

[Betchass1]

They've only been trying to attack and eliminate Israel since 1949. Suddenly Obama's mere presence is going to change things? Get Real! Peace is only going to occur in the Middle East when Israel is finally allowed to defeat their enemies and win the war.

Thank goodness it's all so simple.
It's a shame "they" have been trying to attack Israel since Palestine was divided by Western countries into the parts they could keep and the parts they couldn't.
Like the pesky red man, refusing to be content with the land we let him keep, continually launching homemade spears until we had to defend ourselves.

Edit- Forgot to mention, a national government that affiliates itself with religion is just asking for trouble. It worked fine 1,000 years ago when people didn't mind seeing each other impaled or beheaded so much, but nowadays it just doesn't fly. TWO nations whose governments are affiliated with two different religions is even worse.

 

[Betchass1]

will Obama sort out the middle east

Why not China or North Korea or Congo? I guess you could say we have to be concerned about WMD in the middle east, which we know (on reliable intelligence) Israel has.
I don't recall him saying he would sort out the middle east, so chances are he doesn't think it's a realistic goal. I also don't think the people there want sorted out.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

Thank goodness it's all so simple.
It's a shame "they" have been trying to attack Israel since Palestine was divided by Western countries into the parts they could keep and the parts they couldn't.
Like the pesky red man, refusing to be content with the land we let him keep, continually launching homemade spears until we had to defend ourselves.

Palestine was not a country it was the name of an amorphous region which meant different things in different eras. That land was last a territory of the Ottoman Empire. The results of World War I and World World War II ended with the Middle-East controlled by European powers. Under the League of Nations the British Mandate directed both sides of the Jordan. That's just the way it was. You can't look at history with a presentist state of mind.

Under your reasoning Poland should never have been given it's territory back either. The Israelis have just as much claim that land as the Palestinians. They are just going to have to learn to live with each other.

 

[august spies]

will Obama sort out the middle east

no, he already said he would continue the failed policy of the israeli terror state. occupation, war, violence, and poverty.

 

[Wade1]

There's no question that around WWII Palestine was a region with a stable and self-defined population, most of whom were Arab, maybe about a quarter of whom were Jewish. Palestinians owned land, had wealth, published newspapers and generally behaved like a country. The creation of Israel displaced people and ejected them from their homes.

Now, that's a bell that can't be unrung, so I agree: given what's been done in the past sixty years, Israelis and Palestinians have to coexist--neither has the right to demand the eradication of the other. But to pretend that Israel has been a blameless victim in recent years is to ignore reality. Each side has committed abhorrent crimes against the other.

 

[N/A]

Just got back from a tourist trip to Egypt. The street kids in Cairo greeted us (noticing we were American) with "yes we can!". News as it develops.

 

[Kraven]

There's no question that around WWII Palestine was a region with a stable and self-defined population, most of whom were Arab, maybe about a quarter of whom were Jewish. Palestinians owned land, had wealth, published newspapers and generally behaved like a country. The creation of Israel displaced people and ejected them from their homes.

True. Not to mention that they butchered entire villages including kids women and old men for the sake of one reason - to make palestinians leave their home. Poor Israel...:amazed:

 

[melanie2]

I believe we should worry about straightening out our own country first before taking on other's battles..this country is in an economic mess..that should be Obama's number one mission..

 

[N/A]

In general, when dealing with problems in places such as Gaza, be very careful when using the word "they". The vast majority of people in such a place, despite demonization by politicians, are normal people trying to earn a living and raise kids. In Gaza, these people are confronted by two political entities:
1. Hamas. This organization totally failed to improve or run things in Gaza, and try to establish their cred by provoking Israel to attack, thus looking like the defender of the realm.
2. Israel. The government reacts to such provocation, with horrible collateral damage that radicalizes the population (how would you react to bombs destroying your house?).
Keep this in mind when hearing the words "they", "the Palestinians", and "the Israelis".

 

[Cbarton]

One fact that many people forget to realize is that there are a large number of Islamic Palestinians that live in Israel in peace and harmony. I always find it interesting how everyone seems so eager to point the 'bad guy' finger at the Israelis when they strike back in defense as with the current Hamas situation.

I always find it laughable as well when the UN starts to demand a cease-fire after Israel starts to get the upper hand. That place is as anti-Semetic as Berlin in 1935.

 

[Kraven]

That place has only one thing in common with Berlin. And it's the fact that Israelis treat Palestinians the same way Hitler treated them. Do you know HOW israelis made palestinians leave their land and WHAT they did in the process and HOW many thousand palestinians got butchered then? But now Israel has the right to "defend" itself? Imagine that someone came to your house, murdered you parents, raped your sister and locked you in a bathroom, and every time you try to get out of the bathroom and do something about it this someone beats you up with a crowbar because this someone has the right to defend himself against you right? I do not approve actions of Hamas and I certanly do not approve it when children die (palestinin or israeli doesn't matter) but unlike Israel Palestine never had a choice.

 

[Wade1]

One fact that many people forget to realize is that there are a large number of Islamic Palestinians that live in Israel in peace and harmony. I always find it interesting how everyone seems so eager to point the 'bad guy' finger at the Israelis when they strike back in defense as with the current Hamas situation.

There are a large number of Palestinian Arabs who don't commit acts of violence against Israelis, that's true--and I don't think any reasonable person is in favor of the commission of acts of terrorism or violence against Israelis. But whether or not those Palestinians who don't commit acts of violence also approve of the oppression they experience under Israel's domination is dubious. I always find it interesting how everyone seems so eager to condemn acts of violence committed by groups of Palestinians while defending acts of violence committed by the state of Israel as justified.

The reasonable thing to do would be to condemn acts of violence committed by both sides, deplore the series of actions that led to this untenable living situation in the first place.

 

[Wade1]

The reasonable thing to do would be to condemn acts of violence committed by both sides, deplore the series of actions that led to this untenable living situation in the first place.

It would probably be helpful if I finished my sentences, huh?

...AND worked toward a solution that involved neither the elimination of Israel nor the methodical erosion of the Palestinian territory. In other words: each side has to give up any hope of eradicating the other side, and needs to get over behaving like the other side is a bunch of wicked animals. Most Israeli and Palestinian citizens favor a two-state solution, which is probably the only feasible and remotely fair option.

(Assuming that the "two-state solution" doesn't involve assigning the Palestinians noncontiguous parcels of undesirable land that is a "state" in name only.)

 

[Cbarton]

(Assuming that the "two-state solution" doesn't involve assigning the Palestinians noncontiguous parcels of undesirable land that is a "state" in name only.)

Don't we already have a Palestinian state, i.e. Jordan? Other than who rules them, what political/historical differences are their between a Jordanian and a Palestinian? (I'm asking to find out, not in sarcasm. I'd truly like an informed response to fill in my historical gaps...)

 

[Wade1]

Don't we already have a Palestinian state, i.e. Jordan? Other than who rules them, what political/historical differences are their between a Jordanian and a Palestinian? (I'm asking to find out, not in sarcasm. I'd truly like an informed response to fill in my historical gaps...)

That's a good question, and I'm by no means an expert. The history of the area is certainly muddied by the fact that it was all under imperial control for so long, by colonial powers who imposed names and boundaries and mandates that had little to do with how the people there actually lived. But it's my understanding that one answer to your question lies in self-identity: over the course of centuries, the people who lived west of the Jordan River and those who lived east of it came to consider themselves to be entirely distinct from one another culturally. It's true that there are a lot of Palestinians in Jordan today, but I believe that's as a direct result of displacement and the Arab-Israeli conflicts. It would be like driving most of the population of Detroit into Canada and then saying to the Detroiters who remained: "Why don't you leave here? This isn't Detroit. There's already a Detroit. It's over in Canada. Why don't you go there? That's where most of the Detroiters are, so it must be Detroit."

A frivolous example, I know, but broadly applicable.

Basically what it may boil down to is just: the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are there. To tell them, "But, no, this isn't your home--your home is over there, where you don't live," doesn't make intuitive sense to them, and reasonably so, especially since it follows a pattern of Palestinians being systematically disempowered and driven out of the space they'd considered to be their home for so long anyway.

Which does not, pragmatically, constitute an argument for turning Israel over to the Palestinians, any more than the United States' crimes and atrocities constitute an argument for turning North America over to Native Americans in 2009. But it is a useful reminder that the Palestinians' claim within the space is not an empty one.

 

[august spies]

There are a large number of Palestinian Arabs who don't commit acts of violence against Israelis, that's true--and I don't think any reasonable person is in favor of the commission of acts of terrorism or violence against Israelis. But whether or not those Palestinians who don't commit acts of violence also approve of the oppression they experience under Israel's domination is dubious. I always find it interesting how everyone seems so eager to condemn acts of violence committed by groups of Palestinians while defending acts of violence committed by the state of Israel as justified.

The reasonable thing to do would be to condemn acts of violence committed by both sides, deplore the series of actions that led to this untenable living situation in the first place.

There are a number of palestinians that live within israel proper, descendants (and those still living) who survived or did not flee during the 48 war.

They are treated as second class citizens, although they clearly have much more rights than those living in the occupied territories. Israel would never let all Palestinians live like this because they would than be minorities in their own state (it has nothing to do with peace) and there are very nationalistic people who will die to keep israel a "jewish" state.

 

[august spies]

That's a good question, and I'm by no means an expert. The history of the area is certainly muddied by the fact that it was all under imperial control for so long, by colonial powers who imposed names and boundaries and mandates that had little to do with how the people there actually lived. But it's my understanding that one answer to your question lies in self-identity: over the course of centuries, the people who lived west of the Jordan River and those who lived east of it came to consider themselves to be entirely distinct from one another culturally. It's true that there are a lot of Palestinians in Jordan today, but I believe that's as a direct result of displacement and the Arab-Israeli conflicts. It would be like driving most of the population of Detroit into Canada and then saying to the Detroiters who remained: "Why don't you leave here? This isn't Detroit. There's already a Detroit. It's over in Canada. Why don't you go there? That's where most of the Detroiters are, so it must be Detroit."

A frivolous example, I know, but broadly applicable.

Basically what it may boil down to is just: the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are there. To tell them, "But, no, this isn't your home--your home is over there, where you don't live," doesn't make intuitive sense to them, and reasonably so, especially since it follows a pattern of Palestinians being systematically disempowered and driven out of the space they'd considered to be their home for so long anyway.

Which does not, pragmatically, constitute an argument for turning Israel over to the Palestinians, any more than the United States' crimes and atrocities constitute an argument for turning North America over to Native Americans in 2009. But it is a useful reminder that the Palestinians' claim within the space is not an empty one.

youre right. there are ethnic palestinians that live in Jordan, most are refugees from the war who fled or were forced out not out of choice. There are also refugees (still in camps) in lebanon. To say all palestinians have to be ethnically cleansed from their land where they have been living for generations because they are refugees living in neighboring counties is obscene.

The solution is to give everyone in that region equal say or end the occupation of the west bank and gaza. If you are going to try and dominate occupy and settle your own religious based nationalist population to dominate the region, how can you expect palestnians to just accept it like normal?