[EN]Pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian?

[Elvain]

I wonder. I'm rather interested in the region and I know that this is one of recent problems where almost everyone has his opinion.

I don't want the thread to become a hot topic with emotional posts, but it would be nice to hear just in general what the people on this forum think about it.

It would be fair from me to say something to it at the beggining. Personaly it is hard from me. From what I have red about the problem I more tend to support one or the other side, but from what I have seen myself, it is even harder. I have sen unjustified acts of violence on both sides, have red of much more.

The prolblem goes deep into history, fact is that Europe tried to heal it's own deep problem by creation of Jewish state womewhere where it was most legitime to the Jews, but out of reality for the actual inhabitants - Arabs.

There is lot of historic pain but in last several years we have seen many steps forward in the peace process. Yet mostly from just one side, the other, though feels and still is discriminated.

It is rather alibistic from me as thread-starter to start with such opinion, but I think both sides are in right, but both should respect rights of the others.. just find a border-line and peace in their hearts.. what is perhaps the most dificult task for those who have lost their friends and loved ones in useless war...

(if you don't mind I'd like to be a moderator of this discissuion opposing every point if possible, not that I would disagree with it, but because there is also other point of view that could make its legitimity weaker)

[FrankishHero]

I 'support' Palestine in this matter.

Their country was taken from them on the grounds of Jews living there 2000 (!) years ago.

How would you feel if a Viking knocked on the door and said: "Excuse me, but my ancestors raped your ancestors 1000 years ago in this very cottage, kindly leave the building? Thank you!" ?

[catt]

The truth is... I don't know. I don't like the current Israeli politics at all. I hoped there would finally be peace.

I am just generally against killing people and I don't care which side does the killing. And for me, both have too much blood on their hands to really support either side...

[Elvain]

Frankish:
Your point is very understandable and IMO very common (also one of reaons why I started the thread to se how common it really is)

Though, the other side often says that 120 years ago jewish settlers came to dry wasteland with no trees... and THEY made it a green garden from which everyone can profit. Which is as true as your words...

Also it is simple historical process that one people comes to some land and once it presents large minority or majority it claims it's rights... and always there is some original local people... but it can never advocate mass murders of innocent people, can you agree?

(if you don't mind I'd like to be a moderator of this discissuion opposing every point if possible, not that I woudl disagree with it, but because there is also other point of view that makes it's legitimity weaker)
--
catt
right. I don't like it either. But what if the normal Israelis dislike it aswell? Just they don't uinderstand the security situation and the danger the state faces every day?

I personaly hate what the state of Israel does (the more after I saw it on my own eyes), but they face problem of suicide bombers every day. Half of suicide bombers are provoked by the policy, half of them would and will attack even if the last jewish settler would leave the Gaza strip and the West Bank.
The policy of the state is changing in last months. Jewish settlements in the most problematic region of Gaza strip were destroyed by the Israelis. They are making first steps to peace ...

[C-F]

Well, I don't know the solution to the problem as it stands, I do know however, that finding it is the key with global consequences - at this point I'm not sure if either side is willing to take the steps needed to proceed - they haven't 'til now - one can only hope that maybe the future will. And I don't think its just a 'territorial' issue.

[Laudan]

This is an old fight between brother. But God give the land Israel. I understood Israel. But Israel forget one thing: No believe , no land!
But anyway, battles between humans are useless.
In the old century the believe of the peoble great, but now only the power of .... rules the land.
I vote for Israel and hope for more humanic.

[FrankishHero]

but it can never advocate mass murders of innocent people, can you agree?

As a pacifist, I agree, nothing ever advocates mass murder. But I understand the Palestinians' "need" to "defend themselves" against the Israelis.

[Traveller]

I'm rather on both sides, but a bit more on the Israeli side. I know both sides aren't angels and being from another "powderkeg region" I understand the situation more or less. Everybody's right and everybody's wrong and the problem is not in the territory or even in the people, but in the human nature itself - every side wants to win. It's not just about "survival" or "remaining on our land" - both sides want to dominate, be the final victors and show the world you shouldn't mess with them. However, the way I see it, the Israelis don't want to eradicate the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Muslims, while that's exactly what the Palestinians want. Of course, under "Palestinians" I mean those Palestinians, who have the loudest voice, not the ordinary common people, who probably don't give a damn if Israel should be anihilated or not, as long as they can live where they want (I have no personal observations, so I guess Elvain can explain what do they think). So, I think maybe we should make one distinction in the question - is it about the politics or about the normal people? Because politics are politics everywhere and are the same cruel thing, no matter of nationalities. While the normal people - well, they're more or less the same everywhere too - they're all humans, with humans dreams, hopes, fears, strengths and many weaknesses. And usually every human feels himself as the right one and the other as the aggressor and monster, and that's probably the first thing, which needs to be changed, in order for real peace to be found in "the Holy Lands". Of course, while politics from at least one side (especially if it's from the two) continue to demonise the enemy, such a change would be nearly impossible on a large enough scale.

[Angryminer]

I voted for slightly pro-palestinian.
The first important point is that the extremists are never going to be happy. Both sides have extremists and they won't ever agree until they die of age. The extreme parts of both sides are wrong and a solution needs to be mutually beneficial, which means it is also mutually detrimental to a certain agree.
Without ever having been in the region I believe that extremists don't make up the majority of the population, on neither side. And I believe both sides could come to an agreement if it weren't for the influence of the extremists. To reach stability on the region an agreement must contain concessions to the palestinians because a lot wrong has been done. The palestinians had to give a lot and they need to recieve some of it back. Otherwise the term 'guilt' won't ever allow peace to happen.

Angryminer

[catt]

I think both have equal good arguments for claiming the land. But what concerns me is what is happening now, the people that are dying now, not what happened years ago. If we don't learn from the past, we will never be able to build a better future. So far, both sides have made very clear that they are not willing to do that. If neither side stops the killing, there will never be any peace. The ones who suffer are mostly innocent people who would just like to live an ordinary life. And neither side is respecting that wish, everybody just wants to push for his political opinion. If they don't learn to get along, they will just have to go on with the killing til there is nobody left to claim the land anymore. If they want a solution that stops the killing, they might as well do it now and spare those that are dying now.

Oh well. As I usually say: The only thing I ever learned in history is that we don't learn from history.

Here is a great song from a friend of mine about this whole mess:
http://www.myspace.com/jackchernos
("Walk out of Jerusalem")

[Kuno of Gersenau]

I guess I'm slightly pro-Palestine. I do not want to argue with the right to claim the land due to history, because things are as they are now and no side can be driven out of Palestine.
But what makes me have more sympathies for the Palestines is the inhuman way they are threaten by Israel. I know there is no excuse for violence and killing, but I think if people life a live in desperation and discrimination it is easier to find people who are willing to take the "TNT-belt". I read several articles latly especially about the situation in the West bank. The way the Israeilan wall, the checkpoints and the settlements disturb the daily live of million of people is shocking, not even talkin about the living conditions concerning healt care and food supplie (especially in Gaza).

On the other hand I have to agree that the strict controls might have stopped the suicide bombers. But I do not think you can punish a whole population to stop some extremists.

I know the Jewish people suffered deeply in the past and they are afraid of terroristic attacks as we probably all would be in this situaion, but I do not think that this gives you the right to threaten other people like this.

[Richard]

I don't take any sides, In fact I think both are wrong. Both have done pretty bad things that were uncalled for. It would have been much better if the europeans hadn't done what they did. But then if they hadn't done what they did today we wouldn't have radical islamic terrorists either.
The end of that place is going to be a bloody one, probably both will nuke eachother to death over a stupid piece of land.

[Elvain]

Well, I don't know the solution to the problem as it stands, I do know however, that finding it is the key with global consequences - at this point I'm not sure if either side is willing to take the steps needed to proceed - they haven't 'til now - one can only hope that maybe the future will. And I don't think its just a 'territorial' issue.
1) I don't think so. The more I know about radical islamism, the Israel and presence of the West there aren't reasons, but excuses and possibly reasons which strenghten voice of those radicals. But the true reason is in deprived societies.... Europe in demographic expansion (18th-19th century) didn't need foreign rule/occupation for revolutions...

Laudan - with all respect, the point you stated is very... I'd say Biblical... including how recent it is even in israeli society (except ultra-radical Jews). But such opinion deserves deep respect as it requires really strong faith :go: (me: :bowdown:)

Traveller (and Angryminer):
And usually every human feels himself as the right one and the other as the aggressor and monster, and that's probably the first thing, which needs to be changed, in order for real peace to be found in "the Holy Lands"in both societies most think they are the side with the legitime rights. Both sides have it. But both sides can achieve their goals only through politics.
In both societies you can see wide scales of opinions from very peacefull to "kill'em all". The more the Palestinians (in general) feel depressed (unemployment, overpopulation, no hope in future)the more radical they are (the less they feel they can lose). The Israelis today know they can in fact only lose so they try to build peace finally. But not all as not all Palestinians want to help him.
For peace you need general agreement of both sides. Palestinians feel (and are) stronger and stronger... to achieve true (and at least temporary) peace Israel needs to be very "undemocratic" towards it's radicals. Otherwise it won't survive. Ariel Sharon realised it, unfortunately he already was too close to death.

both sides would need to fully understand christian meaning of forgiveness (as non-christian I have to admitt that unfortunately they don't). Guilt is too deep. Though among the Palestinains the radicals are louder and present larger part of society (from understandable reasons). Large number of them live in rather desperate situation. Untill this is changed there is no hope for any peace.

I like catt's post. I can just say that when I talked to local people I must say the will for a peace is much stronger than we may think, on both sides. Though, the Arabs have very good historical memory.. they feel they have lost too much. The refugees don't see what a life of ordinary Palestinian in Israel is like, unfortunately...

Kuno: many Arabs understand the reason of check-points. Even many of them find them legitimate and they admitt they are the only way to stop the terrorists. The problem is that many of the controlls are evidently done just to harsh them.
There's dilema I see on Israeli side: pull back and let them live is the best way if they would all want peace. But that would mean risk that they could make what Hizbullah did last summer. I don't know if yI'd find enough courage to take the responsibility (to the people who elected me to bring them security) for the risk.

Richard: of course it is absolute truth what you say. But how does it help? as I said, Israel isn't the only (and IMO not even the main) reason for radical islamism.
Both sides' representatives need to have mandate strong enough to do compromises and stand it home (what I see more likely to happen on Israeli side). The sooner Hammas will appear to be as corrupted as Fatah, the sooner a compromise is possible.
--
thanks you all for your constructive statements, I'm very pleased by a way we are able to discuss an issue as problematic as this one..

I hope it will enrich us all

[C-F]

1) I don't think so. The more I know about radical islamism, the Israel and presence of the West there aren't reasons, but excuses and possibly reasons which strenghten voice of those radicals. But the true reason is in deprived societies.... Europe in demographic expansion (18th-19th century) didn't need foreign rule/occupation for revolutions...

:confused: I'm not sure in how far your statement differs to what I said? I did state i didn't see it as 'territorial' issue (hence global consequences).

If you don't agree that the general population on both sides are the 'victims' of 'other interests' that want to keep the conflict alive (wherein the 'radical exstremists' on either side are the tools for unrest), then yes, we might have some more to talk about, but I do not see this divergence in your post...

[Elvain]

I just don't think that reason of the radical islamism is state of Israel. This is what I disagreed.

I think that all normal people anywhere in the world suffer of politics and interests of others. Somewhere more, somewhere less. I think the situation in Palestine is not as bad as f.i. in Africa (from humanitarian point of view). Much more people than is the population of Israel and Palestine suffer of hunger everyday in Africa. But it's diferent story.

They are all victims of several radicals and policy of not only Israel (in fact the situation of Palestinians is largely caused by ignorance of other Arab leaders who prefered to annex the West bank and Gaza instead of creating Palestinian state. But it's not "politicaly correct" to say that the Palestinians are victims of Israel as much as other Arabs states...

[Anguille2]

I voted i don't care as there is no option: "i am for both sides and against both sides".

One of the main problems i see is that Israel is too afraid now to make a real step towards peace (make some real concessions). They believe that if they make concessions, arab nations will take it as a weakness and destroy them. But this is not 1967 anymore and the world has changed...if Israel wants to survive it has to change to. It is currently acting like a foreign element (closer to Europe) in a body instead of trying to be part of it (M-E).

[Elvain]

I voted i don't care as there is no option: "i am for both sides and against both sides".

One of the main problems i see is that Israel is too afraid now to make a real step towards peace (make some real concessions). They believe that if they make concessions, arab nations will take it as a weakness and destroy them.
well, they surely will.. many, if not most of them. Last year's war was understood among many Palestinian and Israeli Arabs as first war in which Israel didn't achieve any victory, what is true. The interpret is as their first big victory over Israel, every step forward a peace is understood - from majority Arab point of view - which is largely influenced by honour - as weakness of the opponent

if Israel wants to survive it has to change to. even thi is not enough. Israel has changed a lot in last several years. The support of peace is storonger than ever before.. but not on th eother side.. And peace needs both sides to agree. But after their first "real victory" who would surrender and agree to peace when he knows that every day he's becoming stronger?
It is currently acting like a foreign element (closer to Europe) in a body instead of trying to be part of it (M-E).
they have no other choice. They really are more part of Europe than of the M.E.

[People's Republic of China]

Zionist, hands down. (Read my sig.)

I've been to Israel, my trip moved me from passive Pro-Israel Jew to die hard Israel Nationalist. It's the promised land, get those squatters off our turf before they double-standard us into the sea!

Sorry for the rant, :wink: but Israel is very dear to me.

[FrankishHero]

Peace is very dear to me. For all history, Christianity has disturbed it.

The only way forward for this world is for every trace of Christianity to be erased.


It really is that simple.

[Traveller]

Not really - there were many savage and bloody wars much before the appearance of Christianity (or even Judaeism), there would be also even if Christianity disappears. That's the human nature - be different, be superior to the others, dominate and control (which is achieved usually through fighting)! If the human kind ever manages to surpass those instincts, I would say it certainly would raise itself a whole lot steps upward and further from the animalistic part of the human...