centralparker Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 the current problems between jews and muslims are less than 100 years old, it's a complete lie to say it's been going on for thousands of years as is often spouted in western media outlets, it has not. peace is perfectly possible if both sides want it. The start date of the conflict is pretty much irrelevant. The fact is that both sides have been a loggerheads for decades and things only seem to be getting worse. The prognosis for peace is not. It's amazing how often these situations boil down to "oi you, get off me land" There isn't an easy solution, unless one side agrees to move out or they form two states and agree to stick to their own turf. Neither option is easy to implement. I fear we'll be watching this battle for a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Don't be crazy. That zionism is a modern concept, everyone knows that. To be fair that's kind of what I'm trying to put across. In the late 19th century the Zionist movement gathered pace; the reason there was no conflict before that is because the Jews were almost entirely a diaspora people and weren't even on the land. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudafed Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 the jewish population at that time was perhaps 10%, and they co-existed largely peacefully, it it commonly said and several times on this thread that they have been fighting forever and it will never end, this is not true is my point. jews started buying up holy land real estate in the late 19th century but only owned 8% of it as late as 1947. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Nice to see the disgusting continuation of the perversion of language on this thread. Yes. And history has proven that violent reprisals have always led to a reduction in the original violence with no examples of escalation. History shows us any number of outcomes. Up until the late 1970s the biggest threat to Israel was invasion by the conventional armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. After several wars Israel eventually signed peace agreements with these states in 1977 and 1994. In that instance violence lead to peace. I don't think that Hamas seriously wants a peace. The Hamas leadership aren't stupid people, they would have known that the terrible scenes we have seen in the last fortnight would be the consequence of their actions. Many people seem to, as this article says, turn a blind eye to Hamas but condemn Israel for everything they do or don't do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Nice to see the disgusting continuation of the perversion of language on this thread.History shows us any number of outcomes. Up until the late 1970s the biggest threat to Israel was invasion by the conventional armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. After several wars Israel eventually signed peace agreements with these states in 1977 and 1994. In that instance violence lead to peace. I don't think that Hamas seriously wants a peace. The Hamas leadership aren't stupid people, they would have known that the terrible scenes we have seen in the last fortnight would be the consequence of their actions. Many people seem to, as this article says, turn a blind eye to Hamas but condemn Israel for everything they do or don't do. Leftie c***s with an agenda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centre Stand Hero Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Leftie c***s with an agenda. FFS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 FFS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 the jewish population at that time was perhaps 10%, and they co-existed largely peacefully, it it commonly said and several times on this thread that they have been fighting forever and it will never end, this is not true is my point. jews started buying up holy land real estate in the late 19th century but only owned 8% of it as late as 1947. I agree basically with what you're saying, that the "oh there can NEVER be co-existence" is a cop-out, but at the same time the point is that the demographic and military situation has changed drastically in the last hundred years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Or how about an end to the problems in NI? A few years back they said there would never be a solution, and that the only way to stop the IRA was, well, military action. Anyone see any parallels here yet?Now however, things are settling down massively over there. Something which it was said would never happen. Oh, and military action solved nothing! When will the Israelis learn from history? Bad analogy. In NI, the initial trouble was between the indegionous protestants and catholics of the area, the police was being overwhelmed and the army was called in to act as support to the RUC, of course this evolved into an anti terroism campaign, however the army's stated objective was to essentially stop the other two sides banging each other's heads together long enough for a political solution to be attempted... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Banner Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be recognised that the Army did not 'win' in any recognisable way; rather it achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld [sic] said, that success is unique.[2] in other words, the British army was primarily a third party peacekeeping force in the area. This is far different from the two sided conflict in Israel, where the israeli army is acting as if it is fighting a stand up conventional opponent who is trying to breach the integrity of the Israeli state. Edited January 10, 2009 by renton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 The quickest way to 'solve' this is for Palestinians to be moved to the West Bank and Gaza City razed to the ground. A fully functioning Palestine as a singular entity can't really have an enclave being held to ransom if and when Israel sees fit. To me the willingness to hold onto Gaza points to the continued Palestinian will to recapture the entire territory. They're entitled to that view, but it only means further war. Israel has until the end of the month to attack without 'real' international consequence - Obama can easily isolate the Israeli hardliners while the US deals with the economy: if he wants to. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyemystic Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Will none of you staunch neutrals comment on today's astonishing decision to unilaterally ban all (percieved) "arab" parties from participating in 'Israel's upcoming 'election'? Surely racist, anti-democratic and another blow to the viability of so-called 'Israel' (in its current state). Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be recognised that the Army did not 'win' in any recognisable way; rather it achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld [sic] said, that success is unique.[2] :lol: Indeed Renton that is a "unique" interpretation of "success". Slithering your way meekly to the table after your opponents wobbled your paymasters' economy is hardly success. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the "success" the so-called Israelis recieved from Hizbollah a couple of years ago: ie. a sound, humiliating thrashing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Will none of you staunch neutrals comment on today's astonishing decision to unilaterally ban all (percieved) "arab" parties from participating in 'Israel's upcoming 'election'?Surely racist, anti-democratic and another blow to the viability of so-called 'Israel' (in its current state). :lol: Indeed Renton that is a "unique" interpretation of "success". Slithering your way meekly to the table after your opponents wobbled your paymasters' economy is hardly success. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the "success" the so-called Israelis recieved from Hizbollah a couple of years ago: ie. a sound, humiliating thrashing. what are you on about ?? http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+H...bruary_2009.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Slithering your way meekly to the table after your opponents wobbled your paymasters' economy is hardly success. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the "success" the so-called Israelis recieved from Hizbollah a couple of years ago: ie. a sound, humiliating thrashing. and last time i checked theres no united ireland so who won??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 in other words, the British army was primarily a third party peacekeeping force in the area. Right. I am sure that the people of NI, and also the members of the armed forces who served there will be able to bear testimony to the neutrality of the "peacekeepers". And yes, I do know people from NI, both Unionist and Nationalist, and yes, people in my family served in NI. Anyway, apparently Israel are "nearing their objectivtes", and I am sure that as a result of this action, the people of Israel will be a lot safer, and the people of Palestine will be free of the yoke of terrorist democratically elected Hamas, and will have no interest in standing up for themselves any more. Huzzah for Israel and their well thought out and consequence free actions! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Right. I am sure that the people of NI, and also the members of the armed forces who served there will be able to bear testimony to the neutrality of the "peacekeepers". And yes, I do know people from NI, both Unionist and Nationalist, and yes, people in my family served in NI. Anyway, apparently Israel are "nearing their objectivtes", and I am sure that as a result of this action, the people of Israel will be a lot safer, and the people of Palestine will be free of the yoke of terrorist democratically elected Hamas, and will have no interest in standing up for themselves any more. Huzzah for Israel and their well thought out and consequence free actions! why are there no rocket attacks from the other part of palestine?? hamas knows how to treat its citizens 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Will none of you staunch neutrals comment on today's astonishing decision to unilaterally ban all (percieved) "arab" parties from participating in 'Israel's upcoming 'election'?Surely racist, anti-democratic and another blow to the viability of so-called 'Israel' (in its current state). :lol: Indeed Renton that is a "unique" interpretation of "success". Slithering your way meekly to the table after your opponents wobbled your paymasters' economy is hardly success. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the "success" the so-called Israelis recieved from Hizbollah a couple of years ago: ie. a sound, humiliating thrashing. Really? the British army did achieve it's desired end state. It was there to back up the civil authority. This it did, it didn't have to decimate the IRA to beat it, it merely had to go the distance to win. N. Ire is still British and the IRA have disarmed so that then would be the desired end state... enough though, it's a totally different discussion, I only raised the point in order to demonstrate the differences in the two situations and why one could not be used as an analogy for the other. XBL: Even if nuetrality was an issue, even yuo can clearly see the difference in strategiesd and objectives between what the British army did in N.I. and what the Israelis are attempting in Gaza. Edited January 13, 2009 by renton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) XBL: Even if nuetrality was an issue, even yuo can clearly see the difference in strategiesd and objectives between what the British army did in N.I. and what the Israelis are attempting in Gaza. The only reason I brought up NI was (as was correctly pointed out by others) that it was once said that there would never be peace, and people couldn't see any solution. As it happened, this prediction has been proved wrong. People are saying that Israel and Palestine will never be at peace and will never be able to live together. Maybe not now, but one day they may well reach a peaceful solution. And thats the primary reason I brought up NI originally. Edited to add, although I will admit to getting wrapped up in a totally different point to the one I was originally trying to make! Edited January 13, 2009 by Xbass Threepwood 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The only reason I brought up NI was (as was correctly pointed out by others) that it was once said that there would never be peace, and people couldn't see any solution. As it happened, this prediction has been proved wrong.People are saying that Israel and Palestine will never be at peace and will never be able to live together. Maybe not now, but one day they may well reach a peaceful solution. And thats the primary reason I brought up NI originally. Edited to add, although I will admit to getting wrapped up in a totally different point to the one I was originally trying to make! there can be peace but not with hamas that much is obvious i think 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzreid Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) there can be peace but not with hamas that much is obvious i think I would go one step fuyrther and suggest that there will never be peace until (A) Hamas is gone and ( b ) The Israelis elect a government actually interested in peace. Edited January 13, 2009 by lzreid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 I would go one step fuyrther and suggest that there will never be peace until (A) Hamas is gone and How about some sort of democratic elections in Palestine, where we encourage all parties to ease off on the military action and join in the political process, a bit like Sinn Fein (I know, bringing up NI again, sorry). That way the likes of Hamas, if elected, will see that they don't need violence to achieve their aims, and that if they participate fully in the political process, then they will be encouraged, and not simply condemmed, ignored, and then starved in order to stop them participating in the political process and drive them back to violence. How does that sound? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.