102 replies to this topic

[Juni Ori]

After posting in "Have your say" in BBC's homepage Ben Allen from BBC contacted me and wanted to hear what I was thinking about our government's reactions, what I thought about the whole situation and has my views changed?

I'm surprised that there hasn't been anyone to start this thread earlier... Anyways, opinions?
Mine: I understand the upset of Arabs in the region, as for certainly they have some base for their claims that Israel shouldn't even exist. But I don't accept their actions. As Israel quite well honored the UN resolution, Hezbollah and Hamas should had lowered their arms. Another thing is, did Israel truly honor the resolution fully? But as far as I've understood, both exremist groups carried on terrorising Israeli settlements.

[Maikel]

I don't know if it's the reason for not having a thread like this. But on AB most religion or politics related threads had a tendency to escalate.

I don't really have a stance on the situation. To much has happened for a person to take a stand in this conflict.

[Japofran]

FAKE EDIT: This paragraph has been censored by its own author.
**********************

Having said that, I'll go back to commenting about games.

[a1s]

Juni Ori, on Jul 28 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

Ben Allen from BBC contacted me

who is mr. Allen? (this has nothing to do with the disscussion, but I'm curious).

Juni Ori, on Jul 28 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

I understand the upset of Arabs in the region, as for certainly they have some base for their claims that Israel shouldn't even exist.

with all possible respect, what base would that be? the jews have lived in palistine lands up until middle ages, many of them (more than arabs) had lived there by 1948, and they were given a paper from the Brithish (the previous "owners"), telling them it's their land. thats one claim more than the arabs have, isn't it?
the only real base for the arabian claims on Israeli land is the "right of might", but as history has shown us, jews are pretty good at defending their homes.

[A. J. Raffles]

a1s, on Jul 28 2006, 03:53 PM, said:

who is mr. Allen? (this has nothing to do with the disscussion, but I'm curious).

Him.
OK, maybe not.

As a general remark about this topic, political threads are OK in principle, but they have to remain civilised. No flaming or trolling.

[Stroggy]

Slightly off topic, I was actually in Israel when the conflict began a week or two ago.

First off, I would advise against unifying Hisbullah with Hamas as they are both different groups.
The fact about Hisbullah is that they have no raison d'etre, they used to have one back when Israel was occupying parts of Southern Lebanon (as a result of Israel's intervention in the Lebanese civil war and the ensuing occupation of Lebanon by Syria)

Hisbullah was founded in 1982 with the declared aim to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon [1]. Under prime minister Ehud Barak Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon (May 25, 2000), safe in the assumption that Lebanon would live up to their part of the UN resolution (namely by working together with the UN to dismantle the Hisbullah forces in the south) The UN certified the pullout as 'complete'. This rapid pullout was an important strategic mistake by Israel, as it seemed to Hisbullah to be a major victory to them (much like Hamas claimed the Gaza-pullout to be a major victory for them and their terrorist tactics). Much like with Hamas, this stated 'victory' boosted Hisbullah's popularity. [2]

However Syria was still occupying Lebanon, both in a mility sense, as well as politically. The Syrian-controlled Lebanese government declared Hisbullah as the "Lebanese army in the south" and the Lebanese army does associate itself openly with Hisbullah (as seen, for example, on their website). [3]

While there was a UN-force present in Southern Lebanon, they served little to deter Hisbullah's actions against Israel. In fact in certain cases the UN was suspected by Israel of aiding Hisbullah[4]. Which is why Israel is now so much opposed to a UN-intervention in the region, and would prefer a NATO-intervention.

The Cedar Revolution of 2005 ended the most overt part of the Syrian military occupation, but Syria is still very much in control of Lebanon, though now more in a political way by controlling the government.

With the Israeli pullout of 2000 Hisbullah had no reason according to the UN to attack Israel. However Hisbullah continued to attack Israel stating that they were fighting Israel's occupation of Shebaa Farms [5]. However, according to the UN, Shebaa Farms is Syrian territory, not Lebanese. This would prove that the Hisbullah is serving more interests than just Lebanon's. Hisbullah is, furthermore, a Shi'ite group, which is why it is also supported financially and materially by the ever more hostile Iran.[6/7]

It would be incorrect to state that the current conflict started because two soldiers were kidnapped. Rather it started because of the continued agression by Hisbullah against Northern Israeli towns and kidnappings in the past. Some will remember that under former Israeli prime minister Sharon, Israel exchanged 435 prisoners with Hisbullah, for the return of the bodies of two Israeli soldiers and a dubious Israeli civilian (who was arrested by Israel following his release)

In the past Israel had always relied on pinpoint airstrikes against Hisbullah outposts and launchpads, or by sending in a small group of elite forces in the case of a kidnapping. However with the ever increasing support of Iran and the continued entrenchment of Hisbullah in the south (the massive underground bunker at Bint Jbeil, for example) resulted in the decision to cripple Hisbullah's military force once and for all. The problem is that Hisbullah is using a tactic it also used in 1982, namely using civilian houses as a way to hide their forces, or even using these houses as a place to launch their missiles[8]. Furthermore, according to UN reports, the Hisbullah has also been firing missiles in the vicinity of UN posts. [9]

[1]Aljazeera Factfile: Lebanon
[2]BBC: Hisbullah celebrates Israeli retreat
[3]Asia Times: Hezbollah's transformation
[4]CNN: Israel demands UN abduction tape
[5]BBC: Sheeba Farms
[6]MEQ: Hezbollah Strategic Threat to Israel
[7]AP: Iranian volunteers set off for Lebanon
[8]AP: U.N. Chief Accuses Hezbollah of 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees
[9]UNIFIL Press Release 28 July 2006

[Juni Ori]

a1s, on Jul 28 2006, 06:53 PM, said:

Juni Ori, on Jul 28 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

I understand the upset of Arabs in the region, as for certainly they have some base for their claims that Israel shouldn't even exist.

with all possible respect, what base would that be? the jews have lived in palistine lands up until middle ages, many of them (more than arabs) had lived there by 1948, and they were given a paper from the Brithish (the previous "owners"), telling them it's their land. thats one claim more than the arabs have, isn't it?
the only real base for the arabian claims on Israeli land is the "right of might", but as history has shown us, jews are pretty good at defending their homes.

There has been Jewish population for sure, but that's irrelevant. After UK handed over the lands to Jews, they grew rapidly in numbers, pushing Arabs from their lands. Also, it's the most artificial country in the world, revived after almost 1900 years! It's like UN decides now to give Sami (minority living in Lappland) large area of Southern Finland, just because Finns pushed them north thousands of years ago, and after that they would push Finns away, which would most certainly lead to some sort of civil war. Of course Sami would need strong back-upper, let's say USA, for example...

About Ben Allen, I quote myself:

Quote

Ben Allen from BBC

And making questions hints he might be reporter...

[Stroggy]

Quote

After UK handed over the lands to Jews, they grew rapidly in numbers, pushing Arabs from their lands.

You are quite incorrect. As you would have it the jews multiplied by such an exponential rate that within a few months all the muslims were driven out. This notion is absurd. You know very well that the first reason for Israel's change in borders (namely the Green Line) was due to the war, which was started by the major Middle Eastern countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq ) against Israel immediately after Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. This first war lasted until 1949, at which point Israel had pushed back the attack and had captured enemy territory (25% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan River)

A large percentage of the Arab population fled the newly created Israel. The reasons for this are manifold and can in some regards be seen as the core issue to the right-of-return question of the Palestinians. Some historians say the Arab population was ordered to leave by Arab Generals who stated that they would cleanse the entire region of life (regardless of nationality or religion), however it is most simple to state that they left (fearing that they would be caught in the crossfire) thinking that the Arab nations would win the war, at which point they would return [1]. Israel offered citizenship to the arabs, in return for their support, howevery many refused. A case of an entire town that did accept this offer is the mostly-Arab city of Abu Gosh (near Jerusalem).

[1]New York Post, November 30, 1948. Reproduction

Quote

Also, it's the most artificial country in the world

A claim I often hear. Take Belgium, for example, a country created on April 19, 1839 at the Treaty of London. Despite the fairytale told in Belgian schools that Belgium was founded when a riot began in the Brussels Opera as a result of the performan of "La Muette de Portici" (a Nationalistic Patriotic Opera) and eventually resulting in the overthrow of the Dutch regime, Belgium is as artificial as can be. Belgium was effectively created to serve as a bufferzone between France and Germany (a role it served during WW1). It exists of Dutch-speaking citizens in the north and French speaking citizens in the south. The only reason there has not been a real civil war up till now is because both sides shared their love for life (and good food) and thus end up merely disagreeing one another.
Belgium is thus seperated in serveral parts, you have the Dutch-speaking North and French-speaking South with it's own government. You have a Dutch North and a Walloon south (again, with it's own government). Of each political party there exists a duplicate (Dutch and French), and in some cases a smaller triplicate (for the German-speaking East, who also have their own cultural administration).


When you ask a Belgian what Belgium achieved to do 2000 years ago, he or she will most likely tell you of Asterix and Obelix (the more cultured Belgian will refer to Julius Ceasar's notes in "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" on Gallia Belgica's chieftain Ambiorix... who was most likely made up) That is it, one sentance in a book by Julius Ceasar.
If, on the other hand, you ask an Israeli, or any person, what there was in Israel (or Judea) 2000 years ago... you wil understand that we are talking about more than some "artificial country".

Perhaps I should refer to a quote of Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield and twice Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:
"Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."

I do not expect everyone to understand the meaning of a Jewish nation in Israel to a jewish person. You would have to be familiar with not only the history preceding the destruction of the Second Temple, of Israel's identity, the exodus of a part of the Jewish population and Bar Kokhba's Revolt in 132. But also with the history afterwards.

Anyway, this is all rather pointless and beside the point. Whether or not Israel is artificial or not is of no importance, we must look at the facts, and the fact is that Israel exists.  If only more people would come to the understanding that speculation about Israel's right to exist won't bring about any changes in the conflict...

[Japofran]

Although I'll restrain myself from committing myself strongly to this discussion, I'd like to say that Stroggy's point here is the point.

Quote

Anyway, this is all rather pointless and beside the point. Whether or not Israel is artifial or not is of no importance, we must look at the facts, and the fact is that Israel exists. If only more people would come to the understanding that speculation about Israel's right to exist won't bring about any changes in the conflict.

I'm letting aside the theoretical issue, which Stroggy's perfectly able to defend. But those who say that Israel has no right to exist should hand a solution. If it's destroying Israel, well, at least that makes sense, and Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, etc. will agree on that. But if you're not in favour of expelling (or something worse) all those jews (besides they won't leave and there's no way to force them to), then Israel's existance is a point you'll have to accept in order to continue the discussion.

I posted in BBC's "Have your Say" only once, and I wasn't contacted, in fact I was (gasp) censored so my post wasn't displayed. It was about the Sudanese genocide and my post wasn't unpolite, insulting, etc. in the least way.

[A. J. Raffles]

Oh, that happened to me every single time I tried to post something on Have Your Say, Japofran. So either I'm unspeakably rude without realising it or they just don't display all posts, no matter what they claim. Obviously I no longer bother to post now.

[a1s]

Juni Ori, on Jul 30 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

Also, it's the most artificial country in the world

well most coutries are artificial really. like with your example: what makes Estonians eligible for a country of their own, but not Sami? they are equal in size (within an order of maginutde- i.e it's not like there is a million of one and ten thousands of other), and half the population (give or take 20%, most probably take) is non estonian, you could claim the lad isn't theirs either.
and let's not forget the famous obsurd country- vatican. they have the same ethincal composition as Italy (that's actulay not true, but you get my point), the same language, the same religion and, get this, their capital is in the same place. why separate at all?

Juni Ori, on Jul 30 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

About Ben Allen, I quote myself:

Quote

Ben Allen from BBC

And making questions hints he might be reporter...

vvery vaguely. he could be an admin, and if I had to guess I would think he's your fellow poster...

[Romano]

From the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947):

Part II. - Boundaries

A. THE ARAB STATE
..........
..........

B. THE JEWISH STATE
.........
.........

The fact is that almost sixty years after UN established those two States, the Jewish state exists and the Arab state (Palestina) not.

[Stroggy]

a1s, on Jul 31 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

and let's not forget the famous obsurd country- vatican. they have the same ethincal composition as Italy (that's actulay not true, but you get my point), the same language, the same religion and, get this, their capital is in the same place. why separate at all?

Well the Vatican is something slightly different, because until the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, the pope did govern over serveral large regions surrounding the Vatican (Papal States). With the creation of the Kingdom of Italy this came to an end. Naturally the Church wasn't very happy with this. The situation was eventually resolved by Mussolini (who wanted to win the Vatican over) with the Lateran Treaties, which granted the pope controll over the Vatican and a yearly income.

Quote

The fact is that almost sixty years after UN established those two States, the Jewish state exists and the Arab state (Palestina) not.

The fact is that, while the Jews accepted (safe for the Stern Gang) the UN partition plan, the arabs did not. Some disagreed simply because they did not want a jewish state there, others disagreed because they thought the Jews had been given too high a quality of land.

Great Britain refused to implement the plan because, according to them, it was unfair to both sides and would lead to conflicts.

This is the map drawn up then:
UN Partition Plan
One of the Arabs' first claim was that the Jews were given too much land, but the biggest part of this land is in the south, the Negef (which is mostly desert).
You will also notice that Jerusalem is (under UN control) in the middle of the Arab State.

There is also (for the Jewish state) a tactical problem with this map. Each section of Jewish land is connected by a narrow strip of land (if connected at all) surrounded by the Arab state. You will also notice that the Arab state shares borders to the North, East and South with arab countries. An Egyptian army could thus easily go through the Arab state and cut off the passage from the Negef-section to the Sea Section. But this argument is superfluous as the Jews did accept the plan.

An added note: the city of Jaffa remained under arab control.


So, yes, Resolution 181 dictates the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state. And yes, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Yemen (among some other countries) voted against Resolution 181.

[Sinke]

Interesting topic.

I have also been to Israel, and I met many great people there. I also have a lot of Muslim friends, some of them were working in Arabia. Needless to say, their stories and interpretations are quite different.

In my opinion, both sides have their points. Israel has right for existance, however from the start this existance was formed on military might. Not much choice there-I know- yet I am afraid that in the future, when weapons of mass destruction become cheaper this policy could result in destruction of Israel. WMDs are specific strategical importance, which change the situation quite strongly- for example, if Iran develops nuclear weapon, NATO won't attack it unless somebody lost his brains there.

Muslim countries surrounding Israel are less developed, and without help of Western countries. However, the policies of these Western countries brought Hezbollah as democratically-elected government in the first place, and it puts the whole problem on the new level. Terrorist activity of this movement is clear, however many times Israel used it as an excuse to preform their conquests, which were much more destructive and inhuman than terrorist attacks. Without terrorism, Israel would gain security, but as well it would lower their diplomatic capabilities of argumenting their military moves. For example, it is quite evident that current invasion of Lebanon was planned months before two soldiers were kidnapped.

Islamic countries should, on their own ground, fight against terrorist organisations- however, since antisemitism became strong there it probably won't happen.

I find UN the best body to solve the crisis, however this organisation became a laughing matter last few years. The system of Veto, permanent members of Security Council- all these nonsenses are just a small part of organisation's flaws. UN needs immediate reform, and more courage in their activites. In given example, UN should bring economical sanctions to Israel for current invasion ( as well as it should preform economical sanctions to USA until their army is replaced by UN soldiers in Iraq ). They should also do the "horrible" talking to terrorists, where they should finally develop a constructive dialogue- with economical sanctions for them in the back.

[Japofran]

I don't agree on everything, but I will limit my answer to this point:

Sinke, on Aug 4 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

Muslim countries surrounding Israel are less developed, and without help of Western countries.

No, Muslim countries receive lotta cash from the West. Especially Arab Mediterranean countries from the EU.

About the UN's neutrality or suitability to solve this crisis:

http://michellemalki...ives/005611.htm