| 
Posted Oct 29, 2002 by Arevos
Unfortunately the politics behind the conflict are quite complex, and I'd say most people who have opinions on the region aren't fully informed. I know I'm not, and, after reading through a fairly recent Kuro5hin article (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/8/13/8141/95480 ), I can't really say I'm much the wiser.
However, it seems to me that this is what happened:
In the 1960s Israel and its neighbours weren't on the best of terms. Israel might also have wanted some extra land. Both sides were gearing up for war, tension was increasing, and Israel attacked first, invading the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
These territories did not technically belong to Palestine at the time. They were grabbed by Egypt and Jordan after a failed attempt by the UN to create a Palestinian state, and so were quite a bit in dispute anyway.
Israel decided to stay in the territories. Technically that meant it had, and is, breaking UN law, which might be considered a little bit ungrateful because the UN made it possible for Israel to exist at all.
And nearly 40 years later there's still fighting over them. Unfortunately the article mentioned above seems to be, maybe, a little biased, but the comments below provide a more interesting (if somewhat conflicting!) points of view.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Oct 29, 2002 by nonxistenz
Listen Alpha,
If the bible says what you claim it says, im sure it also say something along the lines of - treat your neighbour the way you would like to be treated-
And i am quite sure it doesn't say in the bible that - you should torture, burn, rape, and kill your neighbours (palestinians) so that you can live on a piece of land !
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 29, 2002 by Rita
Fear of Islam is traditional in the West.
The Song of Roland, an account of the defeat of Frankish Knights loyal to Charlemagne in the north of Spain by Moors, that was somehow spun into a romantic victory, is one of the earliest examples of where the fear arises.
Later, during the Crusades, horrible stories were circulated concerning the barbaric behavior of the Turks. This continued to occupy European imaginations with the annihilation of the French army at Nicopolis and the fall of Constantinople among other issues of war. The seemingly interminable wars between the Hapsburgs and the Ottomans followed for centuries and influenced events in the Balkans down to the 20th century.
The Siege of Malta was for many years a rallying cry for European anti-islamic fervor, and the fear even figures in the plot of an opera by Mozart, The Abduction from the Seraglio, as well as in accounts of the Siege of Vienna, where the Infidal was once again turned away from the gates of Europe as he had been at Tours.
The romance of the Reconquista in Spain continues to influence Spanish perceptions of Islamic people, and the seemingly superhuman feats of the Moros in the Philippines still occupies the minds of gun enthusiasts in America. The United States Marine Corps anthem contains the line, "... to the shores of Tripoli..." referring to the Barbary Pirates of North Africa who compelled the ships of the fledgling United States to pay tribute.
There can be little question that the fear of Islam has been institutionalized in the West for centuries. To suggest otherwise is to ignore a significant portion of the culture the West claims to have and also prevents people from confronting their fears or biases.
The recent conflicts in Mindinao, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Chechnya, Kosovo and so on amply illustrate that there is still much fear of Islam in the West and that this fear may be justified in some cases. However, it should be noted that Islam has not expanded militantly for centuries so any hazard it might pose to the contemporary West is largely the result of aggressive colonialization by the West of Islamic lands. Apparently, the fear is mutual and perhaps also justified.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by Petra
I have a hypothetical question for you:
what if Native Americans reclaimed their land - they weren't removed from it 2000 years ago, it happened only a few hundred years ago
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 30, 2002 by Rita
I have a not very hypothetical answer.
At least some American indians do claim the land. They just don't resort to violence in order to press the claims. The claims are endorsed by treaty with the United States of America. But make no mistake, the claims live as long as the people live.
This is interesting, don't you think? Two groups of people, Israelites and indians, victimized by genocide with such different ways of redressing the injustices. Such different ways of confronting the people of the world. So many beliefs in common but so many differences too.
A similar issue might apply to the Palestinians. Like the indians, they claim the land by right of treaty and prior occupancy. But they do things different as well. What do you suppose it all means?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 31, 2002 by Alpha5
Its perfectly fair and just, the natives should have their land back. Maybe someone should campagin on their behalf. And dont say that our natives should have our land as their are no natives of Europe, We are the natives.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 31, 2002 by Rita
Are you Sami then? Or Basque? Or affiliated with any of the scores of tribes inhabiting the Boreal Forest?
I shouldn't press it probably but I couldn't resist. &;D
Yes, someone should campaign, but no one listens. Ignorance is bliss and security.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 1, 2002 by nonxistenz
Hiya karen, i agree with you up to a point, but what i do not agree with is that religion divides and breeds hate.
I believe that some peoples interpretation of their religions may breed hate... but the actual religion does not breed hate. It is possible for people from all religions to live together in harmonies... It is only when particluar people who have power to change things, misuse that power by becoming ignorant and selfish and this leads to war and terror.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 1, 2002 by Rita
Please disregard my statement regarding Sami, etc.. It was an unfortunate attempt at humor relating to a subject I know virtually nothing about. Sorry if anyone was offended.
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
