Current actions in the Middle East


  • these posts are very interesting, in this conflict there is no virtous side, both sides have horrible attrocities to mark their pasts and when you analyze this issue it is impossible to say “But they are innocent…” because both sides have made horrible mistakes and commited horribble attrocoities against each other. The problem is the solution of this conflict, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Israel wont share Jerusalem, Israel wont dismantle the territories, and on the flip side the Palestinian people commit acts of terrorism. Through my study oft his subject I have come to sympathize with the Palestinian people in general (I live in the US, so I get alot of crap for my views), but acts of violence by a overzeoulous government are not any more justifiable than terrorism. Suicide bombers are not acceptable, and that must stop, but for this to come to peace there must a Palestinian state, there is no way around that. im kinda rambling now so im done

    ps- the offer that arafat rejected should have been rejected, there is no way any kind of responsible leader (and arafat might not qualify) could accept that offer. it was about 80% there. He has even said that it was the best offer to date, but just not quite there.

    peace in the middle east


  • Well I think we all know that neither side is truly innocent here. The tricky part is finding what side is more at fault, and that requires many, many varying viewpoints. Give it time; I’m sure they’ll dig up some better leaders than Sharon and Arafat (hopefully). Then we can settle this thang once and for all. 😉

    “peace in the middle east”

    “Rain in Spain!” 😎


  • Granted both sides have done wrongs, I’m a pro-Israel guy. I like their military and they have had to take a lot from terrorists granted the Palestineans(forgive my spelling error) have taken a lot from Israel.


  • I would probably be more inclined to take the Jewish side because I have a lot more Jewish friends, but then again, I alway cheer for the underdogs (which in this case would be Palestine. So I can’t really figure what side to be on. I hate the terrorist attacks, but then again, I hate Jewish treatment of Palestinians. It’s really a toss up. :-?


  • i believe it is dangerous to attempt to assertain who is ‘more at fault’, if anyone has done a serious study of this material then the palestinians and Israelis have seroius gripes against one another, but if one side is more at fault will that help in the creation of a solution? the answer is no, The Israeli concept of ‘land for peace’ that they used in the 70’s has the only real promise of a true compromise, but once the Likud paryt came to power they began a massive colonization of the occupied territories to make that trade imposible, yes, this was actually their thinking. That colonization push continies to this day, and they continue despite condemnations from the UN, and their strongest ally the US. According to the UN any territories acquired through military conquest cannot be legally assimilated into your home country, you may however have provinciual control, but many Israelies hope to one day assimliate the West bank, Gaza, and the Sinia into ISrael. That will not bring a solution, or raise their security level. The typical Israeli response of disprportionate response has worked in the past, but it has also been a negative in that it escalates violence.

    all that sais, Israel has a fundamental right to exist, and under no circumdstances should that right be in jeopardy.

    another reason this conflict will not end is that the Palestinians will not quit until they have SOMETHING, they myst have the W. bank and gaza to call their own, how would you feel if driving through your country you had to stop at checkpoints where you were questioned for over 20 min about why you were going anywhere. The Palestinians have developed a new word, and it ‘sufferness’ it is meant to describe their place and that suffering is the chosen life for their people, the change is meant to demonstrate that they feel of their suffering as lasting a long time, they will not quit until some kind of fair deal is struck.

    but what is fair? if you go by history their is enough ammo for each side to stall forever, but all that history must be pushed to the back, and they must approach with not only their point of view, but an open mind. Im not sure that wil happen anytime soon. and as an american i am sad to say that Bush is doing nothing to help the situation.


  • @HortenFlyingWing:

    Barak offered only 80% of the land right away, and the Israeli military would have access of strategic areas for 20 more years.

    Some reasons besides the obvious arafat said no:
    He would of not (he as in “palestinian people”), had full control of the areas water supply. I’m no water technician guy, so i could not tell you if that water was used by israel as well.

    Well, controlling the water in that area of the world is the same as controlling the land. Without water, there is no irrigation and nothing to drink for the ppl. The land is worthless to the ppl if they don’t have water, so the “control” still would be in israeli hands.


  • @Xi:

    The territories are not occupied. I was attacked repeatedly by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan('56, '67, '73 if I remember correctly). They won the wars and took the territories to insure their continued security.

    '56 the military actions were started by Israel.
    '67 the war was started by Israel.
    '73 the war was started by Egypt.
    '78 Israel conquered the “security zone” in the Lebanon
    '82 Israel attacked the Lebanon and seized Beirut


  • Where is Xi anyways, I haven’t seen him for awhile. Kinda sucks. 😞 It’s hard not seeing his grand book of quotes and silly soots. 😛


  • @F_alk:

    @Xi:

    The territories are not occupied. I was attacked repeatedly by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan('56, '67, '73 if I remember correctly). They won the wars and took the territories to insure their continued security.

    '56 the military actions were started by Israel.
    '67 the war was started by Israel.
    '73 the war was started by Egypt.
    '78 Israel conquered the “security zone” in the Lebanon
    '82 Israel attacked the Lebanon and seized Beirut

    Now that’s a twist on historical events! In 1956 the war was started by Egypt who nationalized the Suez Canal. In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike. Their intelligence officer in Damascus, Eli Cohen, who almost became president of Syria be the way, found out of an impending invasion by Arab forces and Israel had no choice but to attack first. The next war as the War of Attrition from later in 1967 to 1971. This was a very bloody war. In 1973, the war was started by Syria.


  • I can agree with 1967, it was more of preemptive strike on part of Israel. The Syrian and the Egyptian concentrated troops on the borders and tension reached its peak when Egypt ousted UN force from Sinai and closed the straits of Tiran, cutting off Eilat from the sea. Israel could not acquiesce to the blocking of its southern outlet.

    Egypt did nationalize the Suez Canal in '56, blockading off the Southern Outlets, though Irasel also used military raids against Egypt. Though the the dumb English and French had to land at Port Said, effectively cutting off the routing action of the Israelis against Egypt.

    However, I think Egypt did start the '73 as the first troops to Suez the Canal while Syrians struck west. However, you can say that was also a preemptive strike


  • @EmuGod:

    @F_alk:

    '56 the military actions were started by Israel.
    '67 the war was started by Israel.
    '73 the war was started by Egypt.
    '78 Israel conquered the “security zone” in the Lebanon
    '82 Israel attacked the Lebanon and seized Beirut

    Now that’s a twist on historical events! In 1956 the war was started by Egypt who nationalized the Suez Canal. In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike. Their intelligence officer in Damascus, Eli Cohen, who almost became president of Syria be the way, found out of an impending invasion by Arab forces and Israel had no choice but to attack first. The next war as the War of Attrition from later in 1967 to 1971. This was a very bloody war. In 1973, the war was started by Syria.

    Well, i have my information form www.hagalil.com, which is a jewish (though not officially israeli) site.
    For the pre-emptive strike: So, russia started the war against germany in WWII (mnay right wing historians claim that Hitler just launched a pre-emptive strike).
    And Jom Kippur was started by a coordinated attack by egypt and syria, sorry that i forgot to mention the second one.


  • F_alk, you’re from Germany, right? What was the book that the leftist Germans banned because it told the “true” story about Hitler’s need to invade USSR. Though I may not completely concur with it (Stalin was very much Hitler’s lapdog, and many Soviet leaders did not plan war with Germany until at least 1950), I’m intrested in checking it out.


  • Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941 against the Soviet Union because the Soviets had wheat fields that he needed to expand his “Aryan” race. The Nazis did attack the Soviet Union first.


  • Did any of you hear that Belgium found Sharon innocent of the “war crimes” he had been acuessed of at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in 82? They claimed he was indirectly responsible forthe Lebanese militia massacring Palestinians there.


  • @EmuGod:

    Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941 against the Soviet Union because the Soviets had wheat fields that he needed to expand his “Aryan” race. The Nazis did attack the Soviet Union first.

    And Israel attacked in '67. That was my point. Pre-emptive strike or not (for both examples).

    @EmuGod:

    Did any of you hear that Belgium found Sharon innocent of the “war crimes” he had been acuessed of at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in 82? They claimed he was indirectly responsible forthe Lebanese militia massacring Palestinians there.

    Do i mention war crimes? No. Did Israel attack the Lebanon in '82? Yes.


  • Moses, sorry i don’t know the title of that book. I know that some historians from the ultra-right wing supprt this idea though. Not really sorry that i can’t help (i hate to promote that stuff) :), but have you tried to google it?


  • Well I think it was called “Stalin’s War of Extermination” (which could be true, but on the wrong of race people). I’ll try looking it up later tonight and report any finds. 😎


  • “Well, controlling the water in that area of the world is the same as controlling the land. Without water, there is no irrigation and nothing to drink for the ppl. The land is worthless to the ppl if they don’t have water, so the “control” still would be in israeli hands.”

    Yes, but if the palestinians had the water, then it would be in their hands, correct? So should a country giving peace to a nation that would most likely destroy it give up both of their water supply?


  • @F_alk:

    @Xi:

    The territories are not occupied. I was attacked repeatedly by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan('56, '67, '73 if I remember correctly). They won the wars and took the territories to insure their continued security.

    '56 the military actions were started by Israel.
    '67 the war was started by Israel.
    '73 the war was started by Egypt.
    '78 Israel conquered the “security zone” in the Lebanon
    '82 Israel attacked the Lebanon and seized Beirut

    that’s way overly simplistic. especially when the enemy was mounting forces and firing artillary shells and raiding israel.

    So germany didn’t start World War, poland did.


  • @EmuGod:

    Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941 against the Soviet Union because the Soviets had wheat fields that he needed to expand his “Aryan” race. The Nazis did attack the Soviet Union first.

    Yes, Geopolotik.


  • @EmuGod:

    Did any of you hear that Belgium found Sharon innocent of the “war crimes” he had been acuessed of at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in 82? They claimed he was indirectly responsible forthe Lebanese militia massacring Palestinians there.

    no, pro-palestinian people, and many people politically to the left choose not to hear it.


  • @HortenFlyingWing:

    So germany didn’t start World War, poland did.

    What? Do i speak Swahili? (no offense against anyone who does!)
    No, of course not. Germany started the war. You don’t believe the nazi propaganda, do you? So, why do you come up with this question, which to me seems totally out of context?


  • It depends on your opinion for who started WW2. I think that France, Britain and the United States started it with the Treaty of Versailles. It was horrible and unjust. Germany shouldn’t have been put to blame for World War 1. Every country that fought in it had to take some responsibility. But that’s my opinion. You can also say WW2 started when Japan invaded Manchuria or when Italy invaded Ethiopia or when Hitler or Mussolini came to power.


  • then i should have used “attacked” and not “started the war” in my above posting? is that what you were complaining about?


  • Yes, that would have been better. If you want to claim that they started the war, use evidence to back up your idea please.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

75
Online

15.8k
Users

37.4k
Topics

1.6m
Posts