Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
Well It's a bit hard to carry a topic when the answer is so obvious. 
the Middle East Conflict: Which side is the agressor?
FlyingFrog
Active member
Chocobo_Blitzer said:Well It's a bit hard to carry a topic when the answer is so obvious.
What do you mean? You mean Israel is obviously the aggressor so no need to carry on the Topic more? :lol:
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
No, the other way around. Isreal has made some bad moves, but it is the good guy in this struggle.
Damien435
Active member
My bad FF, I assumed that you were talking about the Chinese view of this conflict, not that I can understand why China would be anti-semitic (technically that term means anti-arab but the true definition has long since been lost in history) with Israel in the game Muslim troops have a clear enemy to focus on, where as if Israel was removed the Muslims could focus on India, then it would be a toss up between Turkey, North Africa, or China.
This is a bit off topic but still interesting.
Has anybody here ever read the Ender's game series? Well in one of the spinoffs called Shadow Puppets. Basically what happens is a bunch of kids were bred to be military geniouses, after they win the war against the "Buggers" the whole world goes to hell. India invades the South East Asian Countries. All of their forces are over teh borders and the Chinese invade. Almost without any fighting the Chinese defeat India. So now China controls over 10 Billion people. Using superior training and tactics the Muslim League, with Israel a member and only 3 billion people, invades China, on horseback and foot at first so that the Muslim troops can penetrate deep into China before they realise that it is actually an organized Foreign military. So basically the Caliph unites the Muslim League and they defeat China when the rest of the world sat on their hands. Interesting series Ender's Game is, I am reading the first book for the 5th time, it is great.
This is a bit off topic but still interesting.
Has anybody here ever read the Ender's game series? Well in one of the spinoffs called Shadow Puppets. Basically what happens is a bunch of kids were bred to be military geniouses, after they win the war against the "Buggers" the whole world goes to hell. India invades the South East Asian Countries. All of their forces are over teh borders and the Chinese invade. Almost without any fighting the Chinese defeat India. So now China controls over 10 Billion people. Using superior training and tactics the Muslim League, with Israel a member and only 3 billion people, invades China, on horseback and foot at first so that the Muslim troops can penetrate deep into China before they realise that it is actually an organized Foreign military. So basically the Caliph unites the Muslim League and they defeat China when the rest of the world sat on their hands. Interesting series Ender's Game is, I am reading the first book for the 5th time, it is great.
bonnieblue716
Active member
It's surprising to me, that no one has put the story of how the Christians feel on this topic, out of all four pages. We believe that this all started when Sara wanted to have a child, and though God had promised to give her a child in His own time, she got impatient and sent Abraham into her maidservant Hagar. The resulting child was Ishmale. Shortly there after Sara gave birth to Isaac, just as the Lord had promised she would. Sara then decided that Ishmale would never inherit the riches of her true son Isaac, and sent Hagar and Ishmale away. And so it began, the Jews the descendents of Isaac, and the Arabs the descendents of Ishmale. While our minister's always preach on how God has a plan and we must wait patiently on His will to be done, I think they often miss the point of this story. The whole point is that in the end the two brothers came together to burry their father. Anyway that was about 73 million years ago. And most Christians believe (everyone has a little bit different interpretation) that we will never see peace in the Middle East, because the Anti-Christ is going to restore the peace, after the Rapture. I therefore don't really have an opinion on which side is the aggressor, and since I don't live over there, I usually don't pay it much attention. Neither side is truly going to be satisfied and live in peace, until long after I'm gone.
Oh and think what you like of me, y'all will probably think i'm just another westerner trying to cram my religion down you throat, and that's ok, you can think that, it doesn't bother me, and frankly you have that right. I just wanted to bring the Christian side in on it, since there are four pages of replies and no one had mentioned it. I respect both religions, (Jewdism and Muslim) They're both very peaceful religions, and the Muslim religion has gotten a bad reputation due to a few extremist. I reccently heard a really good analogoy of this topic, or one that at least the Americans can identify with. Extremists are to Muslim as the KKK is to Christanity. I don't judge a whole religion or group of people, based on a few people, and I really try not to judge at all. OK that's all the preaching an 18 yr old can do this early in the morning, I haven't even had breakfast yet. :lol:
Oh and think what you like of me, y'all will probably think i'm just another westerner trying to cram my religion down you throat, and that's ok, you can think that, it doesn't bother me, and frankly you have that right. I just wanted to bring the Christian side in on it, since there are four pages of replies and no one had mentioned it. I respect both religions, (Jewdism and Muslim) They're both very peaceful religions, and the Muslim religion has gotten a bad reputation due to a few extremist. I reccently heard a really good analogoy of this topic, or one that at least the Americans can identify with. Extremists are to Muslim as the KKK is to Christanity. I don't judge a whole religion or group of people, based on a few people, and I really try not to judge at all. OK that's all the preaching an 18 yr old can do this early in the morning, I haven't even had breakfast yet. :lol:
Damien435
Active member
You have to take an AP World History course to have religion crammed down your throat. That is all my teacher does in that class, she keeps saying we should read the Hebrew Bible and Karan (I chose the easiest spelling), not because of their religious iimportance, but because they are the history of their respective people's, or so she says.
I think that the US, Britain, France, and Germany are duty bound to see that the Middle East concflict sees through to a peaceful end, if that means that they have to use force against Israel also, so be it, but those four above mentioned nations all had a very important role in the creation of the jewish state and they are responsible to see that Israel and the Arab Nations come through without destroying each other. Kind of funny, Jerusalem is the holyest city in the world, the birth place of Christianity and Judaism and the holyest cite outside of Mecca for the Muslims. BUT I feel that the muslims should have the least to say about what happens to Jerusalem. They knew that it was the home of Judaism, they knew what they were doing when they built the Dome of the Rock, they made the choice to essentially start this war when they built that shrine on the Wailing Wall. Christians were heavily persecuted, I don't see how the Romans can take all the blame for Jesus' death, the Jews had made the choice to have him killed also, but under Roman law they were unable to make that choice and had to ask the Romans for permission. That is my understanding of the Situation, that is not based on the bible, not based on the Hebrew Bible, it is based on the information I have seen on TV and the internet.
I think that the US, Britain, France, and Germany are duty bound to see that the Middle East concflict sees through to a peaceful end, if that means that they have to use force against Israel also, so be it, but those four above mentioned nations all had a very important role in the creation of the jewish state and they are responsible to see that Israel and the Arab Nations come through without destroying each other. Kind of funny, Jerusalem is the holyest city in the world, the birth place of Christianity and Judaism and the holyest cite outside of Mecca for the Muslims. BUT I feel that the muslims should have the least to say about what happens to Jerusalem. They knew that it was the home of Judaism, they knew what they were doing when they built the Dome of the Rock, they made the choice to essentially start this war when they built that shrine on the Wailing Wall. Christians were heavily persecuted, I don't see how the Romans can take all the blame for Jesus' death, the Jews had made the choice to have him killed also, but under Roman law they were unable to make that choice and had to ask the Romans for permission. That is my understanding of the Situation, that is not based on the bible, not based on the Hebrew Bible, it is based on the information I have seen on TV and the internet.
Alright, alright....Religion is a definit no-no in this topic....It has done nothing positive for this conflict. However, you stated somethings that are inaccurate, so let me respond:
Jerusalem is not the birthplace of judaisem, but it is the hlyest olace to the Jews. It is not the 2nd holy city of Islam, it is the 3rd(1- Mecca.2-Medina, 3 Jerusalem).
The Muslims were not intrested in Jewsih sentiment at the time. The Jews were scattered all over and no one could have gussed that the Jews would have such a massive national-awawaning....The war is not between Judaisem and Islam. It is between the Israeli Jews and the Arabs. There is no conflict between Islam and Jewdaism. Infact the 2 religions are much closer to each other in beliefs and structure than to Christianity.
What dose that have to do with anything? It has nothing to do with the conflict. Surely the Jews today have nothing to do with the Jewsih nobility in Jerusalem 2000 years ago...? Completely irrelevant to the current Middle East conflicts.
Jerusalem is not the birthplace of judaisem, but it is the hlyest olace to the Jews. It is not the 2nd holy city of Islam, it is the 3rd(1- Mecca.2-Medina, 3 Jerusalem).
The Muslims were not intrested in Jewsih sentiment at the time. The Jews were scattered all over and no one could have gussed that the Jews would have such a massive national-awawaning....The war is not between Judaisem and Islam. It is between the Israeli Jews and the Arabs. There is no conflict between Islam and Jewdaism. Infact the 2 religions are much closer to each other in beliefs and structure than to Christianity.
What dose that have to do with anything? It has nothing to do with the conflict. Surely the Jews today have nothing to do with the Jewsih nobility in Jerusalem 2000 years ago...? Completely irrelevant to the current Middle East conflicts.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Religion is, has been and will be used as a very big excuse for the conflict.
SHERMAN said:
If you will forgive me, Sherman, I have difficulty agreeing with that. If what I say about Israeli society is incorrect please feel free to correct me. In what is often an embittered and sour field of discussion you and the other contributors are to be complimented for your civility and open-mindedness. (Sorry, that's NOT meant to be patronising, but a expression of pleasure at finding these qualities on a discussion board.
)Israel is the "home of the Jewish people", the "Jewish State". It's Law of Return [have I got that right?] grants automatic entry and citizenship to any Jew in the world. From what I have gleaned over the years, I understand that it's civil laws give special status to the Jewish religion - Sabbatarianism, State financing of religious-based institutions (not to mention Settlor colonisation), residential zoning law favouritism and the like. It is, in short, a [strongly] religious state with secularist aspects; not the other way around. Yes, it does have a lot in common with its Arab neighbours in this respect.
I think that the British were wrong to play God and announce the Balfour Doctrine in 1917, or whenever. The land was not theirs to give away. Even when the UK had control of Palestine-TransJordan they had those territories under a League of Nations Mandate, that is they were Trustees only. The League Mandate became a UN Mandate when the latter organisation took the place of the former post-WWII.
It could be argued that the British failed miserably in their duties as Trustees, in allowing (if not encouraging) the Zionist programme to go ahead with such gusto. The then-inhabitants, the Palestinians (Muslims, Jews, Christians of all varieties), were not asked, their consent not sought and their protests and warnings ignored. Then, as Hitler's poisonous work spread out, and the thing started to get out of control with distinctly unwelcome political consequences, the British panicked and started belatedly to talk piously about their Mandate duties. Shiploads of Jewish refugees turned back to death and worse. A shameful era, with shameful roots.
Surely, if the State of Israel has any legitimacy, then it derives from that fragile UN [for which read, Great Power] compromise which partitioned the then-Palestine and brought the political state of Israel into being? Not from some quasi-racial-***-religious claim to Biblical Nationalism. It is a sad fact that the world teems with displaced peoples and supplanted religions. I cannot recall seeing any clear indication that the Palestinian "Arabs" are simply just that - a post-7th century mass influx of "alien" displacers of the indigenous people. I suspect that the situation is very much like N.Ireland or Bosnia: mostly ethnic Celts and Slavs who converted to another "alien" religion, and then rejected as anything other than foreigners by their original ethnic groups. DNA comparisons would be fascinating....
Anyway, the "it's our land, we were here first" argument is a dead-end. Sad but true.
Where does all this lead? While it is true that "the Arabs" were unremittingly hostile to the existence of the state of Israel from day one, I think that history has demonstrated that Israel has increasingly shown itself in an expansionist light. Not always the good guy with clean hands. As early as 1956 (the little Suez "preventive war" that got no mention in earlier posts) the Israelis conspired with the British and French to manufacture a war with Egypt and topple Nasser. A conspiracy that was then lied about in the British Parliament and elsewhere, but is now accepted as historical fact. (You'll find mention of it here - http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,918456,00.html . And here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis .)
The 1973 war was Arab "aggression". And the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1982 ("Operation Peace in Lebanon" I think it was grotesquely called)? Well, they were, er, "preventive wars".
The Arabs refuse to heed UN resolutions? Well, so does Israel - Jerusalem was also partitioned in 1948, remember?
Add all that to covert and not so covert land purchases and takeovers (in Christian and Arab parts of said Jerusalem, for example), illegal West Bank settlements, second class citizenship for "Palestinian" Arabs, state-sponsored Mossad terrorism and espionage, and now the East German style Wall now abuilding....
I paint all this in strong primary colours, with few tints and tones, you understand, so that you can see why it is always so hard to accept the official Israeli posture of victimhood and everlasting innocence. As a Briton, whose armed forces fought from Normandy to Belsen and beyond, and as someone born long after WWII, I don't believe in "blood guilt" (let's leave that mumbo-jumbo to Nazis and fundamentalist Christians) so - hard thing to say - intellectually I am not going to regard the Holocaust as a blanket excuse and basis for remorseless unrestrained ruthlessness against Israel's opponents.
That said, and given the precarious strategic position that Israel is in, the flawed democracy that one finds there is far more attractive than the societies of those who would destroy it. And it's culture and society more receptive to positive change and betterment. The least worst of the two.
Conclusion: Israel is an aggressor; one amongst many at the moment. It has some justification and right for a robust and aggressive defence posture. But it is nearing, and crossing in some cases, many of the boundaries that should sensibly and morally - and voluntarily - constrain its actions. If it does not, then it will universally be seen as the sole aggressor. Its friends will become powerless. Those most hostile to its existence will have won. Possesson of the Bomb will not stop these people.
Sorry for the length.......
Damien435
Active member
Quite frankly I think Israel was right, at least in the Six Days War, to attack their neighbors to protect them selves. They had Islamic leaders in their surrounding natons threatening to destroy Israel. They had called up their reserves, which was a huge strain on the economy, and could not keep the reserves on duty much longer, they had to either attack while they still had a slight advantge, or wait and hope that the inevitable attacks never came. What would you do if your nation was surrounded by hostile nations threatening to invade and erase you from existence, keep in mind that the Jews had suffered through the Holocuast, they experience first hand what it meant when someone threatened and went through with their planes to erase Judaism from the face of the earth.
Thanks. I do try to be as patient and open minded as possible(I am after all an Israeli and a Jew, so naturally, not objective)
Now, if I may, a compliment of my own. Your post was very thought out and intresting to read. Let me respond as I usually do, one section at a time.
Well, that has a slight problem(acctually a big one)....What is "jewish"? Is it a religion? Or a nationality? I believe it is both. You can be a Jew, with out being religios at all(example:me). Hence, one should try and look at the Law of Return as a pass for people of our natinality. It is like the son of an american, even if born outside the US, is automatically given US citizenship. Only we keep a much longer account of one's origins
.The Israeli civil law dose have influences from Jewish law, but this is only natural, as the population is Jewish...Israel is trying to completly take religion out of politics, but it is very diffecult(as in most countrys). The state gives funds and supervises Muslim religios ors 2, as part of the "Minstry of Religions". Note that it is "religions", not "religion". They also are incharge of church fundings and other things of the sort. It is by no means a strongly religious state, it is a state that has some religious aspects. The laws were made a long time ago, and are slowly changing. The laws about sabbath are not state laws. They are mostly municipal laws that consider the poulations feelings. Saturday is the official day of rest in Israel. So what? Other countrys have Sunday...All in all, Israel never was too religous, and it is getting more and more secular. To say that it is a highly religous state is absurd.
Well, the UK was not playing god at all. Palestine was under the turks when the Balfur Decleration was made. The British made the declaration(Basically saying they support a Jewish state in Palestine) for a few reasons. Firstly, they wanted the support of the Jewish bankers and buisnessmen. Secondly, they wanted to reward the Jews in Palestine who joined the British army. Third, the Jewish lobby in britain, including Dr Haim Wiseman(who developed explosives for the UK) ws preassuring the UK gov. The mandate was given to the UK after they took the area from the Turks, and the Mandate was for them to assist in the prepration for independence of palestine(not nessesarily as a Jewish state).
Well, firastly, the Arabs were very unhappy and made sure the Brits take note. As a result, very serious limits were made on Jewish immigration. The British did not allow immigrents in before WWII, not during WWII, and not after WWII. Almost all imigration was illigal. The Brits were not supporters of the zionists, and they helped both sides, depending on how the local British officer felt...When they left Palestine, they made sure key stratigic points are under arab controll, and infact Supplied arab nations with weapons. They baiscally trained the Jordanian arab legion, and some Jordanain units were comanded by former(?) british officers. The brits were very hostile to Israel, and air-combat even ocuerred once, resulting in the downing of 5 british planes.
Are you joking? Have you seen any Palesinian arabs lately? They are ofcourse of Arab decent. Some can tell you the year there tribe arrived from Saudi-Arabia. They have Arab facial features, they speak arabic, they have the same culture as the people in Iraq, Saudi and Jordan. The ones I know would take a great offence if you hinted they are not of Arab blood.
True, but than the Arabs should not be making it either. If they do, I can prove them wrong.
Oh well.....If you really want to discuss that war. Nasser nationalised the Suez cannal(only a few months before it was meant to be returned to egypt anyway). He then declared that the straits of Tiran are closed to Israeli shipping. This meant Israel would not recieve any supplies from the major port in Eilat. The Egyptians were reciving arms from the USSR. Thousends of tanks, houndreds of Aircrafts. Nasser made clear he will whipe Israel of the map....So, we attacked first...Big deal. We were not the agressors. We simply made the first move after it was obvious war is about to start.
Well, 1967 is again the same story as 1956. Both time sIsrael simply attacked first in what was already a war(Nasser had declared war before the Israeli attack, and again shut down Israeli shipping)...1982, well that was a big mistake. By the way, we did not attack first. Arab terrorists operated out of lebanon freely, attacking Israeli civilians. The Syrians were already in lebanon... We tryed(in what was a big miscalculation) to tip the balance in the Lebanese civil war back to the Christians, so that the Lebanese will stop terror attacks on Israel(and also in the way, we killed a bunch of terrorists, a good few thoused, if im not mistaken)...
Never said we dont. But we dont coplain about loosing wars we start....
remorsless? ruthles? we have done nothing that othe western nations at war havent. never have we acted unrestrained. and you are right, the holocaust has nothing to do with it. we are simply defending ourselves.
That is true. Our democracy has flaws. All democracys have flaws. Perfect nations exist in dreams only. I belive that considering the situation, Israel cannot afford more democracy right now.