Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
quote:
|
Uh, magik are you forgetting the illegal settlements on land that is supposed to belong to palestine? What is that if not conquest of land albiet behind a thin facade.[/qb][/QUOTE]
Did you read my very first post? I would say that you ought to. It covers that issue quite well. There are no "illegal settlements" unless you call all the arab settlements and cities on Jewish land illegal as well. Basicly the Jews did not evict the arabs from the lands that were given to them, and There is no legitimate reason to evict the jews on the west bank or the Gaza. The steps taken by Israel in 1967 were provoked, justifiable and reasonable in my mind, they had already been attacked twice by the combined might of the Arab League, how many times must they allow the Arabs to try and push them into the sea, without becomming a proactive nation instead of a reactive one? Please, do read the report [img]smile.gif[/img] I worked hard on it [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Again - one last time - the action taken by Israel in 1967 was the annexing of land. They had originally taken much more, but then retreated to Golan Heights, Gaza, and West Bank, the occupied territories. Living there, controlling Palestinians there, acting as a sovereign there, and settling there is... let me say it once more only... ILLEGAL. Oh, hell let me drive it home:
il·le·gal Pronunciation Key (-lgl)
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules.
Illegal under the UN Charter and many other treaties, though most all others get absorbed by the UN Charter, which I'm probably gonna end up posting here some day to get the class to pay attention.
That's why they don't call it "New Israel." That's why they make excuses regarding these lands. Everyone knows it was illegal. It is tantamount to annexation. It is the conquest of land - whether or not behind a thin facade.
Maybe you think it *should be* legal, like some people think [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] should be legal, but it's not. What's worse, unlike the aforementioned drug law, this law applies to Israel for one reason only, the same one reason the UN Charter applies to any nation: THEY SIGNED AND AGREED TO IT. So, it's not just illegal, it's also the breaking of an oath, a bond.
Would it be nice if Israel could keep the land as a "buffer zone?" Well, maybe, and they do. But, I'm sure Pakistan thinks Kashmir would make a great "buffer zone," but it doesn't mean they own it (of course in that situation at least the location of the border is in dispute, whereas with Israel it's all very clear).
The peace between Egypt, the original 1967 instigator who was set invade, and Israel has worked out well, even though they *hate* each other. Maybe something like that perhaps.
But, I see this as one of the world's everlasting conflicts. From the European world's point of view (and I include it's imperial offshoots of like mind, government, and economy), it's the story of the Crusades going on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseum. From the middle eastern point of view, it's more like the continuation into the modern day of the old testament stories of once-tribal peoples chasing each other all around the subcontinent and taking turns enslaving each other.
Someone mentioned the Romans and that rowdy "Christ" cult. I'm not saying it was in reference to the relative age of Christianity vis-a-vis Muslinism, but if it was let's try to remember that Muslinism did come much later in time that Judaism, and in fact is a spin-off of Christianity. The point... erm, rather question, I'm getting around to here is one as to the religious vs. ethnic source of the fued. Isn't this fued so old and long-lasting due more to historically ethnic reasons rather than religious ones? I guess I'm not to up-to-speed on the birth of Muslinism, and maybe I should shut up now before I show my ignorance on that particular topic.
