Palestenians in the Church of the Nativity...

[Thoran]

To add to what John Harris corrected of Mr. Rabbits statement... and as I stated earlier in this very thread... the Arabs were not the origonal "owners" of that particular chunk of the earth. If you were to look at ancestral claim to the region the Jewish people would EASILY and indesputably have the most valid claim .

I guess what bothers me about the analyses I'm reading is the reliance on 'will'. Superior training I understand, superior numbers I understand... and superior technology- that I definitely understand. But 'Will'... it's a pretty etherial concept. I understand the "back against the wall" desperate defense... but in the end military doctrine is very formulaic, and it hasn't changed much since Sun Tsu set out the basic guidelines. For just about every confrontation the Israeli's have faced, they've had many advantages... stragegic, tactical, and technological. I can't help but think that many of those advantages no longer exist... and 'will' can't yet stop a bullet, bomb or missile.

I personally hope they can reach a peaceful resolution, I certainly don't want to be proven right on this. I believe that the idea that Arabs don't have the will to fight is a dangerous assumption... they've proven able to fight for extended periods with each other (Iran/Iraq), and Saddam was more than willing to fight against a US coalition that was 750 thousand strong. IMO the only thing that's saved the Israeli's until now is the inability of the Arab countries to agree on ANYTHING... yet today we hear Iraq and Iran both recommending a one month oil embargo (a pointless gesture, but it's the cooperation that concerns me).

[ 04-08-2002, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Mellagar]

After World War Two the British had the problem of where to put all the Jewish people who had survived the war. The Jewish people up until this time had no real designated place they called their own country, in fact they didn't have one at all. So the British told them that they had two choices, either they can have lands in Africa, or Palistine, mainly because Africa and Palestine at the time were under British authority. The Jews took Palestine, and Palestinian people were basically homeless overnight. However something I have not seen discussed is the fact that the Jewish people, and the Palestinians bombed the British bases to push them out of the country. Eventually the British decided the area wasn't worth the aggrevation and left the two to their own discord. Since then the Jewish people and the Palestinians have been going at it left and right. So in turn neither the Palestinians nor the Jewish people are the saviors or the villains. The Palestinians want the lands that were taken from them back, and the Jewish people want to keep it only because of its religious value. Seems only to me that religion is the terrorist here. Otherwise, would any of this really be occuring?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Thoran: To add to what John Harris corrected of Mr. Rabbits statement... and as I stated earlier in this very thread... the Arabs were not the origonal "owners" of that particular chunk of the earth. If you were to look at ancestral claim to the region the Jewish people would EASILY and indesputably have the most valid claim . I guess what bothers me about the analyses I'm reading is the reliance on 'will'. Superior training I understand, superior numbers I understand... and superior technology- that I definitely understand. But 'Will'... it's a pretty etherial concept. I understand the "back against the wall" desperate defense... but in the end military doctrine is very formulaic, and it hasn't changed much since Sun Tsu set out the basic guidelines. For just about every confrontation the Israeli's have faced, they've had many advantages... stragegic, tactical, and technological. I can't help but think that many of those advantages no longer exist... and 'will' can't yet stop a bullet, bomb or missile. I personally hope they can reach a peaceful resolution, I certainly don't want to be proven right on this. I believe that the idea that Arabs don't have the will to fight is a dangerous assumption... they've proven able to fight for extended periods with each other (Iran/Iraq), and Saddam was more than willing to fight against a US coalition that was 750 thousand strong. IMO the only thing that's saved the Israeli's until now is the inability of the Arab countries to agree on ANYTHING... yet today we hear Iraq and Iran both recommending a one month oil embargo (a pointless gesture, but it's the cooperation that concerns me).

Ok Thoran,
Now I see where you are coming from, I guess it a matter of symantics. BY "will" I mean desire, fortitude, comittment, not an emomtional comittment of "thats mine". But rather an intellectual comittment of no matter what comes I will prevail, I will not lose. It is indeed etheral, or intangible.
As for the Arabs fighting each other, Iran/Iraq war when both side are fighting half way it looks like they are both fighting for real.
Having an army in the field, and using it are two seperate things. If you have an army and are not willing to do what is necessary to make it the best you lack the "will". The Israelis understand the only porpose for an army is to kill their enemy. Its not to look good in iniform, or on paper but to win wars. Tactic haven't changed, I agree, but tactics are for generals. On the ground and in the mud it's the "will" of the indivdual to pervail that overcomes.
You're right "will" can't stop a bullet, but it is what delivers it! Anyway that my 2 cents.
John D.

[Thoran]

The land was actually taken away from the Turks by the British (not the Arabs). The Arabs had possession of the land from 600ad until the Turks took over around 1500ad. Of course the Arabs origonally took the land by Conquest... before that the Romans had it (again by conquest), and before that guess who Ruled... the Jews! (for over a thousand years)

So... the idea that Arabs have some right of ownership over that land is simply not supported by history.

[flibulzbuth]

It's a very interesting topic, but i'm sorry to say i hadn't the heart to read everyone's opinion.

I just wanted to say that we north americans have very biased media coverage of middle-east.

To convince yourselves of it, and to have some other media ressources,here are some links:

fairness and accuracy in media reporting. Analyze media coverage in the U.S. Alarming...:
www.fair.org

Znet, up-to-date essays on politic. Contain most, or all, of Noam Chomski's works and speeches.
www.zmag.org

The Independent. Can't say much yet, seems left-winged. But Robert Fisk (specialist of the arab world, the only one to have interviewed Bin Laden) makes frequent contributions:
www.independent.co.uk

Also, try this one for video and audio reports:
www.freespeech.org