would israel preemptively attack?

[hrothgar]

For the record, it isn't like a country called Palestine existed and then the mean world decided to break it up and give part to the jews. The British were in control and could damn well do what they like with it.

 

....

 

Should we give all the US back to native americans because of the way they were treated 3 centuries ago?

Grow up Todd.

 

Its ridiculous to claim that the native inhabitants of the territories that we now call Palestine and Israel have no rights because they were conquered by the Turks and later the French and the British. The European colonial model worked very well for a time, but the French, the British, the Belgian, and the Boers were forced out of their colonial possessions. In some cases, like India, there was a largely peaceful transition. In others (Vietnam, Algeria) the transition required a long and bloody struggle. Israel is one of the last European colonies. I don't think that its going to fare much better than Rhodesia...

 

As for your claims about the United States: The great difference between the United States and Israel is that "we" did a much better job of ethnic cleansing. Most of the dirty work was done by disease rather than military force, however, the US government was also willing to help things along with a opportune delivery of smallpox ridden blankets or a well timed massacre.

 

Even so, I believe that the US government should be doing a lot more for Native Americans. I'm a firm believer in the so-called "Buffalo Commons", which advocates letting large parts of the Great Plains go fallow

[Winstonm]

Let me ask this knowledgeable group a question or two. I have to rely on reading, but that reading suggests that until Israel was created there was tension but not outright hate coming from the Arab world.

 

So what is the the basis of the conflict? Is it religious based, Islam verses Judaism? Is it culture based? Is it ethnicity based? Or is it land based?

 

When the Palestinians rejected the U.N. division offer and Israel declared its independence, the Arabs attacked - was this because of hatred of the Jews as a people? Was this an attempt at genocide? Or was it simply a land battle?

 

I wonder if the problem within Israel is not so different than the problems within Iraq, Iran, or most other middle eastern countries in that you have a ruling party dominated by a segment of a religion or culture - Jew verses Palestinian in Israel, Sunni verses Shiia in Iran and Iraq and elsewhere.

 

Israel has a large problem within its borders, i.e., the significant Palestinian population still living there. They cannot nationalize them and incorporate this segment into the country itself without losing much control and in effect becoming Un-Israel; they cannot force them out of the country without appearing to be no better than Pharoah letting the Jews wander off into the desert; and by keeping them under their thumb financially and politically they cause resentment, anger, and hostilities throughout the region.

 

Truly a difficult problem with no simplistic answers.

 

The great difference between the United States and Israel is that "we" did a much better job of ethnic cleansing. Most of the dirty work was done by disease rather than military force, however, the US government was also willing to help things along with a opportune delivery of smallpox ridden blankets or a well timed massacre.

 

Remember, too, that the U.S. over time created an overwhelming population advantage - it is much easier to eliminate the few than the many.

[pbleighton]

"Let me ask this knowledgeable group a question or two. I have to rely on reading, but that reading suggests that until Israel was created there was tension but not outright hate coming from the Arab world."

 

Yes. Or to put it another way, Muslims treated Jews badly, but Christians treated them worse.

 

"So what is the the basis of the conflict? Is it religious based, Islam verses Judaism? Is it culture based? Is it ethnicity based? Or is it land based?"

 

All of the above, but it was IMO primarily the rage of the displaced - land.

 

Religion has done what it normally does in conflicts - act as an accelerant, and as a complicating factor in any solution.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Call an Egyptian an arab. Or an Iranian, or a Syrian etc. etc. They will all claim to not be "arabs" which in their eyes are nomads and itinerants with little or no social standing.

 

Warfare and rivalry existed long before the Ottoman conquest of the middle east. The Europeans that carved up the territory were extremely politically motivated. Fundamentalism is the first "unifying" force in this region since Mohammed (The turks held it together by main force....) Forewarned is fore armed.

[Winstonm]

Call an Egyptian an arab. Or an Iranian, or a Syrian etc. etc.  They will all claim to not be "arabs" which in their eyes are nomads and itinerants with little or no social standing.

 

Warfare and rivalry existed long before the Ottoman conquest of the middle east.  The Europeans that carved up the territory were extremely politically motivated.  Fundamentalism is the first "unifying" force in this region since Mohammed (The turks held it together by main force....) Forewarned is fore armed.

It would seem to me that a part of the solution would be no different in this part of the world as in others - and that being greater economic and educational evenness.

 

When you have a polarization between rich and poor, the poor grope for reasons to justify their meager existence, and therefore are the perfect set up for extreme fundamentalist pitching their wares.

 

On the other hand, when an area or country has a vast and somewhat comfortable middle class, a small poor class and a small rich class, the majority then is less compelled to look for reactionary solutions to non-existent problems - life isn't so bad.

 

We may have witnessed a metamorphisis that has changed the opiate of the mases into the crack cocaine of the downtrodden.

[Al_U_Card]

Someone who has nothing to lose....will risk it every time. The end result is always violence.

[mike777]

All we are saying....is give peace a chance

[pbleighton]

"All we are saying....is give peace a chance"

 

I think there will be peace in the Middle East.

 

Very unlikely in the next 20 years, though.

 

The more people act as if "well, if it's not in the next 20 years, screw it, let's just kill", the longer it will be. The longer it is, the more likely nuclear war becomes.

 

The hawks on both sides are crazy, just as the hawks in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were crazy when we almost had a nuclear war over Cuba.

 

Kennedy and Kruschev pulled back from an acute crisis. The present Middle East crisis is not acute, it is long and drawn out, and therefore more difficult to resolve. Crisis may not be the right word.

 

Peter