GOP: Pakistan, India, Palestine, and Israel

[Dengen-Goroth]

Time to draw the line on this discussion. Is Isreal going to far with barring Arafat from moving from the acertaied city? And what can be done to ease the dilemma of the Isreal ad Palestine.

[daisy]

Create a state of Palestine - but where?

[daisy]

Also, we have to keep in mind that for the jews, it is a religious and spiritual issue not just a political issue - it is not, " Oh, let's just give them the West Bank and send them a fruit basket - a lot of people don't understand the reasons behind Israel's reluctance to give over any land to a Palestinian state.
So it is very complicated.

[Dengen-Goroth]

I want to bring forth a topic to the GoP which I have attempted to prior, and have been met with little success. In the current international forum there are a number of pressing topics, changes, and decisive failures. I will bring forth but two, both which are major players in foreign policy.
1. India Vs. Pakistan, the recent tensions which have seemingly subsided leave a residue of uncertainty, considering statements by President Musharef of Pakistan stating that Nuclear Weapons would be used in case of war, and the obvious retaliation from India. The testing of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads on both sides is also none to reassuring. My question I pose to you political masterminds is this; what should the major world powers do to quench this affair, if anything. President Putin of Russia has attempted a conference in Khazikstan that was not met well, but what more may be done.
2. Israel and Palestine, obviously there has been a great deal occurring here. Recently Israeli tanks have entered Ramallah yet again, following Arafat’s drastic change in Cabinet members and suicide bombings reaping death tolls which have not been witnessed since the withdrawal of Israeli forces in the recent months. Is America doing enough, and are the Western Powers. But more importantly, what are your ideas on a possible peace process, and how to achieve the long envisioned peace.

[Gloer]

starting from the more interesting one:

Israel and Palestine

This is far more interesting since there is a lot of history and contact between europe, USA and that area. What happens in India is not very interesting as long as it doesn't come here in person seeking asylum or as a radioactive cloud.:rolleyes:

Really the problem in Israel is a matter of 10 million poor people.
There are more poor people in Afghanistan.

The simpleton solution
UN/US occupation of the occupied areas
Ever since Netanyahu and Sharon have ruled Israel it has behaved like rogue state itself reacting violently to any provocation. Yet it is evident that Arafat has never had full control over the Palestinian factions especially the islamic fundamentalists.
How?
USA forces peace through arm bending the right wing of Israel to submission to occupation with guarrantees of influence.
What then?

A complex solution
We patiently wait for the both sides to get weary of continious bombing and occupation until the leader first try to stop it and then ignore it and start a slow process of peace talks. Hopefully this leads to understanding that to remain in control themselves the leaders need to show something that they can bring to people in exchange of authority. Especially Arafat needs to show that peaceful means will bring forth the Palestinian State. Sharon on the otherhand needs to get internal security from terror. A thing Arafat is not really controlling. Arafat needs yet to convince the islamists of Hamas again. And hten there are more issues such as the settlements.
It is a stupid issue since there are thousands of palestinians living in the area of Israel 1948 borders. An ethnic mix will do good in a longer run.

India Vs. Pakistan

I think this is a far less problematic issue than Palestine. It is as simple as a reason for a football hooliganism. It passes after the most resent game is forgotten.
Kashmir wants to separate it self to be an independent state in which the population is mainly muslim. Pakistan is encourageing this. It would be - and de facto has been - a buffer state between India and Pakistan. All conflicts between the two can be sportly resolved in the football field of Kashmir. The Pakis are represented by the Kashmir muslims and "a foreign legion", India has it's own troops.
Everything was allright until this Al Quaida thing. India saw it's chance, tripped and rolled in pain and agony calling for a red card for the "foreign legion" and a penalty kick to win an advantage. the ref (USA) did not manage to give but a yellow card that is mere warning. Now the players are all heated up kicking each other and rioting outside of the football field amongst the crowds (war extended outside of Kashmir) is a definite risk.

We need the riot police, but I do not know weather Kashmir even should be divided or independed. Could these two nations contain their skirmishess if there was no Kashmir?

[Legolam]

2. Israel vs Palestine

We patiently wait for the both sides to get weary of continious bombing and occupation

I don't think this will work. They've been at it for a very long time now and show no signs of even easing up, let alone stopping. There has to be a break of the stalemate that we have at the moment. Just now, it's all about reprisals from each side - a suicide bombing brings an incursion, which brings another bombing, and another occupation etc etc ad nauseum.

The international community has to do more to condemn BOTH sides. At the moment, the US are trying not to offend the small but vocal Jewish community in America and are supporting Israel, the Arab states are supporting Palestine and Britain are sitting on the fence trying not to offend anyone. The US and Britain in particular need to make themselves neutral in this and condemn both sides equally, then try to sort out some sort of diplomatic solution.

1. India vs Pakistan
This is calming down a bit now, but there is still the threat of nuclear war. The problem here is that neither side has enough nuclear weapons to completely annhilate the other. That was what kept America and Russia from each other's throats in the Cold War - the prospect of annhilation. There is actually a chance of a winner with India vs Pakistan.

Pakistan are much more likely to fire nuclear weapons first because they are vastly outnumbered with conventional weapons and the only chance they have in war is with a quick strike on India with nuclear bombs. However, neither side is fully aware of the effects of this. The general public there don't seem to realise the awful consequences of radiation and therefore support their governments wholeheartedly. I read somewhere that 85% of Indians were in favour of nuclear war. But 12 million people will die in this war.

The first thing to do is make Indians and Pakistanis see this.

[daisy]

can someone please tell me the difference between the WTC bombing and subsequent U.S. military aggression - defensive campaign in Afghanistan to rid it of Taliban, and Israel suffering through years of terrorism and defending itself against Hamas terrorist group? How come with the U.S. it is tolerated - their occupation and military action on a much larger scale in Afghanistan and Israel defending itself from Palestinian and Islamic fundamentalists is wrong and violent and must stop?
Israel is a democratic state in the middle of Arab non-democratic nations.
Holocaust=6 million Jews dead
With history like that, would you sit and take it?

Also, there is no Palestine. That is the problem.

[Ciryaher]

I agree with daisy. Israel has a right to strike terrorist networks inside Isreal. They most certainly have the right if the US has the right to go across the world to do the same thing, essentially.

When Arafat finally gets control of his own people, maybe the violence will at least decrease a bit.

As for India and Pakistan...hopefully Pres. Musharif can keep control of his people as well, and terrorists won't sneak across the border and instigate a war. It would be in both nations' interests to NOT use nuclear weapons; if Pakistan nuked a city like Bombay...we're talking millions upon millions of people killed. It would lead to the apocalyptic Third World War, to be sure.

[Legolam]

Holocaust=6 million Jews dead

Pardon my ignorance, but was that not Christians against Jews? You can dig up a million reasons why each race or religion should be at each other's throats right now. God knows, they've provoked each other enough.

The point is that the cycle of violence has to be broken. Both sides have got to sit up and realise that you can't perpetuate wars just because you feel like you still have to get one over on your enemy for something that happened years ago. I think the way to do this is condemn both sides.

I don't think America is doing enough to stop the Israeli incursions into Palestine held territory.

It would be in both nations' interests to NOT use nuclear weapons

My point on this was that each country has a chance to win if they strike first because they don't have the strength of the weapons that Britain or America have. The general public in India and Pakistan think that it is therefore in their interests to use the available weaponry

[ReadWryt]

...now what do you suppose woud have happened if the U.S. had told the U.N. that they could not send special investigators into Afghanistan to check out possible war crimes? Not that I'm dissagreeing with Isreal's right to defend itself from terrorist attack, just wondering what THAT was all about?? If Isreal had nothing to hide in the sites where they attacked Palestinians what ever would be the reason to deny third party observers to verify it for all the world?

I think that all the parties in the matter are guilty of a lot, and I'll tell you that my feeling about the conflict between India and Pakistan is being compounded by Al Queda and Taliban Islamists making big trouble in Kashmir, and Pakistan...feeling that they are the underdogs, are not discouraging this action because they would rather that, were they not to come into possession of the region, it at least become an Indipendent Islamic state. The great danger in this is not how threatened India might feel by this, as they have the superior numbers and conventional arms...but instead the fear on my part is that Pakistan, being industrially, militarily and fiscally inferior, feels that throwing a few nukes at their neighbor would level the playing field. This scare the beejeebers outta me!!

[daisy]

The Holocaust was as much about Christians versus Jews as the world Trade Centre bombing was about Muslims against Americans.

Remember? They were called NAZIS - this was thinly connected to Aryan Christianity, but Hitler also went after Orthodox Christians and Catholics who stood up to the horror.
Hitler had his world vision of the future that did not include anyone who was not in his, well, world view - that would have eventually included anyone not Aryan enough. I don't think Christianity really entered hid sick little mind, except as a tool to drum up support for the torment and opression of Jews by Germans, who did a great job of that , as did the Polish people, the Hungarians etc.

[Ciryaher]

I am totally against the thought that the Holocaust was Christians killing Jews. For one, it was not just Jews, but also Gypsies, Poles, Jehovah's Witnesses, Homosexuals, and the Handicapped. Second, Hitler used religion at first to attract members to his ranks (the usual "sent by God" ploy) but later was himself the godhead of the Nazi party and therefore the essential god to the German-Nazi people.

Anyways, back on the subject...did anyone watch the programme on the Discovery channel about the conflict in Israel/Palestine? It was very interesting, and gave an excellent overview of the recent history of the area after its conception after WWII.

[Legolam]

Israel is a democratic state in the middle of Arab non-democratic nations.
Holocaust=6 million Jews dead
With history like that, would you sit and take it?


Just to qualify what I said about the Holocaust, I was just wondering what daisy was getting at with her mention of it and why it related to Israel vs Palestine.

[Gloer]

made jews think: never again!
jews shall never again be weak nor give up without a fight - more never even give your enemy a chance to hit first, ever

that's the basic idea Israel survives on: first strike wins most often, don't wait, don't be a martyr, strike before they do!

even the Israeli developed martial arts form 'krav maga' follows first strike philosophy
krav maga claims there is no 'soft', philosophical side in it, nor any set of fixed rules but that is not true - in fact not possible
it is a martial arts form for military combat

the basic idea is:
- to preact or react to an attack - deflect it -
and strike idrectly back and try to eliminate your enemy or reduce his capabilety
in eastern martial arts the aim is often to divert the agression of the enemy of target or to his disadvantage, krav maga just eliminates

so with this survival attitude it is very hard to expect Israeli to patiently tolerate being terrorised constantly

[morning star]

I honestly don't believe there will be peace in Israel.

That is, Untill one major event happens.

[daisy]

Suicide bomber - another 19 dead. Palestinian children buy key chains and trading cards glorifying suicide bomber 'martyrs'. To paraphrase Golda Meir, there will only be peace in Israel when Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews.

[morning star]

I don't think that the Palestinians will ever stop sending suicide bombers, because their hate for Jewish and Christian people continues to grow, or so it seems to me. Untill something major happens, I think this will go on. Besides, they believe they will go to heaven for being a "martyr".

[Gloer]

Religion is a mere tool. What ever you believe in if anything - it will be used to use you.
As is culture and identity: Love thy neighbour and the leaders will tell you who your neighbours are and more importantly who is not.

It's all about property. Power to decide over the resources: things and people.

[Rangerdave]

As the inciteful Gloer so aptly put it, war is all about territory and economics. But war is also about the freedom of self-determination. In the case of Israel/Palastine and India/Pakistan, a strong case can be made to almost all the balme at the feet of the British Empire. After the end of the second world war, Great Britain no longer had the financial or military resources to maintain her colonies in India or in the middle east. As a result, they granted independence to India and created the state of Israel. The main problem with this is that they never consulted the local populations as to where borders would be established. The results were the root of these problems.

In the case of India, Pakistan was originally a divided country with modern-day Pakistan forming the western half, and Bagladesh forming the eastern half. Neither then Indians, Pakistani or Bangladeshi were allowed either a plebicite or electoral say in the British partition of India.

As for Israel, following the war, the Allies decided that a Jewish homeland must be created to atone for the atrocities of the holocaust. The zionist movement demanded the holy lands and the allies aggreed. The only problem to this solution is the local Arab/Palastinian/Muslim/Semitic population were forced to either relocate or submit to Israeli rule. Imagine if a foreign governmet came into your home town and said "Sorry lads, but push off. This is Isreal now and there's nothing you can do about it."

As a final note: on the subject of terrorism in the Palastinian/Israeli conflict. It should be remembered that the first major use of terror tactics in this area was from 1947-49. The more radical members of the Israeli expansionist movement used bombings, snipers and arson to drive the local populations out of the holy city. Zionist radicals learned to use terror under the persecution of the Pogroms In Imperial and Soviet Russia. They brought these tactics to Isreal with them. And as they learned from the Russians, so the Palastinians learned from them.

I should state that I abhor terrorism in any form, but when a population lacks the resources of a formal military and is denied the right of self-determination. Terror is one of the only available alternitives. Remember, Washington, Jefferson and their associates were all considered terrorists at one time. But if I might offer a word of advice to all aspiring terrorists out there, The quote I use for my signature holds true in this situation as well.

Thanks for letting me rant

RD

[DGoeij]

Currently, maniacs from both sides kill the innocent of both sides. Israeli's get ****ed off because another bus blew up, killing 19 innnocent people. Palestines get ****ed because another kid dies of a stray bullet, a pregnant woman and her baby die at an Israelic checkpoint because they're not allowed to go trough, and then an Iraelic family is butchered in their home.

Maybe you can imagine I find the whole situation quite boring. I suggest we start giving each side points for each kill. First to reach a hundred thousand wins and can keep the stinking piece of desert.
Maybe we should also reward kills differently. Male, one point, woman two points, children three points. Religious maniacs, a hundred points (both sides have plenty of those, so aiming for the right ones pays off).

No, that isn't very nice, but I am 22 years old, and ever since the day I can understand news (on TV or in the paper) I can't remember a single month without people dying over there. The whole world is overly biased over the issue anyway, so I'm not expecting any progress the coming 22 years either. Yitzak Rabin stood a fair chance of bringing peace into the region, but he was shot. On the moment, the only future I see, is turning the place into a chemical waste dump.

I know of the historical background, I know of the killing, I don't know what to do. The only thing I do know, is that a lot of people very similar to me and my family live in fear that they will not meet over supper today. I hate that.

[morning star]

my very first post in this thread is what I'm talking about.



Notice I did not say those reasons are the only reasons.
Take ww2 Hitler for example. He didn't like the Jewish people and he was land and power greedy.

Soooo, not every war is or was just because one reason, but they are because of several reasons, or usually are.

[morning star]

Originally posted by morning star
I don't think that the Palestinians will ever stop sending suicide bombers, because their hate for Jewish and Christian people continues to grow, or so it seems to me. Untill something major happens, I think this will go on. Besides, they believe they will go to heaven for being a "martyr".

[DGoeij]

Those suiced bombers are just as impossible to stop for the Israelis as tanks and F-16 bombers are to Palestines.
The maniacs on both sides are happy with it. An external enemy is great, you don't have to deal with internal critique.

[morning star]

Is it just me or does any one else think Aarafat is a terrorist, or is at least involved in terrorism?

[DGoeij]

In the years before they gave him the Nobel prize for Peace he might have been. Today? I don't care much if you consider that Sharon had dealings with serious war crimes, before he became prime minister. Besides, if you call one a terrorist mostly depends on your frame of reference. Freedom Fighter is another term, but sometimes they are both used for the same person.
In both sides those who wish for real peace don't have much to say today.

[morning star]

ok, so Sharon is just supposed to sit by and watch his people get killed??
I believe that Aarafat wouldn't keep any kind of peace treaty unless Israel would give up all its land, and still there would be suicide bombers.

[morning star]

so what i meant to say last time is that no matter what Aarafat wouldn't keep a peace treaty at all. no matter what.

[DGoeij]

Meaning Arafat has any saying in which young man blows himself up, when and where?
On both sides people get killed, I hope you see that.

[morning star]

Yes, I see. But, Israel is just defending themselves. palestinians are attacking the civilians of Israel. the Israelis are trying to attack the terrorists, or the people responsible.
A lot more israelis have been killed than Palestinians.

[Ciryaher]

I think Arafat has lost control of his people, for the most part. There's not much he can do to stop the fanatics, since they'd just say he was conspiring with "the Zionist infidels."

The Israelis are justified in their retaliation...but neither side is doing anything but getting people killed. The conflict is going nowhere fast.

[morning star]

I think the Palestinians need a new leader.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by morning star
I think the Palestinians need a new leader.

Palestine does not need a new leader, Palestine need A leader. Arafat has never spoken for the majority of the population of the Trans-Jordan.

But whatever either side does, I pray that the United States, Great Britain, Russia and other nations have the sense to stay out of it. Any direct military aide to Israel will only bring about fundamentalist reprisals from the more radical Islamic groups. Military or financial aide to the Palestinians will result in charges of Anti-Zionist and associations with the monstrous Third Reich.

This whole mess started when Churchill, Stalin and Truman thought that they could arbitrarily set the borders of nations and determine the lives of people they had no intention of governing. The big three made matters worse by taking definite sides in the Suez Crisis of 57. Hopefully they have learned their lessons.

As for the comment that Palestinians have killed more than the Israeli's. I have been able to find any verifiable evidence to support this claim. In fact Massad SOP often calls for the "disappearing" of not only the perpetrator, but his/her family as well.

There is no easy solution, but the solution must be found diplomatically and without outside interference. Every US president since Truman and every Prime Minister since Churchill has tried to settle the problems of the Middle East. All have failed. They failed because both sides are unwilling to compromise. Nothing will ever be accomplished until Sharon (sp?) follows the precedent that Blair set in Ireland. The Good Prime Minister did not solve the problem, but he made a peaceful solution that much closer.

Just a rant: ignore if you choose
RD

[DGoeij]

I find it difficult to see the Palestines as the bad-guys in the story.
After 35 years of suffering under occupation by armed forces, I'd say they have a right to speak up. No way you can justify suicide bombers killing civillians that is more than disgusting, but try to justify tankgrenades destroying houses, schools, mosques (that is the equivelant of a church) and even hospitals. Try living under a week-long curfew. Palestines are suffering as bad from that as the Isrealic who live under the fear of suicide bombers.
Off course the maniacs who are the cause of the mayhem make sure they stay out of the way, but the average civillian lives with the mess. Either living in Tel Aviv or Hebron.
And as a bystander from Europe, I'm not allowed to be critical. If I'm critical about the Palestines, I hate Muslims and I am just trying to sooth my conscience because of the holocaust. If I'm critical about the Isrealis, I'm a nazi and my old hatred of jews has come up again.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by DGoeij
...as a bystander from Europe, I'm not allowed to be critical. If I'm critical about the Palestines, I hate Muslims and I am just trying to sooth my conscience because of the holocaust. If I'm critical about the Isrealis, I'm a nazi and my old hatred of jews has come up again.

Of course you are not a Nazi, neither are you a terrorist. But right-minded people like the majority of people in the world are branded into these groups by the more radical and reactionary elements of this fight. The simple truth is that on both sides, the problems are propagated by the minority. These hyper-dogmatic revisionists refuse any compromise on any point. Since they are unable to bend, they resort to the defense of labeling their enemies, even if the labels are false.

In my personal life, I often speak out about the failings of government in the United States, does this make my unpatriotic? Of course not. But hyper-conservative elements like the followers of Rush Limbaugh or Pat Bucchanan would think so.

My point is my last post was that the extreme elements of the Israeli/Palestinian crisis control nearly all the press coverage of the event. When the moderate elements regain control of their respective elements, then and only then can an end to the crisis be found.

Any moron can strap on explosives and get on a bus.
You can train monkeys to drive a tank.

What they need is to change the focus from these "not so smart bombs" and bring the power of governance back to the governed.


Hope this makes sense
RD

[DGoeij]

It does. But before a substantial majority of either the Palestinians or Israelic population sees the sense in it, a lot more people will have died.

Apparently the only thing I can do is hope the fire doesn't spread to other countries. If it hasn't already done that. Here in the Netherlands, people are threathen individuals who let a Palastinian flag hang from their balcony, and in protest marches against the violence in the Middle East, people show signs in which the jewish star is compared to a swastika.
That was a couple of moths ago, but somehow I keep the feeling that below the surface there's a lot of anger and hate boiling upwards. Even in our quiet, cold and wet little country.

[Chymaera]

There was a time not too long ago when Israel and Palistine were on the edge of a settlement. Now the leadership has change and all is undeclared war. When Mature people sit down at the table to talk peace my great hope is that a solution can be reached. Where is the maturity?

[morning star]

people are worth more than buildings

[Legolam]

Originally posted by RD
As for the comment that Palestinians have killed more than the Israeli's. I have been able to find any verifiable evidence to support this claim.

On the news last night I heard that the latest death toll is 600 Israelis:1500 Palestinians in the two years since the uprising.

[Beleg]

Neither then Indians, Pakistani or Bangladeshi were allowed either a plebicite or electoral say in the British partition of India.

The Radcliffe award was the one which decided the boundries of the newborn countries and which planted the whole Kashmir dispute.