h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There is clearly no hope for any peace between the Palestinisns and Israelis. Each side doesn't recognixe the other's right to exist. Foreign intervention isn't working. Neither side is listerning. Given this, The American government aas well as it's private corporations has poured MILLIONS of dollars into the arming of Israeli soldiers and to the lesser extent, into arming the Palestinians. If this cash flow towards armaments were to cease, perhaps then there would be no weapons in which to kill one another. Impose an embargo to these people. Cut off their trade relations and stop supporting them. Bush is too afraid of offending his electorate. There are people on both sides who want peace but noone is listening to them. Religious wars are purely errational, fought by fundementalists with only one purpose- Oabliterate the other side. And that is exactly what is happening. How many Suicide maryrs have to die before Sharron realizes that these people are willing to blow themselves up in order to take their place in the Higher Order. And why is he so surprised that they do it day after day? There have been far more Psalestinians killed in these conflicts than Israelis. As the tanks roll into the West Bank , refugee camps etc. The Israeli people go about their business enjoying outdoor cafes and markets and then when their area are attacked ,they are in disbelief. Get a grip both peoples, you reap what you sew!

One of the big problems here is the biased attitude of the west in favour of the Israelis. Bush refuses to talk to Arafat because he's a "terrorist", but he happily talks to Sharon, named by the Israeli government's report at the time as the man directly responsible for the massacres at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1982. We are told that the main issue is the suicide bombers; but if you are a Palestinian the main issue is the continuing dispossession of Palestinans to make way for Israeli settlements. Ever wondered why the Palestinians have refugee camps in their own country? The Isralis agreed to stop this in 1994, but broke their word from day one. Yet we are told that that the problem is that Arafat doesn't keep his word. Likud (the Israeli government party) has recently voted to oppose the creation of an independent Palestine, but it is reluctant to state openly what it thinks the future status of the occupied territories should be. In that context Israeli demands that the Palestinians disarm themselves as a precondition of any talks are unlikely to inspire the sort of trust that is required to make talks possible or meaningful. The international community has to make it plain to the Israelis that it will not tolerate this situation. But I fear that the "war on terrorism" is only to be fought against some terrorists, not others.

i tottally agree with eerything you say. The Bush administration sems to have forgotten or ignored what has happened in the past. As I said before. he is too afraid to infuriate his electorate. All promises by the Israelis have been broken yet they are quick to blame Arafat for ill faith. I,m sick of hearing SNew york accents on the media say9ing that arafat's peoples are at fault. I don't hear any representatives of the Palestinian people speaking as immigrants. These spokespersons have been there from the beginning. I do believe that Arafat wants peace and am tired of the Isralis saying otherwise. I say this to the Israeli Govt. Get off your arrogant horse and realize that Palestine has a right to exist just as yourselves. Centuries ago there was co-existance. Up until Israel became a seperate entity, both parties co-existed in a peaceful manner. How possibly can the Israelis be surprised at the Paletinian outcry of "get Out". Sharon and his pre-dessesors have treated them as non-citizens, not worthy of existence in their own land. While I don't condone young Suicide Bombers, I somewhat understand where they are coming from.

It's easy to call for peace when you have everything you want, which is the situation that the Israelis are in, Everything, that is, except peace.

And some Israelis are prepared to allow a Palestinian state in the bits of the land which they don't want, provided that they get to keep Jerusalem, the water, and the lion's share of illegal settlements. And they can't understand why the Palestinians won't accept it.

I've said this before, but what Arafat needs to do is to try to persaude Hamas et al (which I don't believe he controls) not to attack civilians, and I don't understand why he hasn't done this. If the Palestinains target the Israeli military and (illegal) settlements, and leave civilian areas and targets alone, they can try to claim what little moral high ground there is. They'd be guerillas, not terrorists.

But there's many on the Palestinian / Arab side that don't want there to be an Israel at all. But I'm confident that their support would fall away with the creation of a proper, democratic Palestinian state (rather than the current unpleasant Palestinian authority), and some economic prosperity for the common people.

Otto

The conflicts that continue to plague the region are nothing new;
Look at history. In the King James Old Testament you'll find hundreds of references from thousands of years ago. Whether it was Samson slaying Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, the destruction of the city of Jericho, David and Goliath, etc. Move on to the Middle Ages and the Crusades; more conflict. The work of "peace makers" somehow doesn't click with the people in that area for some odd reason. Most of these examples are based on religion.
Whether, God, Allah, Buddah or whomever, I don't believe any wants people to kill in their NAMES. But, I can't speak for a Supreme Being.
The saddest part of the whole Middle East is that other nations (US/UK/Russia...) all have their 2 pents thrown into the mix.
Personally, I believe some form of conflict will always plague that region and it's probably best for outsiders to leave it alone.
If "major world powers" would take away all the weapons the Israelis and Palestinians have, they would not work things out, they'd resort to stoning one another. So, why not back off, let them do what they will and let the UN clean up the mess when it's all over!

Countries outside of the region(in particular the U>S> and Russia) should stop supplying them with the arms in which they continue to kill each other with. Yes perhaps then they may be armed with mere stones. Unfortunately, thanks to outside intervention, they have been fed the technology in which to carry on their armed dispute without the help of others. /the devil be damned attitued. The Israeli government seems to have forgotten how they got into power in the first place they were once terrorists themselves and perhaps still remain so! Arrafat may have lost his credibility but not (in my eyes) because he doesn't want peace) but because peace isn't happening fast enough for young militants. I believe that he is still the best Palestinian to hold negotiations with because he as a history of negotiation in good faith. He has remained the leader of the Palestinian people while the government of Israel constantly changes.

Otto - what's the difference between a 'civilian area' and an 'illegal settlement'?

'210 - so you're saying the world should stand back, watch one side obliterate the other, then step in to bury the thousands of dead civilians with clean hands?

Gif

Re. The religious aspect of this conflict.

Sure it´s a very religious area and therefor it has it´s bearings in the conflict. As far as Israel goes, they claim a Godgiven historical right to the area, but Israel as a society is very secular, exept for the orthodox jews (Hasidic). Theese gyus don´t even accept the state of Israel until The Saviour comes back to declare it as such, and they are often the most energetic settlers. Also it was one of those who killed Rabin and another one who massacred several arabs in a mosque some years ago; oh..and some weeks ago 4 of theese young people were caught before they carried out their plan on bombing a Palestenian girlsschool; but only bacause one of them couldn´t help bragging about their plan to a familymember who then called the police ( which goes to show that there are decent people among settlers also). THEESE GUYS ARE DANGEROUS.

On the Palestenian side I have never heard anyone speaking of an Allahgiven right to the area, only a legal claim to live where they have lived the last hundred years. Arafat have always said this was a political struggle. Then there are the freedomfighting(terrorist?)/rligious branch of the struggle with Hamas et. al. but I see that more like what is happening in Ireland where IRA often are strong believers and there is a political and a freedomfighter(terrorist?)/religious branch. It helps to have a God when you blow people and places up and risk your own life I guess.

As for the suggestion of just letting them slaughter each other and then go in an clean up : You have your (godgiven (couldn´t help that) ) right to that wievpoint, but isn´t it a little too immature and easy way of looking at the world?

Just asking really


T´mershi Duween.

"The Israeli people go about their business enjoying outdoor cafes and markets and then when their area are attacked ,they are in disbelief. Get a grip both peoples, you reap what you sew!"

Does the statement above remind anyone else of the WTC attacks? Maybe to support the "war on terrorism" the US government is trying to be consistant. If arabs are "bad" bacause of one attack they're "bad" for any other attack?


otto - "I've said this before, but what Arafat needs to do is to try to persaude Hamas et al (which I don't believe he controls) not to attack civilians"

Again above, how long did it take before it was reported that most people in the recent bus attack (exploding car) were military? How many other suicide bommings killed military personel. It's not like the Palestinians are well armed like the Istaelis to launch a military conflict.

" If "major world powers" would take away all the weapons the Israelis and Palestinians have, they would not work things out, they'd resort to stoning one another. So, why not back off, let them do what they will and let the UN clean up the mess when it's all over!"

One more above. I live in a country where firearms a strictly controlled and most including hand guns are out-of-the-question illegal. The result is if you intend to commit a violent crime you have to be ready for the possibility that the intended victim is likely to do you an injury. In short people hide behind guns. You would find much fewer people willing to risk "stoning one another"

<>

I agree, but no-one has noted the obscene disparity of weaponry. US sponsorship of Israel amounts to one or two BILLION dollars per year, and has given the Israelis a modern, well-equipped army. In contrast, the vast majority of Palestinian weapons are hand-held firearms and (as mentioned above) stones. With these they must fight Israeli/US tanks, jet fighters and helicopter gun-ships.

The suicide bombers *are* martyrs for their country and their people (but not for their faith, IMO). I acknowledge their despair and salute their bravery.

Let the Israelis withdraw their citizens, soldiers and civilians, behind their 1967 borders, and I will support them wholeheartedly. Until then, Israel and the USA must surely be the primary enemies of peace and democracy on the planet.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Quite so. Meaningful negotiation is negotiation between equals. Ergo, an independent Palestine, or guarentee of same, is a precondition of meaningful talks.

pattern chaser- I agree that the Palestinian bombers are Martyrs but their statement is not religious but political Hold on! In this conflict, I can't see how one is not related to the other. SYou applaud their bravery! They may be brazen but have you noticed that the average age of the suicide bomber is under twenty? They are being used by the older ones to make a point. To die a a martyr for a cause isn't necessarily a BAD THING BUT ARE NOT SOME OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE BEING FED THE PARTY LINE? I agree that Palestinians should have their own country but blowing up ones self and others, is not the way to go about out it. Some episodes of braverry may also be interpreted as Stupidity as well as an exercise in futility.

<>

Oh yes, I'm sure they are. But not just to "make a point" - you have the right idea, but the words you choose drastically underestimate the importance of what's going on. The Palestinians are fighting for the survival of their country and their identity. In extremis, they are almost certainly 'nudging' their young people in the direction of the ultimate sacrifice. What are we doing when we send our young men off to war? This is just a bit more direct.

<>

Put yourself in the situation of the Palestinian people. You were invaded over thirty years ago. All efforts to expel the invaders have failed. Efforts by other countries to act are blocked in the UN Security Council by the veto of the most powerful nation on earth, who finance, train and sponsor your enemy. You are fighting with rifles and stones against missiles, armoured vehicles and aircraft.

The only weapon you have that seems to have had some effect is so-called suicide bombers. Will you use them or not? Your moralising is all very well, but do you have an alternative that the Palestinians could use instead?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Is this a debate or just Israel-bashing? Let me try and counter some of the accusations levelled at Israel.

Firstly, there is no Western Bias towards Israel. The European Media, and the European countries (including the EU), are clearly pro-Palestinian; just listen to Prodi or Chris Patten talk on the matter, and consider the historic and oil-money interests that Europe is focused on.

Secondly, the suicide bombers - whether you call the martyrs or not - are actually murdering terrorists; killing men, women and children. This is not legitimate struggle - it is cold-blooded murder, pure and simple.

Thirdly, why should Israel concede anything to the PA, which directly supports the murder of Israeli citizens by the bombers (the PA is alleged to have used EU money to buy bomb equipment, for example)? Would you give control of territory to people who have sworn to destroy you at any cost? If I was an Israeli citizen, I would balk at such a suggestion.

Fourthly, the IDF takes far more care not to harm citizens, than, say, the US in Afganistan. Of course, when Palestinian youths are forced on to the streets to act as cover for gunmen, some are going to get hit. When gunmen fire from the homes of citizens, some are going to get hit.

The Palestinians are not fighting for the survival of their country. They never have had a country, and the land in which they have lived, and live now, has never belonged to them as a nation. They ceded the majority of the land to Israel, individually, at the behest of the other Arab nations in 1948 when the State of Israel was declared. They left their land under the promise of the other Arab countries that they would get it back when Israel was swept into the Red Sea. Jordan (actually Trans-Jordan at the time) was created for Palestinians. History turned out differently than they expected when Israel survived. And Israel occupied the territories when a War was launched against them from there.

I agree that the reason that there is continued conflict in the area is because of outside support. It is clear that the Syrians, Saudis, Iranians and probably others are fueling the conflict, both in terms of providing funds to the terrorists, and in validating the religious doctrine that encourages murder. Saddam Hussain has promised 10,000 USD and a university education to the family of every suicide bomber. Enormous pressure is put on individuals to volunteer. Hatred of Jews and Judasim is broadcast on the radios and taught in the schools of Palestine and other Arab countries.

But why do these Arab countries fund the terrorism? Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sign peace treaties with Israel, so Israel can pull out of these territories, as it did with Egypt? This is why - as long as there is conflict in the occupied territories, public and world attention is diverted from these countries' own huge civil rights violations (they are all dictatorships, after all). As long as they are protesting in the streets of Damascus and Terhan about Israel and the US, they are NOT protesting against their own governments.

This is evidenced by the recent crackdown on terror by the US. The US has started to no longer turn a public blind eye to Saudi Arabia et al, and what they are getting up to;so suddenly the Arab nations come together and start talking about peace plans in Israel. They know their days as civil rights abusers and sponsors of terrorism are coming to an end. So they are trying to appease the States by any means necessary.

I agree that Israel should reconsider such contraversial issues, like the settlements, and should engage in peace talks with Syria et al. But to call bombers legitimate is to say it's acceptable for pregnant women and children to be killed in the streets. Yes, Israel has reacted and reacted strongly, and killed Palestinians, but show me where its policy is to kill civilians - prove to me it's the IDF's intention to do that. I doubt that you can.

If the Palestinians want peace, they need to elect a non-corrupt leadership, declare the bombers as murderers and illegal, recognise the State of Israel, and bring the likes of Hamas et al under control (by declaring them illegal and arresting them). Syria and the other Arab countries need to declare a formal peace with Israel, and Israel needs to pass control of the relevant areas to the Palestinian people's democratic and honest leadership.

The Palestinians' real enemy is not Israel, but the other Arab countries fighting a proxy war against Israel using its youth as weapons; and their religious leaders, using an honourable religion as a tool for murder.

Oh, and my understanding of martyr, is someone who is killed because of his/her beliefs, not someone who ends his/her own life while trying to kill others.

"Secondly, the suicide bombers - whether you call the martyrs or not - are actually murdering terrorists; killing men, women and children. This is not legitimate struggle - it is cold-blooded murder, pure and simple."

Where is an alternative? There is no sign that Israel will ever stop building settlements or expanding until they get any land they want. America supports Israel and any country who wants good trade supports America. Also where America has a veto it does what it wants which means supporting Israel.

I would be interested to know how many news agencies report how many Israli soldiers (or conscripts carring automatic weapons) are killed by suiside bommers. When the bus was bombed recently I noticed the first reports never mentioned that most people on the bus were military. A military targeted attack is not a terrorist act right? Thats how America eases it's conscience when civilians get killed in it's activities.

"but show me where its policy is to kill civilians - prove to me it's the IDF's intention to do that. I doubt that you can."

I've yet to see you prove anything. I notice that people talk about Palastine getting lots of movey from various places but never any details or links to back anything up. Why hasn't the PA got T80 main battle tanks or Hokum attack helecopters or Mig29 and 31 jets that well funded non "offical" forces seem to get so easily?

An AH64A Apache attack helecopter has HUD linked (swivels where the gunners helmit looks) 30mm cannon underneath plus various mounted weapons. The armour on this helecopter can withstand rounds up to 27mm in size, they'll just bounce off.

With vehicles like this why is there a need to walk infront of slow moving tanks shooting anyone who looks dangerous and people shielding those who look danerous except as a show of force and to terrorise.

Will someone please explain to me why Israel had a right exist 50 years ago and why Mexico doesn't have a right to Texas?

I seen Israels side of the argument quote endlessly jewish religous script and call is historical document.

"I've yet to see you prove anything. I notice that people talk about Palastine getting lots of movey from various places but never any details or links to back anything up."

For the purpose of my point I consider money promised to people by Iraq (as I've by American news reports) as different to offering funds to the PA for military equipment which I've never seen evidence of.

Hi Runner,

Some interesting points there. I think you're probably right about how the Palestinian-Israel conflict suits some Arab leaders quite well. It's clear from history that the Arab nations only really became interested in the Palestinian issue when other means of attacking Israel had failed.

However, I do disagree strongly with some of the things that you say, which seem to me to be based on some very odd views.

"The Palestinians are not fighting for the survival of their country. They never have had a country, and the land in which they have lived, and live now, has never belonged to them as a nation."

So it's not enough to have always lived there? This is the kind of argument that's always used to justify colonialism. Yes, people live there, but they're not a state (although they are a people), so we can take the land from them?? I'm not an expert, but I think the historical consensus is that the Palestinians were driven off or cheated, with the land being bought from under their feet with no recognition of their ownership. And just how strong is Israel's right to exist, historically speaking?

It's no good Israel complaining about the PA - it's true that it's a mafia-like organisation with a very poor human rights record (probably no worse than Israel), but to refuse to negotiate with Arafat on these grounds is just a smokescreen for wanting to avoid negotations all together, at least on Sharon's part. Arafat is the Palestinians' leader, and while he has their support, he's the man Israel have to deal with. Arafat could easily refuse to negotiate with Sharon for similar reasons - Sharon is widely suspected of war crimes and carries out a policy of state-sponsored political assassination.

As for the IDF (Israeli "Defence" Force). What about Jenin? What about state-sponsored assassination? The problem with the conflict is that it isn't clear who the civilians are, who the (solely) political leaders are, and who the military / milita.

Otto

<>

Is your posting a positive contribution to the debate? Let's see:

<<...there is no Western Bias towards Israel.>>

Israel is financed and protected by the world's most powerful nation, not by 'The West'. Last year, US 'aid' for Israel was more than $1,000,000,000. This 'aid' is not a secret, nor is it disputed. It is approved annually by the Congress/Senate.

<>

The Israeli army operates on behalf of its citizens. Conversely, Israeli citizens are collectively responsible for the actions of their army, even if - as individuals - they are innocent. So yes, the suicide bombers murder the men, women and children of the state which has oppressed them for thirty years. Just as the French Resistance murdered those who invaded *their* country, sixty years ago.

<<...why should Israel concede anything to the PA>>?

Why should a military invader concede anything to those it has oppressed and disenfranchised for all these years...?

<>

The Israelis are supplied by the USA with arms intended for the subjugation of the Palestinian people. Why shouldn't the Palestinians use a little of the money they have to defend themselves?

<>

I think you'll find that attitudes on both sides have moved on from where they were in the late 60s. I suspect that both sides now (grudgingly) accept that the other has a right to exist.

<>

What do people have to do to 'own' their land? Isn't living there enough? What right do *you* have to the land on which you live? Who granted *you* ownership? On whose authority?

<<[I]n 1948 ... the State of Israel was declared.>>

Isn't it true that the occupying powers of the time (USA and Great Britain) assigned the land to Sionist terrorists who killed and maimed men, women and children until they got what they wanted?

<>

Don't forget the EU!

<<...are fueling the conflict, ... providing funds to the terrorists...>>

A couple of minor points:
1. How is this different from USA support for Israel?
2. Does the amount compare with $1,000,000,000 US per year?

<>

Do you think this is because the people of these countries are satisfied with their own governments, and dissatisfied with the actions of Israel and the USA? There *are* alternatives to the American Way, and there are *decent* people - not extremists, who can so easily be dismissed - who prefer them.

<>

Yes, in the context of the terrible situation in the Middle East, it is the lesser of several evils. The deaths (on both sides) are not, and never will be, desirable, but they are acceptable, when the alternatives are considered.

<>

I see no need. You are tied up in semantics when people are dying. Palestinian and Israeli citizens are dead as a result of the deliberate actions of Palestinian and Israeli fighters. Do you dispute that this is the essence of the matter?

<>

That's quite a list. Taking your points in order: the leadership is a matter for the Palestinians. The bombers are their only defence against invaders. They have recognised the State of Israel. A country as alone in its struggle as Palestine can hardly abandon its allies (e.g. Hamas), no matter how extreme they are.

<<[A] martyr is someone who is killed because of his/her beliefs, not someone who ends his/her own life while trying to kill others.>>

More quibbling about semantics while people die. You might wish to reconsider your priorities.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Fourthly, the IDF takes far more care not to harm citizens, than, say, the US in Afganistan. Of course, when Palestinian youths are forced on to the streets to act as cover for gunmen, some are going to get hit. When gunmen fire from the homes of citizens, some are going to get hit."

It has long been Israel's defence that Palestinians who kill children are brutal terrorists, whereas when Palestinian children die, it is because they are being used as a shield by brutal Palestinian gunmen. This argument was largely undermined by the film from last year of a father and child cowering behind a oil drum (?) during a street battle until being killed by a shell. It also seems at odds with Israeli claims that their snipers can choose where on a person's body to hit them from over a kilometre away.

It gets worse; there are documented claims of TV crews, nurses and women attempting to recover dead or wounded bodies being fired on in Jenin. Whole residential areas were destroyed. And, going back a bit, there is Sabra and Shatilla, where the Israelis (and Ariel Sharon in person) have admitted responsibility for the deaths of several hundred unarmed civilians.

Finally, I am unsure how tank or helicopter fire into a residential area is supposed to discriminate between gunmen and civilians. Israeli snipers presumably use residential buildings too. Saying that 'they're better than the Americans' isn't much of an argument, either, especially since there was no urban fighting involving Americans in Afghanistan and the Americans still managed an impressively high civilian death-toll, though we'll probably never know how high.

Gif