I don't know about the Palestinians but what about dividing the country into 2 equal parts. That means Israel have to give up some land. Would you accept it?
For those who think Israel targets there fire into Gaza just for the hell of it, here is some of the tech that they use: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1228728130021&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull This tech isn't new, the US has been using this type of system since Bosnia. http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tpq37/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/firefinder.htm Basically, when the terrorists hamas fire there rockets, Israel, thanks to there Great Ally the USA, is able to track the fire ballistics and return fire to where it came from.
That's a stupid idea - 50/50? What split Israel in half, or maybe just give Negev to Palestinians, what about up north? It's silly. Best option - they get WB and Gaza, that's it.
So by kick them out..you mean buy their land legitimately, respond to a UN partition and gain land by means of defensive wars...hmmm..
Please don't generalize! I agree with you that there's obviously not just a few Muslims with sympathies for radical fundamentalism elements living in Europe and that such persons should better leave our continent; but their number is far lower than that of Muslims who are well-integrated and are not prone to radical islamism! I don't hope and also don't think that the IDF forces are keen on killing innocent civilians, but such reports like THIS one (a Palestinian/Israeli doctor, who reported for an Israeli tv channel, lost 3 children when his house got bombed) show that they apparently aren't as careful as they should be! With the "rambo" mentality shown in many cases (just remember the attacks on UN institutions and even UN trucks for humanitarian aid), you only damage your country's reputation. It was pretty clear that there would be more than just a few civilian casualties in a war fighted in dense-populated areas ... nevertheless, I think that the IDF should have been more careful in using targets. Hamas don't care for the loss of innocent lives (if they did, they would not have caused the war), but the rest of the world does. And the Israeli army & government should have known that they would face criticism/protests if the number of civilian casualties was pretty high...
I can't offer numbers & percentages, but am pretty sure that I'm right. Btw: After an obviously split Hamas (those in Gaza agreed to a ceasefire, but those in Damascus rejected after being pressured by Iran & Syria) isn't willing to stop the suffering of the Gaza population, it seems that at least Israel intends to do it now: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/16/israel.gaza/index.html Bonne nuit.
That was the same attitude of the Palestinians before the wars. It would be better if Israel makes some concession now because with the ever increasing Arab population, no weapon would be formidable against their strength and Ahmedinejad's wish might be fulfilled.
About this, can i get some respected links and how much did Israeli's "legitimately" bought the land from the Palestinians before the one/two wars?
from a current standpoint, that is what I think it should be. They had their chance with the partition plan in '48 and they rejected it with the war then. Then more territory was lost in other wars.
Are you surprised that those not in the line of fire are so willing to talk tough? Hey its not there asses on the line facing the bullets.
A person living in Normandie, for instance, does have a normand or a french identity in your opinion ? You are confusing generic terms used as mere designations for some geographical areas with a national and cultural identity, which is not the same thing. The palestinian identity didn't exist before 1948. It gained a meaning through opposition towards Israel, in particular after the 1967 defeat. Yes, the area is refered as Palestine prior to 1948, just the same as Normandy is called Normandy, but the natives are still french, not normands. This "palestinians" you are talking of were refered as arabs prior to 1948 and the conflict was regarded as a jewish-arab one, not jews vs palestinians. You would be hard pressed to find in the political specter from 1947 a reference using the term "palestinians". Your idea is complete bollocks. Besides, how do you know that a person has been living in Palestine for 1000 years ? There have been no political, ethnical, cultural or linguistical barriers between Palestina and the rest of the arab world, thus your point about someone living in Palestina for 1000 years is nothing but an assumption. Actually, that was the logical reason why in 1947 UN gave a bigger share to the jews : because UN saw the partition as not giving the biggest chunk of Palestina to the jews, but a tiny bit from the arab world, where they lived. It was more important for the jews to have a solid state because they have nowhere to turn to, while for the arabs was considered that they could rely on the backing of their arab neighbours. The situation was less critical for them than it was for the jews, hence why the jews received 52% in the partition instead of the normal 35%, according to the population percentage. It became a fiasco because the arabs refused the deal and went to war and, when they failed, the arab countries proved incapable (or not willing) of integrating the refugees in their society in a manner similar to what Germany did with 10 millions of german refugees from the eastern provinces after WW2.
That is the biggest bullshit I've heard in a while. Trying to discredit the Palestinians as just Arabs is very simplistic and an ignorant one. The fact is the majority of Palestinians ancestors are cannanites and have been there for more than a 1000 years. How do we know?? most of us have family trees that go back for more than 300 years. Palestinians are so close nit together that you can tell by a persons last name or even his accent what village he's from. The fact is ethnically cleansing areas because apparently the invader has "god's blessing" is evil and illegal. Anyhow where did the Israelites come from? They came from Egypt way before they invaded the Canaanites. And this so called Israel where 12 tribes, while today's Israelies have nothing to do with these tribes. They have been in Europe for more than 3000 years and then they decided to come back to where apparently they originated from. All in all it's wrong to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their own land, and I don't give a shit what happened 3500 years ago when humanity just begun. It's funny you mention that about how long the Palestinians have been living in Palestine?? Well a lot longer than the majority of the Jews who have been living there for 70 odd years.
That's all bull talking. If the Jews living in Europe hadn't came back, the land would still have been called Palestine and the people living in it Palestinians.
I know so! If these European people from Europe didn't come to Palestine in the 1900's and formed a nation called Israel, we would have a larger nation known as Palestine.
Surprise, surprise, the two hardcore anti-Israelis disagreeing with me. Who would have guessed ? Lol. First, what "having a family tree of more than 300 years old" has to do with a palestinian identity ? A lot of people from Northumberland could trace their ancestry back to Oliver Cromwell, that does not creates a "northumbrian" identity. And, because you can trace your ancesters 300 years back, you can tell you have been there for more than 1000 years ? An arab population without any doubt, does not equate with the existence of a palestinian people in 1800. And they arrived in Egypt at the invitation of the local "government", aka the pharaoh, coming from - drum roll - Canaan, returning to their first homeland because of the egyptian persecution. I mean, if you are going to use the Bible as source, at least use it completely, not only the most convenient parts. But leave the biblical crap for idiots like Kahane and the like. Of course the Israelis today might not have nothing to do with the 12 tribes (which I would not take for granted, as I'm not giving the Bible that much credit as a historical source ; many things are true, but many are also romanticed and so on). But they have a lot to do with the jewish population during the roman rule, when the jewish natives have been expelled by force from their homeland due to their constant rebellions against Rome, in particular those from 66-73 and 132-135, and they were spread through the empire. About your comment that jews have been in Europe for more than 3000 years, this does not even merit attention. Semitic people in Europe around 1000 BC ? The same way people living in Paris are called "parisians". I assumed you were talking about a national identity prior to 1948, which didn't exist, not people called palestinians simply because they lived in a former ottoman province called Palestina. Are you aware that the first mention of Palestina, by Herodot, depicts that land as a province of Syria ?
Damn, when will you finally stop repeating yourself in every thread??? Who cares for history right now? It's all about future & reality! Capito? Btw: After another UN incident today, the IDF might face more than just serious criticism (accusation of violating international law). And those idiots from Hamas apparently announced not to agree to an unilateral Israeli ceasefire. Well, then let them continue firing rockets ... and face the consequences.