Something being worse than it doesn't make a wrong thing right.
Rape isn't OK because murder happens.
Rapist aren't nice people because there are also murderers.
If the Hatfields and McCoys can make peace, I don't see why the Palestinians and Israelites can't do it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud
sounds like you've got a bit of the ol' "islam infallibility crisis".
look, israel, palestine, arab conquests...all complicated historical issues. surely, both sides shoulder some blame in what we'd call israel. but come on, it's way more complicated then "a bunch of jews showed up in the desert and took it over kicking the arabs out", no?
That isn't what he said. He said that they identified themselves as either Jordanians or Syrians, rather than as Palestinians. You might want to re-read it a bit more carefully!
You are factually incorrect in a number of ways. (1) There were no Muslims in Israel during the Holocaust because Israel didn't exist then. It was still part of the Palestinian Mandate. (2) The Palestinian Muslim authorites allied themselves with the Nazis. There may well have been individual Muslims who sough to help Jews escape persecution in Europe, but it certainly wasn't official policy. (3) Jews did not begin migrating to Palestine during the Holocaust. They had been migrating there in numbers since the birth of the Zionist movement in the late nineteenth century. And of course there had always been Jews living there, although the numbers were far smaller prior to that. (4)Zionism pre-dates the Holocaust by many years. (see point 3.) (5) Initially, the majority of Jewish immigrants to Palestine came from Europe. It was only after the creation of the state of Israel and the expulsion of Jews from many Arab countries that most Jews emigrated to israel from neighbouring countries - because they had little choice.
The same could have been said about the person I was replying to. Try reading it in context. Conversations tend to deviate a bit. It's only your assumption that I'm claiming it's okay for person A to slaughter person B because of what happened in the past. Never did I say it's okay. I'm merely pointing out people's horribly wrong perception of history.
Absolute ludicrous. LOL!!!! The Muslims of Israel NEVER supported the Nazis as a whole. Sure there were morons defecting from all sorts of religions and nationalities to support the Nazis but you make it sound as if there was a nationwide treaty between the Muslims of Israel and the Nazi Germans. I challenge you to provide me solid evidence that states that a nation or governing body of Muslims supported them.
Lets not play linguistics. When I refer to Israel, I refer to the modern day terminology for the sake of avoiding confusion. Palestine/Philistine/Israel, whatever you wanna call the same area of land. The point is it's understood what area I'm speaking about. I'd advise against attempting to point out pathetic little discrepancies.
Yeah, Jews migrated to ISRAEL before the Holocaust just like millions of other people. It's irrelevant to point that out. Case in point is that the Muslims who ruled over Israel openly invited the oppressed Jews with open arms during and after the Holocaust. Big difference in context.
Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (Arabic: محمد أمين الحسيني, Muhaofftopicd Amin al-Husayni;[1] c. 1897;[2][3]–4 July 1974) was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine.[4]
Al-Husseini was the scion of a family of Jerusalemite notables. After receiving an education in Islamic, Ottoman and Catholic schools, he went on to serve in the Ottoman army in World War I. At war's end, he positioned himself in Damascus as a supporter of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. Following the fiasco of the Franco-Syrian War and the collapse of the Arab Hashemite rule in Damascus, his early position on pan-Arabism shifted to a form of local nationalism for Palestinian Arabs and he moved back to Jerusalem. From as early as 1920, in order to secure the independence of Palestine as an Arab state he actively opposed Zionism, and was implicated as a leader of a violent riot that broke out over the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.[5] Al-Husseini was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, but was pardoned by the British.[6] From 1921 to 1937[7] al-Husseini was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, using the position to promote Islam and rally a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism.[8]
His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge in, successively, the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Italy and Germany. During World War II he actively collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, meeting Adolf Hitler personally and asking him to back Arab independence. He requested, as part of the Pan-Arab struggle, Hitler's support to oppose the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. He was promised the leadership of the Arabs after German troops had driven out the British.[citation needed] He helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS. At war's end, he came under French protection, and went to Cairo to avoid prosecution.
A side question from someone who doesn't know much about the whole Israel-Palestine thing.
I've read debates on forums before about how to solve the conflict and they all inevitably turned to discussions about who stole what land from who and who owned it before the other etc etc. in the same vein as m1k3jobs' post, why does it matter? Everyone seems to be really hung up on who has the "right" to that patch of land but I find it really hard to believe that either population is going to be forcibly displaced because its not their land, so who cares? Why get so hung up on the history of who screwed the other side over more when the issue now is how they can live together in relative harmony. Kind of undermines that when everyone drags up a few thousand years of history to try and say they have some birth right to a specific patch of earth.
As I said I don't actually know much about this whole thing so if what I wrote is very stupid please be nice
The Israeli right campaigns on security - peace removes one of their trump cards. Electorally peace would be a bad thing for them, which is why they have become so very adept at sabotaging the peace process.
Hamas gain a lot of their influence through the people's hatred of what the Israelis are doing to them. If things improve, Hamas no longer has a war to wage.
There needs to be a big political shift on both sides if we are to see peace - either that, or the US needs to pull its hands out of its ass and bang some heads together.
I think you're bang on about the way that the Israeli right and Hamas both feed off the conflict, and how neither would benefit politically from a peaceful settlement. It would be nice to see a cross-community grassroots political movement whose aim was to end the conflict. Seems highly unlikely, but it's hard to see how there will ever be real progress as long as their are such powerful vested interests in keeping the conflict going.
Mind you, you could have said the same thing about Norn Irn, and there has been far greater progress towards peace there then I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime. So maybe anything is possible, if enough people want it.
Northern Ireland was resolved because the UK Government was best served by finding peace and they did so by loosening their grasp on the province. That, and the flow of money from the US to the IRA stopped after 9/11. I don't see the flow of money from the US to Israel or Syria/Lebanon/Iran/Jordan/Egypt etc to Hamas ceasing anytime soon.
On the subject of grassroots movements, I recently came across the Salaam Shalom Aikido Initiative, which is an initiative to create joint Israeli-Palestinian aikido training centres which can then become a platform for members to seek peace together in the wider community.
Unfortunately, I don't have a personal connection or know how far along they are in the project, but I think it's a brilliant idea to pursue.
Actually I'd say the US just needs to stop subsidising the Israeli military. With less money to spend on hardware the Israeli government will have some stark choices to make that might give them the push they need to actively seek out a peace settlement.
I wonder what American education would be like if we spent additional 8mil a day on it? Or hunger, or drug rehab, or just about any other major issue.
http://stoptheblankcheck.org/
Aiki is right, without so much aid, they might be a little more inclined to talk peace.
It matters because there is something of a state sponsored ethnic cleansing campaign being perpetrated against Palestinian Arabs living in Israel. They're routinely forced from their homes in Jerusalem by the courts because the Israeli government passed a law that allows Jews to claim property their family might have had a connection to in the past before the modern state of Israel was formed. Many of the families taking advantage of this law haven't live in Israel for generations and have no living memory of every having owned the property. Research "charities/groups" do the digging and encourage these families to submit their claims.
Palestinians are harassed off their land in the west bank and Jewish settlements are then built. Which are illegal according to UN resolutions. I would like to think international law mattered.
Palestinians in the Gaza strip are essentially living in one massive "Escape From New York" style prison. Which is clearly wrong.
There are also Palestinians living in small villages throughout Israel that have been there for hundreds of years. They are denied running water, proper sanitation, electricity or any modern amenities of any kind. The Israeli government has ear marked these villages as agricultural land leaving the inhabitants to live under the threat their homes will be bulldozed at any moment without notice.
It matters because international law should matter and because we fought a world war to put a stop to exactly this sort of thing. And back then the Jews were the victims and it's because the Jews were the victims back then we have laws forbidding anti-Semitic comments and behaviour.
I believe if you belong to a group of people who demands a special level of protection from harm then you should dam well make sure you are not causing harm.
i agree with a lot of what you say. and the occupation is horrible. and israelis are culpable for a lot of the nonsense that's going on with the territories, etc. i think part of their aggressiveness does have something to do with the holocaust and the "never again" attitude. and yes, israel has tanks, fighters, a standing army, nukes, while the arabs in the occupied territories have none of that.
but those arabs have also refused to become integrated into israeli society. arabs can actually become israeli citizens. and can serve in the military (while not required like jewish israelis). and can vote. and remember, predominantly arab countries did attack israel. and the whole terrorism thing too.
all i'm trying to say is both sides are to blame. and until both sides come together, which is going to mean sacrifices on both sides, we're stuck in the same situation. unfortunately, compromise does not seem possible because both sides are trying to please the hard-line nationalists.
I'd like to know the source of where that came from, Canuck. Regardless of whether or not it's legit (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), one man's actions, no matter how high of a leader he may be, do not represent the opinions of a whole. I firmly believe our American government doesn't represent the opinions of its people as a whole, only those of the 1%'ers, so I love the majority of my people but hate the majority of the government.
So if I were to go by your logic then, I'm also guilty of every criminal the U.S. has backed right? Like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for starters?
In response to some of the other posts here, I'm not claiming it's alright for any side to kill the other. I don't believe violence can bring peace but that doesn't mean it's completely useless either (i.e., self defense). I'm embarassed by the state of the modern Muslim world, I'll admit that, but I don't go on about it because there's already enough anti-Islamic sediment in the West. Regardless, we knowingly aid the Israeli government with billions every year while they use it against poorly equipped Palestinians, and instead of attempting to establish peace, we fuel the fire. No political leader in the U.S. is allowed to say anything anti-Israel. What's the deal? There's hypocrisy written all over our foreign policies. That's my point. It's not that it's okay for one people to kill another, regardless of what faith they follow or what side of a border they live on. Sure, most of the leaders of heavily Muslim-inhabited countries are corrupt but so are most other leaders. I just don't like the notion that we're (the U.S.) the police of the world when we're in fact equally as responsible for the violence as are those who we accuse as the culprits/aggressors. This is along the lines of what I refer to as the American Infallibility Complex.