Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
I think that you need to learn about the matter before you make holier-than-thou pronouncements like you have.
First of all, there is no country of Palestine.
You make it sound like 2 countries in a silly dispute.
Palestinians are the native people of that land, ike the native American "Indians" here in the US. They do not have their own sovereign nation
The occupying Israelis are cruel and destructive. From the start they stole everything of value from the Palestinians, herded them into concentration camps and killed a great many of them.
What would you do if an occupying army came in and took your home and business, killed your family and sent you to live in captivity like an animal
Other areas were taken in ways that aren't permitted under international law
I think that it's critical that Israel give up these areas too, so they will understand that what they did is wrong.
You did say "What is wrong with these people, this tit-for-tat mentality is promoting more violence and hatred."
You're not talking about Trobriand islanders who are so caught up in revenge that they totally forgot what slight prompted it in the first place
The Palestinians are hardly engaged in "tit-for-tat" slights. They have been fighting for survival, after witnessing the mass murder of friends, families and neighbors.
The world has been allowing this to go on for over 50 years
I see that your excuse for blaming the Palestinians is their failure to instantly and fully embrace western ideals.
And no matter what they decided back then, it doesn't justify oppression and genocide. That was decided back in WWII, remember?
I was referring to the so-called "settlements" where Israel has been paying jewish people to occupy what used to be arab homes, in the first paragraph of 5587. This is a form of theft that's all too reminiscent of what the Nazis did to many during WWII. Considering that the very same people who run Israel witnessed these atrocities first-hand in Germany are the ones running Israel, their decision to emulate that behavior is doubly wrong.
As for Camp David, you're quick to blame Arafat. How come you're not the least bit critical of Barak, who led with a deal-breaker?
Jaraxle, I don't know what you think the United Nations is, or what a resolution is, but it looks kinda like you're under the impression that there's some kind of binding law in force here. I might not everything, but I'm fairly certain that there was no Palestinian nation UN member back in 1947 that could have voted on the formation of a Palestinian nation! And since the UN only governs member nations, the implication of that fact is clear.
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
I've heard the carefully crafted Israeli excuses about "self defense." But I also have heard the rest of the story. Sorry to burst your bubble, but sending armed troops to capture land is an invasion, not self defense. Taking things that are not yours is wrong.
Germany also used the "self defense" excuse for WWII
Israel is a heavily militarized country; a hugh portion of its GNP goes into military spending, on top of tens of billions that the US gives them every year.
and if money stands in the way, they steal it.
It's a ludicrous lie to for a nuclear power to claim "self defense" against what amounts to little more than children with stones.
What's more, the whole "self defense" argument goes out the door when you realize that they aren't fighting another nation. They're attacking their own subjects, based on race and religion!
exactly where were the Palestinians supposed to go?
Yes, it is. You're acting like a lazy parent who doesn't care who started a fight, and so blames children. But alas, every fight has an aggressor and a victim. Justice comes when we pay attention to who is what. In this case, the invading Zionist army, now and before, is the clear-cut aggressor.
Q. Then you admit that there should be a "world governing" body?
A. If I did, I would say so. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth.
The world has been allowing this to go on for over 50 years
All the Palestinians want is freedom from Israeli tyranny. Barak's offer didn't address that all-important point. If you invited me to travel a long way to discuss something, and then started playing games and evading the issue, I too would refuse to participate until you behaved yourself.
<a href=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gp1.htm>The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect the frontier of the Reich.
In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and the vital rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful of the great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is a representative of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our Reich!</a> --Proclamation by Adolf Hitler - September 1,1939.
Jaraxle, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that because Britain occupied Palestine, and since Britain was a UN member, that the UN has sovereignty over Palestine regardless of their wishes. Well I find that dubious, and it still doesn't explain how "resolution" really means law, but let's work with it. If what you said is true, then why did you attack the Palestinians before? After all, you're saying now that it was Britain's responsibility to create the arab state! Certainly you're not holding a double standard...
There must be some fallacy in your theory, since as we all know, national governments haven't fallen away in deference to the sovereignty of the UN. In fact, the rise of the EU suggests that the UN is in fact not sovereign. How do you explain that
So then you must agree that Israel's actions against Palestinians is an internal civil matter, not one of national defense.
Furthermore, since the UN is sovereign over Israel, as it is over all of earth, as you claim, then how come the UN hasn't sanctioned Israel, or expelled them? That is their job, per the link you provided
how do you justify Israelis walking into homes to which arab people hold title, expelling the arabs and moving jews in
I trust you have no problem with the source
Similarly, the notion that moving civillian jews into homes and farms that belong by law to arabs is a self-defense measure doesn't jibe with the previously stated Zionist ideals of ethnic purity, a "jewish state." And as a matter of fact, the UN prohibits such actions, so you have your authority as to the wrongness of the actions.
Using that military to attack their own people on the basis of race is.
Using bullets and rockets against stone-throwers is.
Israel started it. Israel has the power to stop it. I cannot fault people for defending themselves.
Of course not! Israel does many things including killing school children.
Gee, you mean that there's a Palestinian Air Force, armed with the latest warplanes, helicopters and missiles? And a complete army with tanks, howitzers and other heavy armor? And none of that ever makes it to the news? C'mon! I was there, remember? The balance of power is way far in Israel's favor!
I don't. You're telling me that, but I don't believe it
All you're doing is turning a blind eye toward one side's wrongs. As I have shown, the Zionists (Israel) started it when they invaded Palestine by force, in violation of your precious resolution 181,
BTW. For one who speaks so loudly about self-defense for one side, you're being quite the hypocrite.
On the contrary, I believe the US should let Israel alone if it wants to continue the genocide. Without that huge military infusion, Israel would have to become right-sized, right quick! Right now Israel is more or less at peace with its neighbors, so they simply don't need that money for defense.
Oh really? Prove it.
So which is it? Are the Palestinians blameless for Britain's failure to form an arab state, or is the state of Israel illegal? You can't cherry-pick what you want and leave the rest without being a hypocrite.
Just so you know, I'm still willing to stipulate that the UN in fact is not a government, and that the UN has no authority for nation building. In fact, that's what I believe to be true. Government without representation is not government at all! Government without representation is bondage. I think you're misinformed about the role of the UN.
Eighty per cent of the work of the UN system is devoted to helping developing countries build the capacity to help themselves. This includes promoting and protecting democracy and human rights; saving children from starvation and disease; providing relief assistance to refugees and disaster victims; countering global crime, drugs and disease; and assisting countries devastated by war and the long-term threat of land-mines.
Sorry Jaraxle, but you shot yourself in the foot regarding national defense. You made the case for Israel's sovereignty over the Palestinians. Therefore you can't claim it's national defense without being a liar. There is no Palestinian state, and Israel is sovereign over all people within its borders. So there's no way it can't be a civil matter!
Israel's oppression of the native Palestinian people is no different from America's actions against the native people
It's no different from Nazi Germany's persecution of jews, gays, the handicapped and other "undesirables" within its borders. It's no different from Apartheid in South Africa. It's no different from slavery and post-slavery discrimination of ex-slaves in many countries.
Are you really so ignorant that you think people blow themselves up for fun? These people have been denied the basics of life--food, clothing and shelter, by the nation that is sovereign over them!
They are desperate! And once more I have to remind you that the Palestinian people don't have the advanced fighters, the strike helicopters, the laser-guided missiles or anything else that would allow them to fight back cleanly. But by your own admission, they have the right to fight back in self-defense.
is also about race. Israel doesn't treat its arabs the same as it treats its jews
racially "pure" state
But the net effect is that every jew in Israel is a soldier, and is therefore a valid target. Yes, they're quite slick at playing the innocent victim, but there's a far more sinister side to that story!
It's hard to describe; you have to be there to understand. Even an American like me was scared for his life quite often. Their hatred knows no bounds; they aren't afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.
Well, considering that Israel is Palestine, you know full well who's to blame.
Yes Jaraxle, I am smarter than that. I know that Transjordan is the land to the east of Palestine. That's where the nation of Jordan is.
I'm sorry Jaraxle, but if there's going to be a productive discussion you're going to have to accept the facts. No good will come from sidetracking things with bogus history. Please, you can do better than that.
Britain's failure to form an arab state
Have you even read the Balfour Declaration? What about the part that says "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..." Seems that the Zionists in Israel have done a pretty good job ignoring that part of the Declaration.
His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object,
Of course, this doesn't even take into account the fact that one sovereign nation can't decide for itself how another sovereign nation is to be dismembered.
This says to me that Britain never intended a Zionist state, but that the Arab and Jewish popluations of Palestine would co-exist.
So, I remain at a loss to determine how you come up with the idea that Britain created Palestine and that Britain is ultimately responsible for the whole mess.
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Since when does "national home" mean a sovereign nation.
Furthermore, on 2 November 1917, Britain was in no position to grant such a condition, being neither in possession (legally) of Palestine, nor the Mandated power (until 24 July 1922).
I merely used the second sentence to illustrate that the Declaration does not give the Zionists carte blanche to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arab Muslims.
Where does it say that the Zionists can boot out the Arabs?
Article 2 of the Mandate:
Quote:
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Seems like this intends co-existence and respect for the rights of the pre-existing Arab population.
One final point, regarding the Sykes-Picot agreement. The map thereto specifically holds out Palestine as international territory
How anyone with half a brain on their shoulders (most Zionists excluded) can fail to see that the Zionist Israelis created their own problem by disregarding the clear intent of the Balfour Declaration, British Mandate, and UN Resolution 181 is beyond me (and Speed as well). Until such time as you're willing to admit that the Zionists are an illegal occupation force in those sections of Palestine not "granted" to Israel by UN 181, I see no further point to this discussion.
President Bush calls PM Sharon in for a meeting and makes this clear: Not one dollar more from the US Treasury, nor any military assistance until:
Israel shrinks to the borders granted by UN 181
recognizes the right of return for all refugees, compensates those refugees who wish not to return for the expropriation of their property
makes Arab Israelis full citizens (by eliminating nationality/heritage markings on internal passports), grants full, unrestricted, rights of passage between Gaza and the West Bank, et. al
In short, a full capitulation to the long-standing Palestinian demands
(since they're the wronged party).
While we're at it, how about eliminating the Israeli nukes as well
Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?
"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
Jews attitude towards Arabs when reaching Palestine.
"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."
The Balfour Declaration promises a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.
"The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], 'The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,'" Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."
Were the early Zionists planning on living side by side with Arabs?
In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, "The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...
"If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine - nearly nine-tenths of the whole - are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered." Quoted in "The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.
Arab resistance to Pre-Israeli Zionism
"In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that 'in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,' but he urged, 'let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.' The truth was that 'politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside'... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Gandhi on the Palestine conflict - 1938
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.
Were the Zionists prepared to settle for the territory granted in the 1947 partition?
"While the Yishuv's leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israel's society - including...Ben-Gurion - were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." Israeli historian, Benny Morris, in "Tikkun", March/April 1998.
Public vs private pronouncements on this question.
"In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that 'after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine'...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Zionists' disrespect of partition boundaries
"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." British author, Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel."
Culpability for escalation of the fighting
"Menahem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how 'in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive...Arabs began to flee in terror...Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while all the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter'...The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states' intervention." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."
The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers
"For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers 'lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,'...The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."
Was Deir Yassin the only act of its kind?
"By 1948, the Jew was not only able to 'defend himself' but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, 'in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes'...Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that 'every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.'" Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict."
Ethnic cleansing of the Arab population of Palestine
"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."
Ethnic cleansing - continued
"Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples - achievable only by transfer and expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators. But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: 'With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it,'" Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."
Ethnic cleansing - continued
"Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October [1948]. But no [general] expulsion policy was ever enunciated and Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller' and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy...But while there was no 'expulsion policy', the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than the first half of the war." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949"
Arab orders to evacuate non-existent
"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put." Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."
The deliberate destruction of Arab villages to prevent return of Palestinians
"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.
On 2002-03-13 09:41, Captain Ned wrote:
And you thought I was a right-winger, didn't you now, Speed.
On 2002-03-14 09:32, Jaraxle wrote:
What the…
Nice, I guess it’s all well and good to start a quote war. This is what I did not want to see happen. I could play your game and flood the thread with pro Zionist quotes in contrast to your anti-Zion ones, (your book is too controversial anyway) but quote wars will get us nowhere. Its difficult to have a discussion when the arguments I present are not addressed. Until you can address my points with reasonable arguments I am not sure that if it is productive to continue this discussion with you.
1. Britain royally screwed up parsing out land to the jews and arabs. We can all thank the queen for leaving the world with such a mess.
2. Israel is rediculously well armed compared to the palesitians. At best, the palesitians have machine guns and RPGs. Irseal can bring in tanks, F15s, Apaches, and heavy artilery. It's no contest.
3. Both sides willfully target civilians.
4. Israel has taken a lot of land in wars through the years and they continue to expand their settlements. I don't paticularly care what some damn international scholar said; I fail to see how that land is now rightfully theirs.
Isreal could very easily exterminate the palestinians, but it's not politically feasible move given global politics. The Palestitians will NEVER quit bombing the Israelis until they have a state. This is an ugly situation!
The real problem is that the status quo is quite sustainable. The security of Isreal is not threatened so they will continue to expand into the occupied territories. The plight of the palestinians, while deplorable, is not likely to improve without external political intervention. They certainly aren't helping themselves supporting terrorism. It gives the Israelis, who profit from the status quo, an excuse to not negotiate a peace and alienates the international community
The US is the wild card here. Given Isrel's dependance on US military might, we can force them to do just about anything. Unfortunately, our leaders have not shown the resolve to bring about peace. The US needs to step in and DICTATE a peace plan to both sides. The Israelis will bitch and moan, but realistically they'll have to go along. The palestinians may complain too, but ultimately anything is better than having Iraeli tanks blowing up you houses so I suspect they would go along too without much hassle.
The only other option is to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis commit genocide. This is obviously not a very palatable option, but it would certainly end the conflict.
And who's making the ad hominem attacks now? I'm still waiting for an answer to the question posed at the beginning of my "quote post."
As for stopping the violence, that's not going to happen until Israel admits that it's in the wrong and is an illegal occupying power in those areas not "granted" to Israel under UN 181, and then complying with 181. Since it was never Israel's intention to comply with UN 181 (as proved in my "quote post," the cycle of violence is endless. So, we're left with 2 choices. Build a big wall around the whole area and come back when the fires go out, or give the Arabs the wherewithal to fight Israel on equal terms. I don't pretend that either is the right thing to do, or even "doable," but I don't see things changing absent a huge change in Israeli politics.