Young Writers Society

In the interests of pedantry:

England Britain and American had no right to create a nation in that way.

Does Iran, therefore, have a right to destroy it? It's a fruitless argument that goes nowhere. Do Hamas and Hezbollah have a right to bomb innocent Israelis? Of course not. Kuwait was founded by drawing lines on a map. A stupid idea - but we still stopped Hussein when he tried to annex it.

It's fine not to like Israel (I don't) and regret its creation (I do). But don't tell me that the answer is to let a war brew and pray for the toppling of an over-empowered Israel. People die. It's not a cause for flippancy, and the UN (driven by the US) needs to exercise its influence and bring Israel and Palestine to a settlement through more than optimistic "peace talks". I'd rather the UN took over the Israeli army on its borders, or replace them with its own peacekeepers. Until Israel grows up, it can't be trusted; but I'm not giving way to terrorist organisations either. Israel should also be forced to transport some its resources to Palestine due to its limited land, or whatever the case may be.

Just a few thoughts. I'm no expert in the history of the Middle-East. However, we have to be pragmatic and move on from pseudo-nostalgia for the days before Israel. The conflict's gone on for long enough.

Does Iran, therefore, have a right to destroy it? It's a fruitless argument that goes nowhere. Do Hamas and Hezbollah have a right to bomb innocent Israelis? Of course not. Kuwait was founded by drawing lines on a map. A stupid idea - but we still stopped Hussein when he tried to annex it.

It's fine not to like Israel (I don't) and regret its creation (I do). But don't tell me that the answer is to let a war brew and pray for the toppling of an over-empowered Israel. People die. It's not a cause for flippancy, and the UN (driven by the US) needs to exercise its influence and bring Israel and Palestine to a settlement through more than optimistic "peace talks". I'd rather the UN took over the Israeli army on its borders, or replace them with its own peacekeepers. Until Israel grows up, it can't be trusted; but I'm not giving way to terrorist organisations either. Israel should also be forced to transport some its resources to Palestine due to its limited land, or whatever the case may be.

Just a few thoughts. I'm no expert in the history of the Middle-East. However, we have to be pragmatic and move on from pseudo-nostalgia for the days before Israel. The conflict's gone on for long enough.

I don't agree with you on everything here, but on the whole I found this to be very objective, pragmatic, and realistic thinking. I really respect it, especially your first and last paragraphs. You're very right in that pointing fingers and saying "what if" is only perpetuate and prolong the conflict. In order to solve it, everyone needs to look forward, try to forget past wrongs and biases, and start clean. Probably won't happen in the short run on either side, there has been too long a history of animosity for that, but maybe in a few generations.

Two good articles:
STRATFOR: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks, Again

Do We Have Ahmadinejad All Wrong?

AuroraOrodel wrote:This is precisely what I was talking about. America has been a melting pot society from day one, and even we have periods of ethnic and religious discrimination and violence. Assimilating a culture destroys it. My family lost its culture in the 1950s, because my great-grandfather was Eastern European, and there was a very strong stigma against anyone who appeared to be German. If you didn't act 100% WASP "American", you were dangerous, and obviously a dirty commie. A "melting pot" is destructive. It removes one identity in favor of another: the one approved by the majority. What America should be and isn't yet is a salad bowl.

I would disagree with your assessment of the melting pot. While destruction is a part of the melting pot's process, it isn't the sum of the process. A better description would be that it is a transformational process. New immigrants to the US still have their religious and ethnic identities intact. All that changes is that a new identity is created: that of being an American Citizen. This new identity teaches the new arrivals of everything they need to become a part of American Culture.

The Salad Bowl, in contrast, is entirely divisive. An excellent example of the Salad Bowl in action is the Palestinians and the Israelis. These two groups are divided primarily along the lines of ethnicity, then religion. What people hope will happen is that these two cultures will be able to coexist peacefully. However, such a system is inherently unstable. At best, the two groups will be indifferent to one another. At worst, the two groups will be at war.

A stable peace must allow for all groups to interact with one another on even terms. You could try and make rules for each of the groups, but it is far easier and much more effective to make rules that all individuals must abide by, regardless of race, gender, color, or creed.

Americans, by and large, take cultural and religious identity for granted because most Americans don't have either.

I disagree with your assertion that America doesn't have a culture. Indeed, American Culture is legendary. Americans believe deeply in the power of the individual to overcome adversity. They believe deeply in the idea that all individuals should be treated equally. Americans are a tough and hard working people. We play baseball, watch NASCAR, and eat apple pie. We celebrate Independence Day by eating watermelon and we watch the Super Bowl. We celebrated when the Berlin wall fell and when we walked on the Moon. We cried on 9/11, and when JFK and MLK were assassinated. We love winners, but we always root for the underdog.

From many peoples and cultures, we have formed one that protects all.

Bedouins are a nomadic culture. Israel is trying to make them stationary for property tax purposes. To me, that's the deliberate destruction of a way of life that is thousands of years old. There's no cultural understanding or respect involved.

The forced relocation of Bedouins is terribly inefficient. Instead of hitting the Bedouins with property taxes, they should take a leaf out of the phone company play book and charge them for roaming. If you want to discourage an activity, (nomadic behavior) just tax it. If it works for smoking, it will work on Bedouins.

Griffinkeeper wrote:New immigrants to the US still have their religious and ethnic identities intact. All that changes is that a new identity is created: that of being an American Citizen. This new identity teaches the new arrivals of everything they need to become a part of American Culture.

I disagree with that. Although I live in Britain, there are people from all over the world here (300 languages spoken in London, where I live), and some people have to change themselves in fear of racism. I've experienced this myself as a matter of fact (I am a native Egyptian, but I have British Citizenship).

The Palestinians and Israelis can't live with each other. I saw a survey yesterday about an increasing amount of racism against Arabs in Israel. 2/3 of Israeli Teens either disliked or were afraid of Arabs. How can the under 18s live there?

It's been said before, but giving the Jews a country where they've had troubles was NOT a good idea. In the UN partition plan (the fairest but still not that fair, giving more land to the Jews (56%) and less to the Palestinians (42%) when there were more Palestinians at the time. (The figures don't add up because Jerusalem and Bethlehem were to be under the management of the UN)), there was a Jewish and an Arab state. In the '48 war, they took lots of Arab land before the British pulled out.

It's not just that though. The Arab's have been bad enough as well. Jordan is the only country giving citizenship to the Palestinians (who are stateless as Israel has stolen (YES STOLEN) the only land they could live on). The other countries have done nothing. In fact, Egypt participated in the blockade of Gaza and people born to Palestinian Dads and Egyptian Mums don't get Egyptian citizenship. Fair?

While I do want peace and I support the two Party solution, it isn't fair for Palestinians to be either kicked out of their land, discriminated against in another Arab country or be treated as second class citizens of Israel. Even though the Israeli Authorities are doing something about it, there isn't going to be a stop to that.

And about Iran... well they're annoyed about the Palestinian thing aren't they? And they're pretty annoyed that America is acting like the policeman of the world. America is telling most countries that they can't do this or can't do that. They tell everyone they can't have Nuclear weapons and yet they allow Israel. America does the Human right stuff, (one says "the right not to be tortured") and yet they go to Cuba who doesn't do Human rights to torture people. How nice is that?

Finally, I can't remember who said it, but it was a Muslim country, either Iran or Pakistan about Nuclear Weapons "The Christians [and athiests] (UK&US ad other Western Countries), the Jews [Israel] and now the Hindus [India] have it. Why can't we?"

I have to respond here, as a Israeli- I can tell you that both sides aren't completely right, but, some of the claims here are just plain wrong.
For example: Blink said that he feels as Israel is inclined to support Palestine- the thing is- we do.
Water, energy, even food and tax-money are supplied by Israel only to so-called Palestine, that until September at least, does not exist, the palestinians live in Israel, and get serviced as such.

I'm not saying we're holy- not at all- are prime minister- Benjamin Netanyahu- is an utter joke, he's weak, lack willpower, and filthy rich, further more he supports what is probably our worst crime the Mitnahalim, or the 'settlers' who commit horrible fascist crimes against the arabs.

But there are terrorists too.

What I'm trying to say is that the problem is that non of the sides take responsibility, in Israel, the Right-wing, who tend to be racist- have great power, true. but peace requires two sides, and we have a really hard time from the palestinians, who can be just as bad.

Lastly, about the so called conquering of palestine, It's kind of a myth- spread by the palestinian amazing publicists.
Historically, both them and us were sitting here under british goverment, when the british left- THEY attacked us.
I know you probably think I only say it because I'm Israeli myself- but it's the truth, feel free to check.
The armies of surrounding arab nations supported local arabic forces against the 'defence' which later was born again as the IDF.
The historical fact is that we conquered during a war started by the other sides- the same goes to the 67' borders.
I think that we should give territory in return for peace, but it isn't territory taken in fault manners- that's all.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but recently Israel have a great problem with the whole conquering issue, and I think it's only fair that I'll show the wider picture.

Thank you, Barak

Hm. I don't know what to say in this matter but for:
I do know, from what I've heard about, Iran and Israel have always disliked each other.

Matthew wrote:I do know, from what I've heard about, Iran and Israel have always disliked each other.

They absolutely detest each other! Well I know know Iran hates Israel so much. I wouldn't be surprised that people are scared of Iran getting Nukes because they might nuke Israel. Even if Israel does have warning systems, Iran is extremely close to Israel. They'd have barely any time to react.

As well, if Iran got nuked back (Mutually Assured Destruction? Maybe if Iran had enough nuclear weapons), then jihad would be called because a Muslim country is being attacked and destroyed and then the Muslim countries would be dragged into it and then America and the West would get involved and ta da - WW3.

Nukes are bad. I think that "Barefoot Gen" Japanese cartoon we watched in history about the atomic bomb made me scared of it :*

The possibility for unity between the west and the middle east is they're the foundation has been laid for europe to form a friendship with Libya and if a future leader was to help the east take back Israel it would greatly reduce tension in the area which I think is a fair trade for a bit of blood shed. The alternative is the middle east eventually taking back Israel except rather than the killing of a couple hundred thousand on both side it would be a the slaughter of millions of innocent civilians and I think we all know enough innocent civilians have lost they're lives thanks to some people. cough: Israel.

jok, if you disagree with Israel- that's fine- but the way you wrote your opinion is quite offensive, and I did like the part where you decided my country should just be taken, that's really thoughtful and reasonable.
please, express your opinion in a way that's a bit less aggressive next time, will you?

There is no way Israel is ever going to be invade or conquered - in the foreseeable future.
1. They are a strong military power. Maybe not in numbers, but in weapons, vehicles and technology they equal the United States Army. Mutually assured destruction, anyone?
2. They're Jewish. They have very strong ties, culturally and politically, with the United States. Ever heard of AIPAC? It's one of the most powerful, well funded lobby groups in the States, America's Pro-Israel lobby. Israel has powerful friends in high places. There is no way any other world power is going to invade Israel with the US against them.

The only way peace is going to come to that region is the two-state solution. Seeing as the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians support it, the only issue is land demarcation. The recent debate at the UN about whether or not to recognize Palestine as a State is pointless, because the Palestinian people need sovereignty of land first, and that's not going to happen until Hamas and the PLO settle their differences, and until negotiations with Israel go forward.

That said, Israel isn't completely guilt free. Palestine has shown that they are willing to compromise, yet the hard-right wing religious "hawks" aren't willing to extend the same courtesy. Netanyahu has been quite reluctant to negotiate; we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Amazing!
really, I couldn't have described the situation better myself!

I think, even with a 2 state solution, there will be still people fighting even if the majority agree with it. Before the Israeli independence, 1000 years ago, the Christian invaders tried to take the land because it was 'theirs' as Jesus was born in Bethlehem etc. So it's not just Israelis and Palestinians arguing over the land.

In order to really bring peace, Israel should retreat out of the West Bank, dismantle all settlements and return East Jerusalem back. That way, everyone feels that they are on equal footing. Anyway, it's supposed to happen regardless of there going to be peace or not. The settlements and occupation are illegal. East Jerusalem shouldn't be annexed - you can't go round saying 'This is ours' now, can you? They started the 1967 war, took over Sinai and the West bank and Oops it's theirs now. No, it doesn't work like that. Well OK, Jordan did invade but that was when the war was already happening. Because of the annexation, the '73 war started and it ended up with Israel threatening to nuke until America came at its side and the Soviets on the other. That could've caused nuclear war if they weren't careful.