Originally posted by daniel_m
I asked you to provide some support for such an argument and you come back with "I suggest you give it a little more thought".
I guess you haven't kept up with the news. Save some time and just take the easy way... read the other posts here.
Come on man, that is just stupid. How many generals actually fight a war "on the front line"? There's always going to have to be someone to survey the battlefield and make strategic decisions.
You keep managing to call me "stupid" and "delusional". I should probably just forget about even trying to have any kind of dialogue with you. But I will give this one more try. You need to see that to me, these terrorists are not exactly your West Point graduates. They are at the very best, and I hate to disgrace the word, "revolutionaries". And yeah, revolutionaries get their hands dirty, because they are fighting for their ideals. Or at least they are in theory. What kind of ideals do Bin Laden and Arafat hold? They have played their hands not only from the bottom of the deck, but have changed their objectives and even their allies to fit the moment. Remember that Bin Laden was backed and trained by the CIA.
Ever hear of Che Guavara? Fidel Castro? George Washington?
I find the idea that terrorism is enacted for economic gain pretty weak. How exactly does Saddam or Arafat gain (economically)from terrorism? (I'm not simply being argumentative here, I really would like to understand.) What's more, as I have already said, the evidence simply suggests that more likely motives for acts of terror (in the Middle East) are political and religious goals.
Again, read the other posts and the links here.
My only bone of contention (and what got me involved in this thread) is your assertion that no Arabs were "forced" to leave Israel.
OK...they were politely asked. But they were asked NOT by the Israelis...they were asked (told) by the arab extremists to leave Israel, so they would not get caught in the annihilation that was planned for the jews. The plan was to "drive Israel into the sea", and then just stroll right back in and go on. They gambled and lost. This is not my opinion. This is historical fact. Yes, some of the arabs living in what was by then Israel may have been relocated for reasons related to the practicalities of war, but so were jews and Christians. Ever hear of any Christian terrorists trying to blow up Israel for being displaced (temporarily) 54 years ago?
Furthermore, any discussion about the rights of Arabs to live in (or return to, as you put it) Israel inevitably gets bogged down in arguments over the moral rectitude of Zionism. From there it's a quick descent into a death spiral of "I am right, you are wrong".
I think you read me wrong. I don't think either side is right. I think that Jerusalem should be an independent city-state. I think it is WRONG for Israel to have control of Jerusalem. I feel this way strictly because Israel is a theocracy, and I don't think that is an appropriate government for a place that holds such importance for so many diverse cultures and religions. I don't see where any one group has more claim than another. Because as you imply, this is an irresolvable issue.
You say "return to. as you put it"...what does that mean? You make it sound like I am saying something that is my opinion?!?
Is the "right of return" not THE issue that sabotaged the Camp David Accord?