Do you think there should be an independent Palistinian state? I say yes. The people of Palistine have been through enough, and deserve their own independent state.

No, nor do I believe in an independent Palestinian state, except maybe in the temporary to rid themselves of the state oppressors. However they will form their own ones (oppressors) as is made clear by the party policies the Palestinians currently follow. Best thing for them is whatever they want, but I believe the best way to get what they want is through dissolution of hierarchical institutions.
I think the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake, no only from an anarchist perspective but from a simple global politics or logical perspective. The reasons were to give them back their homeland, which is described by their holy book. If any group could get a state created simply by having a religion claim an area as a homeland, it would be impossible to meet all the requests. However the past is done and now a solution needs to be made which will bring peace and justice to the area, which I believe can best be done currently by the two-state solution. As is, th Palestinians are oppressed and in response turn to violence which leads the Israeli state to more violence and creates a more oppressive state for everyone. A one-state solution attempting to create a power-sharing agreement between the two groups would leave the current animosity level intact and most likely still result in oppression of the Palestinians because of the power of the past for the Israelis who have established an authoritarian position over the Palestinians. The authoritarian position would carry over into a new one-state organization. The danger of a two-state is all-out war. Although at least then it could perhaps be a fair fight with more hope for negotiations actually. Not to mention if after a two-state solution th Israeli government decided to continue the action that is the main source of conflict today -- settlement building -- they would instantly lose international support and pretty much screw the pooch.

Feral Fantom made some good points. But I have one thing I would like to add. Maybe they have been through a lot, but I would like to ask where you plan to get the land to give them. It's all separated into our current countries and I highly doubt anyone would be willing o give up they're land to them. When a state tried to separate from the U.S. that created war here. So how do you expect to give them land.

I still agree with you on with them being through a lot. This is just how I look at it. Besides for that we shouldn't be getting involved (we as in the U.S.) there is to much going on there and the real underlining cause will never get touched. It will be impossible to settle the dispute between them.

The main underlying cause between the conflict is that they both want the same land (Jerusalem). My solution would be two separate states dividing the land currently controlled by the state of Israel, but leaving Jerusalem and other contested areas as a neutral zone. The other causes of conflict relate to the oppression by the Israeli state.

I agree with Feral they should divide the country into two parts and erase Isreal from the maps. Of course Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv will have to be off-limits to both sides. A wall of bulldozers would make short work out of both cities.

Originally Posted by Stardragon

I agree with Feral they should divide the country into two parts and erase Isreal from the maps. Of course Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv will have to be off-limits to both sides. A wall of bulldozers would make short work out of both cities.

Destroying thousands of years of history ontop of being incredibly wasteful, when you take away those peoples' homes, where will they go? What livelihood could they POSSIBLY hope for now that you've taken away their home and the center of their religious world?

Just, wow I am almost speechless.

I personally don't know too much about what exactly is going on, or what started it. :sweat: I like old history, most modern day stuff I tend to ignore, unfortunately... So, I have no opinion regarding the matter, except my reaction to Stardragon's post.

Originally Posted by Lordi

Do you think there should be an independent Palistinian state? I say yes. The people of Palistine have been through enough, and deserve their own independent state.

Funny - that's exactly what they said about the Jews!

But where ever shall we put them, mm...

I also think the U.S. should stop supporting Isreal. And before anyone bashes me, 1) I am an American, 2) I am half Jewish.

Ah, I see. In the ground, then!

I think the tension between the Palestinian and Jewish communities have worsened because of Israel's treatment of Palestinian communities. I think if they want resolution then they need to start healing the rift between the communities rather than seeking solutions like building a massive wall, aid blockades, and seizing an aid ship ect. These methods will only feed the hate that fuels the terrorists.

Originally Posted by una

I think the tension between the Palestinian and Jewish communities have worsened because of Israel's treatment of Palestinian communities. I think if they want resolution then they need to start healing the rift between the communities rather than seeking solutions like building a massive wall, aid blockades, and seizing an aid ship ect. These methods will only feed the hate that fuels the terrorists.

Could you please explain and qualify your usage of the term terrorism at the end of your post? I would hate to think that you are contributing to the myth which portrays terrorism as predominantly being an anti State activity. As Dr Sluka argues in Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror a vast majority of terrorist acts are performed by States, either directly or indirectly. Even when we look at the specific example which this thread is about we find that Israel and the U.S.A are guilty of terrorism. So it is unjust to slant it as being the terrorists against Israel.

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

Could you please explain and qualify your usage of the term terrorism at the end of your post? I would hate to think that you are contributing to the myth which portrays terrorism as predominantly being an anti State activity. As Dr Sluka argues in Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror a vast majority of terrorist acts are performed by States, either directly or indirectly. Even when we look at the specific example which this thread is about we find that Israel and the U.S.A are guilty of terrorism. So it is unjust to slant it as being the terrorists against Israel.

I used the term 'terrorists', and the terrorists are the people launching rockets into Israel. I wasn't going into an in-depth analysis about terrorism in general, I know I could used words like guerilla fighters, resistance ect but at the time I just picked terrorists simply because I'm to lazy to list of various Palestinian political groups that do these very naughty things.

Originally Posted by una

I used the term 'terrorists', and the terrorists are the people launching rockets into Israel. I wasn't going into an in-depth analysis about terrorism in general, I know I could used words like guerilla fighters, resistance ect but at the time I just picked terrorists simply because I'm to lazy to list of various Palestinian political groups that do these very naughty things.

Although my point is that the Israeli State and U.S.A are also terrorists by virtue of, indirectly or directly, performing acts of terrorism against the Palestinians. *Shrugs* Although I certainly have my biases as my absolute rejection of selectively using terms such as terrorism and terrorist, especially in conflicts like the one being discussed here, has certainly been influenced as a result of attending classes taught by Dr Sluka as well as some of his seminars.

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

Although my point is that the Israeli State and U.S.A are also terrorists by virtue of, indirectly or directly, performing acts of terrorism against the Palestinians. *Shrugs* Although I certainly have my biases as my absolute rejection of selectively using terms such as terrorism and terrorist, especially in conflicts like the one being discussed here, has certainly been influenced as a result of attending classes taught by Dr Sluka as well as some of his seminars.

I understand your point and I agree with it, I'm just not that sacred when it comes to semantics . I do think that Israel has acted like a bully and US has supported this even in the face of international criticism from massive bodies such as the UN. What happened with the aid floatilla was a down right disgrace and world watched in horror as the US defended Israel's decision to unlawfully stop aid.

I am not so sure I would assert it is about being scare so much, but rather cautious about who we are letting control the narrative of the story. Returning to the book by Dr Sluka, but this has also been observed by others, the terms terrorism and terrorist, are quite commonly used to provide legitimacy to the oppression and marginalization of people. Internationally and historically we have seen this to be the case. As such, these terms hold amazing implications for how the situation is interpreted and understood by the general public. Although this is not so surprising as the very language and terms we use to a large extent shapes our reality.

Although I do certainly acknowledge you did not use such terms in an attempt to slant the discussion. I took it as being an unintentional consequence.

It is a struggle of the Israeli and Palistinian people who long for peace and justice against the twin terrorist forces of the Israeli government and Hamas.

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

I am not so sure I would assert it is about being scare so much, but rather cautious about who we are letting control the narrative of the story. Returning to the book by Dr Sluka, but this has also been observed by others, the terms terrorism and terrorist, are quite commonly used to provide legitimacy to the oppression and marginalization of people. Internationally and historically we have seen this to be the case. As such, these terms hold amazing implications for how the situation is interpreted and understood by the general public. Although this is not so surprising as the very language and terms we use to a large extent shapes our reality.

Although I do certainly acknowledge you did not use such terms in an attempt to slant the discussion. I took it as being an unintentional consequence.

It's an interesting point, terrorist is a very powerful word and when I think of people who are labelled eco-terrorists for climbing power stations in super hero costumes I always feel that the word is too strong. I empathize with the people of Palestine and their plight although I do not agree with the violence that has been used by various political factions which has caused many innocent people to be killed or injured. These people who use violence to hurt and harm others I would consider as terrorists. I don't think I would consider the militia as terrorists simply because they are being instructed what to do as it is their job opposed to their political/religious/ect beliefs, although I suppose individual soldiers may harbour their own vendettas and abuse their position. Any whoo I would look towards the government and political leaders at that point who are pulling the strings...

Firstly on the perspective of anthropology I would like to quote Dr Sluka's explanation of the anthropological approach to demonstrate why it is the more desirable approach to take to the term.

Originally Posted by Jeff Sluka

The hallmark of anthropology is that it combines empirical methods with a cultural approach, and from this perspective considers 'terrorism' as both an empirical reality and a cultural construct, belief system, or ideology. The discipline brings to critical terrorism studies what it brings to the study of human conflict in all its forms - a cultural perspective; a cross culturally comparative and holistic approach; an ethnographic approach based on long-term fieldwork and direct participant-observation in the community studied; a scientific commitment to both objectivity and getting as close as possible to the subjective, participants, or emic point of view; an appreciation of the impact of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism; and a humanist concern for ethics, the potentially negative affects research may have on those studied, and the 'Enlightenment vision' that research should be applied for the improvement of the human condition.

In regards to your point on eco-terrorists, it does fit in with the commonly expressed narrative on the term terrorism. The purpose when it is, largely, presented by the media and State is to demonize and vilify those who would dare oppose the State's interests. In the case of Israel this is used to turn the public against those who take action in order to regain their sense of person-hood which is so cruelly and violently being deprived from them as well as to oppose their colonization in a more general sense. This usage as identified by Sluka is not a new one.

Originally Posted by Jeff Sluka

Anthropologists are more aware than most of the fact, historically, all indigenous and other 'nation peoples' who have resisted state conquest and domination have been denounced and vilified by those states as inhuman 'savages'. There is a clear correspondence between the former imperialist ideology of the 'savage' and the contemporary one of the 'terrorist' other.

The earlier point on their person-hood is an important one. It is both directly applied as a weapon against the 'other' as well as being used for indirect advantages such as legitimizing the State terrorism.