FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Israel/Gaza: Stephen Hawking gets it. Do you?





handfleisch
Quote:
Riz Khan: What do you think will be the fallout from the war in Gaza?

Professor Stephen Hawking: The attack on Gaza is similar to that on Lebanon two years ago, that killed over two thousand but did not achieve Israel's war aims. I think the assault on Gaza will be equally unsuccessful. A people under occupation will continue to resist in any way it can. If Israel wants peace it will have to talk to Hamas like Britain did with the IRA. Hamas is the democratically elected leaders of the Palestinian people and cannot be ignored.

Riz Khan: Professor what have been your thoughts during the three weeks of violence that has taken place in Gaza?

Professor Stephen Hawking: Israel's response to the rocket attacks has been plain out of proportion. Almost a hundred Palestinians have been killed for every Israeli. The situation is like that of South Africa before nineteen-ninety and cannot continue.

To see the whole interview go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1jjLRXmIck
deanhills
What is your point Handfleisch? Professor Stephen Hawking is a brilliant physicist. But not an expert in politics. The interview that you quoted does not say anything more than everyone has argued before. Will be great to learn why you think his opinion would carry a meaningful message and specifically why you thought this should be made into a thread? Exactly what do you want to be discussed?
Xanatos
As far as I'm concerned Stephen Hawking is not an expert on politics, and therefore his opinion on the matter carries no more weight that yours or mine. Postings like these are meant to get you to associate with a certain thing because somebody famous endorses it. I don't buy into this kind of crap tactics.
ocalhoun
@previous two posters: you're attacking people/groups, not the issue! That's exactly the same thing handfleisch has been berated for so often!


On the issue:
Yeah, you should reconcile your problems with an enemy by talking...
Sounds very nice, but how can you reach a peaceful solution with a group who's #1 long-term goal is to wipe your country off the map?

Appeasement, anyone?
Phinx
Despite their plans to wipe Israel of the map it will not happen. Allot of people might die, but idea of total annihilation is silly. There are rules and regulations, forbidding an act of genocide. If a certain border is overstepped by any of the sides, an outside force will intervene despite the reasons of the conflict while ignoring which side is guilty. I mean we are talking about an attack on Jew populated country, a touchy topic from the times WWII, plus it is a parliamentary democracy. 'Defenders of Democracy and freedom' are bound to rush in and save the day.

I think, considering the deeply entrenched differences, based on believes that can not be changed, it is questionable how long it would take to sort out the situation in to a peaceful end and even if it is possible at all. But negotiations could provide time for sides to prepare a defense line. Anti-Rocket system is already close to an operational state in Israel:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/27/israels-anti-rocket-syste_n_179980.html

The objective now is not to stop the conflict, but to defend from the rocket attacks. Reason for this is that people are rather reluctant to discuss any type of issue if 5 minutes ago their families started to resemble mince after a visit from a ground-to-ground missile. It would be a ridiculous situation if 2 leaders were to meet and start negotiating a peaceful resolution and a messenger rushes in reporting that Tel-Aviv is on fire after yet another assault. First they need to concentrate on defense, and then diplomacy.
Solon_Poledourus
They need to grow the hell up.
What are they fighting about anyway? A stupid building on a stupid piece of land that nobody wants to let go of? Fighting over the semantics of a religion? Grow up and get out of the dark ages and stop killing each other over some god who has abandoned you all. Seriously.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
They need to grow the hell up.
What are they fighting about anyway? A stupid building on a stupid piece of land that nobody wants to let go of? Fighting over the semantics of a religion? Grow up and get out of the dark ages and stop killing each other over some god who has abandoned you all. Seriously.
Obviously it has to be more than that? Without that piece of land Israel would have nowhere to live. It is defending its right to occupy the land. I doubt it has really got to do with religion. Mostly about the right of occupying the land.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Obviously it has to be more than that? Without that piece of land Israel would have nowhere to live. It is defending its right to occupy the land. I doubt it has really got to do with religion. Mostly about the right of occupying the land.
The only reason Israel is where it is, is because of the Temple Mount. It's probably one of the single biggest factors in all this crap, and has been for centuries. Everyone is claiming divine rights to a hill with a building on it. Sure, there's alot of political factors that come into play as well, but were it not for that Temple Mount, all other arguments would be moot.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
They need to grow the hell up.
What are they fighting about anyway? A stupid building on a stupid piece of land that nobody wants to let go of? Fighting over the semantics of a religion? Grow up and get out of the dark ages and stop killing each other over some god who has abandoned you all. Seriously.
Obviously it has to be more than that? Without that piece of land Israel would have nowhere to live. It is defending its right to occupy the land. I doubt it has really got to do with religion. Mostly about the right of occupying the land.


It started as religion, to my knowledge. Who should occupy the land based on religion has been part of the fight/debate for centuries. Perhaps politics have taken a front seat in the fight, but I have little doubt religion is still very much a present factor.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
They need to grow the hell up.
What are they fighting about anyway? A stupid building on a stupid piece of land that nobody wants to let go of? Fighting over the semantics of a religion? Grow up and get out of the dark ages and stop killing each other over some god who has abandoned you all. Seriously.
Obviously it has to be more than that? Without that piece of land Israel would have nowhere to live. It is defending its right to occupy the land. I doubt it has really got to do with religion. Mostly about the right of occupying the land.


It started as religion, to my knowledge. Who should occupy the land based on religion has been part of the fight/debate for centuries. Perhaps politics have taken a front seat in the fight, but I have little doubt religion is still very much a present factor.
Do you refer to a few centuries ago, or the recent occupation in 1948? I believe those guys were religious, but at that time they were fighting for their right to exist on that piece of land (with the help of God). The Muslims are also devout, but their determination to be rid of the Jews may sometimes rank above God I think. Or who knows, maybe it is synonymous. Think that burning desire to get rid of Jews is what is uniting the Palestinians, not only in Gaza but all over the world and perhaps uniting Jews of Israel with Jews all over the world as well. Wonder what would happen if the Palestinians would get their piece of land (can't see it happening) and they had no more enemy to wake up to every day? Would they start fighting amongst one another? Would they still be dependent on Arabs from other countries to look after them?
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Do you refer to a few centuries ago, or the recent occupation in 1948? I believe those guys were religious, but at that time they were fighting for their right to exist on that piece of land (with the help of God).
That's pretty much my point. If it were not for a certain piece of real estate being considered "holy", none of this would be an issue.
deanhills wrote:
Wonder what would happen if the Palestinians would get their piece of land (can't see it happening) and they had no more enemy to wake up to every day?
I read a book called All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten, by Robert Fulghum. He explains that the most important things he learned in life was during childhood, such as sharing. That's the problem with the Jews/Palestinians/Arabs in this region; they just don't want to share. I think it's sad that a 3 year old has better values than the governments of these people. Just share the damn land and stop killing each other over it. How f*cking hard is that?
deanhills wrote:
Would they start fighting amongst one another? Would they still be dependent on Arabs from other countries to look after them?
As long as these people keep claiming a divine right of ownership to this little piece of dirt, they will keep on killing each other. It's really childish.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
They need to grow the hell up.
What are they fighting about anyway? A stupid building on a stupid piece of land that nobody wants to let go of? Fighting over the semantics of a religion? Grow up and get out of the dark ages and stop killing each other over some god who has abandoned you all. Seriously.
Obviously it has to be more than that? Without that piece of land Israel would have nowhere to live. It is defending its right to occupy the land. I doubt it has really got to do with religion. Mostly about the right of occupying the land.


It started as religion, to my knowledge. Who should occupy the land based on religion has been part of the fight/debate for centuries. Perhaps politics have taken a front seat in the fight, but I have little doubt religion is still very much a present factor.
Do you refer to a few centuries ago, or the recent occupation in 1948? I believe those guys were religious, but at that time they were fighting for their right to exist on that piece of land (with the help of God).


Razz But isn't that the same thing? If they're fighting under the idea of some divine right to the land, this certainly involves religion in a big way. I have to side on what was said: If this little piece of land did not hold some supposed divine significance, would the fight have ever started, or lasted this long?
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
They need to grow the hell up.
What are they fighting about anyway? A stupid building on a stupid piece of land that nobody wants to let go of? Fighting over the semantics of a religion? Grow up and get out of the dark ages and stop killing each other over some god who has abandoned you all. Seriously.
Obviously it has to be more than that? Without that piece of land Israel would have nowhere to live. It is defending its right to occupy the land. I doubt it has really got to do with religion. Mostly about the right of occupying the land.


It started as religion, to my knowledge. Who should occupy the land based on religion has been part of the fight/debate for centuries. Perhaps politics have taken a front seat in the fight, but I have little doubt religion is still very much a present factor.
Do you refer to a few centuries ago, or the recent occupation in 1948? I believe those guys were religious, but at that time they were fighting for their right to exist on that piece of land (with the help of God).


Razz But isn't that the same thing? If they're fighting under the idea of some divine right to the land, this certainly involves religion in a big way. I have to side on what was said: If this little piece of land did not hold some supposed divine significance, would the fight have ever started, or lasted this long?
I think it is just a healthy dose of nationalism. After centuries of being treated like lesser citizens all over Europe and almost everywhere in the world, they needed to own their own country where they could be first class citizens. The land of milk and honey. They succeeded in that in 1948, but obviously at a great price.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
I think it is just a healthy dose of nationalism. After centuries of being treated like lesser citizens all over Europe and almost everywhere in the world, they needed to own their own country where they could be first class citizens. The land of milk and honey. They succeeded in that in 1948, but obviously at a great price.
But the question is: Why did they need that land? There is plenty of decent land all over the world, but they needed to be on that particular spot. That same spot, coincidentally, is an area that Palestinians and Arabs also feel they need to own. The root cause of this violent real estate battle is "religion". They all wanted to be the rightful wards of the Holy Land.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I think it is just a healthy dose of nationalism. After centuries of being treated like lesser citizens all over Europe and almost everywhere in the world, they needed to own their own country where they could be first class citizens. The land of milk and honey. They succeeded in that in 1948, but obviously at a great price.
But the question is: Why did they need that land? There is plenty of decent land all over the world, but they needed to be on that particular spot. That same spot, coincidentally, is an area that Palestinians and Arabs also feel they need to own. The root cause of this violent real estate battle is "religion". They all wanted to be the rightful wards of the Holy Land.
There were already Jewish settlers in that spot for a number of decades. So it seemed to be a natural "holy land" or land of their destiny and paradise. WWII and all the refugees associated with it amplified the need for it. The British after the war were possibly also tired and needed their energy for rebuilding the UK after the devastation of the war. Coincidentally there were also large number of Jewish people who fled and emigrated to the United States during after WWII. Some of those (like Golda Meir) left the US much later for Palestine. Others in the US of course have always looked after Israel. Sort of a strong bond there and perhaps reason why Obama was celebrating a Jewish holiday at the White House a couple of months ago. Smile
sondosia
Quote:
I read a book called All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten, by Robert Fulghum. He explains that the most important things he learned in life was during childhood, such as sharing. That's the problem with the Jews/Palestinians/Arabs in this region; they just don't want to share. I think it's sad that a 3 year old has better values than the governments of these people. Just share the damn land and stop killing each other over it. How f*cking hard is that?


Oh, really. You're SO astute.

See, Israel LEFT the Gaza Strip, and, a few years ago, offered 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. They refused. Israel is clearly trying to share. But Palestinians don't WANT to share. They want Israel wiped off the map, and they've stated so numerous times.
deanhills
sondosia wrote:
Quote:
I read a book called All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten, by Robert Fulghum. He explains that the most important things he learned in life was during childhood, such as sharing. That's the problem with the Jews/Palestinians/Arabs in this region; they just don't want to share. I think it's sad that a 3 year old has better values than the governments of these people. Just share the damn land and stop killing each other over it. How f*cking hard is that?


Oh, really. You're SO astute.

See, Israel LEFT the Gaza Strip, and, a few years ago, offered 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. They refused. Israel is clearly trying to share. But Palestinians don't WANT to share. They want Israel wiped off the map, and they've stated so numerous times.
I agree with you Sondosia, so do quite a number of others who do not want to speak out for obvious reasons. It is the equivalent of those wishing to visit Israel, travelling on separate travel documents so that they won't need to have a stamp in their Passport that shows that they have visited Israel. Think that in its own says a lot about how it is. Not only do Palestinians not want to share, but all of the Arab world standing behind the Palestinians do not want them to share. They all have a serious axe to grind with the Israelis. Perhaps in a way it is even something that binds them together. It is definitely uniting all the Palestinians. An offsetting good part about it is that Israel has and absolutely clear picture of who its enemies are.
BinahZ
Below you will find a map of the middle east for those who need a wake up to the amount of land beig disputed, on this page are some interesting hisotical facts about occupation of the lands.

http://middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-maps.php

sondosia said:

Quote:
See, Israel LEFT the Gaza Strip, and, a few years ago, offered 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. They refused. Israel is clearly trying to share. But Palestinians don't WANT to share. They want Israel wiped off the map, and they've stated so numerous times.


Sondosia you are so right. The play at politics is just a play on the palestinian part to gain world sympathy. No real effort at peace is made on their part, they want it all and Israel annihilated. The link also makes the point that:
Quote:
Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

A bit different than alot of the propoganda that is heard out of the middle east and europe.

http://www.peacefaq.com/palestinians.html a very informative site with input froma variety of sources.

peacefaq.com states:

Quote:
So before the creation of the State of Israel, who were the Palestinians?

Until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST; the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE; Bank Leumi was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK; the Israel Electric Company was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY; there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC. All these were Jewish organizations. In America, Zionist youngsters sang "PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE", "PALESTINE SCOUT SONG" and "PALESTINE SPRING SONG" In general, the terms Palestine and Palestinian referred to the region of Palestine as it was. Thus "Palestinian Jew" and "Palestinian Arab" are straightforward expressions. "Palestine Post" and "Palestine Philharmonic" refer to these bodies as they existed in a place then known as Palestine. The adoption of a Palestinian identity by the Arabs of Palestine is a recent phenomenon. Until the establishment of the State of Israel, and for another decade or so, the term Palestinian applied almost exclusively to the Jews.


Quote:
"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
- Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, to the UN Security Council


This from the mouth of one their own above. When was the last time a comment like this was on CNN , MSNBC, FOX etc..
Turks settled in Jaffa conducting business. The Ottomans brought in many thousands of Syrian and Lebanese workers to build the railroads. Refugees from a failed revolution against France in Iraq, Muslim refugees from Russia, Kurds, and Bosnians settled in Israel too.

Quote:
What was the identity of the Arabs of Palestine at the end of the Ottoman Empire?

On August 11, 1919 in a memorandum to Lord Curzon, Lord Balfour stated that "whatever be the future of Palestine, it is not now an 'independent nation,' nor is it yet on the way to becoming one". Professor of history Reverend James Parkes wrote in Whose Land that "before 1914, ... the mass of the population [in Palestine] had no real feeling of belonging to any wider unit than their village, clan or possibly confederation of clans". He stressed the point that "up to that time it is not possible to speak of the existence of any general sentiment of nationality".
A Palestinian Arab, Professor of history Rashid Khalidi recently confirmed Balfour's and Parkes' statements that the population of Palestine at the beginning of this century did not represent a distinct nation. In his book Palestinian Identity, he wrote that only at the beginning of the twentieth century did the Arabs of Palestine start to see "themselves as part of other communities, both larger and smaller ones. This identification certainly did not include all sectors or classes of the population. But it did constitute a new and powerful category of identity that was simply nonexistent a generation or two before, and was still novel and limited in its diffusion before World War I".

...the non-Jewish residents of Palestine tried to don several different identities. First, they attempted to become Ottomans. This attempt failed after the defeat of the Ottoman army and subsequent withdrawal of Ottoman authority from Palestine. As Khalidi wrote, "in a period of a few years, Ottomanism as an ideology went from being one of the primary sources of identification for Palestinians, to having no apparent impact at all". Then came the turn of the Syrian identity that did not last long either. When the French crushed the two-year-old independent Syrian state in 1920, the elite of the Palestinian Arabs decided to change orientation again. Khalidi quotes the nationalist leader Musa Kazim Pasa al-Husayni, who said, "Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine".
It is important to note that the nationalist movement among the non-Jewish residents of Palestine did not originate on its soil, but was imported from Egypt, Turkey and France. Parkes wrote that it was "exclusively political in the narrowest sense, and showed little awareness of the day-to-day problems which would arise if its political objective were reached". Illiterate fellahen became the pawns in the game of power-thirsty Arab nationalists who tried to repeat King Abdulla's success in Jordan at a smaller scale in the remaining part of Palestine.


There is a saying that if you repeat a falsehood often enough..it somehow becomes the truth to many.

Joseph Farah arab/american journalist states:
Quote:
There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.
But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.


Quote:
Meeting in Cairo in 1964, the Arab League resolved to divert the waters of the Jordan River, which are vital for Israel's existence. At that same conference, there was a public declaration of the intention to destroy Israel, and the PLO was founded.
- Anita Shapira, The New Republic, 29 November, 1999


SO WHO ARE THE REAL PALESTINIANS? A mixture of Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Egyptian people with strong mixes of Kurds, Circassian, Algerian, Bosnians, and Arabian, as well as a bit of remnant old blood from the mixed Arab, Greek, and Samaritan? The idea of a Palestine that belongs to an arab Palestinian people is a creation of recent times to suit the politics at hand.
deanhills
Thanks BinahZ. That is really interesting information. I had more or less an idea, especially with regard to Jordan, however thought that Lebanon and parts of Syria would have been included too? Obviously I was wrong with the latter?

I can't imagine the peace with Jordan, except perhaps that King Hussein and his son are not really that militant, however quite a large number of Palestinians are living in Jordan, so it has to be a very cold peace agreement. I wonder why the Palestinians never mention Jordan however, puts things in a different perspective. Their conflict with Israel then has to be more about getting rid of Israel completely, rather than coming to an agreement of sharing. Wonder what the agreement of the Palestinians with Jordan would be?
GLOBALSTRATEGY
Actually Professor Stephen Hawking got it wrong: the truth is that the Zionist leadership was always ready for sharing the land with the Arabs, but the latter always rejected any proposal that could also contemplate the Jewish national rights in the land of Israel. The Palestinian leadership began their violence rejection of the Jews in the twenties of the last century attacking them in Yaffa, then in 1929 they performed a vandalic pogrom against the Jews of Hebron and other places, in 1936 they rejected the Peel Plan which proposed a partition of the Land which left most of it to the Arabs, in 1947 they rejected the United Nations proposal to create an Arab and a Jewish state in Palestine, and in the next year they performed the first military aggression after the ending of the second world war, when seven Arab armies invaded the just born new State of Israel. Professor Stephen Hawking should have read a bit of Middle Eastern history before opinating about the region.
deanhills
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
Actually Professor Stephen Hawking got it wrong: the truth is that the Zionist leadership was always ready for sharing the land with the Arabs, but the latter always rejected any proposal that could also contemplate the Jewish national rights in the land of Israel. The Palestinian leadership began their violence rejection of the Jews in the twenties of the last century attacking them in Yaffa, then in 1929 they performed a vandalic pogrom against the Jews of Hebron and other places, in 1936 they rejected the Peel Plan which proposed a partition of the Land which left most of it to the Arabs, in 1947 they rejected the United Nations proposal to create an Arab and a Jewish state in Palestine, and in the next year they performed the first military aggression after the ending of the second world war, when seven Arab armies invaded the just born new State of Israel. Professor Stephen Hawking should have read a bit of Middle Eastern history before opinating about the region.
The thing is that we have two versions of the same history: the Zionist version, and the Palestinian/Arab version. Both feel equally right about their historic claims, and both feel equally not guilty. That leaves the rest of the world in permanent puzzlement.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.