Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
..erm, not really: the territory of Palestine and Israel has been under the control of the Brits up until post WW2, and it's the British Protectorate who helped Jews to go back there, but when they realised there was no way to control it because of the tensions with Palestinians they buggered off, telling everybody to behave.. So whose sovereignty is valid there?  ....
....This doesn't mean that the British presence is more legitimate than the Argentinian one though. Again, independence from both would be the ideal solution.
....With all the technology going on today you don't really need listening posts, and surely not one that far anyway. It was a good strategic presence during the 60s and 70s, but now it's just economic interests. |
I would say that the Israeli-Palestinian troubles are similar inasmuch as it is a territorial dispute in which the claims for ownership are muddied at best. The example you give, for instance, is merely one interpretation of events amongst many (The first casualty of war is truth, afterall) and it could also be suggested that the British backed out of Palestine and recognized Israeli sovereignty as a result of well documented terrorist attacks against British interests and troops implemented by Zionist groups.
Ultimately, as with all territorial squabbles, the truth of the matter is hard to grasp for either side or even the neutral observer. The Falklands is the same inasmuch as there is Spanish (And, therefore, Argentinian) claim and British claim and both have interesting arguments.... but, ultimately, it is down to the Falklanders how they wish to be perceived and they wish to be perceived as British.
I am certain, from many people I have spoken to from both sides of the fence, that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians just want to get on with their lives in peace but, sadly, life doesn't tend to work like that. (Call be a cynic) An Argentinian friend of mine has also stated that the majority of Argentina really don't give a monkeys...... but that won't stop escalation, sadly. I hope that clears up my comparison.
Whose Sovereignty is valid with regards to Palestine/Israel? I ain't touching that one with a ten foot barge-pole. lol I have my views on the matter but I'd rather keep this discussion on the level of "Metapolitics" than risk breaking the well established "No politics" rule on this forum.
As far as a war based on resources such as oil.... I can't think of a single war that hasn't, ultimately, been about resources. Many people blame religion and say similar about that but I prefer to view religion and/or Ideologies (Such as Communism, Fascism, National Socialism etc...) as simply spurs to action and a means of getting one's population "on side"... Essentially the "Ideology" is a useful tool for enabling the pursuit of goals of any given Nation. WW2, for instance.... it is indisputable that Germany had a serious lack of resources, both natural and imported, which justified, in their minds at least, the Imperialist policies which led to their drive East.... of course, by the same token, the Soviet forces had no choice but to defend their own territory and resources also.
Call me a terrible cynic but I think war, as a phenomenon, is eternal and with us till the last human being croaks it. I would love to "Give peace a chance" (Who wouldn't?) but, ultimately, there will always be someone "out there" who does not share that view..... and their reasons will always be "justifiable" if only to them.
Simply put: You are totally correct, Sternjaeger II... independence from both would be ideal and end all dispute (Again, same with Israel/Palestine recognising each other as independent and clearly defined states.)...... now try implementing that!
That is, essentially, my ultimate comparison between the two. The world is filled with armchair generals with great plans on how peace can be achieved (No insult! We all do it. lol) but the reality is not necessarily as easy to achieve as we think it is from the safety of our armchairs and computer desks.