Erez, states are an invention of the 19th century, so they are relativelly modern. Before, there were no international conventions regarding the borders. Maybe there was never a Palestinian State, but the state of Israel is also only 56 years old. Even if there have always lived Jews in the region that doesn’t mean that Israel’s right to exist is based upon one single belief! Modern states, like the US, France or Israel, are secular. Today’s Israel is not a continuation of the biblical Israel. The “who was before” game is kind of rediculous because eventually we all came from Africa. People living in Wales today can also claim that they own Belgium because Celts were here long before the Germanic tribes made them move somewhere else. More important than the ethnic ties are the cultural ones.

You admit Palestinians have right upon their own territories. So why are you building a wall, which itself I have no problems with, on THEIR land? Why are there colonies in their territories? As I said before, both parties are wrong.

Now, this is not the Israel vs Palestine-thread.

Erez, the west doesn’t recognise the state, but it does exist, not as political entity, but the more as a cultural, religious one. According to Saudi Arabia, Israel doesn’t exist too, does that mean the people there don’t have the right on their territories. It’s always a matter of perception. States are temporary solutions, they don’t exist forever. An independent Palestinian state on its own will never be a solution, but it can be a start. The problems in the Middle East are not only between two religions, but also between rich and poor. Tolerance towards other cultures and religions can only be created when there are two equal parties and not when one party is underdog. Still, this does not justify the terrorist attacks undertaken by the Palestinians.

When there’s no hope only anger remains. But even anger doesn’t justify terrorist attacks. It’s like the situation in the Middle East. Every sane person knows bus attacks will lead to more Israeli military actions.

Still, if you give in, that’s only going to encourage them further. Consider this example: you can lose 10 lives securing the area today, or none by giving in. However, continued terrorist activity might cost you more over the long run than what you’d lose solving the problem today.

At least the question should be asked. It could be that in the long run it cost more lives. However, the situation today is that it can’t actually become any worse for Chechnya. Terrorism can be created only through grief. It’s not an organised form of warfare. You can’t simply send in tanks, ask all innocent civilians to leave their houses and the terrorists to come out with their hands raised above their head. It’s easy to portret a terrorist as a monster, which he becomes at a certain time, but before he was probably a loving father with children untill that day … Or do you really believe a sane man will do things like we’ve seen because a bearded uncle with a machine gun and a garage full of luxury vehicles asks him?

Maybe it should give Chechnya full independence

Very,very,very bad idea…

Maybe a bad idea, there are other options. The question is still open, but why should so many people (Russian soldiers) die for some principles. Look, if somebody wants to hijack my car I won’t defend it and risk getting killed. The solution can be utilitarist: isn’t the price (death toll, money) too high to keep Chechnya? There’s nothing pacifist about that, just rational thinking.

Give me one example of an ethnic conflict where war was a solution. WWII? Bosnia? Kosovo? As much as Putin wants us to believe, the problems in Chechnya existed decades before 9/11. These were acts of terrorism, but they had nothing to do with Al Quaida or ‘international’ terrorism as a whole. You don’t need to go to a training camp to kill innocent children. The ones responsible for this coward attack should be brought to justice, there should be a full investigation and if necessairy, Russia may use military force to “root out” terrorism. But a worldwide coalition will only cause more attacks. Russia has always been foughting a war at its borders. During the cold war, these wars have been portretted by the west as acts of imperialism. And now we should give carte blanche to all nations to fight terrorism. Be reasonable people, “terrorism” has always existed thousands of years before 9/11 but now everyone should be able to go to war because it’s a fashionable. I’m no pacifist, and I still think Russia has the right to defend itself when under attack, even if that includes military operations in Chechnya. But Putin is smart enough to realise that the support given by the west today can be completelly gone tomorrow.