main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Israel/Palestine

Discussion in 'Community' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Vaderize03 - I'm pressed for time at the moment but intend to respond fully to your comments regarding the UN in the next day or so. In short, the entire peace process has been driven by UN SC Resolutions, in particular, UN Security Council Resolution 242. UN Security Council Resolution 242 was made following the Six Day War and calls for Israel to withdraw from the the territories it has occupied following the end of the conflict.

    UN SC Resolution 242 is the legal framework, in international law, for the return to pre-1967 borders, including the return of East Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees removed from their homes following the 1948 war - enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 194. It should be noted that the US vetos UN GA Resolution 194 every year.

    A return to pre-1967 borders means a return to the Armistice Line 1949 borders (or Green Line) which are the only borders which have even some sembelence of agreement about them. A return to pre-1967 borders has been contemplated as the basis for the peace process since the beginning of the peace talks and most recently at the Taba Summit which almost resulted in a partial settlement. So yeah, this issue has always been, and always will be, a major agenda item.


    I understand the history; I'm referring to the condemnation that Israel has disproportionately suffered at the hands of the UN following responses to attacks on its' civilian population from terrorists.

    I think that 1967-borders were always the "starting point", but the fuss is probably more about a US president just coming out and "saying it"; the perception in Israel is akin to "Obama's promising this much, now what may be coming?". It's a fundamental lack of mistrust from the Israelis for Obama following the speech, and something of a lack of understanding of internal Israeli politics from Obamam's side. His speech was bold, but it has created problems for Netanyahu at home from his right flank, and it will do the same for Obama here.

    I have a feeling that any land "swaps" will involve the acquifers staying with whomever built them, and the arable land being equitably divided (if possible). I think the "right of return" will be the hardest thing to iron out, as well as Jerusalem.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  2. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    V03

    I think that 1967-borders were always the "starting point", but the fuss is probably more about a US president just coming out and "saying it"; the perception in Israel is akin to "Obama's promising this much, now what may be coming?"

    Yea, perhaps my memory isn't great, a possibility for sure, but I thought Obama's speech/policy is similar to Clinton and Bush's policy.

    The thing is Netenyahu is the equivalent of a Republican under extreme pressure from his right flank to not make any sort of compromise. He'll give lip service to forging some sort of agreement, but there are too many crazy, religious fundamentalists that form a solid voting block, while not the majority, thinks that they are 100% right, won't budge, and want to impose their agenda on everyone. Sound familiar?

    Mr44

    Well, because Jordan and Egypt care less about the plight of the Palestinians than Israel does, because those countries have their version of plausible deniability. Taking responsibility for an influx of a million palestinian refugees would cripple any of those countries, not matter what pretense is given to the humanitarian issues.

    Very true.
     
  3. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    My point is that if you understand the history then you understand that the UN cannot be left out of any discussion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The UN has condemned Israel simply on the basis that Israel is a soveriegn member state and is therefore bound by the UN Charter and international law. Israel has obligations to act in accordance with the conventions, treaties and protocols which inform international law. Terrorists and terrorism fall outside of the UN Charter as these groups are not member states and are therefore not expected to act in accordance with international law. Terrorist groups are criminals and thugs and should be subject to police action not UN Security Council Resolutions.

    That aside, the majority of UNSC Resolutions which Israel has failed to comply with relate to Israel's continuing contravention of the Geneva Conventions, particularly Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and relate to Israel's treatment of civilians in the occupied territories. Plus Israel is probably the only nation since WWII which does not understand the legal principle that you cannot acquire territory by war. You may consider the UN to be "disproportionate" in its condemnation of Israel but that is literally because Israel behaves like a rogue state and uses terrorism as its excuse (Israel has legitimate security concerns but nothing which justifies its policies of collective punishment of 1.3 million people).

    The issue here is that nobody builds water acquifers, they are a naturally ocurring feature of the land. People build on water acquifers to access the water supply for domestic and agricultural use. When Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 it drove the Palestinian farmers from their land holdings, bulldozed villages and replaced them with settlements (the majority of which are occupied by Orthodox Jewish Americans). Where new water acquifers are found, new settlements are constructed. There can be no economically viable Palestinian state without access to the water- Palestine has historically been an agricultural society with an agricultural economy.

    I agree that the "right of return" will be the hardest issue. In my view there can be no right of return if the parties are going to realistically pursue a two state solution. Israel simply cannot have three quarters of a million Palestinians returning to the homes they once occupied 60 years ago. The Clinton Parameters provide for a range of options, including partial re-settlement on Israel, partial re-settlement in a Palestinain state and partial re-settlement in host countries.

    As for Jerusalem, if there is a return to pre-1967 borders then that means the return of East Jerusalem. Again I think the Clinton Parameters provide for an equitable solution. Any Palestinian state will want East Jerusalem as its capital.

    Personally, I would be more optimistic if Netanyahu wasn't the Israeli PM. Now that Arafat and Sharon are gone I would give the chances at reaching an agreement to be quite good - but with Bibi at the helm it will never happen, even with Obama's support.





     
  4. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    The Palestinians have their own national identity, and as far as I know they don't want to be absorbed by Egypt or Jordan. Ironically their identity was forged primarily through their conflict with Jews as they immigrated into Palestine. Even now the whole "right of return" issue is centered on the fact that many Palestinians want to go back to what used to be their land....land that's now a part of Israel.
     
  5. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    That's not exactly true. I mean, there are parts of current Jordan that used to be old Palestine (the Palestine-Transjordan area). National identity is the result of the entire region being created out of the division of former European colonies. In fact, Britain was awarded a mandate over most of the entire region for the express purpose to govern a transition and/or carve out various regions and states.

    I guess if you were a Palestinian back in 1947 and you happened to live across the street on the side that remains with modern day Jordan, you have it made. If you happened to live on the wrong side of town, and ended up in the disputed West Bank, you got screwed for the rest of your life. Realistically, the only difference is the line on a map, and the results of war. That's the point. There are no more, or no less of a former national identity in the former Palestinian side of Jordan. or Syria. or Lebanon. The entire region was a series of former European colonies divided up according to the mind set of the time. Even a return to 1967 borders isn't a permanent fix to any of these issues. It might be a starting point for some negotiation, but it's just as arbitrary as the rest.
     
  6. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I think that's sort of an odd argument, 44. You're right that national borders were more externally imposed than something recognized as having actual currency among the region's residents. It will be interesting to see whether, in an era of relatively weak states, greater democracies, and mezzanine rulers, people become more responsive to trans-national ideological/political pacts than anything (eg Southern Lebanon identifying more with those in Hezbollah's axis of alliances than to the politics of Lebanon proper).

    But your argument that "no one has much national identity" doesn't seem to have much value here. You show no appreciation for the kind of solidarity a decades long traumatic experience can engender. Though I wouldn't compare slavery to the Palestinian occupation in terms of the severity of events, your suggestion has shades of the same naivete that drove the plans for Liberia. Even if people started "just a few blocks away" the intervening half century has been very different. There two (and by the time this is settled, closer to three at least) whole generations of people who have had a "Palestinian" experience that is radically distinct from what that of their one time neighbors. There's no reason to expect that integration would be the sort of obvious or easy solution you imply.
     
  7. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    It just happens to be the only one that complies with international humanitarian war law. And the only one in which a Palestinian state is not doomed to fail because it's broken up into bits and pieces.

    I wouldn't call that arbitrary... I'd call that the only possible first step towards ending the conflict.
     
  8. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Nothing will forge a national identity better than being turfed out of your home at gun point, seeing your home bulldozed, your village renamed (in Hebrew) and occupied by strangers, and being told that you never existed.

    You have raised this geographic/national identity issue a few times in this thread as if it should have some bearing on the aspirations of around three quarter of a million people who were the victims of systematic ethnic cleansing in 1948. The point is that when you look at a Mandate period map, you will see an area called 'Palestine' and an area called 'Transjordan'. Apart from some minor boundary blurrings in the Negev area, the entire area called 'Palestine' under Mandate is now 'Israel' and the part called 'Transjordan' is now Jordan along the boundaries which currently exist (derived from the UN Partition Plan).

    A very large proportion of the population in the area called 'Palestine' (now Israel) were forcibly removed and became refugees in Jordan, Egypt and Syria. This is the issue. The whole Palestinian national identity was born from this event and has been shaped by the subsequent adversity.

    In short, the push for a Palestinian state is not the result of the natural evolution of a Palestinian national identity but rather it is a direct response to the systematic ethnic cleansing and forced removal of the population that once lived and thrived in an area called 'Palestine'. That is the key. Regardless of the political or national identity, at the end of the day, people have connections to their country, people have farmed in a particular spot for generations, called a certain village 'home', raised children, built homes, attended their mosque or church. People have roots. When that is taken away you can hardly dismiss their aspirations for a secure homeland becuase they never had passports which declared they were from Palestine.



     
  9. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Yeah, LOH, we've had this discussion before, and as always, I don't really disagree with anything you just posted, except for the time factor/historical context. (which is a pretty big factor)

    I think we all agree that we would all defend our homes if someone tried to come in an march us out at gunpoint. But that's in the here and now. It's kind of a universal sentiment. But it only represents small slices of this larger issue. Because let's say my grandfather owned a house and he was forced off of it at gunpoint, oh 64 years ago... Let's call it the Pappy44 homestead. Now, I've never lived at the house, and someone else has, rightly or wrongly, for that entire time. Where the concept was pretty universially accepted above, I don't think anyone would agree that I have a right to show up and reclaim my grandfather's identity 64 years later. No matter how strong the ties by name, realistically, I have less of a connection to Pappy44's homestead than the people who inhabit it do.

    The problem is that if I try to force the current owners of Pappy44's homestead out, the universially accepted principle of self defense mentioned above applies to them, not to me. Obviously, there are some people who want to keep such a strong tie to past identity that they would be willing to die or to kill just to uphold the name only, but it's not any kind of clear moral position. Which is why this entire issue has festered for 60 years.

    So I'm not saying that the Palestinians shouldn't keep a historical identity, it's just that they have to update it in the name of their own survival, and there are other ways to recognize such identity than keeping a mentality of "I want that house right there back, as nothing else would be fair."
     
  10. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    That's true, Pappy44 shouldn't be forced off his homestead, but I think at the least the Palestinians deserve an apology from Israel for being kicked out in the first place. And if certain Palestinian individuals want to immigrate back to Israel and rent out a vacant apartment, should that be an issue either?
     
  11. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Mr44, the argument which you have just made is the rationale which drives the continued illegal settlement movement. Create 'facts on the ground' for long enough and Israel can argue what you are arguing, that the Palestinians have 'lost' the moral right to be returned to the lands which were taken away from them because new 'facts' have since emerged.

    This is the essence of the Israeli settlement policy and is why the Israeli government happily funds pine tree plantations over the top of old Palestinian villages and why it changes the names of the villages and streets to Hebrew names. Where an Arab village once stood for hundreds of years, there is now a modern concrete Israeli settlement with a Hebrew name and a pine tree plantation. It is a deliberate attempt to erase the cultural memory of the Palestinian people. Over 400 Palestinian villages have been completely wiped out in the course of implementing this policy.

    I utterly reject the concept in principle but accept that in practical terms the Palestinian people must give that land up. The Palestinian people recognised this decades ago, which is why the PLO has formally accepted, since 1993, that they will never return to the lands lost in 1948 but will at least settle for the lands lost in 1967. This is why pre-1967 borders are so important.

    Mr44, the forced removal of Palestinians has now happened twice on a grand scale, in 1948 and in 1967, and is still happening today on a smaller scale in the West Bank. Palestinians are being uprooted and 'transfered' right now, their homes demolished and rebuilt with new occupants (imported from the States). So yeah, whilst it is not realistic for the families of those Palestinian refugees forcibly removed in 1948 to return to their old homes (which is why I don't believe a 'right of return' is feasible) it is quite realistic and desirable for those families who were forciblly removed following the 1967 war and later to reclaim their stolen property and to reclaim their stolen identity.

    Really the road map which is being pursued by the Palestinians does not even call for a strict 'right of return', rather, a compromise is sought in relation to the extent that Israel withdraws from land captured in 1967 and thereafter. The Palestinains just want a mini State in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. They gave up 'core' country decades ago.
     
  12. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    44, two problems with your critique.

    1. Your pappy scenario is happening today and has been happening for the past 40+ years.

    Forty years, you'll agree, fit within a lifetime. Many people who've been kicked out of their homes are alive and angry today. They're not your pappy; they're you.

    2. None of the proposals for borders put forth after 1967 will produce a viable Palestinian state.

    [image=http://www.mideastweb.org/palestineOslo1.gif]
    Oslo: Dutch cheese. A joke.
    [image=http://www.unitedmethodistdivestment.com/images/MapPalestineIsrael.jpg]
    Camp David: Landlocked. An insult.
     
  13. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Watto-

    Eight miles wide at one point. Indefensible.

    A Palestinian government that is divided in two, with one half of said government refusing to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Multiple hostile surrounding nations with a massive population advantage, and a well-known decades-long proxy war against the country in question funded by said hostile neighbors.

    That's the problem with point-of-view: people tend to have different ones. You see things skewed one way, but from where others are sitting, they may see it differently.

    I have some real hope with the "Arab Spring" that some of the dictatorial governments coming down will end the behind-the-scenes war with Israel, but in reality, both sides are going to have to swallow bitter pills.

    For Israel, this means dismantling settlements in illegal areas, and sharing Jerusalem. For the Palestinians, it means renouncing the right of return, and acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and the repudiation of terrorism. For the US, it's going to mean real pressure on Israel to negotiate, despite the influence of both AIPAC on evangelical Christians who feel that only an undivided Israel can precede the return of Jesus. For the Arab world, it means an end to the proxy wars against Israel and the isolation of nations that won't play ball (such as Iran), as well as a committment by the UN to treat proxy attacks as direct attacks and condemn them as such.


    I would like to believe all the above can happen, but I am skeptical of progress when attitudes have become so entrenched.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  14. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Watto, LOH- yes to both counts. Like I've said, I don't exactly disagree with what you posted. But it's also why something else has to be tired, instead of defaulting to "hey, look what happened in 1948. Which is my point. (and you could actually look at the facts behind the dates mentioned, such as 1967's Six Day War being the result of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria banding together under a flawed goal to eliminate Israel, which is why nothing is so cut and dried)

    Alternatives that were previously discussed here, such as the Palestinians actually joining together under non-violent protest is one such "change the course" way of thinking. Because V03 is absolutely correct. The Palestinians themselves don't even have a common purpose-half want to destroy the entire Israeli state, half want Palestine to be the way it was back in 1947, and half just go along with whichever other half is in power at the moment. Then, throw into the mix the contradictory, and sometimes competing nature of the surrounding Arab nations themselves, and there's not even a unified goal to work towards.
     
  15. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Entrenched. You mean like "both sides are going to have to swallow bitter pills"? Yeah, I'd call that entrenched.

    Fact is, your government, like mine, supports only one side. And it's at fault. So what we should really do is just make sure we're clean. Whether or not HAMAS recognizes Israel's right to exist, whether or not it commits terrorist acts, whether or not Iran is fighting a proxy war - Israel should withdraw from occupied territories anyway.

    Not my opinion. Law.

    Yes they do - having their basic human rights respected.
     
  16. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Of course they have a common purpose and a common goal. It is to secure a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank (inlcuding East Jerusalem) in accordance with pre-1967 borders, that is, the borders which were established in the Armistice Agreement in 1949. I'm not sure where your psychoanalysis of the Palestinian population comes from but that has been the goal for decades now. There is not one single Palestinian member of the PLO peace process negotiation team who has any return to 1947 on the agenda. The PLO has acknowledged Israel's right to exist in peace formally since 1993 and informally decades before that.

    You really can't expect the Palestinians to just ignore what happened to them in 1948 though. In the same way that you can't expect the Jewish people to ignore past catastrophies. The state of Israel, being the successful implementation of Zionist policy, was created out of past catasrophe. What you can see in the Palestinian movement over the last few decades is a deliberate attempt to copy the path taken by the pioneers of the State of Israel following the catasrophic events of WWII. The early Jewish settlers employed terrorist tactics against the Palestinians and the British before gaining respectable membership of the UN. The Palestinians are taking a page from that book.

    Presumably the "other half" of the Palestinian people you are referring to are the Gazans. The people in Gaza are in a completely different situation to those in the West Bank as you well know. Their concerns are more dire, urgent and immediate. They live in extreme conditions and have, not surprisingly, elected an extreme 'government'. However, if you monitor the press you will see that the people there are tiring of Hamas. Once Israel takes its knee from the throat of the 1.3 million people who live in an open sewer/prison camp, I'm confident they will moderate their political leadership. See for example, new youth movements in Gaza:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/02/free-gaza-youth-manifesto-palestinian

    As to the Six Day War, your characterisation of it being the result of "Egypt, Jordan, and Syria banding together under a flawed goal to eliminate Israel" is just plain wrong. I've actually read quite a few books on the subject. The one book I would highly recommend to you is Jeremy Bowen's "Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East". Bowen is a British journalist whose objectivity and meticulous research is beyond reproach. If you actually look at the events leading up to the Six Day War it is evident that Nasser was emboldened by the propaganda victory of the Suez Crisis and thought to re-enact that propaganda success with the Straits of Tiran crisis brought about by the closing of the Straits to Israeli shipping. Nasser stupidly thought he could bluster about war with Israel without the Israeli authorities using his saber rattling as a justification for a pre-emptive strike. The historical record sh
     
  17. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Why is this a requirement? Isn't a pretty basic feature of democratic societies the fact that they have debate and disagreement within them? Can't Israel also be described as divided? Last I checked, there were strong influence from both ultra-nationalist (cum racist) factions that support loyalty oaths, housing segregation, and resolving the dispute by making all non-Arabs second class citizens of a "Greater Israel." Meanwhile, others want to make a more serious effort at a negotiated peace probably involving concessions to the Palestinians, and a good deal of the populace seems to swing back and forth in frustration between the extremes. Meanwhile, the whole debate is distorted by millenarian foreign groups that are using the conflict to pursue metaphysical outcomes.

    If Avigdor Lieberman can be appointed Foreign Minister without anyone being bothered that Beiteinu Yisrael meetings feature chants of "Death to Arabs," why can't a Palestinian political party that has no part of the foreign policy portfolio have a mere rhetorical position that demands a "long term truce" rather than a "right to exist?"
     
  18. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Why is it a requirement? Because the Palestinians are the ones who collectively want something. You guys are all asking the wrong questions. Think of it as the equivalent of an international job interview. Sure, the job seeker can barge in and scream at both the boss and the secretary about how things aren't fair...about how the other guy got a job even though he's a jerk...demand a job or the company will be sorry... but such behavior isn't going to achieve the desired results, and it certainly does not sell one's positive attributes. It's also not going to land a job anywhere on the planet.

    The Palestinians have to get their own internal house in order before they can even think about moving forward. Israel already has statehood. Jordan already has statehood. Egypt already has statehood. But it doesn't matter what Israel has. It doesn't matter what Egypt has. It doesn't matter what Jordan has. It doesn't matter what the US or Britain have. It matters what the Palestinians do for themselves in a positive manner, and about how they move forward to become productive neighbors in order to achieve their goals. Such might be completely fair. It might be totally unfair. But it's how the world works.

    You really can't expect the Palestinians to just ignore what happened to them in 1948 though.

    Probably not. See my point above though. It depends on what they do with that realization. Should they remember what happened? Sure. After all, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. However, if they can't move forward from it, or continue with the destructive Godfather-esque vengeance for any past slight, then they're going to condemn themselves to an endless cycle of conflict.

    Yes they do - having their basic human rights respected.

    But see Watto, you're using this sentiment as a definitive phrase, or as a pretense that it applies only to the Palestinians. It's a statement that applies to all sides. If you asked the average Israeli, I'm sure they would say the same thing, as in they just want to be free to take the bus to work without having a suicide bomber blow it up. Isn't either side both right and wrong with regards to their goals and consequences? You're falling into the trap of trying to legitimize one side over the other in isolation of the actual situation.
     
  19. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    You missed part (thought not all) of my point. Yes, on the one hand, I was pointing out that it was grossly unfair. But the example also demonstrates that unity of political purpose isn't really a prerequisite to being a functional state or a productive neighbor. If you want to apply a rubric that demands proof they are worthy of statehood before they receive it, fine. But how do you justify putting this requirement among them? How is this at all a sign that their "house is out of order" as opposed to an indication that Palestinians, like all other people, at all other times in human history, are not a monolith, and might want different things, or think that different methods are best to achieve exactly the same thing?

    As an aside, how do you figure that only Palestine wants something? Israel wants something to: recognition of its land seizures as legitimate. Doesn't this diplomatic goal merit some evaluation of their behavior?
     
  20. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Entrenched. You mean like "both sides are going to have to swallow bitter pills"? Yeah, I'd call that entrenched.

    Fact is, your government, like mine, supports only one side. And it's at fault. So what we should really do is just make sure we're clean. Whether or not HAMAS recognizes Israel's right to exist, whether or not it commits terrorist acts, whether or not Iran is fighting a proxy war - Israel should withdraw from occupied territories anyway.

    Not my opinion. Law.


    Yes, they should, but they should not do so if it is clear that that they are going to be put at further risk; in other words, you can't get something for nothing.

    It's not just a matter of "not my opinion. Law.", it's quite a bit more complicated than that. You're reducing a situation with highly complex metrics to a single common denominator. It hasn't worked for decades, and it won't work now.

    You know what else is "law"? Calling out attacks by terrorist groups against civilians, yet the UN has been generally silent when rockets get fired into Israel, other than "strong condemnation". When was the last time the UN actually passed a resolution demanding a halt to rocket attacks? Since Hamas now runs Gaza, such attacks are not even legally definable as terrorism; they are in fact acts of war. Israel would be within their rights to occupy and completely demilitarize Gaza.

    As you and I both agree, on some points we see things the same, and others differently. Our governments also do take different positions, and that reflects different political realities on the ground at home. But what I'm trying to do is not defend Israel's actions, but provide an explanation of their thinking.

    Would withdrawal help the peace process? Yes, I believe it would, but not in the short term. It would be viewed in the Arab world as tantamount to surrender, and probably result in an uptick in attacks.

    Personally, I would like to see Israel pull out, suffer some attacks, not retaliate, and expose the hypocrisy of the rest of the planet in dealing with the conflict. It would force all parties to put their cards on the table: the US, the EU, Russia, and the Arab League. The situation would then face one of two possible outcomes-a resolution that actually is acceptable to both parties, or open war.

    When I used the word "entrenched" in my previous post, I was referring to the status quo.

    I think we can both agree that all around, the status quo is very much dug in, and proving very hard to dislodge, from all sides.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  21. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Right, and I'd add that what needs to happen immediately is for Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and for the Palestinians to give up the so-called 'right of return'. The former is a huge reason why it's hard to believe Israel really would agree to a two-state solution, and the latter ain't going to happen.
     
  22. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Anyone else watch Netanyahu's joint address to Congress a little while ago?
     
  23. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    How is this at all a sign that their "house is out of order" as opposed to an indication that Palestinians, like all other people, at all other times in human history, are not a monolith, and might want different things, or think that different methods are best to achieve exactly the same thing?

    Perhaps you missed the (ongoing) period where Hamas and Fatah were engaging in open warfare between themselves? Granted, that was largely limited to Gaza, but nothing says "house out of order" than open civil war. But that's not even what I was referring to. Beyond that, Hamas is considered to be an international terrorist organization by the US, Japan, and others, and is actually listed on the "trade black list" for the collective EU for being a terrorist organization as well. No matter how one spins the issue, no matter what the other concerns are, no group is ever going to achieve legitimate goals when its leadership is considered to be a terrorist organization by the vast majority of the world's economic and political power. The problem is that, due to a variety of factors, these organizations (and their leadership) has only played lip service to the plight of the rest of the Palestinians. When I say the "Palestinians need to get their house in order," I mean that they need to open themselves to new ways of thinking beyond their traditional "who should lead us, Hitler or Stalin...?" back and forth pull. Now, after loosing their last referendum/vote to Hamas, both Fatah and Hamas have tentatively agreed to combine their organizations, but most of the final outcome is still uncertain, and I predict the situation will get worse before it gets better.

    As an aside, how do you figure that only Palestine wants something? Israel wants something to: recognition of its land seizures as legitimate. Doesn't this diplomatic goal merit some evaluation of their behavior?

    I never said only Palestine wants something. I never said that Israel is beyond evaluation. But the Palestinians want something that only external sources can grant, and they haven't sold at all how they would be good stewards of that trust. But again, see the trap you fell into? You're trying to legitimize the Palestinians behavior by de-legitimizing Israels, when really, in order to get anywhere, the two have to be separated.

    The simple reality is that the Palestinians are a liability to any and all parties involved. It's harsh, but that's the current situation. That has to change. It's why the Palestinians have been ignored by their fellow Arab nation/states since 1973. It's why they don't receive anything but sustenance aid from the international community, and it's why Israel has been allowed to continue its settlement policies. Why do you think NATO got involved in a misguided campaign in Libya at the drop of a hat, which was designed to help the "freedom fighters" there, whereas NATO considers the leadership of the Palestinians to be a terrorist organization? Perception is everything, especially as it relates to pragmatism.
     
  24. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    If anything is unfair and we're propagating it, then it would be up to our governments to change it. Not to Palestinians.

    We have no say in what Israelis do and what Palestinians do. Bah, I wouldn't want to, either. The only thing we can do is check and correct our own governments.

    Since both EU and US have special foreign relations with Israel - heavily subsidizing trade, throwing money - and not with the Palestinians, this is something we can work with. Like: sure, you can have some of our money - just adhere to international law. It's that easy.

    As it is, our governments our helping to sustain a humanitarian crisis, and helping to prolong the conflict. I want no part of that.


    Well, the last bus was blown up before either of us signed on here so I'm not sure how big a threat that really is.
    44, this is asinine. You can't compare the situation of your average Israeli with your average Palestinian. Well, you can, but what you'd reasonably get is "one is rich, the other is starving".

    Works for me, and it should work for your government and mine. If we can only bring them to adhere to it. But, as we all know, this is not a voting issue in America or Europe, and that's the real problem.
    I'm not convinced it would, but if so: then Israel would need our support. Only then. Not before that time. You're actually defending operating outside the law as a precaution.

     
  25. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I used to be indifferent toward this conflict, but from everything I've read I've went squarely into the '**** Israel' camp. While both parties are equally to blame I think Israel has more to answer for: illegal seizure of land (going back to its formation), genocide, and all in all being a beligerant nation. This wouldn't really affect anyone except for the fact that our government personally lubes itself up and takes it up the backside for this joke of a theocracy. All in the name of having an Israel for when Jay-zus returns.

    So yeah, both sides suck, but one is holding all the guns, land, and money. Also better allies. If all that's keeping these turds from coming to the negotiation is that they're afraid of looking weak then I'd say they're being cowards. Anyway, yes, I do not like Israel. If they're going to act like their oppresors from history, then they are no better than them and shouldn't have a right to their own nation since clearly the power has gone to their head.