Isreal and Palestine

[Army Guy]

Gosthacked:

Everyone always cheers on the underdog, poor palestians, forced to live like animals, occupied by the Israelis army. For what reason are they occupied ? And why is it considered occupied land when thier are no other nations that have occupied lands.

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

[Black Dog]

Got news for you and the rest of the people who thnk that way Lonius. Israel doesn't care what you think. They are doing whatever they can to protect their people, just as any good government should do. All considerations secondary. I do remember one government taking a lot of flak over concessions to the Palestinians. Hamas didn't like that one though and returned to their default postiion of suicide bombings.

Saying Israel acts the way it does is in order to protect its citizens is begging the question. First, for all the hype of "concessions to the Palestinians", the actual amount of terrtory occupied by the Palestinians has continued to shrink as Israel expands into new settlements. Coincidentally, the periods where Israel has moved to expand its territory are also the periods where terrorist attacks on Israelis have been at their peak. For example, the Al Aqsa Intifada corresponded with a setllment boom in the West Bank and Gaza strip. In light of Israel's territorial expansion, it' shard to take the claim that they are just trying to protect their people seriously.

[KrustyKidd]

In light of Israel's territorial expansion, it' shard to take the claim that they are just trying to protect their people seriously.

I don't think it sunk in Black Dog. Israel is going to do what it has to do and, as much as it can in order to benifit it's people and keep them as safe as possible whether you, the Palestinians or the rest of the Arab World likes it or not. There is only one way to get through this with Palestinians comming out with something - stop terrorism and provide absolutely no excuse or reason for Israel to have any roadblock to giving them what they should have. Once done, the world will put the pressure on in spades and, even Israel can't withstand that.

[Black Dog]

don't think it sunk in Black Dog. Israel is going to do what it has to do and, as much as it can in order to benifit it's people and keep them as safe as possible whether you, the Palestinians or the rest of the Arab World likes it or not.

You're still begging the question. Has it occurred to you that Israel's interests and the safety of its citizens do not necessarily go hand in hand? Again: gobbling up land and pushing a desperate people into even more desperate circumstances (and knowing full well that such policies will further foster violent extremism) are not policies indicative of a state for which the safety of its citizens is priority one. Nor does Israel's military superiority serve as an adequate moral justification for its actions.

There is only one way to get through this with Palestinians comming out with something - stop terrorism and provide absolutely no excuse or reason for Israel to have any roadblock to giving them what they should have. Once done, the world will put the pressure on in spades and, even Israel can't withstand that.

Except there's absolutely no indication that the cessation of hostilities against Israel by the Palestinians would change their situation a whit. You're assumption of good faith on the part of Israel is unwarranted, given its record.

[Army Guy]

I think it would be safe to say that there are only a few solutions that would be exceptable to the rest of the world to solve this.

Have Israel pull back to the orginal borders, pull back all it's troops all of it's people. Then complete the wall around the borders in which they share with Palestine. and shut both borders down. effective sending them both to thier rooms, separating them once and for all...

OR

Have Israel pay them off for any land claims they can prove, allow them to stay by offering them citizenship, or involve the other muslim countries to take them in. offer them what ever it takes with exception of thier own homeland of palestine.

There is to much hate on both sides. it will take serveral generations to get rid of the hate. the road they have taken now is only going to broaden the conflict. sooner or later Israel will declare war, and drive them out once and for all.

[Black Dog]

There is to much hate on both sides. it will take serveral generations to get rid of the hate. the road they have taken now is only going to broaden the conflict. sooner or later Israel will declare war, and drive them out once and for all.

First, I don't think that we should stop trying to find a solution. But no solution will be found so long as the basic narrative is fragmented.

Oh, and I don't believe Israel will ever need to resort to full scale warfare and (another) mass expulsion of the Palestinians when simply maintaining the status quo will have the same end result.

[Army Guy]

BD:

First, I don't think that we should stop trying to find a solution. But no solution will be found so long as the basic narrative is fragmented.

I think that "we" have already placed finding a solution on the back burner. if this is to be resolved it is going to have to be Israel and palestine and we both know were that is going.

Oh, and I don't believe Israel will ever need to resort to full scale warfare and (another) mass expulsion of the Palestinians when simply maintaining the status quo will have the same end result.

I think both sides are experiancing increases to thier populations and this will only complicate matters even worse unless something is done soon in the next 5 years or less. Sooner or later those camps are going to explode somewhere. and it's not going to be pretty.

[KrustyKidd]

Has it occurred to you that Israel's interests and the safety of its citizens do not necessarily go hand in hand?

It's a democratic country with a huge voting block comprised of settlers. They won't budge until the terrorism stops, hence, that block will continue to weild influence until the Palestinians give it up. My point proved again.

Nor does Israel's military superiority serve as an adequate moral justification for its actions.

Who cares about moral when people deny your right to exist? I told you above that they don't care, they will do whatever they have to do to make sure they survive. If the Palestinians having a homeland helps that, they they will work to give them that, if they feel it is detrimental to their survival, they won't. It's really simple, Palestinians are the only moveable object here as they have no way to go but up whereas Israel has everything to lose and only peace to gain.

Except there's absolutely no indication that the cessation of hostilities against Israel by the Palestinians would change their situation a whit. You're assumption of good faith on the part of Israel is unwarranted, given its record.

If there was no threat of terrorism and full negotianions were taking place with benchmarks being reached, I don't see why not as the settler block would lose power to the peace vote. With all terms being filled by both sides there is no reason for Israel not to forego the settlements in return for enhnced security. Besides, I wasn't talking about Israeli good faith, I was talking about how the rest of the world would ostracize them for not living up to their part of the bargain when, for the first time, the Palestinians were doing theirs. But, we all know we are wasting our time here don't we, what with Hamas in charge, squalid refugee camps will be the norm for another fifty years.

[GostHacked]

So why do the Palestinians commit suicide and other terrorist attacks?

I would really like to know this.

[KrustyKidd]

I would really like to know this.

Suicide attacks are one method of Jihad. Which is a term for a struggle or, holy war as it is termed by Islamics. Hamas and at one point, the PLO both held this belief as a legitiate way to execute their goal wiich was to return Palestine to Islamic people and Muslims only. Hope that helps. Next time, possibly you could look that up in Wilkpedia or something in case I'm not around.

[Riverwind]

Suicide attacks are one method of Jihad.

Ah no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack

Military historians classify suicide bombing as a form of armed violence, belonging to the tactics of asymmetric warfare — suicide bombings are only common when one side in a violent conflict lacks the means for effective, conventional attacks

This tactic became widely known during the Second World War in the Pacific as Allied ships were attacked by Japanese kamikaze pilots who caused maximum damage by flying their explosive-laden aircraft into military targets. Since the 1980s, the low cost and high lethality of the tactic have made it a favorite with guerrilla, insurgent, and especially terrorist groups, notably in the Middle East and Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers were, as of 2000, "unequivocally the most effective and brutal terrorist organization ever to utilize suicide terrorism"

Painting suicide attacks as a unique 'muslim' thing is simply propoganda used to justify the 'war on terror'.

[KrustyKidd]

Painting suicide attacks as a unique 'muslim' thing is simply propoganda used to justify the 'war on terror'.

Must be talking to somebody else. I said

Suicide attacks are one method of Jihad.

Another is kidnapping people and cutting off their heads, another is infiltrating societies and helping fellow Jihadists kill them and others are just regular good old killing the enemy however you can. I suppose you could think of some other examples but I certainly didn't think I was supposed to provide examples of other societies where they killed themselves. Sorry, I didn't mean to leave anybody out. Then again, Kamakazies are not Jihadists nor are they Palestinian either so I can be forgiven.

Back to the thread please.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Krusty Kid,

Who cares about moral when people deny your right to exist?

Both the pot and the kettle are black here, Palestinians don't want a Jewish state in their midst, and the Israelis don't want a Palestinian state. Both sides are killing each other, and some bystanders on both sides are cheering them on.

[KrustyKidd]

Both the pot and the kettle are black here, Palestinians don't want a Jewish state in their midst, and the Israelis don't want a Palestinian state.

Wrong. Israel will accept a Palestinian state that does not try to kill them. The majority of Palestinians however will not accept a Jewish state in any scenario. And yes, both the pot and the kettle are black here however, one (Palestine) is going nowhere and the other (Israel) is going everywhere, albeit, painfully.

[GostHacked]

Dear Krusty Kid,

Who cares about moral when people deny your right to exist?

Both the pot and the kettle are black here, Palestinians don't want a Jewish state in their midst, and the Israelis don't want a Palestinian state. Both sides are killing each other, and some bystanders on both sides are cheering them on.

Wrong. Israel will accept a Palestinian state that does not try to kill them. The majority of Palestinians however will not accept a Jewish state in any scenario. And yes, both the pot and the kettle are black here however, one (Palestine) is going nowhere and the other (Israel) is going everywhere, albeit, painfully.

Yes indeed to both. So who is right who is wrong. But this is not a matter of who is wrong. This will be a matter of who is left. One of them will loose. And it does not look like the Israelies are slowing down. I may have asked the wrong question. I was thinking why they have been brought to such desperate measures to fight?

I personaly would be that way if my counrty had a chunck of land taken away from it and now that new state holds the majority of land that was once yours. I'd be a little more than pissed. And no freaking sympathy for them at all. Yes the rest of the world put them there. And alot of the bystanders do not seem to give a damn what this new country does. Blows my mind on how idiotic the whole scheme was to set up Israel there in the first place. Israel will keep expanding no matter what you and I say. So to say that they will accept and recognize the Palestinian state, I will say yes to that. When the Palestinians are 100% under Isreali control.

[KrustyKidd]

I was thinking why they have been brought to such desperate measures to fight?

Tribal and religion. If they were white, the entire society would be nigger hating truck driving red necks who go to church on sundays. The rest of the world is wrong as their grand daddys did it that way and will continue to do it that way despite reality. It takes a lot of 'WD Stupid' to get that bolt to move a half millimeter but it can be done when the botl finally realizes that the extension bar is comming with an impact wrench and it's going to give.

I personaly would be that way if my counrty had a chunck of land taken away from it and now that new state holds the majority of land that was once yours.

I probably would be too initially. Then, when it sunk in that it was going to be that way I would encourage my kids to either move, or, get a job under the new regime. I wouldn't allow my hatred to kill my kids. hat's a sign of something deeper than just getting a 'bad deal.'

And no freaking sympathy for them at all.

I have lots for the poor people that understand that this can only go one way and that is the way of peace. They must be crying themserlves to sleep at night watching all the opportunities lost and the generations that will be living in squalor come and go. It's so tragic. But, as it's said, a Palestinian never misses a chance to give up an opportunity.'

Blows my mind on how idiotic the whole scheme was to set up Israel there in the first place.

Ok then, with the complete benifit of hindsight, please give the alternative but keep in mind, there are repercussions for all of them.

When the Palestinians are 100% under Isreali control.

That will never happen. What I see is that in about ten years the wall will be finished and Israel will just go about what they do. Palestine will find itself at the mercy of the world who will eventually place conditions on Hamas for the aid they recieve. It will undergo a political change sooner or later as there won't be any way to vent and the result will be either the emergence of a true society committed to peace or, one that begs anhialation from Israel once they have the capability to circumvent the wall.

[Black Dog]

It's a democratic country with a huge voting block comprised of settlers. They won't budge until the terrorism stops, hence, that block will continue to weild influence until the Palestinians give it up. My point proved again.

Obviously you have a profound lack of understanding of cause and effect. The settlers are a leading cause of terrorism, not a consequence thereof. The settler bloc is not motivated by security concerns: quite the opposite, as they are perfectly willing to place themselves at risk in order to achieve victory in their own holy war.

Who cares about moral when people deny your right to exist? I told you above that they don't care, they will do whatever they have to do to make sure they survive. If the Palestinians having a homeland helps that, they they will work to give them that, if they feel it is detrimental to their survival, they won't. It's really simple, Palestinians are the only moveable object here as they have no way to go but up whereas Israel has everything to lose and only peace to gain.

I fail to see why in a situation where one side has the advantage on all fronts, and thus sets the agenda, why it is incumbent on the weaker party to make concessions. You're clearly still confused about the driving force behind Israel's policies: its not survival (that is already assured by their military supermay), it's expansion.

If there was no threat of terrorism and full negotianions were taking place with benchmarks being reached, I don't see why not as the settler block would lose power to the peace vote. With all terms being filled by both sides there is no reason for Israel not to forego the settlements in return for enhnced security. Besides, I wasn't talking about Israeli good faith, I was talking about how the rest of the world would ostracize them for not living up to their part of the bargain when, for the first time, the Palestinians were doing theirs. But, we all know we are wasting our time here don't we, what with Hamas in charge, squalid refugee camps will be the norm for another fifty years.

My basic point, which is backed up by Israel's track record in negotiations, still remains: nothing the Palestinians do will change Israeli policy. The P.A. could renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist (again), and Israel would proceed pretty much as it has for the past 40 years.

Wrong. Israel will accept a Palestinian state that does not try to kill them.

Israel's expansionist policies of the past three decades bely this statement. If Israel is willing to accept a viable Palestinian state, it would not pursue policies that would undermine such an end. But that's precisely what it continuies to do.

[KrustyKidd]

Obviously you have a profound lack of understanding of cause and effect. The settlers are a leading cause of terrorism, not a consequence thereof. The settler bloc is not motivated by security concerns: quite the opposite, as they are perfectly willing to place themselves at risk in order to achieve victory in their own holy war.

I think I understand this pretty good. Settlers wield a political pull and form a voting block that can only be countered by security concerns being addressed. Their vote is unlikely to change under any circumstances but, alone, they don't hold power. They will do what they do but do not hold the majority of the vote. Security trumps them.

I fail to see why in a situation where one side has the advantage on all fronts, and thus sets the agenda, why it is incumbent on the weaker party to make concessions.

Easy. That's the way it is.

You're clearly still confused about the driving force behind Israel's policies: its not survival (that is already assured by their military supermay), it's expansion.

Maybe to some but as we discussed earlier Israel is a democracy with various factions and voting blocks. Those predisposed to peace will out pull those disposed to expansion if there is some reality to make them believe it is possible.

My basic point, which is backed up by Israel's track record in negotiations, still remains: nothing the Palestinians do will change Israeli policy. The P.A. could renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist (again), and Israel would proceed pretty much as it has for the past 40 years.

So every Palestinian negotiator and leader of the past fifty years has been living in a fantasy world? Well then, no sense in even discussing the subject then for you. I mean, Israel is not going to budge so, it's just guys killing themselves against a brick wall then. As for recognizing Israel's right to exist (again) I thnk the new Palestinian leadership has made a slight change in that policy.

Israel's expansionist policies of the past three decades bely this statement. If Israel is willing to accept a viable Palestinian state, it would not pursue policies that would undermine such an end. But that's precisely what it continuies to do.

And we return back to the beginning. Israel is not going to move, change or provide anything without getting the peace voters to overcome the expansionist vote. It's a democracy and, to get that vote, you have to have one of the factors change and, the only factor that can change is Palestinian behavior. Too bad, might not be fair but that's reality.

[Black Dog]

Settlers wield a political pull and form a voting block that can only be countered by security concerns being addressed. Their vote is unlikely to change under any circumstances but, alone, they don't hold power. They will do what they do but do not hold the majority of the vote. Security trumps them.

But the aims of the settler block and the aims of the security side are mutually exclusive. The former wants policies that will inevitably provoke terrorist, the latter just wants to get on with it. Yet somehow its the Palestinians who are oblgated to budge: what's wrong with this picture?

Easy. That's the way it is.

Might makes right, the ends justify the means: gotcha.

Maybe to some but as we discussed earlier Israel is a democracy with various factions and voting blocks. Those predisposed to peace will out pull those disposed to expansion if there is some reality to make them believe it is possible.

But the settler bloc has the situation sewn up: as long as Israel expands, terrorism will be an issue. As long as terrorism is an issue, the radical settlers will command the agenda. And as long as they command the agenda, Israel will expand.

Besides that: I'm still curious as to why, given your apparent admission that internal Israeli politics are the deciding factor, why the onus for action falls on the side with the least power to change the situation?

So every Palestinian negotiator and leader of the past fifty years has been living in a fantasy world? Well then, no sense in even discussing the subject then for you. I mean, Israel is not going to budge so, it's just guys killing themselves against a brick wall then. As for recognizing Israel's right to exist (again) I thnk the new Palestinian leadership has made a slight change in that policy

See my reply above. The point is that internal political dynamics are the x factor: nothing the Palestinians do will change Israel. Israel must change Israel.

And we return back to the beginning. Israel is not going to move, change or provide anything without getting the peace voters to overcome the expansionist vote. It's a democracy and, to get that vote, you have to have one of the factors change and, the only factor that can change is Palestinian behavior. Too bad, might not be fair but that's reality.

Emphasis added. Clearly, that is not the case, as Palestinian behaviour won't change until Israel's does. And here's the kicker: it's not in Hamas's best interests to change, nor is peace with the Palestinians in Israel's interests.

[KrustyKidd]

But the aims of the settler block and the aims of the security side are mutually exclusive. The former wants policies that will inevitably provoke terrorist, the latter just wants to get on with it. Yet somehow its the Palestinians who are oblgated to budge: what's wrong with this picture?

Lots. Just like cute little fuzzy squirrels shouldn't be eaten by big bad wolves. However, that's reality.

But the settler bloc has the situation sewn up: as long as Israel expands, terrorism will be an issue. As long as terrorism is an issue, the radical settlers will command the agenda. And as long as they command the agenda, Israel will expand.

You got it finally! I was beggining to lose hope in you. See, that's why the only thing that can move is Palestinians.

Emphasis added. Clearly, that is not the case, as Palestinian behaviour won't change until Israel's does. And here's the kicker: it's not in Hamas's best interests to change, nor is peace with the Palestinians in Israel's interests.

Oh well. That wall looks better everyday for both.

[Black Dog]

Lots. Just like cute little fuzzy squirrels shouldn't be eaten by big bad wolves. However, that's reality.

Except one's like, natural, and the other is just human greed and intransigence.

You got it finally! I was beggining to lose hope in you. See, that's why the only thing that can move is Palestinians.

Except that, as I said, even if they stop, Israel won't.

Oh well. That wall looks better everyday for both.

Except for the part where the wall is enabling the annexaton of more land and, by its very existence, preempts the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. Big win for Israel, no win for the other side.

[KrustyKidd]

Except one's like, natural, and the other is just human greed and intransigence.

And, that won't be changed by terrorism. It will only give them more rationale to carry on even more.

Except that, as I said, even if they stop, Israel won't.

They have moved settlers out of many areas in order to cater to the peace vote. Sinai is one I remember as I was there when it occured as is Hebron, Gaza and many other places. So don't tell me it would would never happen.

Except for the part where the wall is enabling the annexaton of more land and, by its very existence, preempts the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. Big win for Israel, no win for the other side.

Yep. They should make a deal now then. It's not going to get any better.

[Black Dog]

And, that won't be changed by terrorism. It will only give them more rationale to carry on even more.

Again: you're operating under the assumption that anything the Palestinians do will make a difference. They hold no cards here, despite your protests to the contrary.

They have moved settlers out of many areas in order to cater to the peace vote. Sinai is one I remember as I was there when it occured as is Hebron, Gaza and many other places. So don't tell me it would would never happen.

The West Bank is the ripest plum. That is where Israel has made the greatest investment and its where the best land lies. There are 231,800 settlers there compared to the 8,000 in Gaza and the 7,000 in the Sinai. Indeed, the Gaza pull out was accompanied by a massiv eincrease in settlment activity in the West Bank. So I'm sure Israel would be perfectly willing to give up worthless land in exchange for peace, but that's still a bum deal.

[KrustyKidd]

Again: you're operating under the assumption that anything the Palestinians do will make a difference. They hold no cards here, despite your protests to the contrary.

Born with a belt bomb, a very odd evolutionary trait.

Kadima victory is disturbing for some West Bank settlers

Amitay's beloved Yitzhar community may be one of the settlements Israel's new governing political party and its leader, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have pledged to evacuate within four years.

Israeli voters endorsed Olmert's evacuation plans Tuesday when they gave Kadima and other political parties that favor a West Bank withdrawal enough seats in parliamentary elections to form a government.

Oh, sorry, forgot to give you the breakdown in the election.

Kadima: 28 seats

Platform: dedicated to a withdrawal from parts of the West Bank by 2010.

Labor: 20 seats

Platform: It is a likely coalition partner with Kadima and also supports territorial concessions to the Palestinians.

Shas: 13 seats

Platform: Dedicated to religious education, Shas has in the past supported peace negotiations with the Palestinians. It is a likely coalition partner.

Israel Is Our Home: 12 seats

Platform: The rightist party campaigned to fight crime and swap territory with the Palestinians.

Likud: 11 seats

Platform: The former ruling party suffered a crushing loss, plunging from 38 seats won in the 2003 elections. Its hard-line policies reject Kadima's plans to withdraw from the West Bank.

Black Dog

The West Bank is the ripest plum. That is where Israel has made the greatest investment and its where the best land lies. There are 231,800 settlers there compared to the 8,000 in Gaza and the 7,000 in the Sinai. Indeed, the Gaza pull out was accompanied by a massiv eincrease in settlment activity in the West Bank.

And evictions there as well. Troops Break Resistance in West Bank

Thousands of troops overcame the main bastions of resistance to the evacuation of two settlements Tuesday, clearing out hundreds of extremists who had barricaded themselves inside houses, synagogues and a fortress to protest Israel's first dismantling of West Bank outposts.

West Bank settlers looking to relocate

So, seems the ball is in the Palestinians court. They don't terrorize and the government has no reason to change. Two parties dedicated to pulling out of the West bank on top and the two against on the bottom. Only terrorism can change that, hence, only Palestinians can screw it up.

[GostHacked]

KrustKidd

Sharon and his Lukid party were the ones to bring anything like this to the table. He was one of THE first for a pull out program. He had alot of opposition for that plan, and went ahead with it anyways. He relocated some Jews to other Isreali areas. Now he is in a coma, and he may never recover. I actually had HOPE with Sharon. He made things happen. Or at least I would like to think he was the right man for that job.

To say that they will evacuate within 4 years seems to follow the path of permanantly establishing borders by 2010. Cannot evacuate land that you now consider part of your country.