Mideast Truce
Markreich
08-02-2005, 18:46
Sharon, Abbas declare truce at Mideast summit
Leaders pledge to end violence, enter new era of peace talks
WDTY? Who will break the peace first?
The story can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6906348/
Drunk commies
08-02-2005, 18:50
Some angry palestinian will blow up a bus or shoot an Israeli family and screw the whole deal.
Markreich
08-02-2005, 18:57
Ok, why the Palestinians? The Israelis killed their own President last time!
Incenjucarania
08-02-2005, 18:57
A half-Isreali, half-Palestinian hermaphrodite will blow themselves up.
Nobody will be quite sure who should be the most upset.
Drunk commies
08-02-2005, 18:59
Ok, why the Palestinians? The Israelis killed their own President last time!
You have a point, but I still think it'll be a palestinian. Abbas isn't in complete control. Hamas won big in Gaza elections. They might decide to torpedo the truce in order to make Abbas less relevant.
Markreich
08-02-2005, 19:02
A half-Isreali, half-Palestinian hermaphrodite will blow themselves up.
Nobody will be quite sure who should be the most upset.
Probably the Palestinians.
The Israelis not only didn't complain about Madonna renaming herself "Esther", but are allowing "Kabalah followers" to visit sacred places. Further, they've never apologised for KISS. :D
Markreich
08-02-2005, 19:46
You have a point, but I still think it'll be a palestinian. Abbas isn't in complete control. Hamas won big in Gaza elections. They might decide to torpedo the truce in order to make Abbas less relevant.
Yeah, but what for? To keep fighting? I'd hope that by now they realise that none of their brother Arabs are going to fight for them...
Whispering Legs
08-02-2005, 19:52
Yeah, but what for? To keep fighting? I'd hope that by now they realise that none of their brother Arabs are going to fight for them...
Syria can't afford to fight the Israelis - it would be a bad ending for the Syrians, and the excuse for the US to invade with troops that are sitting right on their border.
Egypt likes our billions in aid.
Jordan can't afford to - couldn't win if they wanted to - don't really have the will to do so. Plus, the US could just roll in from Iraq and it would be over.
Iraq - well, they're occupied.
Lebanon isn't really a state - it's a place where losers hang out.
Iran - well, technically they aren't Arabs. But they do have a missile capable of reaching Israel easily. They are also working on nuclear weapons. I wonder how long Israel will let them keep doing that...
Of course, if Iran uses nukes, then you can kiss the entire Palestinian problem (and population) goodbye. Seems that the Iranians, in their development programs, don't care how many Palestinians get killed if they can get Israel.
Palestinians only seem to have the French as friends these days.
Disciplined Peoples
08-02-2005, 20:18
There will never truly be peace in the Middle East. The Arabs have repeatedly stated that they will not be satisfied until Israel is pushed into the sea. Our government needs to do a better job of turning this situation over to the U.N. We should extricate ourselves as soon as possible.
Truce won't come until USA turns its back on Israel. Until that no one really want's to mess with the jewish i the region. And that gives Israel a "freedom" in Palestine. And Palestines won't stop cause they were there first. At least they strongly believe the land is theirs. :confused:
Disciplined Peoples
08-02-2005, 20:34
Truce won't come until USA turns its back on Israel. Until that no one really want's to mess with the jewish i the region. And that gives Israel a "freedom" in Palestine. And Palestines won't stop cause they were there first. At least they strongly believe the land is theirs. :confused:
There have always been Jews and Arabs in that region. I don't think anyone can prove who was there first. Palestine did not even exist until the British set up a mandate in 1947. Since that time, the Arabs (Palestinians) have had numerous chances to have their own country. They have refused to make any concessions. It is unfortunate, because much of the misery they are currently in could have been lessened or prevented had they had capable leaders that would have bargained in good faith.
Drunk commies
08-02-2005, 20:36
Yeah, but what for? To keep fighting? I'd hope that by now they realise that none of their brother Arabs are going to fight for them...
To keep Israel on the defensive until demographics work their magic and the muslims in Israel outnumber the Jews.
Von Witzleben
08-02-2005, 20:45
Option 3.
There have always been Jews and Arabs in that region. I don't think anyone can prove who was there first. Palestine did not even exist until the British set up a mandate in 1947. Since that time, the Arabs (Palestinians) have had numerous chances to have their own country. They have refused to make any concessions. It is unfortunate, because much of the misery they are currently in could have been lessened or prevented had they had capable leaders that would have bargained in good faith.What chances? Israel has never been trustworthy, so why does anyone believe that would change now?
"Palestine did not even exist until the British set up a mandate in 1947." Did Israel exist before that?
The truth is that prior to 1912 the overall percentage of Jewish people in Palestine was always around 10%. So they should have got only 10% of the land also, when division plans were first debated.
Disciplined Peoples
08-02-2005, 20:57
What chances? Israel has never been trustworthy, so why does anyone believe that would change now?
"Palestine did not even exist until the British set up a mandate in 1947." Did Israel exist before that?
The truth is that prior to 1912 the overall percentage of Jewish people in Palestine was always around 10%. So they should have got only 10% of the land also, when division plans were first debated.
Perhaps if the Palestinians sat at the table, they could have had a voice in how the land was carved up.
Markreich
08-02-2005, 21:10
To keep Israel on the defensive until demographics work their magic and the muslims in Israel outnumber the Jews.
That's not going to cure anything until they hit like 3-1, and maybe not even then. I'd think it'd make more sense to make PEACE, then do the same thing!
Refused Party Program
09-02-2005, 00:09
Perhaps if the Palestinians sat at the table, they could have had a voice in how the land was carved up.
Unfortunately, though, a group of Palestinians sat at a table is what the IDF calls a "target".
Unfortunately, though, a group of Palestinians sat at a table is what the IDF calls a "target".
And what, I wonder, do Hamas or Islamic Jihad call a group of Israelis at a table?
Goes both ways.
Armed Bookworms
09-02-2005, 11:00
To keep Israel on the defensive until demographics work their magic and the muslims in Israel outnumber the Jews.
Except they've been fudging their demographics.
Armed Bookworms
09-02-2005, 11:02
What chances? Israel has never been trustworthy, so why does anyone believe that would change now?
"Palestine did not even exist until the British set up a mandate in 1947." Did Israel exist before that?
The truth is that prior to 1912 the overall percentage of Jewish people in Palestine was always around 10%. So they should have got only 10% of the land also, when division plans were first debated.
Exceptr the point was to allow refugees on other jews that would be free from persecution to live there. Thus they were taken into account. The territory was actually rather small until random arab countries started to invade. Everytime they pulled something, Israel claimed more land after kicking their asses.
Portu Cale
09-02-2005, 11:24
Except they've been fudging their demographics.
You have made a thread about this. Go read it again ;)
And most likely, the palestinians will start hostilities. Well, saying the palestinians is wrong. Some factions of them will start it. Because unlike Israel, Palestine is divided in many factions, being Fatah the goverment. Hamas, for example, is independent, and Fatah doesnt control it. So they will likely break the truce (It was Fatah, not Hamas that signed it).
What israel fails to understand, is that no leader of Palestine can garanty peace, because none controls all of the Palestinians. The one that did it best was Arafat, and he was deemed a "terrorist" because he was unable to do what Abba will also fail to do, which is to control all of the different Palestinian factions.
To solve such problem, Israel would need to help the Palestinian Authority (fatah) to "solve" Hamas, but Israelis just put all palestinians in the same bag, which is quite unproductive. So if a small faction of Palestinians attacks Israel, they will retaliate, and then all hell will breake loose.. again :p
It´s redicilous to expect Abbas to control everything in a state that has been undar seige for so long. All the social structure has been abolished by the Israelis. It wan´t take but one angry Palestinian to shoot at an Israeli and the Israelis will cry out that it´s a terrorist attack and bring in the tanks.
Findecano Calaelen
09-02-2005, 12:41
You have made a thread about this. Go read it again ;)
And most likely, the palestinians will start hostilities. Well, saying the palestinians is wrong. Some factions of them will start it. Because unlike Israel, Palestine is divided in many factions, being Fatah the goverment. Hamas, for example, is independent, and Fatah doesnt control it. So they will likely break the truce (It was Fatah, not Hamas that signed it).
What israel fails to understand, is that no leader of Palestine can garanty peace, because none controls all of the Palestinians. The one that did it best was Arafat, and he was deemed a "terrorist" because he was unable to do what Abba will also fail to do, which is to control all of the different Palestinian factions.
To solve such problem, Israel would need to help the Palestinian Authority (fatah) to "solve" Hamas, but Israelis just put all palestinians in the same bag, which is quite unproductive. So if a small faction of Palestinians attacks Israel, they will retaliate, and then all hell will breake loose.. again :p
I agree this is most likely, but lets hope all goes well and we get some sort of stability in the region, with the ceasefire Israel might be alittle more relaxed if there continues to be no attacks they will back off which will descalate the situation. Which may lead to some sort of peace
well I can hope anyway
Concordiania
09-02-2005, 12:41
The Palestinians.
Factionalism suits the Arab psyche. They cannot sustain a democracy. Iraq is doomed.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v013/13.4plattner.html
http://www.meib.org/articles/0302_me.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/alpart.html
Jeruselem
09-02-2005, 13:39
Either HAMAS or some idiot Jewish settlers (who were born overseas).
I'd feel safer in Israel at the moment than across the border to the East.
Conceptualists
09-02-2005, 13:46
Factionalism suits the Arab psyche. They cannot sustain a democracy. Iraq is doomed.
Western Nations have more or less sustained democracies with factionalism.
Jeruselem
09-02-2005, 13:52
Western Nations have more or less sustained democracies with factionalism.
With the Arabs, it's called tribalism. Afghanistan is a good example where centuries old tribal conflict still rage on.
Refused Party Program
09-02-2005, 15:21
And what, I wonder, do Hamas or Islamic Jihad call a group of Israelis at a table?
Goes both ways.
Mine was a flippant remark, and I agree.
Either HAMAS or some idiot Jewish settlers (who were born overseas).
While there are certainly plenty of settlers who are immigrants, a sizeable chunk of them are "native" sabras, (or first or second-generation).
I don't really see what significance that has.
12345543211
09-02-2005, 22:54
The Palestinians will get pissed and blow up some cafe.