NationStates Jolt Archive

This isn't about political correctness though, it's about consistency.

Let us assume that all Palestinians are evil beasts that want to conquer Israel, take the land, kill the Jews, and so on and so forth. You seem to be totally against that.

On the other hand, I've seen you justify the slaughter of Native Americans and Aboriginals by Europeans because they were technologically superior.

So if the Palestinians had the power to wipe Israel off the map, shouldn't you be all for it?

I support the Israelis in the conflict. I'm not saying that I don't blame the Palestinians for anything they do, even if I know their methods are self-defeating.

I don't blame the Mexicans for taking over a part of the country through immigration and breeding, that's the way it is. However, since I'm not one of them, yes I oppose them. I'm not judging their methods.

If I was an American Indian, then I'd oppose the settlers, but since I'm not, then I don't care about their position.

You understand? I'm speaking in defense of the side I support.

What you are trying to say doesn't work, because it automatically says you have to disagree with everything because you can't support one side or another.

Folks, take that proverbial chill pill. Blatant flaming, like this ...





.. adds nothing to the debate except heat and may bring it to an untimely end, at least for the flamers. Tossing in terms like "troll" and "liar" doesn't help, either.

You all know this is an emotive topic, but you can surely accept that other posters will disagree with you. If you can't accept that, you'll be leaving, voluntarily or involuntarily.

Acknowledged and accepted.

My bigotry has to do with political beliefs and intellect. I have no tolerance for stupidity.

I would chose an Arab with a grasp of political realism as my comrade over another dumb PC leftist white jerk-off.

This isn't about political correctness though, it's about consistency.

Let us assume that all Palestinians are evil beasts that want to conquer Israel, take the land, kill the Jews, and so on and so forth. You seem to be totally against that.

On the other hand, I've seen you justify the slaughter of Native Americans and Aboriginals by Europeans because they were technologically superior.

So if the Palestinians had the power to wipe Israel off the map, shouldn't you be all for it?

That's simply untrue. The Palestinians started murdering many decades before there was an "occupation", decades before there was a "state of Israel".Palestinians started fighting back as soon as the Jewish mass immigration became too much to tolerate. When they finally realized that they had been deceived by the British and the flood of Jews started compromising their lives. Again: would you give up your home and history because one day a foreign Jews stands before your door and wants you to disappear?

Palestinians started fighting back as soon as the Jewish mass immigration became too much to tolerate. When they finally realized that they had been deceived by the British and the flood of Jews started compromising their lives. Again: would you give up your home and history because one day a foreign Jews stands before your door and wants you to disappear?

"Who started what" is a game anyone can play, UB. The problem only ends when you stop trying to make yourself the victim and start trying to actually solve the problem.

That said, killing people because they're immigrating to an underpopulated area sounds like a really sucky reason to me.

Maybe so, but taken at face value, the Oslo accords certainly didn't mean the end of Palestine, or anything close to that, as UB so likes to rant. And unless he has some crystal ball somewhere to tell him the future, it was a reasonable accord at the time, with concessions on both sides and a workable potential for a peaceful future.No it was not a reasonable accord. One glance at the map suffices. The Oslo accords meant a de-facto annexation of the West Bank by Israel with Palestinian "autonomy" for tiny spots of land scattered throughout the area.

No it was not a reasonable accord. One glance at the map suffices. The Oslo accords meant a de-facto annexation of the West Bank by Israel with Palestinian "autonomy" for tiny spots of land scattered throughout the area.

Except that, as you well know, the Oslo accords were only supposed to be step one. The Autonomous regions would be gradually extended to include all of Gaza, and Israel would then pull out of the West Bank to allow the Palestinian Authority to take over. Eventually, we would have come to an independent, sovereign Palestinian State.

Israel had agreed in principle to the entire process, including the ending of Israeli settlement building. Pity the Second Intifada blew the whole deal out of the water.

"Who started what" is a game anyone can play, UB. The problem only ends when you stop trying to make yourself the victim and start trying to actually solve the problem.How to actually solve the problem? Israel is only moving in one direction: expansion of settlements and extension the Wall. So what can Palestinians really do? Sit and wait until Israel has reached its goal?

That said, killing people because they're immigrating to an underpopulated area sounds like a really sucky reason to me.Cut the "immigrating to an underpopulated area" crap. Wyoming is underpopulated too, but that does not mean anyone could just come and claim it for ideological reasons.

Except that, as you well know, the Oslo accords were only supposed to be step one. The Autonomous regions would be gradually extended to include all of Gaza, and Israel would then pull out of the West Bank to allow the Palestinian Authority to take over. Eventually, we would have come to an independent, sovereign Palestinian State.
Israel had agreed in principle to the entire process, including the ending of Israeli settlement building. Pity the Second Intifada blew the whole deal out of the water.Oh please, after step one there would have been no further steps, because by then Israel would have already captured the West Bank for themselves and they would have found an excuse to not proceed, just as they always do.

How to actually solve the problem? Israel is only moving in one direction: expansion of settlements and extension the Wall. So what can Palestinians really do? Sit and wait until Israel has reached its goal?

I've said this several times, but let me try it again: Stop shooting civilians, and go to the negotiating table. Palestine has a great deal of support internationally, and provided they aren't attacking Israel they can parley that into a reasonable deal to stop the settlements and the wall, and create, in time, a sovereign state. Israel will be under too much pressure to back out of any reasonable deal; as long a Palestine sticks to the agreement they'll get it. No, it won't be everything they've lost. But it will be a much better situation than the one they have now, and sometimes that's all you can ask for.

Cut the "immigrating to an underpopulated area" crap. Wyoming is underpopulated too, but that does not mean anyone could just come and claim it for ideological reasons.

Except that those early settlers weren't claiming anything. They were just immigrating - quite legally, at that, under first Ottoman Empre and then British Empire law. Only after WWII did Britain try to restrict Jewish immigration.

-snip-

Might want to tone that down.

Oh please, after step one there would have been no further steps, because by then Israel would have already captured the West Bank for themselves and they would have found an excuse to not proceed, just as they always do.

Well, let's be honest - the usual excuse is that the Palestinians weren't holding up their end of the deal. The Israelis don't need to make excuses when the other side abrogates the treaty.

This is why the power to make peace lies largely with the Palestinians. As a state, Israel has to take other nation's views into account - especially the views of the US, which wants peace in the area. As long as the Palestinians maintain an agreement with Israel and don't breach it, Israel by and large can't either, not without all sorts of crap coming down on them. They'd much rather have the US happy than a few crappy settlements.

I've said this several times, but let me try it again: Stop shooting civilians, and go to the negotiating table. Palestine has a great deal of support internationally, and provided they aren't attacking Israel they can parley that into a reasonable deal to stop the settlements and the wall, and create, in time, a sovereign state. Israel will be under too much pressure to back out of any reasonable deal; as long a Palestine sticks to the agreement they'll get it. No, it won't be everything they've lost. But it will be a much better situation than the one they have now, and sometimes that's all you can ask for.Israel gives a shit about international opinions. And if the Palestinians hold still Israel will only accelerate its settlement building. It has always been that way. There is nothing to negotiate because Israel has no interest in any solutions out of such negotiations. They continue their expansionist policies no matter what the other side does.

Except that those early settlers weren't claiming anything. They were just immigrating - quite legally, at that, under first Ottoman Empre and then British Empire law. Only after WWII did Britain try to restrict Jewish immigration.Those settlers were claiming all of Palestine. That's why they came there in the first place. They wanted to set up Herzl's Judenstaat, regardless of the actual population.

Israel gives a shit about international opinions. And if the Palestinians hold still Israel will only accelerate its settlement building. It has always been that way. There is nothing to negotiate because Israel has no interest in any solutions out of such negotiations. They continue their expansionist policies no matter what the other side does.

So, why did they allow the creation of the Palestinian Authority? Pull out of Lebanon? Give back the Sinai? Are on good terms with Egypt? And Jordan?

Israel has dealt fairly with all who have dealt fairly with it. The Palestinians never have, despite numerous opportunities.

Those settlers were claiming all of Palestine. That's why they came there in the first place. They wanted to set up Herzl's Judenstaat, regardless of the actual population.

No, they weren't. They were coming to live in what was once Judea - which was all that early Zionism wanted.

The more extreme forms of Zionism, such as that espoused by the Hagganah Terrorists, came into ascension post WWII. That's not say they didn't exist earlier, but they were the fringe, not the mainstream.

Might want to tone that down.

Why should I. Israel is an evil empire.They have no desire to give the Palestinians the state they deserve.Isreal will hold on to the West Bank and Gaza as long as possible!

Just to further Dodo's last point it's the Jews coming in originally were like the Irish coming to New York in the 1850s. They wanted a better life free from persecution and famine and all of the racism of mainland Europe.

Were there people in the area? Yes. Did they sell their land to the Jews? Yes.

Did the Jews get more land than they owned in the initial UN partition? Possibly. I really don't know enough to make a decisive judgment.

Does it really matter at this point? No.

Is supporting genocide to right a past injustice a good thing? No and that's what you always end up arguing UB and it's ridiculous. Give it up the Jews are going to stay in Israel. Was it wrong what happened 50 or 100 years ago, sure quite possibly. However, getting rid of 6 million people isn't going to solve anything except get the world mad for a whole different reason, not to mention turn people against your cause.

Remember all lives are equal, one Jewish life = one Palestinian life they are all their own mini tragedies for all involved. So then instead of having the tragedies rack up on the Palestinian side they then go to the Israeli side and the world starts advocating for the poor Jews. This is what happened pre 67 and even to a point pre Lebanon invasion because the Jews kept on losing people against the brutal Arabs. Then somewhere along the line who was just switched and the left started liking the Arabs and the world got on their side.

I feel like this is an unfortunate turn of events, even if inevitable because everybody loves an underdog and the Palestinians sure as hell seem like ones. Seriously though creating another injustice to rectify a past injustice leads to a ridiculous ideology and arrangement. We'd have to go back to living only in our corner or where ever in Africa to correct everything that we did wrong and that's untenable.

So then it boils down to should the Palestinians have a state? You betcha.

Is being terrorists and killing civilians and supporting the death of many more innocent civilians i.e. hatred of Jews the right way to advocate for said state? Nope.

I think Israel wants peace but, like most governments, doesn't want its civilians to die because of terrorists attacks and will use force to allow for these aims. US War on Terror anybody? Same deal here, with the same problems.

I seriously hope this process gets solved sooner rather than later, I really don't need two cousins in the army.

This definitely turned into a long rant wasn't supposed to. Oh well, I'll wait for the sophist beat down by UB.

So, why did they allow the creation of the Palestinian Authority? Pull out of Lebanon? Give back the Sinai? Are on good terms with Egypt? And Jordan?

Israel has dealt fairly with all who have dealt fairly with it. The Palestinians never have, despite numerous opportunities.The Palestinians have not been dealt fairly with since 1916. So cut the crap.

No, they weren't. They were coming to live in what was once Judea - which was all that early Zionism wanted.

The more extreme forms of Zionism, such as that espoused by the Hagganah Terrorists, came into ascension post WWII. That's not say they didn't exist earlier, but they were the fringe, not the mainstream.They were coming to live between Lake Tiberias and Tel Aviv. That's not what was once Judaea, that's the agriculturally valuable stretch that was viable to the Palestinian Arabs and that was taken from them by the immigrating Jews. And Zionists wanted all of Palestine. There was no talk of a partition as was proposed by the UN later. They wanted all between the Mediterranean and the Hedjaz railway line (bluish line in here (http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Pal-under-BritishMandate192.gif)).

They were coming to live between Lake Tiberias and Tel Aviv. That's not what was once Judaea, that's the agriculturally valuable stretch that was viable to the Palestinian Arabs and that was taken from them by the immigrating Jews. And Zionists wanted all of Palestine. There was no talk of a partition as was proposed by the UN later. They wanted all between the Mediterranean and the Hedjaz railway line (bluish line in here (http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Pal-under-BritishMandate192.gif)).

Except that the Jews were the one who accepted the partition in 1947 and not the Arabs. So ummm... empirically denied.

Maybe so, but taken at face value, the Oslo accords certainly didn't mean the end of Palestine, or anything close to that, as UB so likes to rant.

What it meant was capitulation to the conditions of the occupation: the acceptance of a situation in which there was no Palestine and little genuine autonomy, and quite possibly would never be.

And unless he has some crystal ball somewhere to tell him the future, it was a reasonable accord at the time, with concessions on both sides and a workable potential for a peaceful future.

Or maybe it was just a clever subcontracting deal. Good arguments have been made for exactly that position.

But, sure, maybe it had potential. So? It still didn't definitively signify any long-term Israeli commitment to Palestinian independence and genuine autonomy. It doesn't change the fact that Israel has never been willing to concede the basic conditions of the occupation.

Except that the Jews were the one who accepted the partition in 1947

As a start, not as final. When Israel declared its independence, the Zionist militias were in control of territory beyond that given to them by the partition, and most of the 1948 war was fought in such territory. Israel ended it with much more territory than it had been given.

Strange, for a poor, weak nation desperately fighting for its survival against numerous powerful countries committed to its destruction, right? ;)

Why should I. Israel is an evil empire.They have no desire to give the Palestinians the state they deserve.Isreal will hold on to the West Bank and Gaza as long as possible!

This, though similar to your earlier remarks, is, surprisingly, an acceptable post. You are stating an opinion and supporting it. Your earlier post, which I have just deleted, was not. The big letters were shouting, which is simply impolite, and the incitement to genocide is enough to get you banned from these forums.

You should take the advice of posters who have been here longer and know the rules. You should also consult this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), particularly the "Forbidden Actions" section.

The Palestinians have not been dealt fairly with since 1916. So cut the crap.

How so? The British did nothing to them they weren't doing everywhere else. Fair treatment doesn't necessarily mean good treatment, you know. And the Brits treated the Jews just the same as everyone else - badly.

They were coming to live between Lake Tiberias and Tel Aviv. That's not what was once Judaea, that's the agriculturally valuable stretch that was viable to the Palestinian Arabs and that was taken from them by the immigrating Jews.

Actually, the vast majority of that area was purchased from the old landowners by immigrating Jews. The Ottoman Empire was corrupt and decrepit, but they held what they had with an iron grip, and imposed order throughout their realm. Aside from anything else, as non-islamics, the Jews had to pay a special tax to live in the Empire, so they kept a close eye on who lived where.

The real trouble began under the British, but even they were pretty good about keeping order. The Hagganah and similar groups were nowhere near as effective as modern propaganda makes them out to be.

Oh, and if you actually look at the old maps of Roman Judea, you'll find that that province was significantly bigger than modern Israel, let alon the initial Jewish settled areas.

And Zionists wanted all of Palestine. There was no talk of a partition as was proposed by the UN later. They wanted all between the Mediterranean and the Hedjaz railway line (bluish line in here (http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Pal-under-BritishMandate192.gif)).

Yup. Standard bargaining tactics. Ask for far more than you're ever going to get and work down to something you can live with. Works well.

Well, at least the Israelis haven't quoted John M. Chivington to explain the Palestinian child casualties of their bombing and missile raids.

That air strike was pretty horrible.........

That's simply untrue. The Palestinians started murdering many decades before there was an "occupation", decades before there was a "state of Israel".

As did the Israelis before there was an Israel, if you want to look at it like that.


I'll make sure to perfect my grammar before I even think about posting, you know so I can be all superior about my Mr. Collins complex..

I think you'd be better off just trying to get your facts straight.

What it meant was capitulation to the conditions of the occupation: the acceptance of a situation in which there was no Palestine and little genuine autonomy, and quite possibly would never be.

Recognition of a Palestine interim government with arrangements for a future one five years down the line, along with control over areas of Gaza and the West Bank, isn't an attempt to accept that there may be a Palestine?

How odd.


Or maybe it was just a clever subcontracting deal. Good arguments have been made for exactly that position.


Well, this is where it becomes a rather sticky situation no? One can argue that the deal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, but on that basis alone, that argument might as well be extended to all deals, and we can all have a nice paranoid society.

On the other hand, good faith is typically required at these negotiations, of which if you have none, showing up really serves no purpose other than perhaps trolling.


But, sure, maybe it had potential. So? It still didn't definitively signify any long-term Israeli commitment to Palestinian independence and genuine autonomy. It doesn't change the fact that Israel has never been willing to concede the basic conditions of the occupation.

One could likewise argue that Palestine has not made any significant commitment in their case towards independence, much less autonomy. Too much infighting. Or for that matter, concede the basic conditions for peace, if one wishes to argue on that line. One does not fire rockets unprovoked, and no, I don't count events prior to the ceasefire as valid conditions for provocation, at someone else during a ceasefire if one wishes to maintain the peace.

And conceding the basic conditions of the occupation? What on earth do you mean by that? Even the settlements in West Bank and Gaza were on the table as part of a negotiable element in terms of removing them during the Oslo Accords.

To cut it short, Israel and Palestine have a significant population base who are simply not interested in peace whatsoever, and only want total destruction of the other.

An impractical, but workable solution to the whole mess would be to utilize an external force to conquer both Israel and Palestine and lump them together under martial law of a draconian ruling authority. However, this is difficult to achieve, and would probably be of no value to anyone capable of doing so.

In other words, they're probably doomed to fight until the end of time, given that both sides have enough nutcases who want to destroy each other.

Recognition of a Palestine interim government with arrangements for a future one five years down the line, along with control over areas of Gaza and the West Bank, isn't an attempt to accept that there may be a Palestine?Not under the conditions of the accord. It was an Israeli attempt to create many small Palestinian enclaves that would be easier to control. divide et impera. While Israel would have kept and further captured water supply and other infrastructure.

Don't forget also that Israel confiscated millions in Palestinian public revenue in revenge for them democratically participating in elections.

So are you claiming to be able to read dead people's mind's now? Or have you been conversing with the Rabin's ghost?

You will have to do better than Palestinian sources if you want me to give your claims credit. Find me one that is unbiased.The continued presence of Jewish settlements and their continued extension is a pretty unbiased source. At no point did Rabin show that he was serious by stopping the settlements.
And a map of what the accord would have meant already says everything.

Not under the conditions of the accord. It was an Israeli attempt to create many small Palestinian enclaves that would be easier to control. divide et impera. While Israel would have kept and further captured water supply and other infrastructure.

So are you claiming to be able to read dead people's mind's now? Or have you been conversing with the Rabin's ghost?

You will have to do better than Palestinian sources if you want me to give your claims credit. Find me one that is unbiased.

I'm surprised this has gone on as long as it has, but I suppose that's a given for I/P threads. Seems like Israel has withdrawn their troops:


Israel pulls troops out of Gaza

Most Israeli troops have pulled out of northern Gaza after days of fighting that has left more than 100 people dead and drawn protest worldwide.

The Israeli military confirmed that most of the troops sent into the Gaza Strip last week were now back.

Five militants were killed in Israeli air strikes overnight, while several other Palestinians were found dead as Israeli forces withdrew.

Israel said the operation was launched to defend itself against rocket attack.

Medical sources say at least 112 Palestinians have been killed since Wednesday, when Israel intensified its campaign in Gaza.

Three Israelis have died - a civilian killed by a rocket on Wednesday, and two soldiers since.

There has been widespread international alarm at the scale of the Israeli action and West Bank-based Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has formally suspended contacts with Israel in protest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7274225.stm

This sort of thing seems only to increase resentment towards Israel, both in Gaza and the West Bank, and internationally.

The continued presence of Jewish settlements and their continued extension is a pretty unbiased source.


This is no source at all.


At no point did Rabin show that he was serious by stopping the settlements.


Because you know, he died before anything could be done about it? I suppose you were expecting Rabin to climb out of the grave to finish what he started?


And a map of what the accord would have meant already says everything.

Maps don't mean very much unless they come straight from the accords themselves, completely unaltered. I could just as easily produce a map showing that Swaziland controls 90% of the world. Your map is clearly not from the accords.

I have a few Lebanese friends, and they tell me how much they despise having Palestinian refugees in their country. I am sure there is the same problem with the refugees in Jordan. And doesn't Egpyt have a problem with letting Palestinians in? Where are you going to dump them? What about the economic status of the nations you dump them in? They will undoubtedly go south, just like any nation that has a large influx of refugees. There won't be enough resources to ensure the safety, health and well being of the Palestinian refugees. Simply put, your idea sucks.

One of the biggest problems in the area is actually that Arabian league states always denied Palestinians any right to citizenship making them forever stateless and at the same time never applied the Casablanca protocols (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/e373eb5c166347ae85256e36006948ba?OpenDocument).
This "to preserve their Palestinian identity", because "If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won't be any reason for them to return to Palestine" as Hisham Youssef, spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, has put it.


some links to the matter:

Arab Treatment of Palestinians (http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/arabtreatmentofpalestinians.html)
Treatment and Rights in Arab Host States (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/arab-rtr.htm)
Like any other people? (http://jerusalemsummit.org/eng/news.php?news=101)

One of the biggest problems in the area is actually that Arabian league states always denied Palestinians any right to citizenship making them forever stateless and at the same time never applied the Casablanca protocols (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/e373eb5c166347ae85256e36006948ba?OpenDocument).
This "to preserve their Palestinian identity", because "If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won't be any reason for them to return to Palestine" as Hisham Youssef, spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, has put it.


some links to the matter:

Arab Treatment of Palestinians (http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/arabtreatmentofpalestinians.html)
Treatment and Rights in Arab Host States (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/arab-rtr.htm)
Like any other people? (http://jerusalemsummit.org/eng/news.php?news=101)

The Palestinians have always been used as political Tar Babies that the Arabs are more than happy to give lip service to (and nothing else) and the Israelis all too willing to punch.

This is no source at all.It is the ultimate source. Facts speak a lot clearer than documents.

Because you know, he died before anything could be done about it? I suppose you were expecting Rabin to climb out of the grave to finish what he started?He had more than sufficient time to stop the settlements. But he did not move a finger. And his successor Netanyahu of course did not either.

Maps don't mean very much unless they come straight from the accords themselves, completely unaltered. I could just as easily produce a map showing that Swaziland controls 90% of the world. Your map is clearly not from the accords.What a bullshit.
http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/books/maps.htm
maps from Israeli and Arab websites show the same.

As did the Israelis before there was an Israel, if you want to look at it like that.
I wouldn't deny there were bad actors on the Jewish side (although I am not aware of murders in that direction earlier than the '40s). But I was responding to Beleriand's thoroughly false claim that the Palestinians only starting murdering in response to the occupation. I don't think "Who started it?" is the best approach to the question, but anyone who wants to argue in that fashion should be reminded firmly that there is no question the Palestinians started the violence (and have always insisted on continuing it).

Recognition of a Palestine interim government with arrangements for a future one five years down the line, along with control over areas of Gaza and the West Bank, isn't an attempt to accept that there may be a Palestine?

When the Palestinian government serves essentially as an instrument of the occupation? No.

On the other hand, good faith is typically required at these negotiations,

No, what's required is actual, meaningful commitments, not handshakes and talk of peace that are just supposed to be accepted in "good faith."

One could likewise argue that Palestine has not made any significant commitment in their case towards independence, much less autonomy. Too much infighting.

Of late, yes. Happens sometimes. Doesn't alter the Palestinian desire for independence, or the fact that for a long time an organization did exist that was recognized by most as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

no, I don't count events prior to the ceasefire as valid conditions for provocation,

Fine, don't. But turning Gaza into a huge prison camp with massive humanitarian problems is surely a provocation, cease-fire or no.

And conceding the basic conditions of the occupation? What on earth do you mean by that? Even the settlements in West Bank and Gaza were on the table as part of a negotiable element in terms of removing them during the Oslo Accords.

Blah, blah, blah... meanwhile, settlement expansions continued aggressively during the times the "pro-peace" Labor Party was in office....

I wouldn't deny there were bad actors on the Jewish side (although I am not aware of murders in that direction earlier than the '40s).

Reprisals date back to the 20's.

It is the ultimate source. Facts speak a lot clearer than documents.

It is a partial fact that you are attempting to build all sorts of meaning into. You will have to show that between the time of the signing of the Oslo accords and his death, new settlements were put up that Rabin made no attempt to stop. Merely pointing to the existence of settlements as proof he attempted nothing of the sort is as fallacious as pointing to the continued existence of the Roma gypsies as proof that there had never been an attempt to wipe them out.


And his successor Netanyahu of course did not either.


Because a right wing, ultranationalist politician who belongs to the Likud party would of course continue dovish overtures towards the Palestinians that came from a leftist predecessor.

I suppose G.W. Bush is continuing Bill Clinton's policies then?


What a bullshit.


The actual fecal matter is your continued refusal to argue the points which were raised earlier showing how false your claims are that Israel is the only nation to have claimed its territory in a military/colonial expansion.


http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/books/maps.htm
maps from Israeli and Arab websites show the same.

But unlike what you say, they don't show the Palestinian Authority, or as a potential nation, as finished.

How curious. According to the document on the Oslo 2 maps.


The agreement does not define the extent of the withdrawals, and this is one of the major issues now on the political agenda


Counting your quantum chickens before they hatch mmm?

Reprisals date back to the 20's.

Do you have some information to add to my store?

When the Palestinian government serves essentially as an instrument of the occupation? No.

So you are saying the Palestinian Authority... is a proxy government for the Israeli government? :confused:


No, what's required is actual, meaningful commitments, not handshakes and talk of peace that are just supposed to be accepted in "good faith."


Commitment is a must yes, but good faith is a prerequisite. Unless you are committed to causing damage I suppose. Then bad faith is a viable alternative I suppose.


Of late, yes. Happens sometimes. Doesn't alter the Palestinian desire for independence, or the fact that for a long time an organization did exist that was recognized by most as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

It doesn't alter it, but it certainly puts great big holes in any attempt to achieve it. Peace, much less independence, will remain a castle in the sky unless both sides put their houses in order.


Fine, don't. But turning Gaza into a huge prison camp with massive humanitarian problems is surely a provocation, cease-fire or no.

This is a pre-existing state of which part of the idea of the Oslo accords was supposed to fix.

Patience however, is a very scarce resource in that stretch of land. Overused much.


Blah, blah, blah... meanwhile, settlement expansions continued aggressively during the times the "pro-peace" Labor Party was in office....

As I have said before, I shall say again. Israel and Palestine both have too large a population that subscribe to either barbaric, archaic, or cruel beliefs that are counter-productive to any peace effort.

The settlers are surely not interested in any peace, except maybe that brought about by the grave, and likewise those who fire rockets at Israel or strap bombs on themselves are not interested in any peace.

Israel's government cannot, or is unwilling to control its settlers to any great degree, given that the politicians have to pander to them, whereas the Palestinian Authority is incapable of stopping the better armed Hamas from launching rockets.

At this point of time, I can see no method of working peace being brought about save for a rather harsh, but probably workable option, of committing mass culling among the more radical members of the groups mentioned above, and imposing a new authoritarian government over the entire territory.

So you are saying the Palestinian Authority... is a proxy government for the Israeli government? :confused:
He thinks it is unreasonable to expect a Palestinian government to prevent its citizens from launching attacks against the neighbors. But that is a prerequisite for a state to be recognized: Iraqi Kurdistan, likewise, can never have independence if it doesn't get the idea that it must prevent attacks into Turkey.

So you are saying the Palestinian Authority... is a proxy government for the Israeli government?

Well, it's not a role they necessarily liked, but yes, a case could be made that Israel intended to use them in exactly that way: overlords from among the natives to act as surrogate colonial authorities. If you want to see a good argument for this position, see Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

I'm not entirely convinced--in part because I don't really care enough to make a careful investigation and analysis--but I just wanted to note that Palestinian doubts about Oslo had their bases.

Commitment is a must yes, but good faith is a prerequisite.

Maybe, but trusting in the other person's good faith without any substantive commitment on their part is just stupid.

This is a pre-existing state of which part of the idea of the Oslo accords was supposed to fix.

Nothing whatsoever "pre-existing" about it. It was caused in the long-term by Israeli policies that deprived the Palestinians of real power and in the short-term by the response to Hamas's takeover.

Well, it's not a role they necessarily liked, but yes, a case could be made that Israel intended to use them in exactly that way: overlords from among the natives to act as surrogate colonial authorities. If you want to see a good argument for this position, see Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

I'm not entirely convinced--in part because I don't really care enough to make a careful investigation and analysis--but I just wanted to note that Palestinian doubts about Oslo had their bases.

If we were to take this at face value, then Palestine has never had an actual government off its own then would it?


Maybe, but trusting in the other person's good faith without any substantive commitment on their part is just stupid.

Maybe so, but without any good faith, there wouldn't have been any commitment to begin with. So it's a matter of asking this question. Is the negotiations in good faith, or bad faith?


Nothing whatsoever "pre-existing" about it. It was caused in the long-term by Israeli policies that deprived the Palestinians of real power and in the short-term by the response to Hamas's takeover.

Pre-existing as in existing prior to the Oslo accords.

If we were to take this at face value, then Palestine has never had an actual government off its own then would it?

So?

Is the negotiations in good faith, or bad faith?

On the part of which side?

You can enter negotiations in good faith without expecting your opponents to have good faith without evidence.

Pre-existing as in existing prior to the Oslo accords.

Why do you say that? And in any case, my point concerned the rocket attacks.

So?


So, given the circumstances, it can be argued that Palestine is incapable of ruling itself, and that no matter how much they want to, cannot be autonomous.


On the part of which side?

You can enter negotiations in good faith without expecting your opponents to have good faith without evidence.

Both sides. Both sides have to enter with good faith. Yes, I can understand why you say that one can expect one's opponents to lack good faith, and that is a tricky point to confirm prior to negotiations, but the simple fact of the matter remains that unless both sides have good faith in the other that an honest deal will be struck, it will be stymied even before they meet.


Why do you say that? And in any case, my point concerned the rocket attacks.

Because the prison like conditions were in existence before the Oslo Accords?

Do you have some information to add to my store?


These are from the mid 1930's, but I'm reasonably sure theres some in the late 20's also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936-1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
http://etzel.org.il/english/index.html

These are from the mid 1930's, but I'm reasonably sure theres some in the late 20's also.Your sources do not support that: it appears that the argument between the Jabotinski faction and the mainstream Zionists in the 1920's was solely over whether to aim at declaration of a Jewish state, and that only in 1936 did "retaliation" vs. "self-defense" become an issue.

Your sources do not support that: it appears that the argument between the Jabotinski faction and the mainstream Zionists in the 1920's was solely over whether to aim at declaration of a Jewish state, and that only in 1936 did "retaliation" vs. "self-defense" become an issue.


I didn't say that they did. I said "These are from the mid 1930's". I'm reasonably sure I've read something about reprisals as far back as the late
20's but have no source to hand for it.


He thinks it is unreasonable to expect a Palestinian government to prevent its citizens from launching attacks against the neighbors.

Given that the neighbours are occupying the friends, brothers and cousins in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem its hardly suprising.

I didn't say that they did. I said "These are from the mid 1930's". I'm reasonably sure I've read something about reprisals as far back as the late 20's but have no source to hand for it.
What I was saying was that your sources didn't just fail to substantiate your claim, but actively seem to contradict it.
Given that the neighbours are occupying the friends, brothers and cousins in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem its hardly suprising.
We were talking about the possibility of creating an independent government IN the West Bank and East Jerusalem (as well as Gaza). Soheran thought it would be unreasonable to expect such a government to stop its citizens from continuing acts of war.

We were talking about the possibility of creating an independent government IN the West Bank and East Jerusalem (as well as Gaza). Soheran thought it would be unreasonable to expect such a government to stop its citizens from continuing acts of war.

Where does he say this?

If you look back at the discussion, #268, #275, #286, #290-95, Soheran and NonAlignedStates were talking about the Oslo process and the creation of a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank plus Gaza, and the hypothetical Palestinian government that was expected to grow out of that (not the actual "Fatahstan" and "Hamastan" situation we see now). Of course that Palestinian government was supposed to be arresting radicals to stop them from attacking Israel, and Soheran thinks that means doing the Israelis' work for them.

If you look back at the discussion, #268, #275, #286, #290-95, Soheran and NonAlignedStates were talking about the Oslo process and the creation of a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank plus Gaza, and the hypothetical Palestinian government that was expected to grow out of that (not the actual "Fatahstan" and "Hamastan" situation we see now). Of course that Palestinian government was supposed to be arresting radicals to stop them from attacking Israel, and Soheran thinks that means doing the Israelis' work for them.

If there wasn't a withdrawal and a settlement before the clampdown, then he would be correct. Otherwise, no.

This can only be solved by sending in UN peacekeepers to separate the two sides. I don't mean the diplomats-in-camo that UN peacekeeping has come to represent. I mean tanks, heavily armed troops, an aircraft carrier etc. Any Palestinians who fire rockets at Israel are arrested, UN forces prevent encroachment into Palestinian territory by Israeli troops and aircraft. Stop the tit-for-tat killing (this has been going on for so long that trying to argue who 'started it' is meaningless) and the peace will follow soon afterwards.

This can only be solved by sending in UN peacekeepers to separate the two sides. I don't mean the diplomats-in-camo that UN peacekeeping has come to represent. I mean tanks, heavily armed troops, an aircraft carrier etc. Any Palestinians who fire rockets at Israel are arrested, UN forces prevent encroachment into Palestinian territory by Israeli troops and aircraft. Stop the tit-for-tat killing (this has been going on for so long that trying to argue who 'started it' is meaningless) and the peace will follow soon afterwards.

Possibly. Sometimes you just postpone the killings.

If there isn't a commitment on both sides to peace, peacekeeping has no value.

This can only be solved by sending in UN peacekeepers to separate the two sides. I don't mean the diplomats-in-camo that UN peacekeeping has come to represent. I mean tanks, heavily armed troops, an aircraft carrier etc. Any Palestinians who fire rockets at Israel are arrested, UN forces prevent encroachment into Palestinian territory by Israeli troops and aircraft. Stop the tit-for-tat killing (this has been going on for so long that trying to argue who 'started it' is meaningless) and the peace will follow soon afterwards.And who is stopping and removing Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Who ends the occupation of the West Bank?

And who is stopping and removing Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Who ends the occupation of the West Bank?

I think you'll find the illegal settlements, cut off from IDF protection as per the poster's specifications since it is in Palestinian territory, will quickly crumble, either from abandonment or slaughter.

I didn't want to say anything, but:

The current situation is too convenient for Israel.

Undoubtedly, one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Nothing personal, of course.