NationStates Jolt Archive

So now Hamas has said that it is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor as long as Israel were to withdraw to the borders it held before 1967.

Since that isn't going to happen; shall we all just hunker down for a thousand more years of idiocy?

So now Hamas has said that it is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor as long as Israel were to withdraw to the borders it held before 1967.

Since that isn't going to happen; shall we all just hunker down for a thousand more years of idiocy?

*hunkers down*

So now Hamas has said that it is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor as long as Israel were to withdraw to the borders it held before 1967.

Since that isn't going to happen; shall we all just hunker down for a thousand more years of idiocy?

Hamas isn't serious, and Israel isn't going to withdraw. Hamas knows Israel isn't going to withdraw. Israel knows Hamas isn't serious. Hamas knows that Israel knows, and Israel knows that Hamas knows. Beyond that, Israel and Hamas know that that each other knows what they know about the other knowing.

Everybody knows.

Pre 1967? That's a little extreme.

Hamas isn't serious, and Israel isn't going to withdraw. Hamas knows Israel isn't going to withdraw. Israel knows Hamas isn't serious. Hamas knows that Israel knows, and Israel knows that Hamas knows. Beyond that, Israel and Hamas know that that each other knows what they know about the other knowing.

Everybody knows.

Making the entire proceedings...

***Entirely Pointless!***

(¬_¬*)

Making the entire proceedings...

Entirely Pointless!

Nah. The point for Hamas is to make Israel look unreasonable in the sight of the world. Now, it will do that very effectively, for people without a brain and/or sense of geography/history.

Hamas isn't serious, and Israel isn't going to withdraw. Hamas knows Israel isn't going to withdraw. Israel knows Hamas isn't serious. Hamas knows that Israel knows, and Israel knows that Hamas knows. Beyond that, Israel and Hamas know that that each other knows what they know about the other knowing.

Everybody knows.

Because thats how you feel deep down inside? Or perhaps you consulted your magic 8 ball? Maybe your psychic told you or you are psychic yourself (if that is so then tell me what I am thinking right now *fun*)? Perhaps you were there at the meeting and were reading everyones body language? I'm guessing that looking at history we can guess that no leaders in a military conflict have EVER changed their position on something. You should be the one over there negotiating. It seems that you know what everyone is thinking, so they couldn't hide anything from you.

Because thats how you feel deep down inside? Or perhaps you consulted your magic 8 ball? Maybe your psychic told you or you are psychic yourself (if that is so then tell me what I am thinking right now *fun*)? Perhaps you were there at the meeting and were reading everyones body language? I'm guessing that looking at history we can guess that no leaders in a military conflict have EVER changed their position on something. You should be the one over there negotiating. It seems that you know what everyone is thinking, so they couldn't hide anything from you.

We'll see, won't we? This is how the next few days/weeks unfold: Hamas says "Israel, withdraw to borders in 1967." Israel says "F--- you" (paraphrased). Hamas says "Waaaah, see how Israel is? They're unreasonable ********." (paraphrased) Then, either Hamas begs the world to sanction/obliterate Israel, and/or they continue trying to do so themselves.

Back to business as usual.

I remain optimistic that this time gentle haggling will get both sides happy and we can all have a new Persian rug we don't need :) (Hamas willing to talk is good and this is a good sign, just give it a few more decades)

Hamas isn't serious, and Israel isn't going to withdraw. Hamas knows Israel isn't going to withdraw. Israel knows Hamas isn't serious. Hamas knows that Israel knows, and Israel knows that Hamas knows. Beyond that, Israel and Hamas know that that each other knows what they know about the other knowing.

I just hope they can see eye to eye:cool: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBb5y8IHAtE)

We'll see, won't we? This is how the next few days/weeks unfold: Hamas says "Israel, withdraw to borders in 1967." Israel says "F--- you" (paraphrased). Hamas says "Waaaah, see how Israel is? They're unreasonable ********." (paraphrased) Then, either Hamas begs the world to sanction/obliterate Israel, and/or they continue trying to do so themselves.

Back to business as usual.

That doesnt prove that Hamas isnt serious. Thats the statement about yours I take issue with.

You have no way of knowing whether theyre serious or not.

That doesnt prove that Hamas isnt serious. Thats the statement about yours I take issue with.

You have no way of knowing whether theyre serious or not.

Ah. A leopard doesn't change its spots, but besides that:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359661.stm

They say in this news article that, while still refusing to recognize Israel, they will give Israel 10 years of peace. Just before this, it was stated that they would recognize Israel as a neighbor, so it's already backing down.

But, as I said, a leopard doesn't change its spots.

Pre 1967? That's a little extreme.

Why?

As a neighbor and nothing else? Notice the wording here people.

Why?
Because it would mean giving up everything Israel has won during it's defense against Arab aggression. Israel has ALREADY give back tons of land for example to Egypt and some to the Palestinians...but what have the Palestinians done? They've given nothing to Israel but their bombs.

http://bvapush.pbwiki.com/f/T623785A.gif

Hamas isn't serious, and Israel isn't going to withdraw. Hamas knows Israel isn't going to withdraw. Israel knows Hamas isn't serious. Hamas knows that Israel knows, and Israel knows that Hamas knows. Beyond that, Israel and Hamas know that that each other knows what they know about the other knowing.

Everybody knows.
Yay prejudgism, yea thát will help! Anyway, that whole Middle-Eastren conflict is like watching 2 toddlers fighting for a lolly-pop. The difference is alas, that they don't just fight and bitch around, nooo they're blowing themselfs and others up. It's embarrasing really, and very very sad.
Anyway, Carter is doing the good thing: talking instead of killing. It sure beats killing now doesn't it?

Because it would mean giving up everything Israel has won during it's defense against Arab aggression. Israel has ALREADY give back tons of land for example to Egypt and some to the Palestinians...but what have the Palestinians done? They've given nothing to Israel but their bombs.


You mean Israel never got the cake?!? :eek:

You mean Israel never got the cake?!? :eek:
Oh Israel did..but they did not take kindly to the stripper being male.....

And the Palestinians wonder why their houses get bulldozed....

Oh Israel did..but they did not take kindly to the stripper being male.....

And the Palestinians wonder why their houses get bulldozed....

SOme people just can't take a joke. :rolleyes:

So now Hamas has said that it is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor as long as Israel were to withdraw to the borders it held before 1967.
No, Hamas did not say that; Carter claimed that Hamas had said that, but he was taken in by some weasel-wording. Their leader Khaled Mashaal clarified that if Israel agreed to withdraw to the 1967 lines and this settlement was put to a referendum of the Palestinian people, Hamas would permit the referendum to take place and the results to be implemented-- and then would continue to fight to obliterate Israel.

Restoration of the 1948-67 borderlines is completely impractical anyway; they were inherently unstable. They were never intended as permanent boundaries but only as a cease-fire line; negotiations in 1949-51 intended to adjust them more in the Palestinians' favor but were aborted when some main negotiators were assassinated; more recent negotiations such as Clinton's proposals in 2000 and the Geneva Initiative assume that there will be some swap of territory. Jerusalem is an impenetrable sticking point: the Jews would never accept being forbidden access again to the Temple Mount and don't want Jerusalem divided at all, while the Palestinians insist on having at least some of the city for their nominal capital; the more right-wing Israelis want an extended Jerusalem including "suburbs" (settlements) that extend far over the old borderline, and this cannot be granted because there really is no way to compensate for that by swapping territory elsewhere since it would make access from the northern half of the West Bank to the southern half very difficult (the "contiguity" problem).

Because it would mean giving up everything Israel has won during it's defense against Arab aggression. Israel has ALREADY give back tons of land for example to Egypt and some to the Palestinians...but what have the Palestinians done? They've given nothing to Israel but their bombs.

http://bvapush.pbwiki.com/f/T623785A.gif

excuse me, "defence of Arab aggression"? that land is still Palestine's, as Israel never paid for it. the Arabs are simple trying to get back their property.

Rolling squid;13629275']excuse me, "defence of Arab aggression"? that land is still Palestine's, as Israel never paid for it. the Arabs are simple trying to get back their property.

You do realize that Israel has defended itself in all three Arab Israeli Wars that resulted in the territory they have now? So yes...the "defense of Arab Agression" is actually correct.

You mean Israel never got the cake?!? :eek:

it was a lie.

Rolling squid;13629275']excuse me, "defence of Arab aggression"? that land is still Palestine's, as Israel never paid for it. the Arabs are simple trying to get back their property.

The "Defence against Arab" aggression is generally taken to refer to the numerous Arab countries (i.e. Jordan, Egypt, Syria etc.) that declared war on Israel when they declared independence (and of course were completely repelled from the newly created Israel).

Second, correction: The Palestinians are "trying to get their property" back, not the Arabs. Although most Palestinians are Arabs, not all Arabs are Palestinians.

Israel should accept Hamas's truce. They have nothing to lose and (potentially) a great deal to gain.

Israel should accept Hamas's truce. They have nothing to lose and (potentially) a great deal to gain.

And thus a well laid plan by Hamas backfires and they're stuck following through on it. I love it :D

The "Defence against Arab" aggression is generally taken to refer to the numerous Arab countries (i.e. Jordan, Egypt, Syria etc.) that declared war on Israel when they declared independence (and of course were completely repelled from the newly created Israel).

Second, correction: The Palestinians are "trying to get their property" back, not the Arabs. Although most Palestinians are Arabs, not all Arabs are Palestinians.

yes, and as the arabs are allies of Pelestinians, they are justified.
also, the Israeli are "defending" themselves in the same way that a burgular who breaks into your house is defending himself from you. As soon as Israeli pays for the land, it becomes a whole different matter.

This probably won't come to anything, seeing as how Israel is now refusing to speak to Carter, let alone Hamas.

Rolling squid;13630860']yes, and as the arabs are allies of Pelestinians, they are justified.
also, the Israeli are "defending" themselves in the same way that a burgular who breaks into your house is defending himself from you. As soon as Israeli pays for the land, it becomes a whole different matter.

Israel took that land in a war the other side started. They owe nothing.

No, Hamas did not say that; Carter claimed that Hamas had said that, but he was taken in by some weasel-wording. Their leader Khaled Mashaal clarified that if Israel agreed to withdraw to the 1967 lines and this settlement was put to a referendum of the Palestinian people, Hamas would permit the referendum to take place and the results to be implemented-- and then would continue to fight to obliterate Israel.

Restoration of the 1948-67 borderlines is completely impractical anyway; they were inherently unstable. They were never intended as permanent boundaries but only as a cease-fire line; negotiations in 1949-51 intended to adjust them more in the Palestinians' favor but were aborted when some main negotiators were assassinated; more recent negotiations such as Clinton's proposals in 2000 and the Geneva Initiative assume that there will be some swap of territory. Jerusalem is an impenetrable sticking point: the Jews would never accept being forbidden access again to the Temple Mount and don't want Jerusalem divided at all, while the Palestinians insist on having at least some of the city for their nominal capital; the more right-wing Israelis want an extended Jerusalem including "suburbs" (settlements) that extend far over the old borderline, and this cannot be granted because there really is no way to compensate for that by swapping territory elsewhere since it would make access from the northern half of the West Bank to the southern half very difficult (the "contiguity" problem).

Damn all of those fuckers with their lies, their selfish assholiness and unwillingness to compromise!

This probably won't come to anything, seeing as how Israel is now refusing to speak to Carter, let alone Hamas.

Whoa whoa hold on there.

They had prior engagements with this guy:


http://images.askmen.com/galleries/men/wentworth-miller/pictures/wentworth-miller-picture-1.jpg

Yay prejudgism, yea thát will help! Anyway, that whole Middle-Eastren conflict is like watching 2 toddlers fighting for a lolly-pop. The difference is alas, that they don't just fight and bitch around, nooo they're blowing themselfs and others up. It's embarrasing really, and very very sad.
Anyway, Carter is doing the good thing: talking instead of killing. It sure beats killing now doesn't it?


It would be a lot simpler , cheaper and faster to lob most of the world's nuclear arsenal into Israel/Palestine......... would have the same end result both sides dream about(the other being dead) and finally with everyone dead we would'nt have to put up with the pointless bickering from US/Euro/Russian politicians and would'nt have to put up with the latest tv documentery about which side is being evil today.

Rolling squid;13630860']yes, and as the arabs are allies of Pelestinians, they are justified.

Trying to oust someone from their own land is not justified. The arabs have tried it three times and have failed three times.

also, the Israeli are "defending" themselves in the same way that a burgular who breaks into your house is defending himself from you. As soon as Israeli pays for the land, it becomes a whole different matter.

THey did pay for it...IN BLOOD

They did pay for it...IN BLOOD

Spooky.

Anyways, how is any of this really news? As others have pointed out (LG most concisely), a couple words change nothing.

Trying to oust someone from their own land is not justified. The arabs have tried it three times and have failed three times.


Excuse me, i need a minute to stop laughing. By your own definition, the creation of Israel was not justified, as that's exactly what they did. The Arab's aren't trying to oust the Israeli's from Israeli land, they're trying to get the land the Israeli's stole from them back.

Also, to whoever posted that Israel took most of their land after wars, that is correct, however, the original land was Israel was given to them via the UN, who was expecting them to pay for it.

Rolling squid;13631324']Excuse me, i need a minute to stop laughing. By your own definition, the creation of Israel was not justified, as that's exactly what they did. The Arab's aren't trying to oust the Israeli's from Israeli land, they're trying to get the land the Israeli's stole from them back.
Actually, it was theirs before it was 'given' to them by the U.N., it just wasn't exclusively theirs. Under the British Mandate there was joint rule by Jews and Arabs.
Rolling squid;13631324']Also, to whoever posted that Israel took most of their land after wars, that is correct, however, the original land was Israel was given to them via the UN, who was expecting them to pay for it.
Source?

Because it would mean giving up everything Israel has won during it's defense against Arab aggression.

Winning war=/= Free land grab and roll D100 for years allowed slow drip ethnic cleansing. Not in any edition of the rules or supplements.


Jerusalem is an impenetrable sticking point: the Jews would never accept being forbidden access again to the Temple Mount

Which presumes they would be.....


Israel took that land in a war the other side started.

...so collective punishment for the Palestinians who were expelled in 1947/1948 and had Israel land on then in 1967 again....By which logic should any Israeli be killed, its entirely justified, under the same collective punishment...Great thinking that. You could justify all sorts with it.


THey did pay for it...IN BLOOD.

OOO Drama...

If blood is the currency, haven't more Palestinians died than Israelis? I know you've failed miserably in these discussions before on the factual side. Is this an attempt to add metaphors to the list?

Actually, it was theirs before it was 'given' to them by the U.N., it just wasn't exclusively theirs. Under the British Mandate there was joint rule by Jews and Arabs.

Source?

wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict) about the conflict, in the new state of Israel, about 6% of the land was Jewish, and 70% was state owned, the reaming 24% was Arab, and taken by the government with no compensation, a violation of international law.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2004/HellFreezesOver.jpg

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2004/HellFreezesOver.jpg

Swiped.

...so collective punishment for the Palestinians who were expelled in 1947/1948 and had Israel land on then in 1967 again....By which logic should any Israeli be killed, its entirely justified, under the same collective punishment...Great thinking that. You could justify all sorts with it.


You misunderstand. I was merely stating that Israel does not owe anyone anything for that land - they legally annexed it as a spoil of war. Nor can they be accused of stealing that land in in an offensive war, as they were the defensive side.

The Palestinians have been collectively screwed over by the Israelis, and also be the various Arab states, with the sole exception of Jordan. The Israelis at least have the excuse that the Palestinians have this nasty tendency to shoot at them.

You misunderstand. I was merely stating that Israel does not owe anyone anything for that land - they legally annexed it as a spoil of war.

What I can't figure out is where the idea that you can legally annex anything due to war came from.....You can't, as it happens. You can do it, of course, but theres nothing legal about it - if you have the right backing you might get recognition for your conquest after the fact, as in 1948.

Annexation differs from cession and amalgamation, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, or amalgamation where both sides are asked if they agree with the merge, annexation is an unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and made legitimate by the recognition of the international community.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation

However our main concern should really be on what they're hell bent on annexing now, and only taking into consideration the expulsions of 1947..,,

Rolling squid;13631403']wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict) about the conflict, in the new state of Israel, about 6% of the land was Jewish, and 70% was state owned, the reaming 24% was Arab, and taken by the government with no compensation, a violation of international law.

Thank you.

Nordina:
If blood is the currency, haven't more Palestinians died than Israelis? I know you've failed miserably in these discussions before on the factual side. Is this an attempt to add metaphors to the list?[/QUOTE]


Sure, plenty of Palestinians died blowing themselves and innocent civilians up on buses.

Rolling squid;13630860']yes, and as the arabs are allies of Pelestinians, they are justified.
also, the Israeli are "defending" themselves in the same way that a burgular who breaks into your house is defending himself from you. As soon as Israeli pays for the land, it becomes a whole different matter.

Depends on how you use the term "ally". For the most part, the other Arab states seem to have shown that they only wish to achieve their individual objectives and a number of Arab states don't actually care if the Palestinians get their land back or not. A few Arab states have already recognized Israel and made peace with them (eg Egypt and Jordan), and they simply suggest that Israel should go back to their pre-1967 borders.

After all I find it most interesting that when the Palestinians' allies Egypt and Jordan seized control of Gaza and the West Bank (temporarily) that they had no intention whatsoever of creating a Palestinian state, but they simply were interested in the tactical advantage that they would have over Israel.

Now as for "defending" themselves as you put it, it can be argued that the Palestinians were offered a state (albeit less of the land that they demanded was theirs) in the original partition plan. But everyone knows that they turned down that offer.

And as for Israel being Palestinian land that is left up to your individual interpretations. I have to ask when in history was their an established Palestinian state? If you are expelled from somewhere is there a time limit after which you lose ownership of the land? This is the fundamental question that determines who's land it is.

Eventually the Palestinians will have to acknowledge that the state of Israel will exist in some shape or form (and will be a more powerful state than them militarily), and there is not a thing that they can do about it except negotiate to get Gaza and the West Bank (or parts thereof).

Rolling squid;13630860']As soon as Israeli pays for the land, it becomes a whole different matter.
Excuse me, but the Zionist originally entered, during the Ottoman and Mandate periods from the 1870's to 1940's, precisely as purchasers, not by force, and did not "steal" anything. There were lots of immigrants from Arab countries, especially Egypt (where Yasser Arafat was from) and Yemen, during that period (attracted by the expanding economy driven by the Jewish investment), but only Jewish immigrants were threatened with murder just for coming in to the country, until finally the Arabs started wars, and lost them. Nations which lose wars typically lose territory as a result; nations which start wars and lose them cannot typically expect to ever get that territory back, either, just ask Germany or Japan.

There were, to be sure, genuine grievances involved. The Ottoman land-title system was totally medieval: everything in theory belonged to the Sultan, who granted landlordships sometimes to local sheiks and more often to absentee figures who had no real connection to the estate except to collect rents from it; much of the hinterland was just "Sultan's land" with no other "owner"; on the other hand, in the towns a more-or-less normal real estate market in houses and their lots did develop. The peasants who actually worked the land had no "title": they had a sense, among themselves, of which lands "belonged" to whom, but this was a communal ownership by the family lineages, with no individual owning anything. For this reason the Palestinians were very "sticky" to their lands: in other countries, you could sell your property and move elsewhere, but to leave Palestine mostly you had to just-- leave, with zero money for "grubstake"; so there was little emigration. The British did set up a registry for these informal "titles" to communal lands worked by the same family since time out of mind; but because of a general suspiciousness among the peasantry against any governmental authorities whatsoever, and against these Western intruders in particular, participation was low. So: when the Jewish agencies purchased, they were usually purchasing from absentee landlords, with no provision for the evicted peasants; the booming economy was not of much value to peasants who had little aptitude and zero desire to join the urban economy in the first place; this is where all the anger came from.

Of course, the ultimate reason why Palestine had not had any regular system of land-titles traces back to the basic fact that the Arabs did not enter as purchasers in the first place, but as conquerors and squatters. They were not to blame for the tumults which had ousted the prior owners (the Jews; if you are going to say that there ought to be some "statute of limitations" here on how far back you look, I would not disagree, but if you are going to argue about who the "original" owners are, the Jews have the best of that argument); however, the only reason they were there was because they had military predominance at the time, and now: well, they don't anymore.

<snip>

right, see my above post:

View Post
wiki page about the conflict, in the new state of Israel, about 6% of the land was Jewish, and 70% was state owned, the reaming 24% was Arab, and taken by the government with no compensation, a violation of international law.

Rolling squid;13631932']right, see my above post:
You are talking about what happened when the Arabs decided to start a war, and lost it. They lost territory as a result. That is what usually happens, and I don't have much sympathy.

see? it's not so hard to get you guys riled up :P

You are talking about what happened when the Arabs decided to start a war, and lost it. They lost territory as a result. That is what usually happens, and I don't have much sympathy.

no, I'm not. 24% of the land given to the Israeli's by the UN was owned by Arabs who lived there. After the first war, the Israeli government seized all that land and basically evicted those living there from Israel. No form of compensation was ever offered,

Excuse me,(....) they had military predominance at the time, and now: well, they don't anymore.


Sounds like a reworking of the now discredited argument of Susan Peters "Since Time Immemorial". The figures in the UN survey show an amount of land in Arab hands which rather belies that case, as well as a percentage of the overall agricultural output which was around 78-80%.....

Rolling squid;13632383']no, I'm not. 24% of the land given to the Israeli's by the UN was owned by Arabs who lived there. After the first war, the Israeli government seized all that land and basically evicted those living there from Israel. No form of compensation was ever offered,
No, those Arabs who were there after the war were made Israeli citizens, and are still there, on their lands. Those who fled (some under duress, some not) were considered to have forfeited their lands, but that did not happen immediately: there were a few years of negotiation attempting to implement the resolution that refugees "willing to live at peace with their neighbors" be allowed to return (that would include, equally, the somewhat smaller but comparable number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries during the same period, some under duress, some not), but those negotiations were aborted by the Palestinians.
The figures in the UN survey show an amount of land in Arab hands which rather belies that case
You are not reading within the context: I was discussing the reason why Palestinians had no system of land titles, because they had originally entered as squatters rather than purchasers; it is only because the Arabs "had military predominance at the time", the "time" in question being in the 7th century when they entered, that there are Arabs there now.

This was in response to "original owners" arguments: note also my statement:
if you are going to say that there ought to be some "statute of limitations" here on how far back you look, I would not disagree, but if you are going to argue about who the "original" owners are, the Jews have the best of that argument

No, those Arabs who were there after the war were made Israeli citizens, and are still there, on their lands. Those who fled (some under duress, some not) were considered to have forfeited their lands, but that did not happen immediately: there were a few years of negotiation attempting to implement the resolution that refugees "willing to live at peace with their neighbors" be allowed to return (that would include, equally, the somewhat smaller but comparable number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries during the same period, some under duress, some not), but those negotiations were aborted by the Palestinians.


Really.....

I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war." (Benny Morris, p. 141 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 75)

"Riley [the UN official] spoke to Rozen [Israeli Foreign Ministry official]. [Husnei] Zaim [Syria's president] wants to develop Syria and accept 300,000 [Palestinian] refugees. Riley asks if we would agree to sign an armistice agreement now, on the basis of the existing situation. Rozen replied that our answer was negative." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 16)