General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Cobalt]

Thank you, I think you are being a bit hard on the IDF but at least you can answer the question.

Erm, sure.

.001% but someone would probably have to give me some detail on what they think Palestinians could do to give themselves any chance.....Probably asking Allah for an airforce would be the first thing needed.

Well there's a reason I said the future chance is indeterminable. Neither you nor I know precisely what the future holds. If you want my response based on current trends, it'd be the same to less. But again, there's no way to be positive.

I don't think conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is hypothetical...

It isn't, but a full blown attempt at wiping out Israel is, since there appear to be no solid plans at the moment. This is in no way suggesting that they won't ever try, because still, no clue what the future etc.

well I can make the comment that you have stated your opinions....thats a good thing.

And I appreciate that you're not getting all e-raged over my comments, and I still stand by them.

If I may, I'd like to ask another question of you.
If a Palestinian state were to form today, what, if any, preventative defense measures should Israel take, since there's a 50% chance that the Palestinians would ATTEMPT to destroy Israel, not counting our guesses of the chance of their success?

(I think that made sense in words. Makes sense in my head. I'll clarify if need be.)

 

[Mycroft]

Just trying to quantify peoples generalizations. But if you want to avoid the question using that excuse its ok by me.....you seem to have no problem predicting the future in other areas...

I predict Palestinian goals will not change if nobody insists that they change them. Do you think I'm stepping out on a limb on that?

skeptic....on the grounds that now or sometime in the future If palestinians get a state they will wipe out Israel....remember?

I don't remember Skeptic saying they will do that, could you quote that for me?

I do know that is their stated goal, and that it doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where it could happen, or at least serious damage being done by trying. A staging ground for someone else's army? A smuggled nuke from Iran or Pakistan? Or just a dedicated decade or two of building up their economy to where it could stand up to Israel? Not out of the question.

and round and round and round we go.....assurances from who?

The Palestinian Authority. Who else could give it?

remember it was at this point last time around that you took your bat and ball and went home, proclaiming I was on ignore.

You claimed to want a "serious discussion" but wouldn't stop misrepresenting my views. Counter-productive, don't you think?

you are all for a palestinian state....but...... on conditions you seem reluctant to describe.
I put it to you that you would reject any and all assurances given by any and all palestinians in any form....

So far you're the only one to reject any. Remember? Re-writing the charter?

You need to expand on this "assurances" thing before we can move on to your next "but" when it comes to a palestinian state.

Tell you what, why don't you suggest a few? You're already on record that rewriting their charter is too much to ask of them, can you think of anything they can do you wouldn't object to?

 

[The Fool]

If a Palestinian state were to form today, what, if any, preventative defense measures should Israel take, since there's a 50% chance that the Palestinians would ATTEMPT to destroy Israel, not counting our guesses of the chance of their success?

(I think that made sense in words. Makes sense in my head. I'll clarify if need be.)

Israel could take whatever defensive measures it wished. If Palestine is a state then they have obligations that come with statehood. If there are constant attacks from within the palestinian state then its not Just Israels problem its the worlds problem which is a step up from it being an issue the world leaves to Israel because its the occupier of a stateless people.

I happen to believe that a secular Palestinian government given support would be the best thing to put down Hamas....rather than hamstrung outside forces.


and sorry......I still can't get my head around the concept of a palestinian victory over Israel. Can't help laughing at the improbability. Reminds me of that Iraqi dude that used to talk up saddams forces.

 

[The Fool]

I predict Palestinian goals will not change if nobody insists that they change them. Do you think I'm stepping out on a limb on that?

no, not out on a limb....its just that you are predicting the future. Something you think is foolish?

I don't remember Skeptic saying they will do that, could you quote that for me?

staged plan....he rants about it in longwinded posts all the time. I can't believe you are not familiar with his familiar "driven into the sea" "butchered to the last baby" stuff.

I do know that is their stated goal, and that it doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where it could happen,

ok, If it doesn't take much.... imagine me a scenario. Give me a rough outline on how the ragtag Palestinians obliterate the IDF.

or at least serious damage being done by trying. A staging ground for someone else's army? A smuggled nuke from Iran or Pakistan? Or just a dedicated decade or two of building up their economy to where it could stand up to Israel? Not out of the question.

slipping from destroying Israel to serious damage? soon to erode to some harm? Followed by serious annoyance?

The Palestinian Authority. Who else could give it?

so thats it....an assurance from the Palestinian Authority and you are all lights green for a Palestinian state? I have to say I'm shocked as Even I would have more requirements than that.....

You claimed to want a "serious discussion" but wouldn't stop misrepresenting my views. Counter-productive, don't you think?
So far you're the only one to reject any. Remember? Re-writing the charter?

no....you are misrepresenting that discussion, it was about if the stupid thing was amended or not. I said they don't have to rewrite it for it to be amended....they can rewrite the damn thing if they want but it will make no difference to the questiuon of if its amended. Not going to revisit that one again so I suggest its dropped as a diversion?

 

[Mycroft]

Israel could take whatever defensive measures it wished. If Palestine is a state then they have obligations that come with statehood. If there are constant attacks from within the palestinian state then its not Just Israels problem its the worlds problem which is a step up from it being an issue the world leaves to Israel because its the occupier of a stateless people.

That's pretty much what was said after Israel withdrew from Gaza. Now that Israel is gone, they will have no excuses. If they continue to attack, Israel will be able to do whatever they want, and nobody will be able to blame them.

Only Hamas did continue to attack, and when Israel counter-attacked, they got all the same grief for it they always do. The response was disproportionate, they targeted civilians, it was a "genocide", there were made-up claims of targeting ambulances and hospitals, the United Nations put together a special panel of Israel haters to write a report. There was even allegations of Israel harvesting Palestinian organs.

Nothing would change with Palestinian statehood. The condemnations would still be the same.

It seems obvious to me, and I think most Israelis would agree, that in order for Israel and Palestinians to reconcile that both parties have to be reconciliatory towards each other.

And it seems to me Israelis are reconciliatory. They've withdrawn from Gaza and major parts of the West Bank. They're willing to help out, to rebuild Palestinian infrastructure, to help out with utilities, and waste collection. They're willing to talk about the major issues and to prop up the lesser evil among the genocidal thugs the Palestinians have for government. They're willing to try non-violent solutions like building a big wall when faces with the violent problem of constant attacks from Palestinians.

The Palestinians? No expectations of reconciliatory behavior at all.

Well, that's not entirely true. We hope they won't contradict their leftist friends too loudly when they proclaim Palestinians will no doubt stop killing Jews sometime in the future after all their demands are met. No promises, of course not, and no timetable either. That's sort of an expectation.

I happen to believe that a secular Palestinian government given support would be the best thing to put down Hamas....rather than hamstrung outside forces.

Because that worked out so well for Fatah. Do you not remember how many of them were thrown from tall buildings?

and sorry......I still can't get my head around the concept of a palestinian victory over Israel. Can't help laughing at the improbability. Reminds me of that Iraqi dude that used to talk up saddams forces.

Yeah, well ten years ago I'm sure you would have said the same thing about a hand-full of Mujihideen in the mountains of Afghanistan launching a successful attack against the Pentagon, yet they did it, got the New York World Trade Center, and damn near got a third target at the same time.

Some people claim Hezbollah won the Lebanese war a few years ago. The people who claim this are Hezbollah and people who support their ideals, but that's the way these radicals think.

They don't have to stand up to Israel's army, they're not going to plan for that. What they could do, what Hezbollah has done and other Islamic fundamentalists have done, is plan to do something really horrendous, something that will kill or maim thousands of civilians, and then just hunker down in their bunker, or their command center in the basement of the hospital or on the roof-top of the apartment building, or even in a friendly country like Syria...and wait as their Palestinian countrymen bare the retribution for their atrocity.

See, they don't have to win the fight. They don't even plan for that. They just want to keep the fight going. Whatever the circumstances, whatever the cost, just keep it going. The poor among them will suffer, and the leaders will cash the check from the EU and the other check from the Arab league, and they will live in luxury and feel like gods.

And when it happens you're gonna forget you said it was the world's problem, and again you will join the chorus condemning Israel.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just hold off until some real signs of reconciliatory behavior from the Palestinians can be seen?

 

[The Fool]

Wouldn't it make more sense to just hold off until some real signs of reconciliatory behavior from the Palestinians can be seen?

so it isn't really just a reassurance you want to see... You also want to see "reconciliatory behavior" as well? can you firm up a little on what you mean by reconciliatory behavior?

you seem to see palestinian statehood as the grand prize awarded if and when (and after) peace reigns.....whereas I see it as the first step required.

 

[Mycroft]

no, not out on a limb....its just that you are predicting the future. Something you think is foolish?

It’s foolish to try to predict who will be POTUS in 2020. Not so foolish to predict the election will be the media circus it has always been. See the difference?

Naw, of course not. You’re just trollin’. As usual.

staged plan....he rants about it in longwinded posts all the time. I can't believe you are not familiar with his familiar "driven into the sea" "butchered to the last baby" stuff.

Can you tell the difference between acknowledging a staged plan exists and predicting it will be successful?

If yes, can you tell me which of the two Skeptic did and if that is or is not different from what you claimed he did?

slipping from destroying Israel to serious damage? soon to erode to some harm? Followed by serious annoyance?

Correcting the false dichotomy you introduced. Israel will defend itself from injury too, not just annihilation. Rightly so, too.

so thats it....an assurance from the Palestinian Authority and you are all lights green for a Palestinian state? I have to say I'm shocked as Even I would have more requirements than that.....

Let’s hear some of your requirements. You’ve dodged that question long enough.

no....you are misrepresenting that discussion, it was about if the stupid thing was amended or not. I said they don't have to rewrite it for it to be amended..

In the most recent context it was proposed as something that could be done by Palestinians to show good faith. You objected, pointing to a plank in the Likud party platform being against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

True or false?

..they can rewrite the damn thing if they want but it will make no difference to the questiuon of if its amended. Not going to revisit that one again so I suggest its dropped as a diversion?

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that Arafat sending a letter to Clinton saying “it is done” is the same as doing it, and since decades later we still don’t have a new draft and the Palestinian Authority still publishes the old draft, I think the weight of evidence is on my side.

But I accept that doesn’t convince you, which is part of the problem. To you and the chorus of anti-Israel voices, the tiniest gesture from Palestinians is enough to convince you they’re doing great things. No excuse from them is too flimsy, no atrocity too awful, no logic too tortured. You really have zero expectations of them, so whatever tiny gesture you do get is touted as a marvelous breakthrough.

It’s foolish. It should be a simple thing, not the kind of thing you have to make excuses for.

 

[Mycroft]

so it isn't really just a reassurance you want to see... You also want to see "reconciliatory behavior" as well? can you firm up a little on what you mean by reconciliatory behavior?

I've already rattled off quite a few suggestions. Let's see some of yours. Stop dodging this question, already.

you seem to see palestinian statehood as the grand prize awarded if and when (and after) peace reigns.....whereas I see it as the first step required.

I agree. I think Israel has a right to insist a new neighbor be peaceful, you seem to be satisfied with the suggestion (not a promise) that maybe they will think about not killing Jews sometime in the future, but no promises and no timetable implied.

That about sum it up?

Can you understand why Israel would have a problem with your version?

 

[The Fool]

I've already rattled off quite a few suggestions. Let's see some of yours. Stop dodging this question, already.



I agree. I think Israel has a right to insist a new neighbor be peaceful, you seem to be satisfied with the suggestion (not a promise) that maybe they will think about not killing Jews sometime in the future, but no promises and no timetable implied.

That about sum it up?

Can you understand why Israel would have a problem with your version?

my version? I don't see any difference in both of our opinions about violence against Israel. It should stop. I believe that statehood and sorting the living conditions of Palestinians is the first step......just like the founding of Israel was the first step required in addressing the situation of the Zionist movement. Why didn't the world say that Violence should stop there before any consideration of a state of Israel?

And on the topic of no promises and no timetables....I'm assuming that this is the framework you put on the "reconciliatory measures"?

 

[The Fool]

It’s foolish to try to predict who will be POTUS in 2020. Not so foolish to predict the election will be the media circus it has always been. See the difference?

Naw, of course not. You’re just trollin’. As usual.

Try to leave out the rubbish...

Can you tell the difference between acknowledging a staged plan exists and predicting it will be successful?

yes, skeptic goes quiet when asked to clarify this....Maybe he is actually saying "no palestinian state" because something he doesn't believe can happen will happen....thats always a possibility I suppose.

Correcting the false dichotomy you introduced. Israel will defend itself from injury too, not just annihilation. Rightly so, too.

thats interesting....a false dichotomy? Maybe if you could quote it I could see it?

Let’s hear some of your requirements. You’ve dodged that question long enough.

requirements for what? Statehood? I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. It should just be done....then....the responsibilities of statehood should be required of them, as it is with everyone else.

In the most recent context it was proposed as something that could be done by Palestinians to show good faith. You objected, pointing to a plank in the Likud party platform being against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

True or false?

false..

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that Arafat sending a letter to Clinton saying “it is done” is the same as doing it, and since decades later we still don’t have a new draft and the Palestinian Authority still publishes the old draft, I think the weight of evidence is on my side.

But I accept that doesn’t convince you, which is part of the problem. To you and the chorus of anti-Israel voices, the tiniest gesture from Palestinians is enough to convince you they’re doing great things. No excuse from them is too flimsy, no atrocity too awful, no logic too tortured. You really have zero expectations of them, so whatever tiny gesture you do get is touted as a marvelous breakthrough.

It’s foolish. It should be a simple thing, not the kind of thing you have to make excuses for.

oh dear..you have broken out into an impersonation of "skeptic" again....still, its always nice to hear about what I "really" think.

 

[WildCat]

my version? I don't see any difference in both of our opinions about violence against Israel. It should stop. I believe that statehood and sorting the living conditions of Palestinians is the first step......just like the founding of Israel was the first step required in addressing the situation of the Zionist movement. Why didn't the world say that Violence should stop there before any consideration of a state of Israel?

And on the topic of no promises and no timetables....I'm assuming that this is the framework you put on the "reconciliatory measures"?

Is there anything at all you expect of the Palestinians before granting them statehood? Do you see them welcoming a genocidal anti-semitic terrorist group into their government as anything anyone should be concerned about?

 

[WildCat]

In the most recent context it was proposed as something that could be done by Palestinians to show good faith. You objected, pointing to a plank in the Likud party platform being against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

True or false?

false..

This is a lie.

They could start by actually amending that Charter of theirs to nullify the bits about destroying Israel.. you know, actually write them down for all to see rather than claiming it's been amended to the west while in Arabic saying it hasn't been amended. Surely they can find the time to do that?

You know, that whole writing down laws thing that started with Hammurabi 3,700 years or so ago?

oh please....you want to run another charters squabble? Likud could also make a good start by amending their charter couldn't they....

Will you apologize for lying so we can have a serious discussion?

 

[a_unique_person]

This is a lie.



Will you apologize for lying so we can have a serious discussion?

Will you apologise.

what he said was "oh please....you want to run another charters squabble? Likud could also make a good start by amending their charter couldn't they...."

The problem with the charter is

• The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in "Judea, Samaria, and Azzah".[11] Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel".[citation needed]
• The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continued: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#Charter

IOW, they will only permit an apartheid state, where they Palestinians are free to not be free.

 

[a_unique_person]

Erm, sure.
Well there's a reason I said the future chance is indeterminable. Neither you nor I know precisely what the future holds. If you want my response based on current trends, it'd be the same to less. But again, there's no way to be positive.

It isn't, but a full blown attempt at wiping out Israel is, since there appear to be no solid plans at the moment. This is in no way suggesting that they won't ever try, because still, no clue what the future etc.

A full blown attempt to wipe Palestine off the map has been very effective to date.

 

[Virus]

A full blown attempt to wipe Palestine off the map has been very effective to date.

If it was "very effective" there wouldn't be a "Palestine" for people to complain about.

 

[a_unique_person]

If it was "very effective" there wouldn't be a "Palestine" for people to complain about.

You could direct me to a map of the world where "Palestine" is one of the names of a state? There are Palestinians, they are stateless. It is good that you recognise that there are Palestinians. People such as Joan Peters deny they even exist.

 

[bigjelmapro]

The problem with the charter is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#Charter

IOW, they will only permit an apartheid state, where they Palestinians are free to not be free.

Another hapless attempt at moral equivalence.

Stating a right to settlement in the WB, which from a legal perspective has nothing inherently illegal/wrong/etc about it, is not the same as Hamas calling out for the destruction of Israel and the legitimization of terror against all those in Israel and the disputed territories.

The Likud platform (settlement in the WB, etc.) is and has been stating, as far as their argument goes, that the Mandate of Palestine and subsequent agreements provided the legal argument for settlement in Judea/Samaria.

As for any peace agreements, I think Likud doesn't believe that an independent Palestinian state will function by itself and would better be absorbed by a neighboring Arab country with the option of being autonomous. At least, I think that's a viable option.

 

[bigjelmapro]

You could direct me to a map of the world where "Palestine" is one of the names of a state? There are Palestinians, they are stateless. It is good that you recognise that there are Palestinians. People such as Joan Peters deny they even exist.

Palestine at the time of the mandate until about the end 1950's, early 1960's was a geographical designation, not a distinct people. Before Arabs decided to hijack the term exclusively, the term Palestinian referred to anybody that resided within the Palestine mandate area within the time frame that the British resided in the area post WWI.

You are right that the Palestinians are stateless, but you are wrong to state that Palestinian Arabs have exclusive rights to the WB based on voided armistice lines between Israel and Jordan.

 

[WildCat]

Will you apologise.

what he said was "oh please....you want to run another charters squabble? Likud could also make a good start by amending their charter couldn't they...."

The conversation went exactly as Mycroft described it. If The Fool has an ounce of decency he'll apologize fot lying and repeatedly misreprese3nting the positions of others.

The problem with the charter is

I don't give a crap about Likud's party platform, it's completely irrelevant here. I do care about the PA refusing to abide by previous agreements with Israel.

 

[a_unique_person]

The conversation went exactly as Mycroft described it. If The Fool has an ounce of decency he'll apologize fot lying and repeatedly misreprese3nting the positions of others.

I quoted Fool.