General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[HoverBoarder]

i do not claim to have all of the answers, however, the current situation is unreasonable.
i believe that if israel actually acted in good faith, and made major concessions, especially in the west bank, some of the extremists would modify their demands and expectations.

Also very reasonable, and I think you are exactly right on that as well.

I don't think Hamas's all-or-nothing approach is sustainable, and the ceasefire trends in the past have shown that they would like to have a more stable, less chaotic situation than what is going on.

I don't know how the Israeli government would be able to sell a major reduction in settlements in the West Bank and new regulations on halting Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, but if they did do that, it would go a long way towards Abbas and the Bibi finding some sort of common ground for an agreement. And if there were serious moves towards an agreement, that could provide major incentive to Hamas to moderate their stances. The new Hamas backers of Egypt and Qatar instead of the virulent Iran could also help them to moderate.

I don't think the stances from Abbas are really that radical or unachievable, and increased pressure from the Israeli left may be just what is needed to push Netanyahu into getting serious about negotiations.

Peres lauds Abbas's negotiations plea, PM rejects it

“It is occupied territories. You can not define things as you like,” Abbas said.

Segal asked him if there was a possibility that a third intifada would break out.

Abbas answered, “No. As long as I am here in this office, there will be no third armed intifada. Never. We do not want to use force. We do not want to use terror.”

Segal asked, “Is it [Safed] Palestine for you?” Abbas answered. “Palestine, now, for me is ’67 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital. This is now and forever. This is Palestine for me. I am refuge, but I am living in Ramallah. I believe that the West Bank and Gaza are Palestine and the other part is Israel.”

Livni joins Olmert's attack on Netanyahu over criticism of Abbas

"These are the statements we heard in the negotiating room," Livni told Channel 2. "It is unfortunate that for four years, the Israeli government is telling the public that there is no partner for peace… for four years there have been no trust between the two sides. In order to enter negotiations, there needs to be trust. Instead, the foreign minister is leading a campaign to oust Abu Mazen."

"Whoever is interested in preserving a secure Jewish and democratic state, should embrace this interview," Livni said. "But peace has turned into a dirty word - whoever talks of an agreement is now considered a delusional leftist."

Livni has been mulling the possibility of returning to politics, possibly as part of a new party headed by Olmert. "We must work together to bring down Netanyahu," Livni told Channel 2.

Earlier Sunday, Olmert accused Netanyahu of harming Israel's interests and strengthening Hamas.



Olmert said that Netanyahu is responsible for the stalled negotiations with the Palestinians and accused the prime minister of "trying to prove to the Israeli public that there is no partner on the Palestinian side."

 

[HoverBoarder]

History shows things get worse the more Israeli concessions are made.

In Gaza definitely, but that is not always the case. The normalization of relations between Israel and Jordan have been very good for both countries.

 

[Virus]

Name a concession that brought an improvement.

Edit: that's addressed to Bikerdruid.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am not an Iranian citizen, so not responsible of what Ahmadinejad says.
But I am responsible of what Western leaders says, if I live in the West

John, I hate to break it to you, but you are not responsible for what GW Bush says, or said, nor what Tony Blair said, or says, nor what Angela Merkel now says, nor what Barack Obama says.

Unless you are seriously delusional.

You are responsible for your position and your opinions.

But maybe I have you all wrong, and you are noble, wishing to take upon your shoulders all of what is wrong with the west world.

Put another way: get over yourself.

 

[bikerdruid]

Name a concession that brought an improvement.

Edit: that's addressed to Bikerdruid.

you said, "History shows things get worse the more Israeli concessions are made."
i disputed that.

the burden of proof is on you.
you made a sweeping claim.
prove it.

 

[Virus]

Withdrawl from Gaza.

Putting the PLO in power.

 

[bit_pattern]

Withdrawl from Gaza.

The PA fully opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, that's not a "concession", it was a means to weaken the Palestinian leadership by giving Hamas free reign over the territory. Oh, how noble

Putting the PLO in power.

Again, not s concession. No one but the PLO wanted the PLO in power.

So the two best examples of Israeli "concessions" you can come up with are actually examples of Israel bypassing more moderate leaders in favour of empowering terrorists?

Cool narrative, bro

 

[bikerdruid]

The PA fully opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, that's not a "concession", it was a means to weaken the Palestinian leadership by giving Hamas free reign over the territory. Oh, how noble



Again, not s concession. No one but the PLO wanted the PLO in power.

So the two best examples of Israeli "concessions" you can come up with are actually examples of Israel bypassing more moderate leaders in favour of empowering terrorists?

Cool narrative, bro

facts are bothersome things, eh?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Withdrawl from Gaza.

Putting the PLO in power.

Does this constitute proof?

 

[Virus]

The PA fully opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, that's not a "concession", it was a means to weaken the Palestinian leadership by giving Hamas free reign over the territory.

Damn those Jews for occupying Gaza. And damn those Jews for not occupying Gaza!

 

[bit_pattern]

Damn those Jews for occupying Gaza. And damn those Jews for not occupying Gaza!

I don't think you can constitute a strategic shift from troops on the ground to a siege and near total embargo as "not occupying". Its just a change of strategy.

 

[Doctor Evil]

I don't think you can constitute a strategic shift from troops on the ground to a siege and near total embargo as "not occupying". Its just a change of strategy.

This is rubbish. There is a legal meaning to the term occupation in international law, and it requires boots on the ground. Being an occupier comes with responsibilities, such as managing civilian life, which again need people on the ground.

A naval siege, or other trade restrictions, are not an occupation. It is true that a lot of people try to redefine the term occupation so that they could retrofit it to the situation in Gaza. The motivation for that is political. There is no serious attempt to form a new definition of occupation and to apply it consistently. (For instance, Turkey restricts its trade with Syria, and prevents weapons from being delivered. Are you ready to say that Turkey occupies Syria?)

 

[trustbutverify]

This is rubbish. There is a legal meaning to the term occupation in international law, and it requires boots on the ground. Being an occupier comes with responsibilities, such as managing civilian life, which again need people on the ground.

A naval siege is simply, or other trade restrictions are not an occupation. It is true that a lot of people try to redefine the term occupation so that they could retrofit it to the situation in Gaza. The motivation for that is political. There is no serious attempt to form a new definition of occupation and to apply it consistently. (For instance, Turkey restricts its trade with Syria, and prevents weapons from being delivered. Are you ready to say that Turkey occupies Syria?)

You're applying clear, consistent thinking and well established facts on the ground to reply to arguments such as "**** Israel!" and "Zionists think they're better than everybody else!!" Two different languages Doc.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is rubbish. There is a legal meaning to the term occupation in international law, and it requires boots on the ground. Being an occupier comes with responsibilities, such as managing civilian life, which again need people on the ground.

Right, right. Of course. I was mistaken to say they are still occupying Gaza. They switched from occupation to siege, achieving the same strategic ends with fewer humanitarian responsibilities! And that's a "concession" ... supposedly

 

[Doctor Evil]

Right, right. Of course. I was mistaken to say they are still occupying Gaza. They switched from occupation to siege, achieving the same strategic ends with fewer humanitarian responsibilities! And that's a "concession" ... supposedly

I do not know where you get your ideas from, but this argument has no to the relevant events. I am busy so I will keep this short:

* There was no switch from occupation to siege. The Gaza strip was handed to the Palestinian Authority. While this was not part of any official agreement, the hope was that the self rule would be used for economical growth.

* The naval embargo was instituted later, when Hamas movement seized the security control from the PA by force. It was an attempt to prevent them from bringing weapons into the Gaza strip.

Finally, I am curious. What do you think are Israel strategic ends here? And how do you think they are equally achieved by an occupation and by a naval blockade?

 

[HoverBoarder]

Right, right. Of course. I was mistaken to say they are still occupying Gaza. They switched from occupation to siege, achieving the same strategic ends with fewer humanitarian responsibilities! And that's a "concession" ... supposedly

Don't you think that it is relevant to include the point that the only reason that there is a blockade of Gaza in the first place is because the government there keeps attacking Israel?

Especially since not attacking Israeli homes with hundreds of rockets and not shooting RPGs at school buses as is the 'in' trend in the West Bank vs. Gaza provides a direct example of how major blockades like in Gaza could easily be lifted if their violent attacks stopped.

 

[John Mekki]

John, I hate to break it to you, but you are not responsible for what GW Bush says, or said, nor what Tony Blair said, or says, nor what Angela Merkel now says, nor what Barack Obama says.

If I voted for them, or if I did not made clear my position and did not do my best to express it to my fellow citizens, I am

You are responsible for your position and your opinions.

And for my behaviour.
And for the fact if I protest or not when my government does bad things (e.g. war crimes)
And for who I vote.

But maybe I have you all wrong, and you are noble, wishing to take upon your shoulders all of what is wrong with the west world.

I am also responsible of what my government does and the crimes it commits, if I do not do enough to stop it.

Put another way: get over yourself.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Breaking news. Israel has just killed the head of the armed wing of Hamas, Ahmed Jabari. This follows a weak of fighting in the Gaza area. The current round has started when armed groups from Gaza have attacked an Israeli border patrol with an anti tank missile. Jabari was a 'big fish', so expect more fighting to follow.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Leader of HAMAS' military killed by Israeli raid

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/israel-head-of-hamas-military-wing-killed/

As far as I understand things so far: in retaliation for over 100 missiles fired into Israeli territory over the past few days, Israel today struck several Palestinian targets, killing the leader of HAMAS' military wing and taking out several missile launchers. The IDF cite the leader's "years of terrorism" as their rationale for killing him, and hope this will reduce the number of missile attacks, but HAMAS has started incitements of violence (in effect asking for revenge for Israel's retaliatory strike, "I don't care if we started it"-style) and has declared "open war" on Israel.

Comments on this? I'm glad to see a terrorist put out of Israel's misery, but how do you think the situation will go from here? Was this a wise or reckless move on Israel's part? Discuss.

 

[Giz]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/israel-head-of-hamas-military-wing-killed/

As far as I understand things so far: in retaliation for over 100 missiles fired into Israeli territory over the past few days, Israel today struck several Palestinian targets, killing the leader of HAMAS' military wing and taking out several missile launchers. The IDF cite the leader's "years of terrorism" as their rationale for killing him, and hope this will reduce the number of missile attacks, but HAMAS has started incitements of violence (in effect asking for revenge for Israel's retaliatory strike, "I don't care if we started it"-style) and has declared "open war" on Israel.

Comments on this? I'm glad to see a terrorist put out of Israel's misery, but how do you think the situation will go from here? Was this a wise or reckless move on Israel's part? Discuss.

Absolutely justified on the part of the IDF.

If Palestinians won't stop each other from launching missles into Israel then the Israelis will have to stop them.