General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[bit_pattern]

Here's a wild stab in the dark, why doesn't the Gaza Strip and the West Bank get put under United Nations control with the understanding that eventually those areas will form an independent Palestine. That way, the UN could ensure that:

a) rockets aren't stockpiled

b) proper medical and humanitarian supplies can get in without arms being smuggled into the territories

c) the UN forces can prevent the building of new Israeli settlements

d) keep the peace

That way, there won't have to be endless provocations, protestations of innocence, accusations of one side dehumanizing the other, and a generally accepted form of arbitration and move towards the two-state solution that everyone says they want.

Because Israel and America have obstructed all such attempts in the past. Plus, Israel has a predilection to shelling UN observers, so dunno who'd be prepared to send their troops in.

This paper outlines the challenges any such mission would face

http://www.usmep.us/usmep/2010/05/01/peacekeeping-in-palestine/

 

[bit_pattern]

. However, those cites do not prove that it's what most Israelis believe (son of a former prime minster? So?). There are views that are mainstream but not necessarily majority in Israel .

You'll note I never made any such claim, dunno if you're implying I did or not, it would be a straw man though if you were

 

[angrysoba]

Because Israel and America have obstructed all such attempts in the past. Plus, Israel has a predilection to shelling UN observers, so dunno who'd be prepared to send their troops in.

This paper outlines the challenges any such mission would face

http://www.usmep.us/usmep/2010/05/01/peacekeeping-in-palestine/

I still don't see why it shouldn't form a bigger part of the debate. It may be that this idea has been obstructed but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be seriously raised, in the General Assembly or in the Security Council.

 

[balrog666]

I say, "No!", because it is more fun (and racist) that way!!

 

[bit_pattern]

TII - This is Israel

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580339/Israeli-minister-vows-Palestinian-holocaust.html

A senior Israeli politician provoked controversy today when he warned that Palestinians firing rockets from Gaza would be punished with a "bigger holocaust" from Israeli armed forces

The use of the Hebrew word for holocaust, "shoah", tends to be used exclusively in Israel to describe the Nazi persecution of Jews.

(...)

"The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he said.

 

[John Mekki]

So sad to see that in Yahoo! comment sections 90% of the people who post comments (mostly US citizens, I would assume) are perfectly OK with the death of civilians and blame 100% Hamas for that.

 

[WildCat]

Was about to post the same video (I think)

Warning NSFW for Hebrew speakers, very strong language in English subtitles

Kachnik MK Michael Ben-Ari:

"There are no innocents in Gaza!" (In response to the death of 9 children!)

"Security means erasing Gaza"

Crowd chants "erase Gaza" & "expel leftists"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZP1Pe3J2Dc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

*Sits back and awaits the vitriol and denial*

Oh, so therefore it's OK to launch missiles at Israeli cities?

 

[WildCat]

Does this have anything to do with the non-recognition of the State of Palestine from Israel?
If Israel wants pease, why then not recognizing the State of Palestine first based on the 67 borders?
How not recognizing the State of Palestine is supposed to be a way to avoid genocide?
And what about the stealing of land in the West Bank?

Why should Israel recognize a state that has vowed to destroy it? And who can speak/negotiate for Palestinians? Hamas? Fatah? Some other group?

 

[bit_pattern]

Why should Israel recognize a state that has vowed to destroy it?

To stop having rockets fired at it, for starters.

 

[WildCat]

To stop having rockets fired at it, for starters.

You have a link where the Palestinians agreed to that? I'm certain Hamas said no such thing.

 

[Toontown]

To stop having rockets fired at it, for starters.

That wouldn't be a good enough reason even if it wasn't bogus. It's a big world, and they're small rockets.

 

[angrysoba]

Because Israel and America have obstructed all such attempts in the past. Plus, Israel has a predilection to shelling UN observers, so dunno who'd be prepared to send their troops in.

This paper outlines the challenges any such mission would face

http://www.usmep.us/usmep/2010/05/01/peacekeeping-in-palestine/

Well, he discounts the possibility of a UN force, although I still see no reason to completely rule it out and suggests, instead, a NATO-run force with Security Council backing similar to what there was in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Is there any substantial reasons why this shouldn't be floated by the US, the EU and the so-called Quartet or anyone who claims to want to see an end to the interminable cycle of rockets and reprisals, settlement-building and suicide bombing etc...?

In sum, a peacekeeping force in Palestine is no substitute for agreement among the main Palestinian factions, and between them and Israel, but is a likely and perhaps essential component of such an accord. Although the United Nations is unlikely to be chosen to lead such a force, its experience in overseeing the implementation of a dozen or more similar such peace agreements over the past couple of decades, as well as NATO’s endeavors in Bosnia and Kosovo suggest that this is a feasible, if by no means a certain or easy endeavor

 

[WildCat]

Well, he discounts the possibility of a UN force, although I still see no reason to completely rule it out and suggests, instead, a NATO-run force with Security Council backing similar to what there was in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Is there any substantial reasons why this shouldn't be floated by the US, the EU and the so-called Quartet or anyone who claims to want to see an end to the interminable cycle of rockets and reprisals, settlement-building and suicide bombing etc...?

How is that UN force working out in Lebanon?

"What UN force" you might ask...

 

[angrysoba]

How is that UN force working out in Lebanon?

"What UN force" you might ask...

I think it is not doing badly. The UN forces are only stationed in certain areas, not the whole country.

However, an argument that it might not work is not a good enough reason to say that it must not be tried. After all, how is having no UN or NATO force working out in Gaza?

"What do you mean working out" you might ask...

 

[John Mekki]

Why should Israel recognize a state that has vowed to destroy it? And who can speak/negotiate for Palestinians? Hamas? Fatah? Some other group?

In 1993, PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization

And even if there are people in Gaza and West Bank who do not want Israel to exist, how does stealing land from the Palestinians would bring Israel on the side of “good”?
AAnd how trying to stop the efforts of Palestine to become a full member of the UN would bring Israel on the side of “good”?

 

[bit_pattern]

Is there any substantial reasons why this shouldn't be floated by the US, the EU and the so-called Quartet or anyone who claims to want to see an end to the interminable cycle of rockets and reprisals, settlement-building and suicide bombing etc...?

Only that America would never allow it...

 

[Toontown]

I've yet to read a clear and direct answer as to the morally appropriate, short term Israeli response to a sustained enemy rocket barrage. I understand thezionistentity is an evil cancer and Nazi doppelganger, so it deserves to be attacked. Still, what should they do when fired upon? What is an acceptable immediate response?

Q: Who here is qualified to decide what is morally appropriate?

A: No one.

And that's why the entire thread is bogus - a judgement which is only reinforced by the presumptuous preening of the thread's most clueless pretenders.

It's all slowly sinking into a morass of pseudo-moralistic quicksand. Most of it has already sunk deep into the quicksand, never to be seen again, which would be a good thing except that new chunks of crap keep getting piled on top, driving the entire mass deeper and deeper into the slimy muck of piss ignorance, but always leaving a superstructure of useless futility exposed.

 

[WildCat]

In 1993, PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, accepted UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization

And even if there are people in Gaza and West Bank who do not want Israel to exist, how does stealing land from the Palestinians would bring Israel on the side of “good”?
AAnd how trying to stop the efforts of Palestine to become a full member of the UN would bring Israel on the side of “good”?

From Arafat's letter to Rabin: In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

That hilited part, when was that done? Got a link?

 

[ProBonoShill]

So sad to see that in Yahoo! comment sections 90% of the people who post comments (mostly US citizens, I would assume) are perfectly OK with the death of civilians and blame 100% Hamas for that.

So sad to see people in this thread supporting the Hamas terrorists and the murders they commit. I wonder how they sleep at night.

 

[trustbutverify]

Q: Who here is qualified to decide what is morally appropriate?

A: No one.

And that's why the entire thread is bogus - a judgement which is only reinforced by the presumptuous preening of the thread's most clueless pretenders.

It's all slowly sinking into a morass of pseudo-moralistic quicksand. Most of it has already sunk deep into the quicksand, never to be seen again, which would be a good thing except that new chunks of crap keep getting piled on top, driving the entire mass deeper and deeper into the slimy muck of piss ignorance, but always leaving a superstructure of useless futility exposed.

Amen.

However, I'd still be interested in hearing what the anti-Zionists consider to be a reasonable, responsible and effective immediate response to a large, sustained missile attack.