Need for wars by Israel

Frederico

The fanatical Israeli religious types..
The simplistic christian redneck types..
The nutjob angry muslim types..

They're all hungry for wars.

InFront

Edit: apology about length there were lots of points.

Judt wrote:

Yes, and all us PaddyMac's should move to Boston. Really, once that new world was discovered for us to move to we deserved what we got in our "homeland."

I'm not sure what you mean by homeland. Surely you mean "new land" as opposed to some God-given entitlement?
In that case, presuming that is what you mean, of course Jews should be treated with respect. There have always been a relatively small number of Jews there, the non-Zionists who officially opposed the creation of the state of Israel on the grounds that no such a place existed. Muslims have an obligation to respect Jews, I'm not sure to what extent that should extend to militant Zionism if at all.

It is the same with Irish migrants into the USA - yes of course you should enjoy all of what the country offers in line with its ethos, but you do not have the right to demand a change to your ethos by virtue of your presence, nor a displacement of those residents who are actually of the city.

We have the same debate with immigration here today. We talk of 'assimilation' into the society, not immigrants reforming your society to mirror the previous one.

You oversimplify the issue - tell me, after a good portion of continental Europe saw its Jewry wiped out and driven from their homes, where exactly were the Israeli's going to set up their shop?

What Israelis? Where was this state called Israel back then? I presume you mean Jews.
First of all, I think most people will accept that the state of Israel came about on the grounds of 'anti-Semitism' (yes very ironic). I am sympathetic to what happened those Jews in Europe, most of them now dead. But that is not a good reason to basically go and invade an Arab state and set up some artifical Jewish administration on the flimsy basis that their descendants came from there in ancient history.

Your opinion reminds me of what Winston Churchill said, "I do not admit that the dog in the manger [ Palestinian Arabs in Palestine] has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time"

The point has been made, what if I do not admit that a wrong has been done to the Indians in America? Or the Catholic in Northern Ireland? Or the Aboriginals? This is the same thing, only more recent.

And tell me, where other than Israel would one consider to be the "homeland" of the Jews? Should we have taken a good bit of Germany, expelled the locals and expected them to take up shop there, instead?

But the whole thing is so illogical anyway, why not? Why did they even need a homeland? That's a result of a philosophy that says co-existence has failed. Co-existence didn't fail, Nazism had succeeded. You get rid of the Nazism, get rid of the anti-Jewish feeling that preceded it, and you have no need for any artifical country. You then have no need to grab land from people who had a valid right to it.
The creation of the state of Israel was literally a demand upon those Palestinians from the Arab state to pay for what had happened far away in Europe. Is that fair?

Yes Israel keeps the Palestinian people downtrodden, but then the Palestinian people wouldn't mind it if the shoe were on the other foot.

There is no use trying to spread the blame with hypothesis. Lets talk in terms of what is actually happening. Palestinians are not blameless, but the serious faults are those of Israel. They are the ones who are really perpetuating the conflict, they are the guys with the artifically enormous military, one of the biggest in the world. They are abusing their very disproportionate power.

Israel is building a wall, quite markedly to keep another people out of its country. Not even the Israeli's will dispute that. But at the same time, 99.99% of school buses that spontaneously combust in Israel do so for a reason.

I presume the reason you would give is different to the one I would give. You would probably say it's because a Palestinian just blows it up. I would probably say an angry Palestinian is retaliating for what Israel has done to him. It isn't black and white at all.

I say that the Israel question is one which cannot be answered by violence, but that is the situation that exists in that both sides see it as being a case of "Either we go or they go", not "We can live together." Make no mistake, the Palestinians and most arab states don't want to see Israel exist - they don't just hate the Israeli state, they hate the Jews and would be happy to "finish the job."

In fairness, it's one pretty big leap to go from hating Israel to hating Jews. I would like there to be no such thing as a state called Israel. If that administration could disappear and the lands returned, great.

So a lot of people hate Israel, but you actually carry this on and say it is the same thing to hate Jews, and that people who hate Israel want to "finish the job". That sounds like Zionist propaganda.
You're piling the whole thing in together, as if the Jews were divinely entitled to this place by your inability to seperate Judaism from Zionism.
People who hate Israel are anti-Zionists. If they hate Jews, that is a different issue for another day.

Realistically, it's too late to turn back the clock of course. We've known even before the creation of this 'country' that there had been a terrible mistake in the decision to send Jews there, and all that is left is one big mess. The question now is not how to get the Jews back out, but how do you get them to live peacefully there.

The steps the Israelis are taking are anti-peace.
They speak out and go to war against their neighbours with all the courage of a lapdog bbehind a Rottweiler. I say that a big part of securing peace in the middle east is kicking out the Rottweiler.

the arabs have a longer way to go than the Israeli's, I think. I think that Israel would be happy to live in peace without the fear of suicide bombers and the odd mass invasion on religous holidays.

Do you see an irony about complaining about a mass invasion on grounds of religion? Let the Israelis be happy there is only one Ramadan.

Stop pretending like Israel is some peace loving state who just wants to be good and fall in love with its neighbours. Is that what you were saying last July too? Show us on what grounds Arabs have 'further to go? Why 'further'?

what would be your solution to the problem? The disbandment of Israel?

Lets not talk in terms of wishful thinking. The solution to this isn't an easy one.

I think the Arab League's declaration is the best, and only way to secure peace in the area. Very important to that is the principle that Israelis withdraw completely from the occupied territories, accept a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and agree to a just settlement for Palestinian refugees, and treat Palestinians fairly. Palestinians need to accept the AL Declaration too.
It is wishful thinking for Hamas and Palestinians to pretend that there is any future to the idea of getting back their land in Israel. It looks as though they now get that. But it is equally over-wishful to expect that the views and interests of Hamas can be set aside. That's what Israel needs to 'get'.

Judt

InFront,

The point has been made, what if I do not admit that a wrong has been done to the Indians in America? Or the Catholic in Northern Ireland? Or the Aboriginals? This is the same thing, only more recent.

You make this point a couple of times, in a couple of ways, about apologies and Israel technically shouldn't exist. I don't dispute this one way or another. I'm saying that Israel does exist, it has existed for over 60 years and there are 7.1 million people living in Israel. Saying "So sorry, terrible mistake" or "You're right, we should go back" is neither feasible nor going to help the situation. Britain apologized for the treatment of Catholics in NI after the troubles were over, and really who cared about the apology so long as nobody was getting minced on the streets or arrested without cause? Solve the problem before you get to the apologies...

Let's come to an agreement then: Israel is a big bully. Israel pushes its neighbors around and steals their lunch money. But, like all bullies, Israel is also fundamentally insecure. Israel is a nation of people with aspirations and goals, just like you and me. It's also a nation of people on a particularly thin piece of land surrounded by hostile states and a big sea. That is the root of the Israeli mindset as I have observed it: Haughty on the outside, but ultimately insecure on the inside, because they feel - not without some justification - that all their hopes, dreams, families and homes could be driven into the sea in an instant. That focuses the mind in a deadly manner...

But the whole thing is so illogical anyway, why not? Why did they even need a homeland? That's a result of a philosophy that says co-existence has failed. Co-existence didn't fail, Nazism had succeeded. You get rid of the Nazism, get rid of the anti-Jewish feeling that preceded it, and you have no need for any artifical country. You then have no need to grab land from people who had a valid right to it.
The creation of the state of Israel was literally a demand upon those Palestinians from the Arab state to pay for what had happened far away in Europe. Is that fair?

Err, Europeans did hate the Jews. In the countries Nazi Germany overran the occupied citizens, who had no love of the Germans, were perfectly happy to do the business on the Jews all by themselves, from Poland to France. Sure not everybody hated the Jews, but I think historical fact shows that they were at the very least a mistrusted "outsider" group, at worst a hated group as, say, an African might be in Ireland today.

As for the Palestinians, again to your point of apologies - they come after the solution. I agree with you, the Palestinians have a really bad lot in life, but remember that it was Arafat who pulled back from the idea of signing, right there and right then in Camp David, the two-state accord which would see exactly what you suggest later on in your post - East Jerusalem and all. Israel does not bear all responsibility and bent over backwards. When the Palestinian government pulled back, the hard liners came to power in Israel and everyone had a real crap day. But never forget that Israel had a prime minister killed by one of his own ultra-conservative citizens because he was prepared to go so far for Palestine.

The Arab League solution has been tabled before. Arafat turned it down. Israel has the power to do more damage to Palestine, but it's the Palestinians who held - and maybe even hold - the power in their hands to do the deal.

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

The Arab League solution has been tabled before. Arafat turned it down. Israel has the power to do more damage to Palestine, but it's the Palestinians who held - and maybe even hold - the power in their hands to do the deal.

Just like the judenrat held all the power in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1942 I suppose.

Just because Israel built a wall around them does not mean they have power.

Have you Israelis fixed the runway your destroyed at Gaza airport yet ??

Can I fly into and out of Palestine without entering Israel ??

Judt

Sponge Bob wrote:

Just like the judenrat held all the power in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1942 I suppose.

Just because Israel built a wall around them does not mean they have power.

Have you Israelis fixed the runway your destroyed at Gaza airport yet ??

Can I fly into and out of Palestine without entering Israel ??

Read my post. The two-state offer was put on the table by Israel, and Slick Willy tried to get Arafat to sign right the way to his final morning in office. Arafat turned it down. You probably could fly into Gaza, if only for that.

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

You probably could fly into Gaza, if only for that.

Read my post, I cannot fly into Gaza simply because Israel destroyed the runway at the airport . Arafat and Clinton did not destroy the runway did they ??

Anyone can see it for yourself if they go to http://maps.google.com/ and look at the state of the runway just where the gaza/israel/egypt borders join together.

Slightly nw of that runway you can see the rubble of all the palestinian houses blown up by Israel in the Rafa refugee camp.

Judt

Sponge_Bob, a question: As I've asked before, how does throwing a sh*tfit help the situation? Yes, Israel has put the boot on the head of the Palestinians. Boo hoo Israel. The question is, how do we resolve this situation? Previously an answer, which gave the Palestinians everything they wanted and everything the Arab League put down in its solution, was agreed to by the Israeli's but not the Palestinians. That's the reality of the situation.

The Israeli's have shown that they are willing to come to the table and reason with the Palestinians. The Palestinian groups need to get their stuff together and do the same, and not make the same mistake Arafat did.

Sand

Sponge_Bob, a question: As I've asked before, how does throwing a sh*tfit help the situation? Yes, Israel has put the boot on the head of the Palestinians. Boo hoo Israel. The question is, how do we resolve this situation?

Judt, youve got completely the wrong attitude about this. Whats important here is throwing blame, wild accusations and one sided tirades about.

Read my post, I cannot fly into Gaza simply because Israel destroyed the runway at the airport .

Of course they did. The people and government of Gaza/Palestine are attempting to murder Israeli citizens daily, why would the Israelis allow their enemies to fly in weapons and bombs by air? Awfully unsporting of the Israelis Im sure but an obvious move on their part.

InFront

Judt wrote:

Saying "So sorry, terrible mistake" or "You're right, we should go back" is neither feasible nor going to help the situation.

Yes you're right, it isn't. As I said, it's too late to turn back the clock. I was just responding to the questions you posed a while ago (where else were Jews to go, would Palestinians be worried if the shoe were on the other foot, "finishing off" the holocaust, etc.) I was just answering the points you raised. Of course these points are irrelevant to the solution.

Everybody seems to be agreed on the solution to the Palestinian situation. It's one of those weird situations where we all know what has to happen from the outset, but we're just waiting for it. Nearly everything I've ever read on this conflict has began by telling us what the solution is! Crazy, I know.

It's like both sides are blindly going through the motions towards the inevitable.

The only thing I would say is that it doesn't look to me that this thread is about proposing a solution to the conflict. It's a thread about Israeli aggression. It is reasonable to expect to see criticism of Israeli activities in this kind of a thread. But again, I take your point, all we're doing is pointing out their failures. But not every discussion on this has to be limited to a solution. The activity in east Jerusalem is a current affairs topic worthy of debate imo.

Sponge Bob

InFront wrote:

It's like both sides are blindly going through the motions towards the inevitable.

Pretty much. Whatever chance there was of doing a deal with Fatah there is none with Hamas. All that is happening is that the Palestinians are subjected to worse depredations by the occupation with their land being stolen and occupied by racist settlers

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525893740&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I suppose on balance I should point out that the same settlers hate secular jews almost as much as they hate arabs and that they have been a parasitic growth on Israels body politic for years except that they are not allowed to shoot secular jews or build walls around them .

About a sixth of the population of the west bank are settlers now , a note on population .

Of course if you really intend to live in peace beside someone you

1. do not steal their land and deny them the right to feed themselves and educate themselves.
2. herd them into ghettos behind giant walls
3. treat them like animals and demonise them as animals or subhumans of some sort
4. complain bitterly arond the world when the oppressed react to this treatment , just like the brave prisoners who revolted in Sobibor and Treblinka reacted against hopeless odds but still asserted their humanity against the Nazis .

We saw it all in the early 1940s where the ghetto has been built and the heavily armed guards are on all the hilltops guarding the inmates of the ghetto and we know what happened next.

And I utter agree with Infronts comment that there is a horrible inevitability to all this. An abyss awaits.

Decent people cannot stand aside and allow a race to be exterminated by racist sociopaths which is what is happening in the west bank today.

I do not believe that Israel has been able to cope politically with the haredi ( fundamentalists ) for 20 years now and humours them instead. They have a effective veto on progress and human decency and compliance with international behavioral norms in the Knesset. They talk up war in every direction and refuse to fight the war , being exempt from military service themselves.

Its almost like the DUP having a veto on social policy in Brixton for want of an understandable analogy in these parts..but worse.

meditraitor

Sponge Bob wrote:

Of course if you really intend to live in peace beside someone you

1. do not steal their land and deny them the right to feed themselves and educate themselves.
2. herd them into ghettos behind giant walls
3. treat them like animals and demonise them as animals or subhumans of some sort
4. complain bitterly arond the world when the oppressed react to this treatment , just like the brave prisoners who revolted in Sobibor and Treblinka reacted against hopeless odds but still asserted their humanity against the Nazis .

.

Excellent point.

Maybe I am simlifying matters but when the state of isreal was created it did what any other victim does when it gets some power; abuse the closest weakest thing it can get it hands on, in this case it was the Palastinians.
The zionist state has no intention of ever giving the Palastinians a break. only recently(10/15 years) with the advent of the interweb has its cruelty and evil been aired to the outside world without the zionist media veting reports, we all see that there are two opposing sides carrying out attrocities almost daily but isreal is the real protaganist here, they enjoy beating up there neighbors(look at lebanon, as soon as it picks itself up of the floor and sorts itself out they use an excuss they could have used for years to go in and destroy everything built up in the ten years since they last ruined the country) just like any bully and it will only stop when it gets a clip around the ear by a bigger bully.
So hopefully the zionist lobby within the US looses its grip on power and some common sense takes over as they are the only other power big and bad enough to give them that slap!


P.S. I would like to hear a bit of honesty in some Pro Zionist points when they admit isreal is at fault,

Judt wrote:

Yes, Israel has put the boot on the head of the Palestinians. Boo hoo Israel.

Judt wrote:

Let's come to an agreement then: Israel is a big bully. Israel pushes its neighbors around and steals their lunch money. But, like all bullies, Israel is also fundamentally insecure.

The Israeli's don't like the arabs and the arabs don't like the Israeli's. As I keep saying, everyone needs to get past this point and on to "How do we live together?" Israel is far from an innocent party in all of this, but the fact is that there are over 7 million people living in the state of Israel who have as much a right to a life as anyone else. Yes Israel tramples on the rights of other people in order to maintain itself, but the alternative offered to them by the arabs is to be driven into the Med. It's an "Us or Them" situation for both sides, and nothing can come from that.

Sponge Bob

meditraitor wrote:

P.S. I would like to hear a bit of honesty in some Pro Zionist points when they admit isreal is at fault,

Zionism has not been as important as religous fundamentalism. Zionism was secular and socialist to a large degree , a "sinn fein" mentality in the classic sense .

The name means "ourselves" or "we ourselves". [2] Some popular accounts claim the name means "ourselves alone

The haredim who dominate the settlers and hold the balance of power in the Knesset for 20 years now are pure religious fundamentalists who believe that god has given them the right to conduct this genocide in Palestine. The haredim consider 'classic' socialist secular zionists to be a tad better than Arabs....but only a tad.

Most settlements in the west bank were created after the socialistic zionists lost their grip (monopoly even) on power in the 1970s and 1980s
Israels problem is that the majority will not stand up to these bigots for any length of time .

The haredim talk Israel into all sorts of wars and conflicts and refuse to fight themselves, having an exemption from military service in many cases . Israels defeat against Hezbollah was a consequence of that . The more secular jews refused to put bodies on the ground in south lebanon to fight for these people and the war was lost in the absence of bodies on the ground. It simply could not be won from the air.

The first sign of the majority in Israel standing up to these people will be when they remove the large scale exemptions from military service . It was the universal draft that knitted Israel together in the period from 1945-1980 and it is the fact that religous=exempt that is causing it to unravel.

We shall see. I am not hopeful . The Israelis have shown great cowardice in this respect for 20 years now .

Its unfortunately easier to dump a million cluster bombs into civilian areas in Lebanon , in a titanic fit of pique, than to face up to your own wackos as did the US in the Civil Rights era in the 1960s or the UK in slowly facing up to the Unionist wackos in the 1970s and 1980s .

Like I say, I am not hopeful

Judt

meditraitor, if you had read my entire point you'd note that Israel went all the way towards offering a two-state accord with the Palestinians. It was their government that turned it down. Of course the majority of the Palestinian people suffered, but their terrorist leaders were happy to have the situation continue. I think that's the great tragedy of this - the Palestinian leaders were offered a solution, the solution they wanted, and they backed off.

Israel has gone the distance for Palestine, and I don't think anyone should forget who squandered that deal.

The Palestinians are like the Germans post World War 1: Desperate. So they go and elect a "strong" faction who can solve all their problems, and then wonder what happened when a foreign army is overrunning the place. Fatah was bad. Hamas is worse.

Israel is no angel, but nobody can say they weren't prepared to cut the deal. What do you say to that?

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

Israel is no angel, but nobody can say they weren't prepared to cut the deal. What do you say to that?

Israel were not ready to remove over 200,000 racist religous fundamentalists from Palestinian land so they were not ready to cut any deal worth having were they ????

Show me the plan for removing these haredim and resettling them in pre 1948 Israel , there is no plan and was no plan .

You cannot expect the Palestinians to have to live beside this racist fuindamentalist scum or do you ???

What do YOU say to that??

Judt

Sponge Bob wrote:

Israel were not ready to remove over 200,000 racist religous fundamentalists from Palestinian land so they were not ready to cut any deal worth having were they ????

Show me the plan for removing these haredim and resettling them in pre 1948 Israel , there is no plan and was no plan .

You cannot expect the Palestinians to have to live beside this racist fuindamentalist scum or do you ???

What do YOU say to that??

I think you're ignoring my point to get irate: Israel was giving Palestine its own state, its own capital, everything they wanted. Thereafter the Palestinians could have done what they wanted. They could have brought in UN Peacekeepers to sit between themselves and anyone they wanted. They would have had a nation. But they didn't want to end the conflict, Israel did.

I'm not arguing about the virtues and vices of either the Israeli's or the Palestinians. I'm telling you that Arafat was offered all he wanted, and wouldn't take it.

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

I think you're ignoring my point to get irate: Israel was giving Palestine its own state, its own capital, everything they wanted.

No they werent

1. they would not give East Jerusalem.

2. they promised 94% of the west bank ....after 10-25 years

http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

3. It would start with 73% of the west bank and with settler roads everywhere

. Land Area of Palestine

The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.

Thereafter the Palestinians could have done what they wanted. They could have brought in UN Peacekeepers to sit between themselves and anyone they wanted. They would have had a nation. But they didn't want to end the conflict, Israel did.

again HOW ???

SHOW us the plans for REMOVING the racist occupiers, all Arafat got was a vague 25 year thing. You cannot resolve anything in the west bank unless you remove the settlers. The Palestinians would have started with heavily armed settler nazis shooting at them from the hilltops and protected by the Israeli army . How is that an and to conflict ???

Palestinian areas would have been divided up by corridors controlled by the Israelis and the Israelis would have kept an extensve road network for their own exclusive use ???

http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid%20orient.htm

I'm not arguing about the virtues and vices of either the Israeli's or the Palestinians. I'm telling you that Arafat was offered all he wanted, and wouldn't take it.

73% is not ALL , is it ????
94% after 25 years is not ALL is it ???

Again I put it to you that Israel cannot deal with its fundamentalists . They are the tail that wags the Israeli dog and they get what they want . Show me the plan for getting these nazis off Palestinian land or just butt out , you make me sick with your justification of the nazi like ghettoisation of Palestine

By your impeccable logic rape victims no doubt also 'ask for it' because its 'all they wanted' .

meditraitor

Judt wrote:

Israel has gone the distance for Palestine, and I don't think anyone should forget who squandered that deal.?

Gone the distance my hole

Judt wrote:

The Palestinians are like the Germans post World War 1: Desperate. So they go and elect a "strong" faction who can solve all their problems, and then wonder what happened when a foreign army is overrunning the place. Fatah was bad. Hamas is worse.?

There you go again, comparing palastine to post world war 1 Germany, that has to be the most **** ********* ****** ************ ****** ** *** ever

Judt wrote:

Israel is no angel, but nobody can say they weren't prepared to cut the deal. What do you say to that?

Just leave it at that and stop making excusses for the suffering they have put the palastinians through for the past 50years,

The pro Isreal people of this world use the same excuss all the time
" it doesnt matter who started it, the palastinians still use acts of savagery to get their point across, blame blame blame"

But it does matter how it started, how can you fix a problem without acknowledging it root cause.

I have no faith in any solution to this tragedy as I feel that isreal doesnt care about anyone but isreal.

The Saint

Just in addition to what Sponge Bob wrote about Camp David I would like to add that Clinton and Barak knew that the the proposals at Camp David were non-runners. Thats why they went on to Taba to deal with the outstanding issues based on the Clinton Parameters. Israel walked out of those negotioations not the PA. Arafat actually called for the Israelis to come back but they didn't contrary to what Judt says.

On the Arab League summit in Lebanon all member voted in favour of it of which the PA is a member so to say Israel accepted it and the PA rejected it is just untrue. Israel welcomed it but said that a settlment would have to come through negotiations between the PA and Israel.

As for Israel being surrounded by hostile states - it has normal relations with Turkey, Jordan and Egypt. All other countries in the region accepted the Arab League declaration which indicates that they are more than willing to make peace with Israel.

As for a solution, I think the Clinton Parameters that were discussed in Taba offer the best chance still even after the Israelis walking out in 2001.

Judt

Israel is bad, m'kay? We've all agreed on this. But you want to leave it at that? What does that do? Let us get irate in thread after thread?

Yes, Israel looks out for Number 1. Who the hell doesn't? But Israel also knows at the end of the day that the best way of looking out for Number 1 was to give the Palestinians what they wanted, so then Israel can stop living in terror. Anyone in the room think that the Israeli's like losing their sons in the West Bank year after year trying to police the damn thing?

The Palestinians were promised 94%, yep. Better deal than what we got out of the British, who kept a whole 1/6 of the island when we got independence. When the other guy is a big badass with the capability to rain a whole lot of pain and suffering down on your head then you work with what you get. It's called compromise. Sure you're only compromising on what, technically speaking, should be yours in the first place, but until the Palestinians develop the best army in the world they can forget about what's rightfully theirs and work with what they've got.

The alternative is for Israeli's to live in fear, and the Palestinians to live in fear and poverty. Frankly, a bit of reality would do them good. They're never going to extort everything they want out of Israel - as we've seen, when they refuse a deal and meet violence with more violence then Israel just bombs the living bejasus out of them. Yes it's unjust, but I think it was Michael Collins who said something about stepping stones...

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

The Palestinians were promised 94%, yep.

73% and fragmentation is what they were promised.

Again I ask you , where was the plan to get the settlers off their land ?

There was some waffle about them getting 94% after maybe as much as 25 years which does not equate to a plan.

The alternative is for Israeli's to live in fear, and the Palestinians to live in fear and poverty. Frankly, a bit of reality would do them
good.

The only future for the Palestinians is if they get the Israelis off their land in full and if they agree permanent demilitarisation to boot. As long as they have the nazis on the hilltops there is no future for them , bar whatever final solution the Israelis have in mind for them

The Saint

Judt, I'm not saying that the Palestinians are good. I'm was just clearing up some inaccuracies. Anyway, as I said I think the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva accords offer the best hope for peace and is more or less in line with international law as opposed to what was offered at Camp David. At Camp David and Taba the Palestinians made all of the compromises if you take the positions as being what they are entitles to under international law. Under international law they are entitled to the West Bank, Gaza, all of Jerusalem, the right of return of all refugees displaced and their decendants since the foundation of the state of Israel to their homes. I'm not saying that all of these things are feasible or right I'm just saying that this is what international law states. In this case Israel made no concessions and the Palestinians made all of the compromises in all agreements.

Just because Ireland was partitions in such a way doesn't mean that Palestine should. And the partition here hardly led to a lasting comprehensive peace now did it?

InFront

Judt wrote:

The Palestinians were promised 94%, yep. Better deal than what we got out of the British, who kept a whole 1/6 of the island when we got independence.

The difference is you're forgetting that the Palestinians would already be giving up claims to this 'state of Israel' from the first partition on top of this newer Zionist takeover. So it's not quite like partition of Ireland, it's worse. It's more comparable to giving away the six counties, and then throwing in the rest of Ulster with it.
(In fact the whole things is much worse than what happened in Ulster, but the comparison can serve a purpose)

Sure you're only compromising on what, technically speaking, should be yours in the first place, but until the Palestinians develop the best army in the world they can forget about what's rightfully theirs and work with what they've got.

Whenever anybody brings up Israeli military power and oppression all you retort is 'forget about the past, work with what they can'. You don't mind bringing up Palestinian failures in the past, in fact you habitually do so, but you call those kinds of references to Israel "tiresome" and basically pointless.

Judt

I'm saying it's pointless to say that Israel is a bully and a this and a that because Israel holds all the cards. They offered what they offered and moreso than land the people would have had peace and then prosperity. The price the Palestinians pay for not settling for even 74%? They're poor. They rely on handouts. They habitually get the crap beat out of them, and the idea of moving up in the world is to go on a suicide mission.

The Israeli's on the other hand can afford to build a big wall around them and take the land anyways. Given the alternative I'd say work with what you've got.

As for the Israeli settlers, well nice to see this topic has got as far as Naziism, I was beginning to wonder... That aside, as I've said above applies to the settlers. If Palestine becomes a country recognised by Israel then, even if they don't get the land, the Palestinians and the Israeli's will deal with that problem from their ends. As it is, it's pretty much a one way slaughter.

The Palestinians will ask "Can I ever get to go home?" The answer is "No. But you can build a new one." Dying for something you can't have is stupid, whatever the injustice.

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

I'm saying it's pointless to say that Israel is a bully and a this and a that because Israel holds all the cards. They offered what they offered and moreso than land the people would have had peace and then prosperity. The price the Palestinians pay for not settling for even 74%? They're poor. They rely on handouts. They habitually get the crap beat out of them, and the idea of moving up in the world is to go on a suicide mission.

The jews in warsaw getto in the early 1940s were poor for the same reason the Palestinians in the west bank are poor. Their livelihoods were taken away from them by racist nazis.

The Israeli's on the other hand can afford to build a big wall around them and take the land anyways. Given the alternative I'd say work with what you've got.

which is nothing .

As for the Israeli settlers, well nice to see this topic has got as far as Naziism, I was beginning to wonder...

you may have wondered but you stil refuse to acknowledge that there was no plan to take the settlers out of pre 1967 Palestine. None. Therefore there was no deal, just something to keepClinton happy so you could get a couple of free cluster bombs.

That aside, as I've said above applies to the settlers. If Palestine becomes a country recognised by Israel then, even if they don't get the land, the Palestinians and the Israeli's will deal with that problem from their ends. As it is, it's pretty much a one way slaughter.

Israel refuses to deal with the settlers, way it is and has been for 20 years.

Israel resolutely defends a few 100 nazis whose only mission in life is to terrorise the Palestinian population of Hebron, devoting large scale military resources to the protection of the sesettlers and the ongoing evictions and victimisation of Palestinians.

The nazi settler movement has rotted the zionist socialist state with a collective humanist vision that made Israel respected. Its a lot easier to shoot defenceless kids than it is to fight Hezbollah though, what a brave brave army Israel has nowadays .

Dying for something you can't have is stupid, whatever the injustice.

Dying IN what you ALREADY have is the Hebron way is it not .?? Hebron really is the final surrender of secular humanist Judaism , a microcosm of all that is utterly rotten with Israel.???

InFront

Judt wrote:

Given the alternative I'd say work with what you've got.

Palestinians in the occuped territories should just put down their heads and get on with... what? a life? I wonder what a Palestinian would answer to that.
Would you just accept the ID card system? The prejudice? Not being able to live with your wife? Being treated like an animal and refused an adequate education?

You keep talking about moving on, I just wonder what Palestinians in the disputed territories would be "moving on" into. A formula of appeasement towards militant Zionism is simply not the answer.

Sponge Bob

Its obscene to come around here and say that Israel has won, we can do what we like now. It would have been equally immoral for a German to brag around here like this after Poland had been invaded and its population subjected by 1941.

Your refusal to clearly condemn the Israeli settlers makes you no better than them and they are bigoted judeofascist scum on the same moral level as any form of islamofascism that I can think of ...bar maybe the Taliban who are a tad lower now that I think of it .

Once 50 % of Israelis refuse to join its army because they would prefer to pray all day , from about 2030 at the current rate of going , the game is up for Israel. Either its a collective enterprise or the tribes will be scattered to the four winds.

oscarBravo

Many of the posters in this thread need to do some serious calming down. I'm looking specifically at Sponge Bob and, to a lesser extent, at meditraitor.

I accept that this is an issue that people feel strongly about, but please make your points politely as well as strongly.

Judt

InFront wrote:

Palestinians in the occuped territories should just put down their heads and get on with... what? a life? I wonder what a Palestinian would answer to that.
Would you just accept the ID card system? The prejudice? Not being able to live with your wife? Being treated like an animal and refused an adequate education?

You keep talking about moving on, I just wonder what Palestinians in the disputed territories would be "moving on" into. A formula of appeasement towards militant Zionism is simply not the answer.

Actually, I was proposing they take their 94% (or 74%, if you want) and create a state, where they can have whatever ID cards they want. In fact, that's exactly my point: Israel offered them the opportunity for their own country, to normalize things. Arafat and co refused, and now Hamas is in power and they don't acknowledge that Israel exists.

If they accepted the deal they were cut they would have their own state and Israel wouldn't be coming in every 6 months to kick the hell out of them. It would end the violence.

The way things are there now is as if Ireland had not accepted the deal that the English cut us in the 20's. We could have fought on for all or nothing, but we'd still be a backwards country, throwing ourselves against the wall to be shot, rather than the peaceful, very very rich country we are today.

Compromise. It's the only way, and the Palestinians turned down the best deal they were offered. I know it frustrates a lot of people to not see them get everything they deserve, but it's better than dying and dying again and living in squalor because your leaders can't see past their grudge.

The Saint

After that post I presume you completely ignored what I and others have written above. It was not a generous offer at Camp David. Read the details of it. Also the negotiations went on to Taba after that and the Israelis walked out. The Clinton Parameters were the basis of negotiation in Taba where the Palestininans would get 97% of the West Bank and the outstanding 3% was to be swapped for land in the Negev. The 3% of Palestine that Israel would keep would incorporate most of the large settlements.

Again I state that the Camp David offer was not an offer. Even Shlomo Ben Ami, the Israeli foreign minister at Camp David, said that he wouldn't have accepted the Camp David offer if he were a Palestinian. The Clinton Parameters are the basis for a deal.

Raskolnikov

Judt wrote:

Sponge_Bob, a question: As I've asked before, how does throwing a sh*tfit help the situation? Yes, Israel has put the boot on the head of the Palestinians. Boo hoo Israel. The question is, how do we resolve this situation?

Israel could start by giving them their airport back