Need for wars by Israel

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

Actually, I was proposing they take their 94% (or 74%, if you want)

it was 74% then so stop questioning the figure. 94% after 25 years .

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.

This is complete crap, you Israelis did not want top give Arafat a workable deal and now you gotta deal with Hamas who are as bigoted as the settlers you put on the west bank for years. The deal Arafat was offered was no better than the nazi treatment of the jews in Poland circa 1940. Its your fault that you have to deal with Hamas, probably permamently .

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.

it may have ended the violence in 2000 but you are blaming the rape victim and not Israel, the rapist.

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.

It was a crap deal by an occupying racist state , would the Judenrat have accepted the same deal in Warsaw, in 1940 ??

Judt

Its your fault that you have to deal with Hamas, probably permamently

...I'm not an Israeli...

It was a crap deal by an occupying racist state , would the Judenrat have accepted the same deal in Warsaw, in 1940 ??

I'd say that if they saw the fairly obvious alternative that they would have......

Sponge Bob

...and had Israel pulled out of the west bank years ago with a permanent demilitarisation clause in place then we would not be having this conversation.

Judt

Sponge Bob wrote:

...and had Israel pulled out of the west bank years ago with a permanent demilitarisation clause in place then we would not be having this conversation.

You're right. And if you can present me a local military that could oblige them to do so... We're dealing with reality, not fantasy, and your argument is clutching at straws.

InFront

I think the real fantasy is expecting the Palestinians to simply go along with whatever is Israel's whim, and foresake the Palestinians in the occupied territories (occupied-occupied territories) as being none of their concern. That sort of defeatist attitude is what fuels Zionism. You have to stop somewhere.

I presume if Israel wished to expand even further you'd just start talking up the merits of the "Jordanian Solution" as the best deal. Basically 'give them what they want'.

Judt

InFront wrote:

I think the real fantasy is expecting the Palestinians to simply go along with whatever is Israel's whim, and foresake the Palestinians in the occupied territories (occupied-occupied territories) as being none of their concern. That sort of defeatist attitude is what fuels Zionism. You have to stop somewhere.

I presume if Israel wished to expand even further you'd just start talking up the merits of the "Jordanian Solution" as the best deal. Basically 'give them what they want'.

Apart from 1948, Israel hasn't gone out invading its neighborhood left and right to annex stuff. It participated in Suez with France and Britain, but that was to keep the canal open and wasn't their idea; and they attacked Egypt when Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships... IE was gearing up for war.

Israel took the Golan Heights to stop Syria shelling down into Israel, and also so that if the Syrians gave it a go again Israel could flatten Damascus without having to move. When you're in a very small country that can be cut in half in hours it makes sense to have a military buffer zone. They gave back the Sinai. Etc. Israel is, I think, happy with what it has got. The country would be even happier, I think, if they could just be left to live in peace.

El Stuntman

InFront wrote:

Ever since someone decided that there should be a state called Israel, it has had a history of provocation.

historical facts please....

1948 (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon)
1967 6 Day War (Syria, Jordan, and Egypt)
1974 Yom Kippur War (Egypt & Syria)

three major wars involving Israel where they were attacked first

1st Lebanon War (1982) - they attacked in response to PLO attacks from their bases inside Lebanon

recent Lebanon conflagration (hardly a war) - they attacked in response to Hizbullah provocation (border post attack and kidnapping of IDF personnel)

Provocation works both ways

Padraig Mor

Since we're talking facts let's look at the real ones.

El Stuntman wrote:

1948 (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon)

These countries attacked because Israel cherrypicked the (nonbinding) UN General Assembly resolution which proclaimed two states - Israel and Palestine, i.e. they said "we agree with the Israel bit but not with the Palestine bit because we want that too". This is the root of all the problems in the last 60 years.

El Stuntman wrote:

1967 6 Day War (Syria, Jordan, and Egypt)

??? Israel attacked first. They say that the Arab states were going to attack but the Israelis have long shown themselves to play hard and fast with the truth.

El Stuntman wrote:

1974 Yom Kippur War (Egypt & Syria)

Egypt attacked to regain the Sinai which was illegally occupied by Israel. They'd been saying that they would for years and offered a comprehensive settlement which Israel rejected. Following the war, they signed a treaty with Egypt which was less favourable to them that what the Egyptians had previously proposed.

El Stuntman wrote:

1st Lebanon War (1982) - they attacked in response to PLO attacks from their bases inside Lebanon

And you actually believe that crap? Read Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle" for the real story. It wasn't the first time they invaded Lebanon either.

El Stuntman wrote:

recent Lebanon conflagration (hardly a war) - they attacked in response to Hizbullah provocation (border post attack and kidnapping of IDF personnel)

.....which was in response to years of Israeli attacks across the border, killing Lebanese civilians. And the fact that Israel was still holding the Shebaa Farms. And detaining hundreds of Lebanese without trial etc.....

El Stuntman

actually this is interesting: this thread illustrates how even non-involved Europeans (such as us) take entrenched and deeply emotive stances on the Israeli/Palestinian situation (even though said situation has very little to do with them)

Imagine how much more deeply polarised the two sides are on the ground.

Then consider how hard it is to even consider being the first side to make the tiniest of concessions to the other - you will immediately be accused of 'selling out' and dumped (electorally or physically). We see this in Norn Iron all the time.
It's a failure of leadership in one sense - political yes but moral even more so.

How the hell can anyone ever get around this awful situation?
I have no answers myself....

AbusesToilets

Invade the region,dismantle the current political structures,execute the leadership and radicals,force them to disarms.Then set up a more equally representative government.All this after leveling Jerusalem to the base rock and making it uninhabitable.
Then leave.

InFront

Judt wrote:

Apart from 1948, Israel hasn't gone out invading its neighborhood left and right to annex stuff.

What do you mean? That's exactly what happened in 1967... Annexation of E.Jerusalem? The newer Israeli wall - to encompass more and more land for new settlers on accepted Palestinian territory... why do you say "hasn't invaded its neighbourhood"? You think the Israeli borders do not change? That's a very strange comment can you try to explain it?

It participated in Suez with France and Britain, but...
and they attacked Egypt when...
Israel took the Golan Heights to stop...

Why are you trying to make excuses? I think it's good for people to try to think in the mindset to other people who you may disagree with - Nationalists, Unionists, Americans, Iraqis, whatever.
I don't know about you but when I try to think like a Zionist all I am actually doing is trying to put myself in a state of silly denial.
You have to actually disregard the most objective of truths, wipe out entire wars, and mandates, and politicians in your brain just to be able to think like one of them (such as your above suggestion that Israel hadn't tried to expand since 1948). You have to create for yourself a completely fabricated brand new history... from scratch.
Perhaps the most endearing characteristic of a Zionist is his vivid imagination.

Israel is, I think, happy with what it has got. The country would be even happier, I think, if they could just be left to live in peace.

Happy with what it's got - I'd say delighted.
I'm sure they can't believe their luck - the American military on their back, they throw bombs and Americans come blushing in after with blankets for the dead; an apparently untouchable reputation, they have an apparently divine right to foreign land, UN Resolutions don't concern them, they talk about expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates and people shrug their shoulders, people like you say 'give them what they demand'... Why wouldn't they be happy?
They're not satisfied, if that's what you mean.

1948 (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon)
1967 6 Day War (Syria, Jordan, and Egypt)
1974 Yom Kippur War (Egypt & Syria)
1st Lebanon War (1982) - they attacked in response to PLO attacks from their bases inside Lebanon
recent Lebanon conflagration (hardly a war)... [Hizbollah kidnapped soldiers etc.

This is what you put forward as Israeli innocence? I dread to think what Israeli warmongering must look like in your eyes. I cannot believe that you can claim to understand those conflicts and still say that Israelis were acting in some sort of hesitant self defence.
I am particularly keen to hear your 'arguments' for these instead of that list - especially 1967 and the Lebanese Wars, how can they conceivably form part of a pro-Israeli argument?

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote:

Since we're talking facts let's look at the real ones.

And yet you're not really throwing out ones. Just opinions.

These countries attacked because Israel cherrypicked the (nonbinding) UN General Assembly resolution which proclaimed two states - Israel and Palestine, i.e. they said "we agree with the Israel bit but not with the Palestine bit because we want that too". This is the root of all the problems in the last 60 years.

The Arab nations (i.e the Liberation Army) invaded the borders of Palestine in response to the UN proposal for the creation of the two state system. You can point the finger all you want at Israel, but up until that point, the palestinians had the ability to negotiate within the UN. The Arab nations took away that ability firstly by declaring war on their behalf, and secondly by occupying parts of Palestine following the war, which were not released until Israel took them in the 1967 war.

The root of the problem is that neither side was willing to work within the system and negotiate a viable two state situation. Both Israeli & Palestinian terror gangs made the situation unstable, and Israel's own actions with the expulsion of Palestinians also entrenched a violent answer to the situation.

But pointing the finger solely at Israel doesn't wash.

??? Israel attacked first. They say that the Arab states were going to attack but the Israelis have long shown themselves to play hard and fast with the truth.

Israel did attack first. However, I would point out that it wasn't without a fair degree of provocation by Egypt and its newly formed allies. Between the blocking of the straits (in breach of international law) and the increased attacks by paramilitary (fedayeen) attacks, it provided Israel with enough reason to attack. Add in the penchant for aggressive Arab Rhethoric, I can easily see a threat by the Arab alliance.

But you're right. Israel did attack first. Due to quite alot of pushing by Egypt, and even more pushing by the Western Nations (Britain, the US, and France) But that doesn't really matter does it?

Egypt attacked to regain the Sinai which was illegally occupied by Israel. They'd been saying that they would for years and offered a comprehensive settlement which Israel rejected. Following the war, they signed a treaty with Egypt which was less favourable to them that what the Egyptians had previously proposed.

Okies. Look at the steps leading up to the war. More provocation. The UN peacekeeping force was asked to withdraw by Egypt, and later Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping (once again, in breach of international law). Hardly signs of a desire for peace from Egypt. And yet, thats never really considered enough of a reason is it?

But, again, I agree in a way. Israel did attack first.

.....which was in response to years of Israeli attacks across the border, killing Lebanese civilians. And the fact that Israel was still holding the Shebaa Farms. And detaining hundreds of Lebanese without trial etc.....

Everything in these sets of conflicts are a response to something gone before.

Hezbollah have been attacking Israel since it was formed. Regardless of the Israeli withdrawal the attacks continued, without any prevention measures by the Lebanese government.

Just in regards to the Sheeba Farms, I've said this before. Lebanon hasn't got zip about them. Prior to Israel's occupation of the Sheeba farms area, it was controlled by Syria, and is marked on Syrian maps as being Syrian territory. The UN themselves, have stated it is Syrian land, and until Syria take an official stance on the ownership of the territory, it will continue to be considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Not Lebanese.

meditraitor

Deleted User wrote:

Hezbollah have been attacking Israel since it was formed.

I wonder why? this is the answer I want to hear!

I wonder why? this is the answer I want to hear!

Is it? I'll give you my opinion, but I daresay you won't agree with me.

Number of reasons, really.

1. Israel's original invasion of Lebanon.
2. Syrian influence.
3. A doctrine of hate drilled into them.
4. Keeps them in a position of power.
5. Israeli Responses.
6. Lack of Lebanese response.

1. Invasion. This created the mainstay of hatred in the situation. Israel had no real basis for going in there, and it generated alot of the anger that exists to this day.
2. Syrian Influence. Syria hasn't helped the situation by refusing to validate Lebanese claims on the Sheeba Farms area. This refusal in the face of UN requests, has given Hezbollah a "right" to exist beyond the acknowledged withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Their aid to Hezbollah over the years has only encouraged conflict.
3. Doctrine. The majority of Arab nations reinforce the hatred towards Israel by constantly referring to whats happened in the past. It crerates vaidity for the "cause" and is unwilling to seek any answers beyond violent response. Indoctrination in training camps creating a hatred thats unlikely to stop regardless of what actually happens. Peace or no.
4. Maybe Hezbollah were there to protect Lebanon when they were first formed, but thats long past. They have a position of power and influence within Lebanon, and they aren't willing to give that up. Without Israel to attack, they have no basis to exist, and they would be forced to go back to living "normal" lives, without the fear/respect to receive from their own people.
5. Israel. Israeli attacks across the border, imprisonment of Lebanese civilians, internment without Trial, etc. All help to encourage Hezbollah to exist, and to attack Israel. Which in turn encourages Israel to respond. A circle of action & reaction.
6. The Lebanese Government & people, have been lacking of condemnation of Hezbollah attacks/actions. The lack of Government action by the military to restrict Hezbollah attacks on Israel, and the actual encouragement by members of the Government has only encouraged Hezbollah to attack Israel. (Refusal to follow UN resolutions regarding the disbanding of Hezbollah, and the allowance of Hezbollah to be armed within their territory) [And before people start talking about how weak Lebanon was, they always had the option to request a UN peacekeeping force to enforce the border to prevent attacks]

But then, these are my opinions. Not even going to claim them as being facts. Just my opinions.

A large degree of the responsibility I would place on Israel's shoulders. But, I would also place a large portion of responsibility on both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. The failure of Lebanon to disband Hezbollah and to seek peaceful negotiations since the Israeli withdrawal, has a rather large factor in all of this. Hezbollah exists to this day because nobody was willing to confront Hezbollah, and consider other ways of resolving the conflict/tensions. It also exists because Israel can only see military retalitation as being the only real response to attacks or kidnapping attempts. The failure by the UN, and the dabbling of the western nations in the region has a lesser impact, but its there nonetheless.

Padraig Mor

Deleted User wrote:

The Arab nations (i.e the Liberation Army) invaded the borders of Palestine in response to the UN proposal for the creation of the two state system. You can point the finger all you want at Israel, but up until that point, the palestinians had the ability to negotiate within the UN. The Arab nations took away that ability firstly by declaring war on their behalf, and secondly by occupying parts of Palestine following the war, which were not released until Israel took them in the 1967 war. .

You seem to have missed my point. When Israel 'declared herself' in 1947, the Israelis explicitly refused - from the very start - to recognise the Palestinian entity that was integral to the UN resolution which gave Israel its legitimacy (or as much legitimacy as can be had from a General Assembly resolution). This was one of the main reasons given by the Arab states to attack. Israel has carried forward this policy of refusing to define her borders to this very day - in my opinion this is because they are 'hedging their bets' with regard to obtaining (stealing?) more land. (incidentally, this is one of the main sticking points behind Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel's "right to exist" - but that's a different story).

Deleted User wrote:

Okies. Look at the steps leading up to the war. More provocation. The UN peacekeeping force was asked to withdraw by Egypt, and later Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping (once again, in breach of international law). Hardly signs of a desire for peace from Egypt. And yet, thats never really considered enough of a reason is it?

But, again, I agree in a way. Israel did attack first. .

Looking at the issue of hostilities in 1973, Egypt attacked first. My point was that they did so for very good reasons - it was not an attempt to grab Israeli land (or drive the Israelis into the sea etc.), just get back their own. Regarding provocation - as I said above, Egypt had warned Israel for a number of years that they would start a war if Israel did not hand back occupied Egyptian land and offered a settlement which gave many concessions to Israel. The Israelis held out because they wanted to squeeze just a little bit more from the Egyptians. The much triumphed Camp David accords (was it Jimmy Carter got a Nobel Peace Prize for them?) actually gave Israel less than what the Egyptians had originally offered them.....but offers of peace never halted good ol' Israeli warmongering did they?

Deleted User wrote:

Hezbollah have been attacking Israel since it was formed. .

Yes - because the Israelis seem to be completely incapable of leaving their neighbours in peace. They've invaded Lebanon, what, four times at this stage?

Deleted User wrote:

Just in regards to the Sheeba Farms, I've said this before. Lebanon hasn't got zip about them. Prior to Israel's occupation of the Sheeba farms area, it was controlled by Syria, and is marked on Syrian maps as being Syrian territory. The UN themselves, have stated it is Syrian land, and until Syria take an official stance on the ownership of the territory, it will continue to be considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Not Lebanese.

I know this - which is why I deliberately did not claim that it was Lebanese in my post. It is DEFINITELY not Israeli though, and the continued occupation lends popular legitimacy to Hezbollah - regardless of whether the territory is Lebanese or Syrian.

Padraig Mor

Deleted User wrote:

Just my opinions.

A large degree of the responsibility I would place on Israel's shoulders. But, I would also place a large portion of responsibility on both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. The failure of Lebanon to disband Hezbollah and to seek peaceful negotiations since the Israeli withdrawal, has a rather large factor in all of this. Hezbollah exists to this day because nobody was willing to confront Hezbollah, and consider other ways of resolving the conflict/tensions. It also exists because Israel can only see military retalitation as being the only real response to attacks or kidnapping attempts. The failure by the UN, and the dabbling of the western nations in the region has a lesser impact, but its there nonetheless.

Opinions eh?

Mine? Israel takes the lion's share of the blame for the conflict in the region.

Why? Israel is not interested in peace with its neighbours. They want their land. And if they can't have their land....well, let's **** with them!.

But Israel is fighting a battle for its existence against hostile neighbours! [historical background: Jews mostly got on fine in Arab states until the Zionist movement]. Israel has been offered peace for decades. Her Arab neighbours have offered peace and normalised relations in response to a return to the 1967 borders (i.e. abide by UN resolutions) since the early 70s (72 or 73 I think). Not that you would know this from Western media reporting. The PLO have said the same thing since 1976 I think - and you definitely won't hear that in the West!!! Peace for a return to the UN recognised boundries? The Israelis have shoved it back in their faces. Israel interested in peace? Nah.

Just my opinion!

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote:

You seem to have missed my point. When Israel 'declared herself' in 1947, the Israelis explicitly refused - from the very start - to recognise the Palestinian entity that was integral to the UN resolution which gave Israel its legitimacy (or as much legitimacy as can be had from a General Assembly resolution). This was one of the main reasons given by the Arab states to attack. Israel has carried forward this policy of refusing to define her borders to this very day - in my opinion this is because they are 'hedging their bets' with regard to obtaining (stealing?) more land. (incidentally, this is one of the main sticking points behind Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel's "right to exist" - but that's a different story).

Actually I didn't really. You seek to place all the blame for the whole situation on Israel, regardless of the actions of the oher participants. I'm not avoiding Israel's responsibility in this. Rather, I seek to show that there were other factors also involved.

From the very beginning the Arab nations blocked the Israel/Palestinian partition. They believed any formation of either state was an affront to them. After all, where were the cries for a Palestinian state during the period that the Arab nations occupied those areas provided to the palestinians by the UN? There was no push to create a Palestinian state until the PLO was created, a few years before the 1967 war.

No. I'm not avoiding Israel's actions in this. But I'd like to see you acknowledge the actions of the Arab Nations, who refused to give a fledgling Palestinian state a chance to exist. Where no Palestinian state existed before. It was the Arab nations who decided that war was the only answer that stopped any chance for a peaceful resolution to their objections.

Looking at the issue of hostilities in 1973, Egypt attacked first. My point was that they did so for very good reasons - it was not an attempt to grab Israeli land (or drive the Israelis into the sea etc.), just get back their own. Regarding provocation - as I said above, Egypt had warned Israel for a number of years that they would start a war if Israel did not hand back occupied Egyptian land and offered a settlement which gave many concessions to Israel. The Israelis held out because they wanted to squeeze just a little bit more from the Egyptians. The much triumphed Camp David accords (was it Jimmy Carter got a Nobel Peace Prize for them?) actually gave Israel less than what the Egyptians had originally offered them.....but offers of peace never halted good ol' Israeli warmongering did they?

Or anyone elses warmongering. Look at Egypts actions. Actually look for a change rather than seeking to prove Israel the complete aggressor in everything. Israel has shown that it was willing to cede back portions of land to countries that were willing to settle in peace. Egypt would likely have regained those lands anyway through peace, and offering Israel a trade relationship. Instead, they forced out the UN buffer zone, and blocked the straits to Israeli shipping.

And its interesting that you believe that Egypt had good reasons to attack, and yet there seems to be no good reasons for Israel to do the same.....

Yes - because the Israelis seem to be completely incapable of leaving their neighbours in peace. They've invaded Lebanon, what, four times at this stage?

How many times has Hezbollah been prevented from attacking Israel by Lebanese forces? How many times have the Lebanese government shown support for Hezbollah attacks on Israel? I have no belief that Israel was in the right in originally invading Lebanon, but I can see a reason for responding to Lebanese aggression. And it is Lebanese aggression when they are unwilling to prevent their own "legal" militia from crossing the UN border and attacking Israel.

But you've mentioned Lebanon. What other countries have they consistently invaded or been at war with? How many of those countries were used as staging grounds for attacks on Israel, with no action made by the national forces to prevent them?

While I may not approve of the way Israel responds, I can agree with their right to defend themselves. If a country is unwilling to prevent [or even try] their country being used to launch attacks, then they've lost any innocence in the matter.

I know this - which is why I deliberately did not claim that it was Lebanese in my post. It is DEFINITELY not Israeli though, and the continued occupation lends popular legitimacy to Hezbollah - regardless of whether the territory is Lebanese or Syrian.

Ok. You know this. So why post it in that manner? The way you posted it generates a degree of ligitimacy for Hezbollah to attack Israel. I agree with your other reasons that were in the same sentence, but not this one.

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote:

Opinions eh?

Yup. I don't like to throw out "facts" when so much of all this is so muddied.

Why? Israel is not interested in peace with its neighbours. They want their land. And if they can't have their land....well, let's **** with them!.

If that was the case there would be no PA. Israel would be in complete and total control of Palestine. There would be no Palestinian government. Nor would Israel have ceded lands to the other Arab nations for peace treaties.

But Israel is fighting a battle for its existence against hostile neighbours! [historical background: Jews mostly got on fine in Arab states until the Zionist movement]. Israel has been offered peace for decades. Her Arab neighbours have offered peace and normalised relations in response to a return to the 1967 borders (i.e. abide by UN resolutions) since the early 70s (72 or 73 I think).

I well know the claims for peaceful settlement. I haven't seen too much to show that they're actually willing to stand by them. Just as when Israel talks about peace, most pro-palestinian posters will point to where Israel has broken agreements.

There's offering "peace", and there's offering peace. Israel has been offering peae for decades. Its just not the peace that the Palestinians want. Just as the peace the Palestinians offer is not the peace that Israel wants.

Not that you would know this from Western media reporting. The PLO have said the same thing since 1976 I think - and you definitely won't hear that in the West!!! Peace for a return to the UN recognised boundries? The Israelis have shoved it back in their faces. Israel interested in peace? Nah.
Just my opinion!

There's alot you wont hear on Western media reporting. About both sides. Isn't it great that if you're around boards long enough you'll hear most of it?

Israel interested in peace? Somewhat. I believe that they would be interested in a peace that would be enforced. A peace that wouldn't be a reason to rearm and restart the war stronger than before.

I guess I'm just sceptical of Palestinian promises. I haven't seen them keep too many of them in the past. The question I'm interested in hearing answered though, is whether you actually believe that the Palestinians would be interested in peace, and would stick to it?

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

Yup. I don't like to throw out "facts" when so much of all this is so muddied.



If that was the case there would be no PA. Israel would be in complete and total control of Palestine. There would be no Palestinian government. Nor would Israel have ceded lands to the other Arab nations for peace treaties.

Cosmetics



I well know the claims for peaceful settlement. I haven't seen too much to show that they're actually willing to stand by them. Just as when Israel talks about peace, most pro-palestinian posters will point to where Israel has broken agreements.

There's offering "peace", and there's offering peace. Israel has been offering peae for decades. Its just not the peace that the Palestinians want. Just as the peace the Palestinians offer is not the peace that Israel wants.



There's alot you wont hear on Western media reporting. About both sides. Isn't it great that if you're around boards long enough you'll hear most of it?

Israel interested in peace? Somewhat. I believe that they would be interested in a peace that would be enforced. A peace that wouldn't be a reason to rearm and restart the war stronger than before.

I guess I'm just sceptical of Palestinian promises. I haven't seen them keep too many of them in the past. The question I'm interested in hearing answered though, is whether you actually believe that the Palestinians would be interested in peace, and would stick to it?

If i mugged you on the street and took 500 euros off you, then later decided to give you back 400 euros would you let me keep the other 100 and be on my way?

I believe most ordinary Palestninians, like humans everywhere, want to get on with their lives free of conflict. if Israel agrees to a viable state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, as oppose to humiliating statelets with Israel controlling the borders, then the Palestinians will accept it and stick to it. I presume you believe Arafat is to blame for not accepting the camp david terms.

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

If i mugged you on the street and took 500 euros off you, then later decided to give you back 400 euros would you let me keep the other 100 and be on my way?

I love these examples. They never make any sense.

I believe most ordinary Palestninians, like humans everywhere, want to get on with their lives free of conflict. if Israel agrees to a viable state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, as oppose to humiliating statelets with Israel controlling the borders, then the Palestinians will accept it and stick to it. I presume you believe Arafat is to blame for not accepting the camp david terms.

Pretty much. IMO the problem with the Palestinian desire for their own state is that, its all or nothing. There is no compromise. Anything less than what they want is not worth considering. I believe the Camp David terms would have been a step in the right direction, rather than the last period of violence since then. I believe that if Arafat had accepted the terms it would have placed them in a position to negotiate further concessions from Israel. It would at least have been better than whats happened since.

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

I love these examples. They never make any sense.

It makes make perfect sense to me that you would be incensed. There is no way you would countenance bargaining with me over the 100 euros that i had stolen from you in the first place.

Pretty much. IMO the problem with the Palestinian desire for their own state is that, its all or nothing. There is no compromise. Anything less than what they want is not worth considering. I believe the Camp David terms would have been a step in the right direction, rather than the last period of violence since then. I believe that if Arafat had accepted the terms it would have placed them in a position to negotiate further concessions from Israel. It would at least have been better than whats happened since.

Hindsight is a great general, Klaz. Arafat was not in a position to accept these terms in my opinion. Had he it would not have led to stability- far from it- in my opinion. How dare the Palestinians want nothing less than a viable state!?!! The camp David terms fell far short of this.

Judt

nacho libre wrote:

If i mugged you on the street and took 500 euros off you, then later decided to give you back 400 euros would you let me keep the other 100 and be on my way?

If a person robbed you with a gun in their hands, took 500 euro off of you and then decided to give you 400 back, I'd be thankful, take the money and leave with my life. Real Politik, they call that.

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

Hindsight is a great general, Klaz. Arafat was not in a position to accept these terms in my opinion. Had he it would not have led to stability- far from it- in my opinion. How dare the Palestinians want nothing less than a viable state!?!! The camp David terms fell far short of this.

The Camp David proposal fell far short of a complete Palestinian state. A state that never existed. It fell short after Israel had fought two wars against Arab nations and had occupied the Palestinian areas from those Arab nations. They hadn't taken the lands from Palestinians since a state of palestine wasn't formed before then.

Hindsight means squat. Arafat knew what would happen. He knew that there would be continued violence as long as a peace was not made with Israel. Just as he knew that he had no ability to prevent the other fighters from attacking Israel, regardless of what he decided. Professing hindisght now, doesn't explain why he believed that Israel would offer them 100% of Palestine. It was an unrealistic expectation then, just as it is now.

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

The Camp David proposal fell far short of a complete Palestinian state. A state that never existed. It fell short after Israel had fought two wars against Arab nations and had occupied the Palestinian areas from those Arab nations. They hadn't taken the lands from Palestinians since a state of palestine wasn't formed before then.

Hindsight means squat. Arafat knew what would happen. He knew that there would be continued violence as long as a peace was not made with Israel. Just as he knew that he had no ability to prevent the other fighters from attacking Israel, regardless of what he decided. Professing hindisght now, doesn't explain why he believed that Israel would offer them 100% of Palestine. It was an unrealistic expectation then, just as it is now.

It's unrealistic to want a proper fuctioning state? He was in an unenviable position; had he accepted those terms he would be a lame duck and it would have led to more violence not stabilisation as you suggest.

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

It's unrealistic to want a proper fuctioning state? He was in an unenviable position; had he accepted those terms he would be a lame duck and it would have led to more violence not stabilisation as you suggest.

A proper functioning state? He had the opportunity to build one when the PA was formed. The creation of a Palestinian Police force, control over the civilian population, access to many facilities, and Israeli troops withdrawing gradually from Palestine. He had that opportunity to build a state where Palestinians could grow without violence, and seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Instead, he didn't try to restrict the attacks on Israel, the police force was corrupted, and the money assigned to the civilian authority was squandered. There was no desire to build a viable state, except for one that contained all of Palestine proper. All or Nothing.

Any peaceful resolution by any party in Palestine will initially generate more violence. People talk about Palestinians wanting peace, and yet whenever Israeli troops withdraw there's actually more attacks. You say that had he agreed to the proposal there would have been more violence.... I totally agree. I'm completely skeptical about most of the violent groups in palestine. Personally I believe they're more interested in keeping the situation unstable to keep their own positions of power. It may be that most palestinians want peace, but I dont think the ones with the guns do.

And eventually for this conflict to start being resolved, some faction is going to have to agree to a similiar proposal. Less than they want but something to build from.

JWAD

1948 is where this is was festered. 1967 and 1982 also shameful episodes in the region.
The 1948 borders as decreed by the UN were imbalanced in the amount of land given to each side based on population.
After all this however, what we witness from the safety of our cozy homes is three countries bitterly divided down the middle all involved in conflict with each other. Palestine as we know is split. Lebanon on the verge of a civil war and the current leadership agreement will be boycotted if they refuse to recognise Israel as a state. Then we have Israel which is now run by an anyone-but-Likud coalition comprising of hardliners, moderates in charge of the military and finally Arabic representation in the cabinet. The Oslo Peace Accords were a joke (basically turning Palestine into three 'cantons')but the best that anyone would have expected.
Its not easy and it never will be. Before the region is to stabilise, each country must precede with stability also. For once, I agree with the American govt's diplomacy efforts currently occuring.

Looking back of course is easy but there has to be a time when each side says enough is enough. Time for as much compromise or agreement as my country's stability permits. If thats not enough then the conflict will continue. A very vicious circle. Shame really. I used to love to travel there (Israel and Lebanon).

Padraig Mor

Deleted User wrote:

The question I'm interested in hearing answered though, is whether you actually believe that the Palestinians would be interested in peace, and would stick to it?

Simply put - yes. I genuinely believe that if Israel lived up to her international obligations and left the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, 'terrorism' by Palestinian factions would virtually disappear overnight. Not 100%, but maybe 90%. You may think this naive but I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Same goes for Lebanon - if they would stop interfering, I believe they would have nothing to fear from Hezbollah. A possible welcome side effect of this process would be an improvement of the lot of citizens of other ME states (Syria, Jordan etc) who have been repressing their people behind a smokescreen of "....but look at the Palestinians!".

Deleted User wrote:

IMO the problem with the Palestinian desire for their own state is that, its all or nothing. There is no compromise.

This is a common misconception I think - that the Palestinians do not believe in compromise. This ignores that they have three main desires, all legitimate; 1. return to them of their land; 2. the "right of return" to Israeli territory; 3. financial compensation for those who had their property stolen by the newly-formed Israeli state. Of these, they have indicated that they are willing to settle for just a return of the Occupied Territories. No right of return. No money. Just their land. This seems like a pretty major compromise to me. What more can they give? This contrasts with Israel's apparent compromise model: "here, you can have Gaza back (because of demographics, not philanthropy, but let's keep that quiet). We'll hang on to the airspace, the coast, the border crossings. We'll bomb the crap out of you until you launch a few crappy rockets at us and use this as an excuse to invade and subject the entire population to misery by knocking out the electricity and water. We won't recognise your legitimately elected government and will steal the taxes we collect on their behalf so they can't pay government workers leading to virtual civil war etc..." Thanks a bunch Israel!!!

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote:

Simply put - yes. I genuinely believe that if Israel lived up to her international obligations and left the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, 'terrorism' by Palestinian factions would virtually disappear overnight. Not 100%, but maybe 90%. You may think this naive but I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Same goes for Lebanon - if they would stop interfering, I believe they would have nothing to fear from Hezbollah. A possible welcome side effect of this process would be an improvement of the lot of citizens of other ME states (Syria, Jordan etc) who have been repressing their people behind a smokescreen of "....but look at the Palestinians!".

Fair enough points. I don't think it would be that easy, since A major factor in any peace agreement would be that the attacks be curtailed, and I don't believe any of the factions capable of preventing them.

However if they were able to prevent them, then, I guess it would be workable.

This is a common misconception I think - that the Palestinians do not believe in compromise. This ignores that they have three main desires, all legitimate; 1. return to them of their land; 2. the "right of return" to Israeli territory; 3. financial compensation for those who had their property stolen by the newly-formed Israeli state. Of these, they have indicated that they are willing to settle for just a return of the Occupied Territories. No right of return. No money. Just their land.

1. All of their land. And depending on which faction you look at it could be per UN proposals or right back to before Israel was created. Which I think is strange since there was no state of palestine then. You make it sound like Palestinians are united on what they want.
2. Right of return, for all their descendents? I could believe in a right of return and your 3 point, and actually agree with you, except that it includes all their descendents aswell. I don't think thats justified. (I wonder how successful the Jews forced out of Arab countries would be in getting a right of return and financial compensation. Nah. Don't think so.)

This seems like a pretty major compromise to me. What more can they give?

How about accepting or proposing a gradual return of those lands based on a number of segments whereby they prove that they're willing to work for it? You see, I have no real issue with returning the land to the Palestinians. I think it was the worst mistake the Israeli's ever made keeping them, after they took them from the other arab countries. But I would like to see Palestinian groups that make agreements actually commit and follow through on them.

Staged withdrawals, and handing over of control of the country, over a period of 1-2 years during which Palestinians would stop attacking Israel. And the withdrawals hinged on the Palestinians stopping the attacks.

This contrasts with Israel's apparent compromise model: "here, you can have Gaza back (because of demographics, not philanthropy, but let's keep that quiet). We'll hang on to the airspace, the coast, the border crossings. We'll bomb the crap out of you until you launch a few crappy rockets at us and use this as an excuse to invade and subject the entire population to misery by knocking out the electricity and water. We won't recognise your legitimately elected government and will steal the taxes we collect on their behalf so they can't pay government workers leading to virtual civil war etc..." Thanks a bunch Israel!!!

Or be like Palestine and make loads of promises for benefits not actually earned. We'll get a Palestinian Authority over cvilian affairs, receive our own police force answerable only to the PA, we'll get a number of facilities, have the chance to elect our own government, watch Israel withdraw from parts of Palestine, and we'll continue as before ignoring any requirements on ourselves and increasing the attacks on Israel. Lastly we'll still have plenty of money to get weapons from our neighbours, and use the sympathy of the world because our own people are staving, to totally hide that inconvenient truth. Sorted. Lets recap a bit. We'll gain loads of benefits, attack Israel more, and surely, nobody will ask us to follow through on past agreements. After all, if we keep our people in poverty, it'll be acceptable that we continue fighting this war, in spite of all the benefits that are so easily ignored..... Thanks a bunch Israel!!!

Hamas have been given easy options in all of this. To receive the Aid that the EU has been providing for years already with nothing in return, the recognition as a government, and to receive the taxes to run the country. All they have to do is recognise Israel, and follow past agreements made with the PA. From there they would have the opportunity to renegotiate those agreements, should they find them too harsh. However, they would need to show that they're capable of keeping their word.

Its very easy to paint Palestinians & Hamas as being innocent victims in all of this. You just ignore all the promises and agreements that they've failed to live up to. Also minimize their attacks to a few rocket attacks, and they're settled into the pure victim category.

Wouldn't it be a strange world if people started noticing that Palestinians were attacking Israel with more than a few rockets, and that they've shown very little ability to keep their promises [beyond some ceasefires used to rearm their forces]. But hey, its unreasonable to ask anything of the Palestinians isn't it? After all, they're totally the victims in all of this?;)

Sponge Bob

Deleted User wrote:

Wouldn't it be a strange world if people started noticing that Palestinians were attacking Israel with more than a few rockets, and that they've shown very little ability to keep their promises [beyond some ceasefires used to rearm their forces]. But hey, its unreasonable to ask anything of the Palestinians isn't it? After all, they're totally the victims in all of this?;)

pinpricks. Hardly like F16 airstrikes into populated areas like the Israelis do.

The palestinians may never have an army, they do not need one anyway.

They will never get back into pre 1948 palestine save a a few token repatriations

The squatters who stole their house then are safe too.

But they are entitled not to have a racists bunch of settler fascists out of the west bank, and in full.

East Jerusalem should be internationalised TBH

Judt

Sponge Bob wrote:

pinpricks. Hardly like F16 airstrikes into populated areas like the Israelis do.

The palestinians may never have an army, they do not need one anyway.

They will never get back into pre 1948 palestine save a a few token repatriations

The squatters who stole their house then are safe too.

But they are entitled not to have a racists bunch of settler fascists out of the west bank, and in full.

East Jerusalem should be internationalised TBH

And they should take that Pat Kenny off TV, while they're at it. Not gonna happen, TBH. So we change the channel, or buy Sky Movies, or go out. Compromise with yourself.