Israel slaughters again

Manic Moran

So a couple of miles here, a couple of miles the other direction there...

It certainly won't appeal to the "Not one inch" crowd.

NTM

Madd Finn

minkynuts wrote: »

Just seen the latest news on the shooting of unarmed protesters on the Syrian/ Israel border, and listening to the smarmy Israeli spokeswoman you can understand why the Israelis are the lepers of the civilized world

That's a totally unfair analogy.

Lepers are deserving of some sympathy.

alanmcqueen

If you are interested in the region, you should read this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-the-untold-story-of-the-deal-that-shocked-the-middle-east-2293879.html

If they can adhere to the a/m:

. . . that resistance must only be ‘in the national interest of the country’ – it would have to be ‘aqlaqi’ – ethical. There would be no more rocket attacks on civilians. In other words, no more rocket attacks from Gaza.'

Fisk is not everyone's favourite reporter, but his article raises many important issues whatever your viewpoint. The direction proposed would present, along with the likely recognition of a Palestinian state this September by the UN, a dramatically different pattern of resistance actions. IMO one could expect to see more of these mass border protests and at other flashpoints but importantly with NO concurrent military activities.This would be the most significant shift in Palestinian strategy/tactics since the conflict began. Over time, the west could struggle to support Israeli military actions against unarmed protestors with no corresponding Palestinian military activity e.g. rockets, mortars, suicide bombing. It's a dynamic strategy; can the Palestinians pull it off?

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

So a couple of miles here, a couple of miles the other direction there...

Essentially. And thats always been the understanding. Hence the consternation when Bush started going on about "realities on the ground".

Manic Moran wrote: »

It certainly won't appeal to the "Not one inch" crowd.

NTM

...of which there are unfortunately far, far too many.

Zebra3

Nodin wrote: »

Hence the consternation when Bush started going on about "realities on the ground".

The settlements should be refered to as the "criminality on the ground".

Another terrorist attack in the West Bank yesterday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13684157

yammycat

There is only one real solution to this issue, and that is for the other arab states to accept a division of the inhabitants of gaza and the west bank, if a monetary incentive was given to both the residents of gaza and the west bank and to various arab states then the land could be totally occupied by Israel and the palestinians could live happily elsewhere without strife.

Zebra3

yammycat wrote: »

There is only one real solution to this issue, and that is for the other arab states to accept a division of the inhabitants of gaza and the west bank, if a monetary incentive was given to both the residents of gaza and the west bank and to various arab states then the land could be totally occupied by Israel and the palestinians could live happily elsewhere without strife.

Maybe the colonialists should just go home?

wes

yammycat wrote: »

There is only one real solution to this issue, and that is for the other arab states to accept a division of the inhabitants of gaza and the west bank, if a monetary incentive was given to both the residents of gaza and the west bank and to various arab states then the land could be totally occupied by Israel and the palestinians could live happily elsewhere without strife.

What are you saying exactly? That all Palestinians should leave? If thats what your saying, then its a non-starter, those people will not leave, and I see no reason why they should leave either, to statisfy racist Zionists desire for a ethnically pure state. BTW, even the American's wouldn't be able to openly support such a thing, nor will any other country in the world.

Israel has an opportunity for a 2 state solution (assuming its still possible), and they should take it.

arybvtcw0eolkf

yammycat wrote: »

There is only one real solution to this issue, and that is for the other arab states to accept a division of the inhabitants of gaza and the west bank, if a monetary incentive was given to both the residents of gaza and the west bank and to various arab states then the land could be totally occupied by Israel and the palestinians could live happily elsewhere without strife.

Why should the Palestinians be inflicted upon another country?.

They terrorized Jordan.

They terrorized Lebanon, in fact the Lebanese welcomed the IDF into their country to rid it of the PLO in 1978 & again in '82.

The Lebanese detest the Palestinians.

No, no one deserves them - they're an Israeli problem, let the Israeli's sort out their own crap.

And on that note, their Arab neighbours know that the Palestinians are a thorn in the Israeli's side and it suits their (Pals neighbours) needs to leave it there.

Nodin

Juliana Purring Syllabus wrote: »

Why should the Palestinians be inflicted upon another country?.

They terrorized Jordan..

Some of them did, the rest are still there today, one of them married to the current ruler.

When a mass exodus like that happens, its never going to end well. It might be noted that they did not land their en masse as part of a camping holiday.

Juliana Purring Syllabus wrote: »

They terrorized Lebanon, in fact the Lebanese welcomed the IDF into their country to rid it of the PLO in 1978 & again in '82.

The Lebanese detest the Palestinians...

Some lebanese did, yes.

x lebanese faction detests y lebanese faction as you may have noticed, so thats hardly a mark of distinction. What worries the various lebanese is that the remaining Palestinians are from opposing sectarian factions they don't want strengthened further. They allowed roughly 60,000 Christian and the same number of Shia palestinians become citizens decades ago.

yammycat

wes wrote: »

and I see no reason why they should leave either

If they were bought out by Israel they could live happily elsewhere, as it is they are just living in slums and thats not going to improve, any idea of a palestinian state is purely wishful thinking as it could never be economically viable.

steddyeddy

Juliana Purring Syllabus wrote: »

Why should the Palestinians be inflicted upon another country?.

They terrorized Jordan.

They terrorized Lebanon, in fact the Lebanese welcomed the IDF into their country to rid it of the PLO in 1978 & again in '82.

The Lebanese detest the Palestinians.

No, no one deserves them - they're an Israeli problem, let the Israeli's sort out their own crap.

And on that note, their Arab neighbours know that the Palestinians are a thorn in the Israeli's side and it suits their (Pals neighbours) needs to leave it there.

I find it strange that a member of the IDF views israel's past actions in such a favourable light.

nacho libre

Einhard wrote: »

Now that's ironic, considering the massive abuses of human rights which receive little comment in relation to the actions of Israel...



Having a difference of opinion isn't biased. You have one- are you biased against the Israelis then? Of course not. So don't imply it in me. I've condemned Netanyahu and his belligerence and obstinate refusal to make compromises; I've condemned the building of settlements- both in this thread. I've routinely stated that Israel has much to answer for in this conflict. Hardly biased is it? It seems that, for some, difference of opinion can't be accepted as genuine, but has to be ascribed to baser, ulterior motives.
Actually, I do the opposite. I look at a given situation, and then make up my mind on the evidence I see. Others seem to see "Israel" and immediately come to a conclusion. Indeed, Memnoch's stance appears to be that specifics are irrelevant; that Israel must always be wrong in this situation. I'd suggest that that is giving the benefit of the doubt in the opposite direction.

I've never felt compelled to defend Israel. I've criticised their actions in this very thread, and many others. Why do you feel compelled to ignore such instances? Because it doesn't suit the narrative you're trying to create about me? Far easier to pain someone as something they're not in order to dismiss them, than to debate the complexities and nuances of their opinion eh?

I think I know what thread you're talking about, and as pointed out numerous times, that's not what I stated.

.

With regard to debating the complexities and nuances of your opinion, i see little point in debating your opinion when all you are doing is engaging in semantics about the difference between annexation, illegal occupation and the legality of such actions. Why, i'm not sure, if, as you claim, you do not seek to favour either side.

Perhaps the reason there tends to be more comment on Israel is, because unlike other states engaging in human rights abuses, Israel claims to be a democracy. If a thread is created about North Korea and Somalia, opinion on these countries is likely to be fairly uniform, whereas, we see in this thread, and others threads about Israel, there are widely different views hence more debate.

You stated in a previous thread about a certain councillor, that no one should be above the law, therefore no matter how much they objected to certain laws they had to recognise these laws and obey them, because do anything else was to undermine the tenets of democracy. Yet in this thread you contested until the bitter end the legal view on the status of the Golan heights. If you are consistent about the law being sacrosanct, you should accept that Israel is in the wrong legally in holding on to these lands and that they should give them back to Syria.

wes

yammycat wrote: »

If they were bought out by Israel they could live happily elsewhere, as it is they are just living in slums and thats not going to improve, any idea of a palestinian state is purely wishful thinking as it could never be economically viable.

I fundamentally disagree, there Palestinians should not leave, to make way for racist colonists. If a Palestinian state is not viable, then the Israeli's will have to give Palestinians citizenship in a single state, e.g. like South Africa after apartheid. The world should not reward ethnic cleansing.

Nodin

yammycat wrote: »

If they were bought out by Israel they could live happily elsewhere, as it is they are just living in slums and thats not going to improve, any idea of a palestinian state is purely wishful thinking as it could never be economically viable.

And whats that based on......?

yammycat

Nodin wrote: »

And whats that based on......?

guesswork

smokedeels

....I'm still buying their strawberries

Nodin

yammycat wrote: »

guesswork

Unfounded speculation. Gotcha.