Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 FNR, When Netanyahu accuses the Palestinians of engaging in "ethnic cleansing" for wanting Israeli settlements removed from the West Bank does Netanyahu mean he would be willing to surrender Israeli sovereignty over those settlements to a Palestinian state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, Maltaran said: Because it's not claimed by the State of Palestine as being part of its territory. What State of Palestine? Where were its historic borders before the much maligned 1967 War which ostensibly robbed it of its sovereignity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: What State of Palestine? Where were its historic borders before the much maligned 1967 War which ostensibly robbed it of its sovereignity? What were the historic borders of Israel in 1800? What were the history borders of East Germany prior to 1950? Pakistan prior to the civil war? The argument that because they didn't exist that they shouldn't exist is laughable - especially with respect to Israel, which didn't exist as anything until after WW2. Heck, prior to WW2 the region that is currently called Israel? Was called Palestine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: What State of Palestine? Where were its historic borders before the much maligned 1967 War which ostensibly robbed it of its sovereignity? The State of Palestine which was declared in 1988, is recognised by 136 other countries, and is a non-member observer of the UN (and if the historic borders are important to you, there are at least 20 countries that are younger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 The logic is wild. People from a land called Palestine can't call themselves Palestinians, but people from a non-existent Israel are Israelis? Yes, the other Arab states surrounding the Palestinians never allowed them to have their own state. So that means Palestinians should never have their own state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 33 minutes ago, Kalbear said: What were the historic borders of Israel in 1800? What were the history borders of East Germany prior to 1950? Pakistan prior to the civil war? The argument that because they didn't exist that they shouldn't exist is laughable - especially with respect to Israel, which didn't exist as anything until after WW2. Heck, prior to WW2 the region that is currently called Israel? Was called Palestine. Israel did not annex those territories from a Palestinian state. They annexed them from Syria, Jordan and Egypt, after defending themselves from a war of aggression. If there are aggrieved state parties here, it should be Egypt, Jordan and Syria. And any negotiations should be between Israel and those states. Not between Israel and some imaginary Palestinian State. In a negotiation between Israel and the Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian state actors (from whom they annexed this territory in 1967), one can imagine a potential resolution where Israel agrees to pay these three states a large sum of money in reperation, in addition to providing significant security, trade and other benefits to them, in exchange for ceding these territories to Israel and taking back their former citizens who still reside there. These are after all rather small parts of much bigger Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian states. That is a potential solution to this neverending crisis. The imaginary Palestinian State which tries to be at the center of these negotiations is what makes the problem impossible to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 41 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: What State of Palestine? Where were its historic borders before the much maligned 1967 War which ostensibly robbed it of its sovereignity? Israel existed before 1948? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Israel did not annex those territories from a Palestinian state. They annexed them from Syria, Jordan and Egypt, after defending themselves from a war of aggression. That's true. Israel was given those territories by a UN resolution, and prior to 1948 didn't exist as anything called Israel, and the area itself was called Palestine. So why is that 20 years more relevant? 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: If there are aggrieved state parties here, it should be Egypt, Jordan and Syria. And any negotiations should be between Israel and those states. Not between Israel and some imaginary Palestinian State. You do realize that Arabs that called themselves Palestinians lived there for quite a while, right? And that they were basically told to fuck off by the UN resolution in 1948, and prior to that they had some semblance of autonomy? 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: In a negotiation between Israel and the Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian state actors (from whom they annexed this territory in 1967), one can imagine a potential resolution where Israel agrees to pay these three states a large sum of money in reperation, in addition to providing significant security, trade and other benefits to them, in exchange for ceding these territories to Israel and taking back their former citizens who still reside there. These are after all rather small parts of much bigger Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian states. That is a potential solution to this neverending crisis. The imaginary Palestinian State which tries to be at the center of these negotiations is what makes the problem impossible to solve. But that isn't what Israel wants, either, because then they'll have to be a minority Jewish country. And that's the real rub. As Kerry put it, Israel can be a Jewish state or a Democratic state, but not both. You're also suggesting that basically you should forcibly evict something like a million people and that's totally cool. And send them back to...Syria? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: That's true. Israel was given those territories by a UN resolution, and prior to 1948 didn't exist as anything called Israel, and the area itself was called Palestine. So why is that 20 years more relevant? You do realize that Arabs that called themselves Palestinians lived there for quite a while, right? And that they were basically told to fuck off by the UN resolution in 1948, and prior to that they had some semblance of autonomy? But that isn't what Israel wants, either, because then they'll have to be a minority Jewish country. And that's the real rub. As Kerry put it, Israel can be a Jewish state or a Democratic state, but not both. You're also suggesting that basically you should forcibly evict something like a million people and that's totally cool. And send them back to...Syria? Really? Bolded part refers. The idea is that Syria, Jordan and Egypt take back their former citizens as part of such a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Israel did not annex those territories from a Palestinian state. They annexed them from Syria, Jordan and Egypt, after defending themselves from a war of aggression. If there are agrieved state parties here, it should be Egypt, Jordan and Syria. And any negotiations should be between Israel and those states. Not between Israel and some imaginary Palestinian State. In a negotiation between Israel and the Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian state actors (from whom they annexed this territory in 1967), one can imagine a potential resolution where Israel agrees to pay these three states a large sum of money in reperation, in addition to providing significant security, trade and other benefits to them, in exchange for ceding these territories to Israel and taking back their former citizens who still reside there. These are after all rather small parts of much bigger Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian states. That is a potential solution to this neverending crisis. The imaginary Palestinian State which tries to be at the center of these negotiations is what makes the problem impossible to solve. The Jordan Kingdom renounce claims in the 70s withn intent being made a Palestine State. The Egyptian mainly did the same with the Camp David accord and Gaza. Why do you think Egypt going to give up the Sinai? Why are the Golan Heights strategically important to Israel but not to Syria. Does not the Golan provide stragetic defensive protection to Damascus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Bolded part refers. The idea is that Syria, Jordan and Egypt take back their former citizens as part of such a deal. And put them where? Note that these areas were never part of the countries that were mentioned for any actual period of time, especially the West Bank, which has never existed in Jordanian control for more than like a nanosecond of diplomacy. But again, let's be clear - you're arguing that the best choice is to forcibly deport a million people and steal from them all of their belongings, housings, businesses, and work. That's what you think is a good, moral choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Just now, TheKitttenGuard said: The Jordan Kingdom renounce claims in the 70s withn intent being made a Palestine State. The Egyptian mainly did the same with the Camp David accord and Gaza. Why do you think Egypt going to give up the Sinai? Why are the Golan Heights strategically important to Israel but not to Syria. Does not the Golan provide stragetic defensive protection to Damascus? Well, golly. I thought it evident that I am not arguing from a neutral perspective but from a pro-Israel perspective. Neutrality does not exist in such matters. The basis for my position is the imperative of a strong, secure, enduring Jewish state of Israel and how that can most viably be achieved. You might as well ask why Russia does not cede the Kuril islands back to Japan, as it would be of strategic benefit to Japan too, or why America didn't give Texas back to Mexico. It's all about whose interests you are arguing on behalf of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, Kalbear said: And put them where? Note that these areas were never part of the countries that were mentioned for any actual period of time, especially the West Bank, which has never existed in Jordanian control for more than like a nanosecond of diplomacy. But again, let's be clear - you're arguing that the best choice is to forcibly deport a million people and steal from them all of their belongings, housings, businesses, and work. That's what you think is a good, moral choice. It goes without saying that it would have to go along with significant compensation. It's not ideal, granted, but nothing about the current situation is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 I will add that my personal view is that they should settle on a two state solution asap. Using the current Wall as their borders, roughly, and accept that Jersusalem will remain divided, that the Golan Heights will remain part of Israel, and that Gaza and the West Bank will make for a rather weird, geographically seperated Palestinian state. But that's likely the best outcome, all things considered. However, I suspect that Israel wants more than the territory they currently have, should a border be established today, and that's why they're building settlements and delaying matters. Changing facts on the ground, so to speak. I doubt that this will be a viable strategy for much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrl6199 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: I will add that my personal view is that they should settle on a two state solution asap. Using the current Wall as their borders, roughly, and accept that Jersusalem will remain divided, that the Golan Heights will remain part of Israel, and that Gaza and the West Bank will make for a rather weird, geographically seperated Palestinian state. But that's likely the best outcome, all things considered. However, I suspect that Israel wants more than the territory they currently have, should a border be established today, and that's why they're building settlements and delaying matters. Changing facts on the ground, so to speak. If it works for them, great, but I wonder how long such an approach is sustainable. Seems like most people want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 34 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Well, golly. I thought it evident that I am not arguing from a neutral perspective but from a pro-Israel perspective. Neutrality does not exist in such matters. The basis for my position is the imperative of a strong, secure, enduring Jewish state of Israel and how that can most viably be achieved. You might as well ask why Russia does not cede the Kuril islands back to Japan, as it would be of strategic benefit to Japan too, or why America didn't give Texas back to Mexico. It's all about whose interests you are arguing on behalf of. In response of your Pro-Israel side A nation who view land as it primary identity and drive must always need to expand or face a crisis since there will never be enough land. For what makes your strong today will not be true tomorrow. You maybe the strongest supporter but that will be over when you think the goal is complete and another comes and state Israel must be stronger in order to be strong, secure, and enduring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 14 hours ago, Mr Fixit said: Text Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. As someone who has actually lived there I find it utterly baffling that people think Israelis are the ones living in constant fear and danger. Seriously, which is more scary, home-made rockets and rocks or an Iron Dome defense system? Being part of the 30% minority that has the system rigged against it (in the case of Israeli Arabs) or the 70% majority of whom all the adults, man and woman, have been trained to be able to shoot a gun at you? Also, @Free Northman Reborn: Your proposal is IMO quite awful but I'm not going to go into details and instead just want to say that to me the idea of Israel paying Egypt, Syria, and Jordan large sums of money is laughable when it relies heavily on money given by the US just to keep itself afloat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: What were the historic borders of Israel in 1800? What were the history borders of East Germany prior to 1950? Pakistan prior to the civil war? The argument that because they didn't exist that they shouldn't exist is laughable - especially with respect to Israel, which didn't exist as anything until after WW2. Heck, prior to WW2 the region that is currently called Israel? Was called Palestine. How about this? What follows is an excerpt from British Government's Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine from 1920: There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people (...) Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. (...) The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: But again, let's be clear - you're arguing that the best choice is to forcibly deport a million people and steal from them all of their belongings, housings, businesses, and work. That's what you think is a good, moral choice. More like 4 million people. Two in Gaza and two in the West Bank. Though, the people in Gaza can frankly stay and rot in their little open-air prison camp as Israel already abandoned its plans for settling it. So we're talking about ethnic cleansing 2 million people. No biggie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 15 hours ago, Mr Fixit said: antisemitic babble Maybe Hamas shouldn't use children as human shields then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.