Israeli-Palestinian peace

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1635488' date='Jan 1 2009, 08.16']No, YOU were. I was pointing out that Israel is just as unwilling and/or unable to end hostilities against the Palestinians to negotiate as the Palistinians are. (ie - both sides suck)

The point is both sides need to negotiate despite this.




Um .... YOUR the one who seems to be implying that "Israel being unable to control it's own military" is not ridiculous. I was just pointing out that, if this situation isn't ridiculous (ps - it is) then the world is in some deep fucking trouble.[/quote]


You are taking two different and opposite positions in one post.

You are claiming that I have a double standard because I asked you if it would be wise for the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis if the Israelis count not guarantee a total halt to their end to the violence.

In order for there to be a double standard, the inability to control the amount artillery fire that launches from their country during a cease fire has to be a failing of both sides, while I only criticize one side. Thats the way double standards work.

Then you go back to the whole “I am not the one who said the Israelis couldn't control their military during a ceasefire.” line of argument.

Either there is no double standard, and only the Palestinians are unable to control the amount of rockets they rain down on their enemy when they have agreed to hold their fire, making the original question valid, or there is a double standard and it is you that argue the Israelis can not control their military.

[Dinsdale!]

So here is the problem:
Neither side trusts each other. This is complicated by the fact that neither side should trust the other at all given either sides past actions.
A lot of this came out of the failure of the Ehud Barak proposal.
1) The Palestinians were basically told that it was the best offer they were going to get and found it unacceptable.
2) It was, however, the best offer the Israelis had ever given, and a step beyond what was politically palatable to Israelis. The second intifada destroyed 15 years of Israel slowly inching towards a lasting solution.

However, diplomatically the West seems to be blissfully ignorant of this; what was done in 15 years was undone in a single year and all the Special Envoys in the world won't patch it up in a single Presidency.


The outline of the solution is a two-state solution. There is also the idea of a one state solution, but I don't feel this is realistic. The level of trust required for the two peoples to occupy the same government/country/military in such a way is immense. This is basically a method for creating a new Lebanon, or a new Rwanda, or a new Kenya.

The one state solution holds allure because the Palestinians desire the Right of Return. They consider this demand to be non-negotiable. Any deal that sacrifices this is essentially unfair. However, it is an impossible demand for the Israelis to grant so long as there is even the faintest hint of militancy in the Palestinian populace, and it would be difficult even if everybody was singing kumbaya dawn to dusk. It needs to be traded for something, probably a broad swath of territory somewhere else and a lot of money to help them develop it - this is what the Arab States, the EU and the US will have to contribute to get a peace done.

To sum up that last paragraph: the Right of Return is essential to a fair deal, but also impossible. Without a fair deal there will not be peace. It therefore needs to be traded for something else - a new homeland for the Palestinians.

This should not wait until we are on the cusp of a deal. The groundworks need to be laid now. The land needs to be set aside. The development aid should be poured in. This new area needs to be a shining beacon to Palestinians in the shit-hole that is the Gaza strip, so that they voluntarily move there. Militants can not be tolerated there. The goal is to give Palestinians a real ability to improve their economic lot and thereby promote peace.

The end goal would be a four state solution: Israel, Gaza, the Westbank, and "New Palestine" as separate nations. This

[Shryke]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1635618' date='Jan 1 2009, 14.59']You are taking two different and opposite positions in one post.

You are claiming that I have a double standard because I asked you if it would be wise for the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis if the Israelis count not guarantee a total halt to their end to the violence.

In order for there to be a double standard, the inability to control the amount artillery fire that launches from their country during a cease fire has to be a failing of both sides, while I only criticize one side. Thats the way double standards work.

Then you go back to the whole “I am not the one who said the Israelis couldn't control their military during a ceasefire.” line of argument.

Either there is no double standard, and only the Palestinians are unable to control the amount of rockets they rain down on their enemy when they have agreed to hold their fire, making the original question valid, or there is a double standard and it is you that argue the Israelis can not control their military.[/quote]

No.

Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have groups taking aggresive action that neither is willing and/or able to control.

Saying "Why should the Israelis negotiate with the Palestinians if the Palestinians can't stop their own people from taking aggressive action?" is a double standard, unless you agree that the converse question ("Why should the Palestinians negotiate with the Israelis if the Israelis can't stop their own people from taking aggressive action?") is equally valid.

You just seem to want to confine said aggressive groups on the Israeli side to the military. I have no idea why.

The only thing I can guess is because the idea of a nation like Israel loosing control of it's military is ridiculous and you seek to try and attach that to my argument so you can argue against me. I'm fairly certain that's called "Strawmanning", although it could be a different logical fallacy I'm not aware of.

[Altherion]

[quote name='Dinsdale!' post='1635648' date='Jan 1 2009, 22.00']It needs to be traded for something, probably a broad swath of territory somewhere else and a lot of money to help them develop it - this is what the Arab States, the EU and the US will have to contribute to get a peace done.[/quote]
Sure. Just let me finish my brilliant machine that will increase the radius of the Earth by a tiny amount, thus making more land available for human settlement...

More seriously, the problem is that there is nowhere to put them -- even if we somehow got them to move which is well nigh impossible because that territory is holy to them. Every viable piece of land on the planet is claimed and there is no government even halfway insane enough to allow these people onto their soil for any plausible concessions. They have practically every characteristic you don't want in a neighboring state: violent religious fundamentalism, extremely high birth rate, low GDP per capita... there's no trade I could think of to convince anyone to take this plague in.

The one state solution is a fairly brilliant bit of propaganda on Ahmadinejad's part: it's consistent with the ideas of democracy (rule of the majority), but of course utterly impossible for several reasons (the most obvious one being that these people really hate each other and you'll have the same conflict except now it will be labeled "civil war").

The two (or more) state solution(s) can work, but there is no way to get there by negotiation. They've negotiated in the past and the only thing those negotiations have made clear is that there are some positions which neither side will budge on.

[Samalander]

[quote name='shadowbinding shoe' post='1635592' date='Jan 1 2009, 20.56']Talking and giving legitimation to the radical Shryke, causes the moderates to be marginalized.[/quote]
You are so right!!! We must stop the legitimation of Shryke!!! Who's with me?

[G'Kar]

[quote name='Samalander' post='1635701' date='Jan 1 2009, 17.30']You are so right!!! We must stop the legitimation of Shryke!!! Who's with me?[/quote]

:lol:

So whats going on in Israel right now and what are the odds of a ground invasion?

ETA: Shryke, negotiating with radicals undermines moderates, so what are you talking about? If Israel started negotiating with Hamas, it would weaken Abu Mazen's authority.

[Shryke]

[quote name='The Prisoner' post='1635705' date='Jan 1 2009, 17.33']:lol:

So whats going on in Israel right now and what are the odds of a ground invasion?

ETA: Shryke, negotiating with radicals undermines moderates, so what are you talking about? If Israel started negotiating with Hamas, it would weaken Abu Mazen's authority.[/quote]

Israel is negotiating with those moderates right now is it not? Or was not long ago?

It seems to have done little to legitimize them.


As for ground invasion, I've heard "Yes, going ahead" and "No, Israel has decided it's now over" and all sorts of shit in between. One of the Israeli borders will probably have more info.

[Moshe Goldberg Rubinshteyn]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1635721' date='Jan 1 2009, 18.06']Israel is negotiating with those moderates right now is it not? Or was not long ago?

It seems to have done little to legitimize them.[/quote]
It must do some good. I haven't heard of rockets fired from the Westbanks. Have you?

[the silent speaker]

[quote]You are so right!!! We must stop the legitimation of Shryke!!! Who's with me?[/quote]
I volunteer to mortar him.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Samalander' post='1635701' date='Jan 1 2009, 14.30']You are so right!!! We must stop the legitimation of Shryke!!! Who's with me?[/quote]

Eh deal, I will let my curiosity go unsated. Guess it is a bit rude to give someone who called you a racist a soapbox.

Sorry.

[Samalander]

[quote name='The Prisoner' post='1635705' date='Jan 2 2009, 00.33']So whats going on in Israel right now and what are the odds of a ground invasion?[/quote]
Hamas hasn't managed to kill anyone in the last couple of days. They can't shoot that many rockets a day, because their stocks are finite, and there are no more rockets coming into Gaza right now. However, they must appear to be firing when they reach the cease fire talks, to show strength. Hence, they shoot relatively few rockets a day.
The ground invasion is a very sticky issue, because:
1) Weather : Winter has come to Israel at last. Clouds and rain make air support impossible and ground movement sluggish.
2) Politics : All political gains made thus far will be risked if we start losing massive amounts of troops.
3) Strategy : Once Gaza is occupied, what do we do then? Fight an entrenched Guerrilla force on it's own land night after night? Re-establish Military rule over Gaza? How do we get out? ect.
4) Appearance : We must not appear to fear to enter the Gaza strip in force, else it undermines our deterrent capacity.

[G'Kar]

[quote name='Samalander' post='1635964' date='Jan 2 2009, 05.48']Hamas hasn't managed to kill anyone in the last couple of days. They can't shoot that many rockets a day, because their stocks are finite, and there are no more rockets coming into Gaza right now. However, they must appear to be firing when they reach the cease fire talks, to show strength. Hence, they shoot relatively few rockets a day.
The ground invasion is a very sticky issue, because:
1) Weather : Winter has come to Israel at last. Clouds and rain make air support impossible and ground movement sluggish.
2) Politics : All political gains made thus far will be risked if we start losing massive amounts of troops.
3) Strategy : Once Gaza is occupied, what do we do then? Fight an entrenched Guerrilla force on it's own land night after night? Re-establish Military rule over Gaza? How do we get out? ect.
4) Appearance : We must not appear to fear to enter the Gaza strip in force, else it undermines our deterrent capacity.[/quote]

Yeah, a ground invasion would be really ugly. Galactus was suggesting this was a better alternative than rocket strikes to attack Hamas. Of course, he also thought that an IDF tactical strike that has civilian casualties and a suicide bomber blowing up a restaurant is the same thing, so whatever.

Hamas has now stated that they will have a "Day of Wrath" after Israel has killed one of the Hamas leaders, claiming they will now mix rocket attacks will suicide bombings. I wonder how effective they can be. I thought the cessation of suicide bombings was a result of better Israel security, but what I'm reading seems to indicate that Hamas will start up suicide bombings ondce again, implying that they had stopped doing them before.

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1633704' date='Dec 30 2008, 02.51']Ahh, so the roots of terror are in the bank accounts of foreigners?[/quote]
Most of the funding for the IRA came from and continues to come from the United States. Marginalized areas rarely have the economic prowess to fund these activities.

[RWHamel]

I sure wish you geniuses had gotten on this sooner! We might have been able to avoid 60 years of conflict. :lol: :P

[pom-bear]

Israel had stated that the suicide attacks were the greatest threat to Israel's security and main obstacle to negotiations.

Hamas brought about complete cessation of suicide bombings but it made no difference.

Israel rejected the results of the 2006 elections of a Hamas victory imposing a complete blockade on the people of Gaza cutting food and fuel from the outside.

Israel will accept no authority in the Palestinian territories that it does not ultimately control.

Why does Gaza exist? Because the Palestinians who lived in Ashkelon and its surrounds (where Hamas rockets are falling) were dispossessed from their lands in 1948 when Israel was created and ended up in Gaza.

We always here about the bloodlust & terrorism of the Palestinians & their leaders but very little about the Israeli side.

Author and jazzman Gilad Atzmon has an opinion on that in his article "Eine Kleine Nacht Murder":

"Not many people in the west are aware of the devastating fact that killing Arabs and Palestinians in particular is a very effective Israeli political recipe. The Israelis are indeed confused people. As much as they insist upon seeing themselves as a 'Shalom seeking’ nation, they also love to be led by politicians with an astonishing record of unlawful murderous activity. Whether it was Sharon, Rabin, Begin, Shamir or Ben Gurion, Israelis love their 'democratically elected leaders’ to be belligerent hawks with their hands dripping with blood and backed by a solid record of crimes against humanity."

And this leads to one plausible motive for this latest attack on Gaza the upcoming elections with Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu comfortably ahead in the polls. Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak need a sudden surge in public approval what better way than a victorious war against a detested foe provided the enemy is properly vanquished.

Also Livni claimed that prior to the air assault Israel informed all the residents living in the area of the planned strikes and urged them to leave. She was asked "leave for where?" (Where could they go in tiny Gaza, mainly desert, with its 1.5 million people?) and of course had no answer. I wonder why?

[G'Kar]

[quote name='pom-bear' post='1636212' date='Jan 2 2009, 13.28']Israel had stated that...[/quote]

So your solution to the rocket attacks are?

[pom-bear]

Stopping the occupation & seige of Gaza (by sea, air & land) aswell as the continued destruction & land theft in the West Bank.

Talk with the elected leaders of the Palestinians rather than dictating to the Palestinians who they can & can't have as their representatives.

US & Israel accept all UN resolutions which they have rejected.

US to stop the arming of Israel with it's immense means of violence against an occupied people.

A just resolution for the Palestinian refugees & a sincere apology of all those involved in the dispossession of the Palestinian people from their former homes.

Also allowing in a UN peace keeping force inside Gaza & what's left of the West Bank which Israel (with the backing of the US) refuses to do.

[G'Kar]

So to sum up, you have no idea how Israel should stop the rocket attacks right now.

[Ashaman]

[quote name='shadowbinding shoe' post='1635609' date='Jan 1 2009, 20.29']Seems like Shryke is twisting the purpose of this thread in a trolling-move. This thread was meant for Brainstorming of a positive sort.[/quote]

I dont see that he is arguing whit him self, is he?
It usealy takes more then one to discush something.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Pombear I wonder where you get these stories. Their connection with reality is tenuous.

[quote name='pom-bear' post='1636212' date='Jan 2 2009, 20.28']Israel had stated that the suicide attacks were the greatest threat to Israel's security and main obstacle to negotiations.

Hamas brought about complete cessation of suicide bombings but it made no difference.[/quote]

Err... No. There were massive suicide attacks until Israel during Sharon's term went on a strong military attack called "Homat Magen" which thoroughly destroyed the infrastructure of the terrorists. This, along with the Wall which by this time prevented breaches in the Gazan border and made it much harder in the West Bank border made suicide attacks near impossible. Since then Israel's army has made periodical raids on the various cities to prevent the terror organizations from recuperating. It is also in cooperation with the PLO which has quiet negotiations for peace with them.


[quote]Israel rejected the results of the 2006 elections of a Hamas victory imposing a complete blockade on the people of Gaza cutting food and fuel from the outside.[/quote]

Not quite. It did it after the Hamas in a mini civil war in Gaza ousted the PLO and became absolute rulers there. They may have won much support from the Palestinian populace but since their takeover it is obvious their mini state is not a democratic state. Nor a humanitarian one. Far from it.

And the blockade is by no means complete. Israel supplies basic needs like gas, flour, electricity, preventing people from starving.


[quote]Why does Gaza exist? Because the Palestinians who lived in Ashkelon and its surrounds (where Hamas rockets are falling) were dispossessed from their lands in 1948 when Israel was created and ended up in Gaza.[/quote]

Many of them left on their own trusting the promises of their leaders that they will have the Jews thrown into the sea. It was a civil war they initiated after they wouldn't accept the UN decision in the matter to divide the land between the two.

[quote]Whether it was Sharon, Rabin, Begin, Shamir or Ben Gurion, Israelis love their 'democratically elected leaders’ to be belligerent hawks with their hands dripping with blood and backed by a solid record of crimes against humanity."[/quote]

You tend to elect leaders you believe could protect you from the very hostile neighbors that surround you. Those neighbors that want to eradicate you (performing true crimes against humanity) from the face of this earth. And the use of the term crimes against humanity cheapens the term. For example the thing remembered against Sharon was a massacre in a refugee camp in Lebanon (in the 80s). If you'll check what actually happened there. It wasn't the Israeli army that was doing the killing there. It weren't even Israelis of any sort. It were a Lebanese militia that went into that camp and killed people they considered their enemies. The only thing that Sharon is accused of is that he didn't expect it and prevent it before it happened. Sadly, he was not all knowing and was caught by surprise by the acts of this militia. The leader of this criminal militia who lived peacefully for many years in Lebanon, recently wrote in an autobiographical book that he got his orders from Syria. Syria was already making moves to take over Lebanon.

[quote]And this leads to one plausible motive for this latest attack on Gaza the upcoming elections with Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu comfortably ahead in the polls. Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak need a sudden surge in public approval what better way than a victorious war against a detested foe provided the enemy is properly vanquished.[/quote]

Hamas declared shortly before the Israeli attack started that the truce was over as far as it was concerned and shot nearly a hundred missiles in a day.

The upsurge in public approval could as easily become condemnation for a not decisive enough campaign. Besides, Ehud Barak, the main possible profiteer is not the one making the decisions. It is the prime minister who does and he cannot be reelected since he faces an investigation of his fiscal dealings.

[quote]Also Livni claimed that prior to the air assault Israel informed all the residents living in the area of the planned strikes and urged them to leave. She was asked "leave for where?" (Where could they go in tiny Gaza, mainly desert, with its 1.5 million people?) and of course had no answer. I wonder why?[/quote]

You're confusing things here. Israel warned Hamas to stop firing missiles at its civilians or it will attack. It didn't stop and they did what they warned they would do. Israel army does give warnings to residents in Gaza when it is about to bomb a building containing rockets or the like. These residents can then pack their things and move to the next building which will not be bombed in the air attack.