General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[WFCanaris]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Possibly, but how is this Israel's fault? If you want to complain about lack of food, shouldn't you blame either

a) Countries that don't give them ungodly amounts of aid, or
b) HAMAS, which, as Johnny pointed out, spends all of their money on their ongoing terrorism campaign, and basically uses its own civilians as propaganda props and refuses to care for them?

In addition, folks always seem to conveniently ignore that Gaza borders two countries, one of them being Egypt, the Palestinian's Arab brothers. How could Gazans starve if Egyptian brothers are pouring in truckloads of food? Alas the Palestinians are treated better by the evil Zionists than by any other Arab country they reside in as third class citizens. Tis one of the grand ironies.

The greatest enemy of the Palestinian Arabs are the folks using them as a stick to poke Israel and the US, whilst with a serious face claiming to be championing their cause. When Palestinians die at the hands of anyone else, no "pro-Palestinian" looses sleep. With friends like these...

[WFCanaris]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

The truth is that HAMAS is a bunch of misunderstood little puppies, and that there shall be negotiations, Israeli seccessions, and Peace in Our Time:3.

Peace in Our Time..hehe, I like that one.

With The Hamas leader clearly and unequivocally stating his desire to destroy the Jewish state once again (apparently having it in their constitution and the previous 500 times wasn't enough to convince some folks of their intentions), the "rocket launch at civilians due to desperation" gambit is becoming more difficult to use.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

In addition, folks always seem to conveniently ignore that Gaza borders two countries, one of them being Egypt, the Palestinian's Arab brothers. How could Gazans starve if Egyptian brothers are pouring in truckloads of food?

I love how when the first "activist ship" ferrying in supplies was halted, there was an uproar against Israel from the world community... and no reaction at all when the Egyptians closed their Palestinian borders for the very same supplies. Supplies that only ever amounted to 1% of the goods flowing into Gaza daily anyhow.

Sickening.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I love how when the first "activist ship" ferrying in supplies was halted, there was an uproar against Israel from the world community... and no reaction at all when the Egyptians closed their Palestinian borders for the very same supplies. Supplies that only ever amounted to 1% of the goods flowing into Gaza daily anyhow.

Sickening.

And how the activists claim that the people in Gaza are starving and malnurished, whereas according to UN statistics Gazans are better nourished than just about every country in the region.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And how the activists claim that the people in Gaza are starving and malnurished, whereas according to UN statistics Gazans are better nourished than just about every country in the region.

Which frees up funds for weapons.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And how the activists claim that the people in Gaza are starving and malnurished, whereas according to UN statistics Gazans are better nourished than just about every country in the region.

Well to be fair, the two are mutually exclusive, they could be both, but yes, using the idea that they are malnourished because Israel is evil when most of the people in the area are worse off without Israel's interference is quite funny.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

Really? You mean all of it? I am not a fan of Bibi, by a long shot, but this is simply not true.

I am going by the Likud Charter.

Quote:

3. The Government of Israel will enable the Palestinians to manage their lives freely, within the framework of self-government. However, foreign affairs and defense, and matters which require coordination, will remain the responsibility of the State of Israel. The government will oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ics/likud.html

This is what alarms the western states that abstained and voted no in the UN on the recognition of the Palestinians as an observer state. What they propose is an apartheid state. I am guessing this is why Abbas wants to undertake negotiations, but on the precondition that do not merely turn into negotiations for nothing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

What an odd statement to make. Israel is building "settlements" (strange how that word seems to never be used for any building project elsewhere in the world, such as Russian housing in occupied Finnish areas) in areas they intend to hold onto. They're not "expanding" anything, they're making use of land they won't ever give up anyway, as anyone else would.

"Settlements" is the term Likud itself uses.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ics/likud.html

Quote:

Jewish settlement, security areas, water resources, state land and road intersections in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip shall remain under full Israeli control.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by marksman

Oh I am pretty sure what his reaction will be. The settlements are making a two state solution untenable. I disagree. I think settlements mean the West Bank is losing whatever leverage they may have to negotiate. Eventually Israel will simply declare some borders and will only negotiate security issues and cash payments, deeming the borders established by fiat.

If the Palestinians want some actual say in the borders they have to sit down at the table in earnest and soon. Else they will find opportunity has passed them by and all the UN recognition in the world will not enable them to rewrite the borders.

It is the foreign minister of Australia saying that.

Are you seem to be saying that might is right? No such logic is part of any system of justice that I know of. The western style democracies, which Israel tells us it is a part of, have made it clear that any such course of action will see it being isolated further.

You will note that I am not inventing anything you might think. Let me know if that is how your logic works.

As usual, these threads descend into Israel supporters telling each other what someone with a different point of view thinks, and agreeing with each other how abhorrent that attitude is. Hardly the basis of a debate, and one which only leaves them in their echo chamber, congratulating each other on how clever they are.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

"Settlements" is the term Likud itself uses.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ics/likud.html

You do realize that is a party platform, and not law, don't you? Of course you do, but you're desperate to find a way to blame Israel and so are grasping at straws. There is no popular support for that, none.

The Hamas vow to destropy Israel and kill the Jews, however, has widespread support. Not only that but they actively try to do it. But you will handwave that away, right a_u_p?

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

It is the foreign minister of Australia saying that.

I think we caught that the fifth or sixth time.

Quote:

Are you seem to be saying that might is right? No such logic is part of any system of justice that I know of. The western style democracies, which Israel tells us it is a part of, have made it clear that any such course of action will see it being isolated further.

I'ts not about "might makes right", it's about being realistic. Palestine has lost the war. They need to lay down their arms and surrender. All they are accomplishing by continuing the fight is to row their boat ever farther from shore.

That's reality. Call it "might makes right" or whatever else, but it's reality.

Quote:

As usual, these threads descend into Israel supporters telling each other what someone with a different point of view thinks, and agreeing with each other how abhorrent that attitude is.

I find that our statements are based on experience, most of the time.

Quote:

Hardly the basis of a debate, and one which only leaves them in their echo chamber, congratulating each other on how clever they are.

I see lots of debate here. Seems you're wrong.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You do realize that is a party platform, and not law, don't you? Of course you do, but you're desperate to find a way to blame Israel and so are grasping at straws. There is no popular support for that, none.

The Hamas vow to destropy Israel and kill the Jews, however, has widespread support. Not only that but they actively try to do it. But you will handwave that away, right a_u_p?

The actions are in line with their platform. They don't need to change any laws to do what they are doing. The area occupied by settlements is expanding, not contracting, in line with their platform. There will be no viable Palestinian state possible, just some scattered Bantustans.

I don't know why you keep trying to tell something I already know, Hamas is no good, for the Palestinians or the Jews. They can't have that much support, because they haven't had a second election. They must think they would lose it if they did. At the moment, Hamas doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of doing an real damage to Israel, in terms of 'wiping it off the map'. Israel, in contrast, could wipe Gaza off the map either with conventional or nuclear weapons quite comfortably. Abbas is saying he will do a deal, but it has to be a real one, that gives them a real state, with their own sovereignty, not just a flag and an anthem.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The actions are in line with their platform. They don't need to change any laws to do what they are doing. The area occupied by settlements is expanding, not contracting, in line with their platform. There will be no viable Palestinian state possible, just some scattered Bantustans.

Absolute nonsense, Israel has repeatedly offered a 2-state solution and the Palestinians reject it out of hand without even making a counter offer.

The majority of the "settlements" are hilltop enclaves of a few dozen settlers in a few buildings (often just converted shipping containers) that Israel will make no claim to and abandon to the Palestinians. They'll wall off what they're claiming, declare those the borders and that's what the PA will be stuck with since they refuse to negotiate and make ridiculous demands like the "right of return".

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Absolute nonsense, Israel has repeatedly offered a 2-state solution and the Palestinians reject it out of hand without even making a counter offer.

Unless you count "Israel being wiped off the map" as a counter-offer .

[a_unique_person]

According to this.

Quote:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas urged the Arab League on Sunday not to withdraw its 2002 peace initiative as he called instead for renewed negotiations with Israel for six months.

He told the League in Doha he would demand that Israel freeze West Bank settlement construction and Jewish building in east Jerusalem during that time.
.....

Abbas’s offer marks the first time that he has placed a time-frame on his consistent call for Israel to halt Jewish building over the pre-1967 line since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took office in March 2009. They come on the heels of an Israeli announcement that it plans to build thousands of new settler homes, including the development of E1 in the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement.

Israel has insisted that direct talks with the Palestinians should be held without preconditions.

....
Negotiations should start from the point where they ended during the era of former prime minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, Abbas said.

The negotiations would lead to agreement on the core issues and an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, Abbas told the Arab League.

I would have thought a settlement freeze is a reasonable pre-condition. If that can't be held by Israel, then any negotiations could just drag on for years, as more and more settlements are built. According to that, Abbas wants to negotiate. The precondition listed is a reasonable one. He wants to continue from where Olmert left off. That is, the offer that was made before.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=295224

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

According to this.



I would have thought a settlement freeze is a reasonable pre-condition. If that can't be held by Israel, then any negotiations could just drag on for years, as more and more settlements are built. According to that, Abbas wants to negotiate. The precondition listed is a reasonable one. He wants to continue from where Olmert left off. That is, the offer that was made before.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=295224

Because a settlement freeze worked so well last time. Abbas finally accepted direct negotiations with Israel 9 months into the 10 month settlement freeze. Then he walked out of negotiations when the freeze was lifted.

[Safe-Keeper]

The Israelis aren't stupid. They know that there's little or no reason to trust HAMAS.
You can't fool a fox that's been fooled a hundred times before.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Because a settlement freeze worked so well last time. Abbas finally accepted direct negotiations with Israel 9 months into the 10 month settlement freeze. Then he walked out of negotiations when the freeze was lifted.

It's not an unreasonable demand, and it is supported by all of Israel's allies. The problem is that it causes internal political disruption that is so significant it can bring down governments. From what I have read, there was a dispute on just what constitutes a 'freeze', what Netanyahu called a freeze was not what the Palestinians called a freeze, since construction was continuing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

The Israelis aren't stupid. They know that there's little or no reason to trust HAMAS.
You can't fool a fox that's been fooled a hundred times before.

Fatah <> Hamas.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

"Settlements" is the term Likud itself uses.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ics/likud.html

The fallacy is one of changing definitions. If I and a dozen families decide to go into the West Bank and build a new town on top of some empty hill, that's a "settlement", and yes, that's claiming more land. But a new apartment building in Ma'ale Adumim, on land Israel already controls and would keep in a hypothetical agreement with Palestinians, is not a "settlement."

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

...The area occupied by settlements is expanding, not contracting, in line with their platform...

Not as far as I know, it's not. Putting a new apartment building in Ma'ale Adumim doesn't make Ma'ale Adumim larger in area, it puts more people into the same area.

That's another dishonest trick of the anti-Israel propagandists. Constantly talking about how "expanding settlements" make a Palestinian state less viable because it would have less land, when the reality is the "expanding" is to put more people into the same area and not to increase the area.

As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Fatah <> Hamas.

Is there more of a reason to trust Fatah?

[Jonnyclueless]

Reasonable pre-condition. Sounds like an oxy-moron to me. Setting up pre-conditions of any kind is just a means of avoiding talking. What can lead to reducing settlements is talking, not pre conditions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Is there more of a reason to trust Fatah?

I would rate Fatah better than Hamas, yes. Is there any reason to trust Netanyahu? He boasted he undermined Oslo.

Lets hope another round of negotiations can produce a reliable result.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Reasonable pre-condition. Sounds like an oxy-moron to me. Setting up pre-conditions of any kind is just a means of avoiding talking. What can lead to reducing settlements is talking, not pre conditions.

If there is no halt to settlement building, then the talks can drag on for years, while settlements continue to expand. Israel then has no incentive to finish the talks.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If there is no halt to settlement building, then the talks can drag on for years, while settlements continue to expand. Israel then has no incentive to finish the talks.

As opposed to when they did halt the settlements? How well were the talks then? Oh right, there weren't any because the FA just used a different excuse then. It really doesn't matter what Israel does as they will always have an excuse. Until the FA decides to be reasonable and have talks, they have no excuse. Why should Israel wait when FA has made it clear they have no intention of talking. If they want to use building settlements as an excuse, then they should have talked when the settlements were halted. They chose not to. So don't rattle off this as an excuse.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If there is no halt to settlement building, then the talks can drag on for years, while settlements continue to expand. Israel then has no incentive to finish the talks.

I agree with halting settlement expansion to begin serious negotiations on a final settlement. However, I'd be concerned Hamas and the other militant groups will see this as a display of weakness, and proof that Israel can eventually be staged into virtual non-existence through continuous violent pressure.

As an Israeli negotiator, I'd also be mighty uncomfortable talking to a man and an organization that most Palestinians see as collaborators and not their true representatives.

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

According to this.



I would have thought a settlement freeze is a reasonable pre-condition. If that can't be held by Israel, then any negotiations could just drag on for years, as more and more settlements are built. According to that, Abbas wants to negotiate. The precondition listed is a reasonable one. He wants to continue from where Olmert left off. That is, the offer that was made before.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=295224

What looks to you like reasonable preconditions look to me like demands which made to ensure that talks do not start.

The issue of settlement building was introduced as a condition by Obama and taken up by Abbas more than three years ago. At first Bibi refused to condone this, but the he was pressured to halt construction for ten months. Abbas still refused to talk, until the ten months were almost over. After that Bibi refused to extend the period. He is unlikely to agree to a freeze again, because i) he has already done it to no avail, and ii) the subject was not a precondition to previous talks. Abass is well aware of that, and he uses the subject to avoid negotiations.

Why do I think that Abbas wishes to avoid negotiations. Apart of the fact that he did his best to do just that during the last three years, there is also the question of his other demand, namely, that the talks would resume from the offer that Olmert gave him. This condition is a laughable.

The offer Olmert gave Abbas was a final offer from Olmert's viewpoint. Abbas was asked to either accept it, or reject it. (Not literally, minor changes could be made. But the major outline of the proposed deal was final.). It was Olmert's offer, and it expired once he left office. Now Abbas want to START NEGOTIATIONS from this offer. This is a flawed mechanism for negotiations because Palestinians so far, during many rounds of final peace talks, are yet to make a counter offer to Israeli suggestions for a peace agreement. What will happen next time? Will Abbas try to get an improved plan from Bibi, break negotiations, and then demand that talks resume from that point? This is not a mechanism that encourages the compromises that would lead to an agreement.

In any case, the conditions are not going to lead to negotiations and Abbas knows this. Olmert's offer went beyond what any other political leader of a major party in Israel would offer as a final deal. (This include the leaders of Labor and the various center parties.) Abbas already rejected that offer. By demanding that the offer would be the starting point of negotiations Abbas is trying to ensure that there will be no negotiations. He will probably succeed.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I would rate Fatah better than Hamas, yes. Is there any reason to trust Netanyahu? He boasted he undermined Oslo.

No he didn't. IIRC, what he did do is to tell a small gathering of supporters that he agreed to go along with Oslo because he would be in the position to judge if the Palestinians were holding up their end of the bargain. What actually undermined Oslo was Arafat's increasing terrorist attacks where he promised to reign them in.

But then your revisionist history depends on putting the absolute best possible interpretation of Palestinian actions next to the worst possible interpretation of Israeli statements.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If there is no halt to settlement building, then the talks can drag on for years, while settlements continue to expand. Israel then has no incentive to finish the talks.

Then the Palestinians are best served getting into negotiations immediately, where they can begin to negotiate for a cessation of settlement in exchange for security issues.

But doing nothing only weakens their position at the negotiating table. And this only makes sense if they anticipate that they will get what they want some other way. Hamas appears to be banking on armed resistance. Fatah appears to be hoping for some sort of international force compelling Israel to withdraw.

Neither of those seem as likely to get results as actual negotiating, but that doesn't seem to be politically popular with either group.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

I agree with halting settlement expansion to begin serious negotiations on a final settlement. However, I'd be concerned Hamas and the other militant groups will see this as a display of weakness, and proof that Israel can eventually be staged into virtual non-existence through continuous violent pressure.

As an Israeli negotiator, I'd also be mighty uncomfortable talking to a man and an organization that most Palestinians see as collaborators and not their true representatives.

Do they? This is the problem both sides seem to have. If you do offer genuine compromise, do the people who offer it become accused of being collaborators. An Israeli PM was assassinated because he offered compromise. Yet from what I have read, the majority of people on both sides want peace, and are willing to compromise. Hamas won one election, which was inevitable, IMHO. The first election was always going to see the incumbent thrown out. I haven't seen any other elections since then. Does that mean Hamas would get voted out, because they have only made things worse. From what I can tell, Fatah is now more popular than Hamas again. They don't have any trouble holding power in the West Bank.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

From what I can tell, Fatah is now more popular than Hamas again. They don't have any trouble holding power in the West Bank.

Fatah holds power because they have disenfranchised Hamas. In the 2010 elections, the Fatah-led government -- which claims to represent all of the West Bank and Gaza -- refused to hold any elections in Gaza, so Hamas refused to participate in the elections, because they would be underrepresented in any government.

So we cannot use the results of Fatah's elections as any sense of how popular Fatah is. Fatah is rigging the results in their favor.
-cite

[Locknar]

Due to size, this thread has been closed. A continuation thread has been set up and discussion from 18 DEC 2012 and beyond can be found here.

Posted By:Locknar