|
I'm fairly ignorant on this democracy issue. Was there a huge push from the West to have the Palestinians have elections, or was it a grassroots-esque movement, as a function of something else? What was the prime cause for Fatah agreeing to an election in the first place?
|
On August 05 2014 01:09 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:16 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. Why the Palestinians have to disarm first? Those people have been without a homeland for almost 70 years now. Why do they have to prove anything? Shouldn't Israel disarm then as well?Why is it so impossible for Israel to elect a government that recognises those people's right to exist as a state or at least equals that they themselves have invaded and forced into apartheid? When will Israel apologise? Or stop repeating that they are the victims when in reality they are the perpetrators? Palestine stood united just a few months ago, despite the efforts to cut off Gaza from the West Bank. You bet Abbas wasn't going to lead the united government into a war. Israel does not want to negotiate, the easiest way to achieve this is when you can complain that there's noone to negotiate with. They have to disarm first because there is no other way to achieve their goals. The Palestinian armed struggle is a dead end, and trying to cry foul because the IDF is much stronger will not yield any results. Non-violence is the only path to statehood. And when the time for the apologies between a fully-recognized Palestinian state and Israel come, it'd better be a reciprocal thing, because the jews are not the only side that has harmed the other over the last 70 years. Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:58 radiatoren wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:
[...]
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. Since your vision relies on Palestine taking the first step I don't think it has a chance. Israel is the only party with a functioning system to actually enforce any kind of peace-deal. Therefore the responsibility for finding a solution is in the hands of Netanyahu. Is it ? In any war, both sides have the possibility to make the first step toward the resolution of the conflict. Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:58 radiatoren wrote:
The problem is that the hate for Israel is so entrenched in some peoples minds that they will not accept peace. If Hamas stopped firing rockets, a new more extreme fraction would spawn to continue the rocket firing.
Yes, and that's why the far-right nutjobs like Avigdor Lieberman are pushing for the complete destruction of the Hamas leadership and infrastructure. They know that, should they succeed in removing Hamas completely, the vacuum will be filled by salafist groups who will be even more uncontrollable than Hamas was, which would then give Israel a pretext to keep pounding on Gaza.
Fair enough. What I thought were you claiming palestinians having to disarm first as the only solution. Since there are no real leadership of Gaza, the implementation of such a disarmment will be impossible to guarantee. When Israel claims a cease-fire it is in the certainty that some of the militant terrorists in Hamas will break it! It is also why I think Israel has a right to keep destroying the infrastructure (tunnels and stocks of weapons) before they end the intervention.
I just don't see airstrikes as an appropriate solution to anything. It is like shooting flies with rocket propelled grenades. The collateral damage is guaranteed and the missfires at humanitarian targets is far easier when you don't have eyes on the ground to confirm the targets validity.
|
On August 05 2014 01:09 Koorb wrote:Arafat walked away from the 2000 Camp David summit where he didn't even bother to try to negociate, and headed back to Palestine where he remained idle as the second intifada unfolded. He was not, by any means, a supporter of a negociated peace, but a warmonger who thought he would get better terms if he raised the pressure. The only Palestinian leader who can legitimately claim to be working for a peaceful solution is Abbas, and unfortunately for him, he came to power at a time when Israel was radicalising. Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? How are radical zionists' actions in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's relevant in this discussion about the 2014 situation? The 2014 Palestine is not anything like the early Israel. Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:05 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2014 23:02 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ? No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well. That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying". A colonised state you say? No, just a small piece of land tossed from one realm to the other throughout the centuries. And yes, I do say that if the Palestinians switched to non-violent resistance, they would get a lot more international support for their quest of statehood (or, more accurately, they would make it much harder if not impossible for any nation to unilaterally support the denial of a Palestinian state, including Israel). Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:16 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. Why the Palestinians have to disarm first? Those people have been without a homeland for almost 70 years now. Why do they have to prove anything? Shouldn't Israel disarm then as well?Why is it so impossible for Israel to elect a government that recognises those people's right to exist as a state or at least equals that they themselves have invaded and forced into apartheid? When will Israel apologise? Or stop repeating that they are the victims when in reality they are the perpetrators? Palestine stood united just a few months ago, despite the efforts to cut off Gaza from the West Bank. You bet Abbas wasn't going to lead the united government into a war. Israel does not want to negotiate, the easiest way to achieve this is when you can complain that there's noone to negotiate with. They have to disarm first because there is no other way to achieve their goals. The Palestinian armed struggle is a dead end, and trying to cry foul because the IDF is much stronger will not yield any results. Non-violence is the only path to statehood. And when the time for the apologies between a fully-recognized Palestinian state and Israel come, it'd better be a reciprocal thing, because the jews are not the only side that has harmed the other over the last 70 years. Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:58 radiatoren wrote:On August 04 2014 23:00 Koorb wrote:On August 04 2014 21:40 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote:
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard.
Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing. It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media. They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label? As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time. Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank. This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948. Since your vision relies on Palestine taking the first step I don't think it has a chance. Israel is the only party with a functioning system to actually enforce any kind of peace-deal. Therefore the responsibility for finding a solution is in the hands of Netanyahu. Is it ? In any war, both sides have the possibility to make the first step toward the resolution of the conflict. Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 23:58 radiatoren wrote:
The problem is that the hate for Israel is so entrenched in some peoples minds that they will not accept peace. If Hamas stopped firing rockets, a new more extreme fraction would spawn to continue the rocket firing.
Yes, and that's why the far-right nutjobs like Avigdor Lieberman are pushing for the complete destruction of the Hamas leadership and infrastructure. They know that, should they succeed in removing Hamas completely, the vacuum will be filled by salafist groups who will be even more uncontrollable than Hamas was, which would then give Israel a pretext to keep pounding on Gaza.
About Camp David, it is pretty easy to put all the blame on Arafat. Look at what Shlomo Ben Ami has to say about that :
MY GOODMAN: If you can bear to make this response brief, Dr. Shlomo Ben-Ami.
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, yes. Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem, because the Clinton parameters, in my view —
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Maybe you could explain to them what that is. I don’t think most people will know the Clinton parameters.
SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, the Clinton parameters say the following. They say that on the territorial issue, the Palestinians will get 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, plus safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank to make the state viable. There will be a land swap. The 97%, which I mentioned, takes into account the land swap, where they will get 3% on this side, within the state of Israel, so we will have the blocks of settlements and they will be able to settle refugees on this side of the border.
About Jerusalem, it says what is Jewish is Israeli, and what is Palestinian is — sorry, and what is Arab is Palestinian. It includes full-fledged sovereignty for the Palestinians on Temple Mount, on the Haram al-Sharif, no sovereignty, no Jewish sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif, which was at the time and continues to be a major, major problem for Israelis and Jews, that these things mean to them a lot. And then, with the question of refugees, it says that the refugees will return to historic Palestine, to historical Palestine, and that Israel will maintain its sovereign right of admission. That is, it will have to absorb a number of refugees but with restrictions that need to be negotiated between the parties. But the bulk of the refugees will be allowed to return to the state of Palestine. This is the essence of the Clinton parameters.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i
What was then considered as legitimate for zionist is now considered isllegitimate from palestinian, so yes it's relevant.
Also It was (and it is) a coloniazed state, period. You can talk all you want about a "small piece of land" but it is the same history as the syrian, the iraqi had in this country, which is the history of colonisation.
edit : forget the source
|
Norway28736 Posts
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future.
|
On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future.
Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005
1. Withdrawal from Gaza
2. Settlements were being unsettled
If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after.
The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted.
If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself.
Of course getting them to agree to peace is the hard part... I'm just saying I think Israel really will accept a peaceful Palestinian state. The government can disagree but he only got into power because everyone was scared shitless of Hamas. He will be gone once they tone it down.
|
On August 04 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote:
Guys,
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
Going full Ghandi is not merely "putting down your weapons." It means mass action against the occupying state to force a realization of the relative moralities of the occupier against occupied in the minds of observers. Ghandian nonviolence would be if a thousand Gazans marched for the border and to an Israeli soup kitchen to stand in line for soup. Israel would disrupt this, and look like bad guys. And then more and more incidents like this where the claim to morality of the occupier is tested.
Israel's lack of willingness is immaterial. Britain didn't want a free India and the South didn't want blacks to have the vote. But nonviolence works, if there is enough leadership and an ability for the world to observe your struggle.
And it wouldn't take close to 20 or 30 years. 10 at the very outside, and honestly they could do it in 5. If the news was full of stories about this kind of protest, and the violence stopped cold, how long would even US support for the occupation last?
Tibet is incidentally a silly parallel: the Chinese government would never have been moved by outside pressure from the occupation of Tibet because they couldn't be hurt by that pressure. And now, anybody sanctioning them would just hurt themselves. Also, China's economy was/is hardly as tourism/goodwill dependent as Israel's.
On August 05 2014 00:28 DinoMight wrote:
But total "neutrality" is also the kind of viewpoint that will lead nowhere. "Both sides are to blame." Great, now what?
Now you work on solutions and stop bickering like children arguing about who started it.
|
On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted and hopefully 2005 happens all over again. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself.
What actually happens when Israel retreats or makes one-sided gestures (as rare as that may be) is:
1) Hamas declare the zionist enemy is retreating and it's a sign that the armed struggle is successful.
2) They use the new freedom for more aggression.
I second what you said that the Israeli population is basically very afraid of what might happen when Palestinians will have no restrictions and that mistrust is the main obstacle in the way of a settlement.
In order for there to be any type of peace there must be a prolonged period of non-hostility and some type of internationally forced diplomatic relations and relations between the countries in the forms of delegations etc.
Basically both populations must be re-humanized in each others eyes and trust must be built so that they even believe in the possibility of co-existence.
You can't expect things to be solved overnight or with one side making sudden concessions, even if that is the "right" thing.
Both sides need to be given the opportunity for a "respectable" way off of their "ladder" without losing face, and that's the only way a settlement will be reached.
|
On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted and hopefully 2005 happens all over again. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself.
You could make every demand part of a complicated tid for tad "roadmap to peace". The problem with the current implementations of such has been the lack of room for at least a little regression for a period. It is far too easy to just say "screw it, you have broken your obligations and the roadmap is therefore only as useful as toilet paper".
|
On August 05 2014 02:10 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted and hopefully 2005 happens all over again. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself. You could make every demand part of a complicated tid for tad "roadmap to peace". The problem with the current implementations of such has been the lack of room for at least a little regression for a period. It is far too easy to just say "screw it, you have broken your obligations and the roadmap is therefore only as useful as toilet paper".
Post like these are why I don't usually participate in these threads. You only focus on the negatives of human interaction and forget that people can do good, no wait only young people can do good because we're not brain washed retards /s. I'm done with this thread.
|
On August 05 2014 02:09 Bulugulu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted and hopefully 2005 happens all over again. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself. What actually happens when Israel retreats or makes one-sided gestures (as rare as that may be) is: 1) Hamas declare the zionist enemy is retreating and it's a sign that the armed struggle is successful. 2) They use the new freedom for more aggression. I second what you said that the Israeli population is basically very afraid of what might happen when Palestinians will have no restrictions and that mistrust is the main obstacle in the way of a settlement. In order for there to be any type of peace there must be a prolonged period of non-hostility and some type of internationally forced diplomatic relations and relations between the countries in the forms of delegations etc. Basically both populations must be re-humanized in each others eyes and trust must be built so that they even believe in the possibility of co-existence. You can't expect things to be solved overnight or with one side making sudden concessions, even if that is the "right" thing. Both sides need to be given the opportunity for a "respectable" way off of their "ladder" without losing face, and that's the only way a settlement will be reached.
What actually happens when Hamas retreats or makes one-sided gestures (as rare as that may be) is:
1) Israel declare the Palestinian enemy is retreating and it's a sign that the armed struggle is successful.
2) They use the new peace to push for more settlements and new restrictions on the Palestinians
Both sides are radical in this way, so it doesn't help giving that example because we've seen both do this. Also, it would take multiple generations before peace could be established in the way you mentioned, since the people of Israel (as a collective) hate Palestinians and see them as beneath them. I can't say the same for the Palestinian opinion of Israelis, since they don't have the polling and infrastructure to determine that data, but it's probably about the same in terms of hate.
|
On August 05 2014 02:30 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 02:10 radiatoren wrote:On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted and hopefully 2005 happens all over again. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself. You could make every demand part of a complicated tid for tad "roadmap to peace". The problem with the current implementations of such has been the lack of room for at least a little regression for a period. It is far too easy to just say "screw it, you have broken your obligations and the roadmap is therefore only as useful as toilet paper". Post like these are why I don't usually participate in these threads. You only focus on the negatives of human interaction and forget that people can do good, no wait only young people can do good because we're not brain washed retards /s. I'm done with this thread.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. It seems to be a misreading. Having a safety net in these treaties is not bad, when the biggest problem is trust. I am not forgetting that people can do good, just claiming the need for protection against people doing bad is more important if you want trust to grow.
|
Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote:
Guys,
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
Going full Ghandi is not merely "putting down your weapons." It means mass action against the occupying state to force a realization of the relative moralities of the occupier against occupied in the minds of observers. Ghandian nonviolence would be if a thousand Gazans marched for the border and to an Israeli soup kitchen to stand in line for soup. Israel would disrupt this, and look like bad guys. And then more and more incidents like this where the claim to morality of the occupier is tested. Israel's lack of willingness is immaterial. Britain didn't want a free India and the South didn't want blacks to have the vote. But nonviolence works, if there is enough leadership and an ability for the world to observe your struggle. And it wouldn't take close to 20 or 30 years. 10 at the very outside, and honestly they could do it in 5. If the news was full of stories about this kind of protest, and the violence stopped cold, how long would even US support for the occupation last? Tibet is incidentally a silly parallel: the Chinese government would never have been moved by outside pressure from the occupation of Tibet because they couldn't be hurt by that pressure. And now, anybody sanctioning them would just hurt themselves. Also, China's economy was/is hardly as tourism/goodwill dependent as Israel's.
who actually fucks with israel? no one does and with them beeing US super buddy #1 they have no reason to brake whatsoever. also they in general dont give a fuck about what others think (atleast it seems like that from the outside).
also it just wouldnt happen. the whole thing is going on for too long,the world has done way too little and when evryone you know has a reason to deeply hate the other side since childhood then the violent approach is the way more obvious reason i guess.
|
I am increasingly noticing a pattern of a more civilised, noble race: ie the Romans, Germans, Japanese, Persians, are being undermined and sabotaged by Jewishness
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On August 05 2014 04:34 Salema wrote:
I am increasingly noticing a pattern of a more civilised, noble race: ie the Romans, Germans, Japanese, Persians, are being undermined and sabotaged by Jewishness
I'm sorry, please clarify what you meant. I'm not certain whether you're saying something really racist or whether you are trying to be funny or if it's an awkward way of phrasing yourself.
It doesn't make sense either way - there aren't any romans, germans, japanese or persians really involved in this conflict?
|
On August 05 2014 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 04:34 Salema wrote:
I am increasingly noticing a pattern of a more civilised, noble race: ie the Romans, Germans, Japanese, Persians, are being undermined and sabotaged by Jewishness I'm sorry, please clarify what you meant. I'm not certain whether you're saying something really racist or whether you are trying to be funny or if it's an awkward way of phrasing yourself. It doesn't make sense either way - there aren't any romans, germans, japanese or persians really involved in this conflict?
The time line of those doesn't even line up. There were no "germans" when Rome existed and Persians had a really limited run as well. And Japan.
Yeah, i don't know what he is saying, but if he is remotely seriously, its super extra racist.
|
On August 05 2014 04:34 Salema wrote:
I am increasingly noticing a pattern of a more civilised, noble race: ie the Romans, Germans, Japanese, Persians, are being undermined and sabotaged by Jewishness
I don't think there's anything particularly witty about this comment I think it's just racist.
|
On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself. Of course getting them to agree to peace is the hard part... I'm just saying I think Israel really will accept a peaceful Palestinian state. The government can disagree but he only got into power because everyone was scared shitless of Hamas. He will be gone once they tone it down.
Let's take a look at your bullshit:
Facing massive international pressure and a declaration by the UN on the illegality of their actions, the Israeli Knesset came up with the bold plan of removing 6 tiny settlements from the West Bank. Two of these settlements (Hermesh and Mevo Dotan) were eventually excluded from the plan. The end result was that four settlements (out of this many) were scrapped, totaling less than 500 settlers out of the overall 200,000 in the west bank alone.
|
On August 05 2014 06:13 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself. Of course getting them to agree to peace is the hard part... I'm just saying I think Israel really will accept a peaceful Palestinian state. The government can disagree but he only got into power because everyone was scared shitless of Hamas. He will be gone once they tone it down. Let's take a look at your bullshit: Facing massive international pressure and a declaration by the UN on the illegality of their actions, the Israeli Knesset came up with the bold plan of removing 6 tiny settlements from the West Bank. Two of these settlements (Hermesh and Mevo Dotan) were eventually excluded from the plan. The end result was that four settlements (out of this many) were scrapped, totaling less than 500 settlers out of the overall 200,000 in the west bank alone.
Reread his post. He was talking about the withdrawal from Gaza, which was unilateral, and was on the order of 10,000 people. Say what you want about the settlements, but the disengagement from Gaza was a significant gesture of peace.
|
On August 05 2014 02:08 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote:
Guys,
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
Going full Ghandi is not merely "putting down your weapons." It means mass action against the occupying state to force a realization of the relative moralities of the occupier against occupied in the minds of observers. Ghandian nonviolence would be if a thousand Gazans marched for the border and to an Israeli soup kitchen to stand in line for soup. Israel would disrupt this, and look like bad guys. And then more and more incidents like this where the claim to morality of the occupier is tested. Israel's lack of willingness is immaterial. Britain didn't want a free India and the South didn't want blacks to have the vote. But nonviolence works, if there is enough leadership and an ability for the world to observe your struggle.
And it wouldn't take close to 20 or 30 years. 10 at the very outside, and honestly they could do it in 5. If the news was full of stories about this kind of protest, and the violence stopped cold, how long would even US support for the occupation last? Tibet is incidentally a silly parallel: the Chinese government would never have been moved by outside pressure from the occupation of Tibet because they couldn't be hurt by that pressure. And now, anybody sanctioning them would just hurt themselves. Also, China's economy was/is hardly as tourism/goodwill dependent as Israel's. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 00:28 DinoMight wrote:
But total "neutrality" is also the kind of viewpoint that will lead nowhere. "Both sides are to blame." Great, now what?
Now you work on solutions and stop bickering like children arguing about who started it.
I disagree because of the bolded part. There is no international interest in Palestinians except when Israel is massacring Palestinians. Nobody important is willing to admit interest in the day to day oppression of the Palestinian oppression; "it's fine to quietly keep them in camps but killing them is going too far" seems to be consensus on the Palestinian issue.
I believe this to be the main reason why Gazans are still firing rockets; it favors them because of what dinomight said in his post on the last page. Neither Hamas nor Israel have the moral high ground in their actions. However it is that periodic overreaction by Israel which brings attention to the day to day oppression of Israel vs the Palestinians.
On August 05 2014 06:35 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 06:13 Jormundr wrote:On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself. Of course getting them to agree to peace is the hard part... I'm just saying I think Israel really will accept a peaceful Palestinian state. The government can disagree but he only got into power because everyone was scared shitless of Hamas. He will be gone once they tone it down. Let's take a look at your bullshit: Facing massive international pressure and a declaration by the UN on the illegality of their actions, the Israeli Knesset came up with the bold plan of removing 6 tiny settlements from the West Bank. Two of these settlements (Hermesh and Mevo Dotan) were eventually excluded from the plan. The end result was that four settlements (out of this many) were scrapped, totaling less than 500 settlers out of the overall 200,000 in the west bank alone. Reread his post. He was talking about the withdrawal from Gaza, which was unilateral, and was on the order of 10,000 people. Say what you want about the settlements, but the disengagement from Gaza was a significant gesture of peace.
They took their people out because they planned on making it a prison...
|
On August 05 2014 06:36 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 02:08 Yoav wrote:On August 04 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote:
Guys,
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
Going full Ghandi is not merely "putting down your weapons." It means mass action against the occupying state to force a realization of the relative moralities of the occupier against occupied in the minds of observers. Ghandian nonviolence would be if a thousand Gazans marched for the border and to an Israeli soup kitchen to stand in line for soup. Israel would disrupt this, and look like bad guys. And then more and more incidents like this where the claim to morality of the occupier is tested. Israel's lack of willingness is immaterial. Britain didn't want a free India and the South didn't want blacks to have the vote. But nonviolence works, if there is enough leadership and an ability for the world to observe your struggle.
And it wouldn't take close to 20 or 30 years. 10 at the very outside, and honestly they could do it in 5. If the news was full of stories about this kind of protest, and the violence stopped cold, how long would even US support for the occupation last? Tibet is incidentally a silly parallel: the Chinese government would never have been moved by outside pressure from the occupation of Tibet because they couldn't be hurt by that pressure. And now, anybody sanctioning them would just hurt themselves. Also, China's economy was/is hardly as tourism/goodwill dependent as Israel's. On August 05 2014 00:28 DinoMight wrote:
But total "neutrality" is also the kind of viewpoint that will lead nowhere. "Both sides are to blame." Great, now what?
Now you work on solutions and stop bickering like children arguing about who started it. I disagree because of the bolded part. There is no international interest in Palestinians except when Israel is massacring Palestinians. Nobody important is willing to admit interest in the day to day oppression of the Palestinian oppression; "it's fine to quietly keep them in camps but killing them is going too far" seems to be consensus on the Palestinian issue. I believe this to be the main reason why Gazans are still firing rockets; it favors them because of what dinomight said in his post on the last page. Neither Hamas nor Israel have the moral high ground in their actions. However it is that periodic overreaction by Israel which brings attention to the day to day oppression of Israel vs the Palestinians. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 06:35 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 05 2014 06:13 Jormundr wrote:On August 05 2014 01:59 TrainSamurai wrote:On August 05 2014 01:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
If I had an easy solution to this I would indeed be a genius. I do not.
But it's not okay to just be like, okay so Hamas stops firing rockets and then Israel withdraws and then we're back into how it was 3 months ago. That's preferable to how it is now, but it's still an unbearable situation, and one the Palestinians rightfully will not accept. Basically, this is not ending unless Israel
1: stops treating gaza as a giant prison and the palestinians as prisoners.
2: stops with settlements, I dunno exactly which year has the most fair borders, but I would argue that they have to retract from quite a lot of occupied areas
3: Palestinians need to be able to actually live regular lives. This means no more "you cannot fish more than 3 miles from land", this means no more "you have to wait 2 hours in line to get to work, and also to get back from work", this means no more segregated society based on ethnicity or religion or place of birth. Israel is an apartheid society, and it cannot continue to exist as one. I think the international community owes it to the Palestinian people to treat Israel the way we eventually started treating South Africa, with massive boycotts.
This also is not ending unless Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. That's a fair demand to make from them. But Israel has to make far more concessions than Palestine can or should - Palestine doesn't have any more to give, as Israel has already taken everything, including the possibility of dreaming of a better future. Yes now lets look at what happened in 2005 1. Withdrawal from Gaza 2. Settlements were being unsettled If they're willing to displace thier own dam people I think your 3. would be obtainable soon after. The problem is like I said before, Israel had a hand in causing the current anti Israel sentiment in Palestine, that is true and thats why they're so afraid of Palestine taking advantage of them retreating. But Palestine must understand that everything takes time, they must show Israel that they can be trusted. If Palestine doesn't want to wait and demands everything under the moon then theres no chance in hell Israel will trust them and the whole thing repeats itself. Of course getting them to agree to peace is the hard part... I'm just saying I think Israel really will accept a peaceful Palestinian state. The government can disagree but he only got into power because everyone was scared shitless of Hamas. He will be gone once they tone it down. Let's take a look at your bullshit: Facing massive international pressure and a declaration by the UN on the illegality of their actions, the Israeli Knesset came up with the bold plan of removing 6 tiny settlements from the West Bank. Two of these settlements (Hermesh and Mevo Dotan) were eventually excluded from the plan. The end result was that four settlements (out of this many) were scrapped, totaling less than 500 settlers out of the overall 200,000 in the west bank alone. Reread his post. He was talking about the withdrawal from Gaza, which was unilateral, and was on the order of 10,000 people. Say what you want about the settlements, but the disengagement from Gaza was a significant gesture of peace. They took their people out because they planned on making it a prison...
C'mon, are you serious? You think Israel said "Gee, we would really like to blockade Gaza completely, but oh no, are people are inside. Better pull them out first before we lock up Gaza"? After the disengagement, hundreds of rockets were fired into Israel over the course of a few months, and Hamas was elected. It continued to spiral down from there. But to say that Israel had malicious intent when it pulled out from Gaza is absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
