|
On August 05 2014 02:48 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 02:30 TrainSamurai wrote: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.
.I thought you were just stating these things to appear edgy. I misunderstood your intentions because I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to post such an obvious point.
On August 05 2014 11:05 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 10:58 Wolfstan wrote:On August 05 2014 09:36 Holy_AT wrote:On August 05 2014 07:44 Wolfstan wrote:
Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east. Congratulations, this is as a matter of fact a violation of human rights and actually constituted as a crime against humanity. Displacing people because of their culture, religion or ethnic is a crime against humanity. This is the same reasoning that Hitler used against the Jews and I do not think it should be tolerated anywhere. It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences. It's really just a matter of what is in my best interests. Who would I rather have diplomatic ties to? Who would I rather trade with? Who's rule would I be more comfortable vacationing under? Sometimes you just have to pick a side that works better for you, and my preferred outcome is a victorious Israel. Sure the Israelite might be a favorable trade partner or military allies but this still doesn't exclude them from committing humanitarian crimes. If you want more monetary/business benefit by associating with them, that's fine. After all, its a jungle out there. Instead of trees, its now steels and rocks. But if you associate with them, you are also associated with humanitarian criminals and that makes you a supporter of such crimes and hence a criminal yourself. You can't have your hands in both baskets.
What about the eldest son of the founder Hamas who defected over to the IDF and advocates for Palestinians toning down thier aggression. He raised a pretty good point, Israel sought to rebuild after tragedy, Palestinians currently don't.
|
On August 05 2014 11:26 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 02:48 radiatoren wrote:On August 05 2014 02:30 TrainSamurai wrote: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. .I thought you were just stating these things to appear edgy. I misunderstood your intentions because I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to post such an obvious point. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 11:05 Xiphos wrote:On August 05 2014 10:58 Wolfstan wrote:On August 05 2014 09:36 Holy_AT wrote:On August 05 2014 07:44 Wolfstan wrote:
Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east. Congratulations, this is as a matter of fact a violation of human rights and actually constituted as a crime against humanity. Displacing people because of their culture, religion or ethnic is a crime against humanity. This is the same reasoning that Hitler used against the Jews and I do not think it should be tolerated anywhere. It is really a shame that people feel they can post such atrocities unchallenged without any consequences. It's really just a matter of what is in my best interests. Who would I rather have diplomatic ties to? Who would I rather trade with? Who's rule would I be more comfortable vacationing under? Sometimes you just have to pick a side that works better for you, and my preferred outcome is a victorious Israel. Sure the Israelite might be a favorable trade partner or military allies but this still doesn't exclude them from committing humanitarian crimes. If you want more monetary/business benefit by associating with them, that's fine. After all, its a jungle out there. Instead of trees, its now steels and rocks. But if you associate with them, you are also associated with humanitarian criminals and that makes you a supporter of such crimes and hence a criminal yourself. You can't have your hands in both baskets. What about the eldest son of the founder Hamas who defected over to the IDF and advocates for Palestinians toning down thier aggression. He raised a pretty good point, Israel sought to rebuild after tragedy, Palestinians currently don't.
Yes, the Hamas organization is wrong and all but Israel should have been targeting only Hamas operation, so far they have been damaging more civilian infrastructure than Hamas soldiers. Despite what they may say to the press, action speaks louder than words.
|
i spoke to a jewish person i know who is quiet emotional with whats going on since his family lives in israel. his position is that he doesnt like what IDF is doing but israel has no choice since hamas wont stop attacking (they started it, all their fault). i brought up the settlement issue and he said it was just a buffer zone between the lands and nothing more. not the type of situation i'd like to escalate with corrections as this wasnt a debate but me just being the receiving end of a rant from someone who is being emotional.
how does the israeli media play out the israel's increasing settlements and boarder/walling up slowly?
(or western media for that matter)
|
On August 05 2014 11:26 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 02:48 radiatoren wrote:On August 05 2014 02:30 TrainSamurai wrote: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. I thought you were just stating these things to appear edgy. I misunderstood your intentions because I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to post such an obvious point.
It may seem obvious now, but the road for peace concept was only developed in the 2000's and the implementation of it that the parts agreed to was only partially devised before "Cast Lead" started. Since the situation escalated, the idea has been binned. Context is the important factor here.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
they may want to follow the examples of Mandela or Ghandi, for their methods seem to be much more effective than armed struggle.
To be fair, the groups that Mandela were affiliated with were quite comfortable bombing civilians to achieve their goals. That he repudiated violence in the end doesn't excuse him for that (imo)
But if you associate with them, you are also associated with humanitarian criminals and that makes you a supporter of such crimes and hence a criminal yourself.
ah. So this logic is how dead civilians in Gaza justifies looted kosher shops in France
but Israel should have been targeting only Hamas operation
again, the primary Hamas command post is located inside a hospital
I could quote boring Geneva convention stuff about how fucked up that is but surely "being a civilized person" should suffice?!?!?
|
On August 05 2014 10:53 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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_iedit : forget the source The Clinton parameters were by all accounts the best terms the Palestinians were ever like to have, and they were widely supported by both the Barak cabinet and the Clinton administration. Which means that if Arafat had bother to negociate at Camp David rather than turning heels when he understood that he wouldn't have some sort of spectacular big win, he might very well have obtained the same terms. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
What was then considered as legitimate for zionist is now considered isllegitimate from palestinian, so yes it's relevant.
Terrorism was never considered legitimate for the zionists, and more importantly terrorism played no part in the fundation of Israel. If the Arabs are looking for inspiration, they may want to follow the examples of Mandela or Ghandi, for their methods seem to be much more effective than armed struggle. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
Yeah, right, I had forgotten that the evil white European man was guilty of everything that goes wrong in the middle-east. But, prey tell me, why is it that the British and the French get so much scorn for allegedly screwing up this region by drawing new borders, while various islamic states and christian realms have been doing the same for more than a millenium ? For the average Palestinian commoner, was being governed from London really worst than being governed from Constantinople, from Cairo, from Medina or from Jerusalem ? How is it than that British rule in Palestine is referred to as colonisation and accused of every ills, while the Turks are exempt from all criticism ? They didn't grant the autochthons statehood neither, did they ? And aren't the muslims Palestinians illegal settlers as well ? After all, Palestine used to be a Greeko-semite, christian orthodox land, which was taken at swordpoint by the Rashidun caliphate and forcibly converted to islam. Enough with the double standards, Europeans are not the only ones who took foreign lands for themselves and exploited them for profit and prestige, especially not in the middle east which has seen so many realms and empires being born and collapsing. Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state? A little leaven ferments the whole lump, and in Hamas' case we're talking about a lot of leaven. The Palestinian cause can hardly appear internationally as non-violent when a significant portion of it is sworn to destroy Israel and exterminate the jews, and engage in terrorist activities.
Double standards ? lOL French and British took 70% of the planet or something like that ... I never stated we were satan or the big bad wolf, but we took the world and saying it is a double standard to consider that we are more responsible of what is happening than others is like saying all countries are equally responsible of pollution and global warming. Most of what is happening in the world right now is just the result of what was done then : Iraq, Syria already have effectively disappeared (borders are not respected), Ukraine is a mess, kosovo too (altho it was the result of the end of the URSS), and let's not even talk about Africa.
About the Clinton Parameters you are wrong, and I don't really have to argue since the israeli foreign minister at the time think they pose a problem.
Do you see condamnation for zionist terrorism ? In fact two terrorist leaders became prime minister in Israel, and some institutions today participate in terrorist activity like the IDF.
About Gandhi you don't know what you are talking about. Now the strong and dominator will even decide for the weak and dominated the way they should fight for their freedom, awesome. Bourdieu would have said Palestinians are a people object.
|
On August 05 2014 16:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 10:53 Koorb wrote:On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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_iedit : forget the source The Clinton parameters were by all accounts the best terms the Palestinians were ever like to have, and they were widely supported by both the Barak cabinet and the Clinton administration. Which means that if Arafat had bother to negociate at Camp David rather than turning heels when he understood that he wouldn't have some sort of spectacular big win, he might very well have obtained the same terms. On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
What was then considered as legitimate for zionist is now considered isllegitimate from palestinian, so yes it's relevant.
Terrorism was never considered legitimate for the zionists, and more importantly terrorism played no part in the fundation of Israel. If the Arabs are looking for inspiration, they may want to follow the examples of Mandela or Ghandi, for their methods seem to be much more effective than armed struggle. On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
Yeah, right, I had forgotten that the evil white European man was guilty of everything that goes wrong in the middle-east. But, prey tell me, why is it that the British and the French get so much scorn for allegedly screwing up this region by drawing new borders, while various islamic states and christian realms have been doing the same for more than a millenium ? For the average Palestinian commoner, was being governed from London really worst than being governed from Constantinople, from Cairo, from Medina or from Jerusalem ? How is it than that British rule in Palestine is referred to as colonisation and accused of every ills, while the Turks are exempt from all criticism ? They didn't grant the autochthons statehood neither, did they ? And aren't the muslims Palestinians illegal settlers as well ? After all, Palestine used to be a Greeko-semite, christian orthodox land, which was taken at swordpoint by the Rashidun caliphate and forcibly converted to islam. Enough with the double standards, Europeans are not the only ones who took foreign lands for themselves and exploited them for profit and prestige, especially not in the middle east which has seen so many realms and empires being born and collapsing. On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state? A little leaven ferments the whole lump, and in Hamas' case we're talking about a lot of leaven. The Palestinian cause can hardly appear internationally as non-violent when a significant portion of it is sworn to destroy Israel and exterminate the jews, and engage in terrorist activities. Double standards ? lOL French and British took 70% of the planet or something like that ... I never stated we were satan or the big bad wolf, but we took the world and saying it is a double standard to consider that we are more responsible of what is happening than others is like saying all countries are equally responsible of pollution and global warming. Most of what is happening in the world right now is just the result of what was done then : Iraq, Syria already have effectively disappeared (borders are not respected), Ukraine is a mess, kosovo too (altho it was the result of the end of the URSS), and let's not even talk about Africa.
What is your point about this? It's been like that since time began. From the Egyptian empire, Roman, Mongol, European Colonization until today. Every single group of humans from tribes to countries seek to increase the power they have. There comes a point where you have to stop worrying about what happened 60-70 years ago and move on. That's why the middle east is such a shit hole just look at ISIS massacring any one they can find who is a Sunni over a 1400 year old dispute.
I feel like this is re-directing the blame so people don't actually have to do anything. It's a hell of a lot easier to bitch about how awful people 100 years ago were instead of fixing problems today.
|
On August 05 2014 17:38 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 16:38 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2014 10:53 Koorb wrote:On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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_iedit : forget the source The Clinton parameters were by all accounts the best terms the Palestinians were ever like to have, and they were widely supported by both the Barak cabinet and the Clinton administration. Which means that if Arafat had bother to negociate at Camp David rather than turning heels when he understood that he wouldn't have some sort of spectacular big win, he might very well have obtained the same terms. On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
What was then considered as legitimate for zionist is now considered isllegitimate from palestinian, so yes it's relevant.
Terrorism was never considered legitimate for the zionists, and more importantly terrorism played no part in the fundation of Israel. If the Arabs are looking for inspiration, they may want to follow the examples of Mandela or Ghandi, for their methods seem to be much more effective than armed struggle. On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
Yeah, right, I had forgotten that the evil white European man was guilty of everything that goes wrong in the middle-east. But, prey tell me, why is it that the British and the French get so much scorn for allegedly screwing up this region by drawing new borders, while various islamic states and christian realms have been doing the same for more than a millenium ? For the average Palestinian commoner, was being governed from London really worst than being governed from Constantinople, from Cairo, from Medina or from Jerusalem ? How is it than that British rule in Palestine is referred to as colonisation and accused of every ills, while the Turks are exempt from all criticism ? They didn't grant the autochthons statehood neither, did they ? And aren't the muslims Palestinians illegal settlers as well ? After all, Palestine used to be a Greeko-semite, christian orthodox land, which was taken at swordpoint by the Rashidun caliphate and forcibly converted to islam. Enough with the double standards, Europeans are not the only ones who took foreign lands for themselves and exploited them for profit and prestige, especially not in the middle east which has seen so many realms and empires being born and collapsing. On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state? A little leaven ferments the whole lump, and in Hamas' case we're talking about a lot of leaven. The Palestinian cause can hardly appear internationally as non-violent when a significant portion of it is sworn to destroy Israel and exterminate the jews, and engage in terrorist activities. Double standards ? lOL French and British took 70% of the planet or something like that ... I never stated we were satan or the big bad wolf, but we took the world and saying it is a double standard to consider that we are more responsible of what is happening than others is like saying all countries are equally responsible of pollution and global warming. Most of what is happening in the world right now is just the result of what was done then : Iraq, Syria already have effectively disappeared (borders are not respected), Ukraine is a mess, kosovo too (altho it was the result of the end of the URSS), and let's not even talk about Africa. What is your point about this? It's been like that since time began. From the Egyptian empire, Roman, Mongol, European Colonization until today. Every single group of humans from tribes to countries seek to increase the power they have. There comes a point where you have to stop worrying about what happened 60-70 years ago and move on. That's why the middle east is such a shit hole just look at ISIS massacring any one they can find who is a Sunni over a 1400 year old dispute.
There is the emotional part that I don't care about, and there is the factual part where a new nation has a difficult time achieving stability because most of the needed institutions - in the broad sense - are not mature enough to give that stability. Merely stating that occidentals country created the borders in the middle east and africa and that those borders, those state without nation, were bound to be unstable, has nothing to do with "moving on" and everything to do with using your brain and understanding the matter at hand. It's not about a hard breaking up that the arabs can't get over with... my god.
By the way, the discussion started because I stated a fact, and that is that Palestine is colonialized since a hundred or so years, and he disagreed. This has nothing to do with what happen in the past and everything to do with what is happening. Those are facts, and have nothing to do with what happening 1400 ago. Stay on topic.
Gaza was calm but tense Tuesday morning as Israel and Hamas again embarked on a 72-hour cease-fire and Israeli forces began withdrawing from the Palestinian territory after a month-long campaign.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/gaza-airstrike-kills-child-palestinian-officials-say-1407151901
|
There is the emotional part that I don't care about, and there is the factual part where a new nation has a difficult time achieving stability because most of the needed institutions - in the broad sense - are not mature enough to give that stability. Merely stating that occidentals country created the borders in the middle east and africa and that those borders, those state without nation, were bound to be unstable, has nothing to do with "moving on" and everything to do with using your brain and understanding the matter at hand. It's not about a hard breaking up that the arabs can't get over with... my god.
This conflict is pretty clearly stemming from a series of reprisals from both sides stretching back to 1948. How can there be peace when there is so much hate coming from both sides? That's what I meant by moving on. Not sure how you read what I wrote to so poorly.
You brought this stuff up and I asked you to clarify. Not sure why your getting all pissy.
|
On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so.
I completely agree. Look what is happening on the west bank right now. There's where all the colonization takes place if I'm not mistaken?
|
On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so.
You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing.
And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers.
|
On August 05 2014 14:01 jinorazi wrote:
i spoke to a jewish person i know who is quiet emotional with whats going on since his family lives in israel. his position is that he doesnt like what IDF is doing but israel has no choice since hamas wont stop attacking (they started it, all their fault). i brought up the settlement issue and he said it was just a buffer zone between the lands and nothing more. not the type of situation i'd like to escalate with corrections as this wasnt a debate but me just being the receiving end of a rant from someone who is being emotional.
how does the israeli media play out the israel's increasing settlements and boarder/walling up slowly?
(or western media for that matter)
From my experience with my Israeli-american friends, and my Israeli friends + my sister's Israeli friends, it's pretty clear that Israelis don't have a lot of perspective. The story of the IDF in Israel is one of constantly rising above insurmountable odds - most Israelis consider it a miracle that the IDF is able to defend the country because they have absolutely no idea how much Israel's army outclasses all of its neighboring nations combined. For instance, my sister's friend Yael was having a discussion with my sister about the terrifying possibility of Iran getting getting nukes when Israel has none. The propaganda in this thread is pretty much the entire mainstream media in Israel.
|
The few Israelis I know consider Netanyahu a worse George W. Bush, but they may very well be more radical than the typical case.
|
On August 05 2014 22:03 farvacola wrote:
The few Israelis I know consider Netanyahu a worse George W. Bush, but they may very well be more radical than the typical case.
Pretty atypical. Most Israeli's are pretty hardline. You'll hear this a lot more with non-Israeli Jew's who are often types very different politically than Israeli-Jews. I used to have a roommate not too long ago who was from Israel and you could definitely tell how insulated she was concerning a wide-range of regional issues. Again though, this is no different than the ignorance most of my countryman have as well. Propaganda isn't limited by borders, and Governments do their best to keep their plantation *ahem* citizens compliant and unquestioning.
|
On August 05 2014 22:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 22:03 farvacola wrote:
The few Israelis I know consider Netanyahu a worse George W. Bush, but they may very well be more radical than the typical case. Pretty atypical. Most Israeli's are pretty hardline. You'll hear this a lot more with non-Israeli Jew's who are often types very different politically than Israeli-Jews. I used to have a roommate not too long ago who was from Israel and you could definitely tell how insulated she was concerning a wide-range of regional issues. Again though, this is no different than the ignorance most of my countryman have as well. Propaganda isn't limited by borders, and Governments do their best to keep their plantation *ahem* citizens compliant and unquestioning.
Its sad because that country used to be so much more diverse and have both religions living next to each other. But the violence over the years had lead to such high levels of distrust. They did a report on NPR this morning about how most people 20 and under in Israel have never had a friend or know anyone from the opposite religion.
There was this horrifying exchange where two Jewish women were harassing a Palestinian mother at a hospital(her son was beat up some other kids). Two other Jewish nurses tried to comfort the Palestinian mother, but the mother just screamed at them and asked what good their apology would do.
Both sides have been separated for so long they view each other as abstracts and its just this endless cycle of them dehumanizing each other.
|
France266 Posts
On August 05 2014 16:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 10:53 Koorb wrote:On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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_iedit : forget the source The Clinton parameters were by all accounts the best terms the Palestinians were ever like to have, and they were widely supported by both the Barak cabinet and the Clinton administration. Which means that if Arafat had bother to negociate at Camp David rather than turning heels when he understood that he wouldn't have some sort of spectacular big win, he might very well have obtained the same terms. On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
What was then considered as legitimate for zionist is now considered isllegitimate from palestinian, so yes it's relevant.
Terrorism was never considered legitimate for the zionists, and more importantly terrorism played no part in the fundation of Israel. If the Arabs are looking for inspiration, they may want to follow the examples of Mandela or Ghandi, for their methods seem to be much more effective than armed struggle. On August 05 2014 01:44 WhiteDog wrote:
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.
Yeah, right, I had forgotten that the evil white European man was guilty of everything that goes wrong in the middle-east. But, prey tell me, why is it that the British and the French get so much scorn for allegedly screwing up this region by drawing new borders, while various islamic states and christian realms have been doing the same for more than a millenium ? For the average Palestinian commoner, was being governed from London really worst than being governed from Constantinople, from Cairo, from Medina or from Jerusalem ? How is it than that British rule in Palestine is referred to as colonisation and accused of every ills, while the Turks are exempt from all criticism ? They didn't grant the autochthons statehood neither, did they ? And aren't the muslims Palestinians illegal settlers as well ? After all, Palestine used to be a Greeko-semite, christian orthodox land, which was taken at swordpoint by the Rashidun caliphate and forcibly converted to islam. Enough with the double standards, Europeans are not the only ones who took foreign lands for themselves and exploited them for profit and prestige, especially not in the middle east which has seen so many realms and empires being born and collapsing. On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state? A little leaven ferments the whole lump, and in Hamas' case we're talking about a lot of leaven. The Palestinian cause can hardly appear internationally as non-violent when a significant portion of it is sworn to destroy Israel and exterminate the jews, and engage in terrorist activities. Double standards ? lOL French and British took 70% of the planet or something like that ... I never stated we were satan or the big bad wolf, but we took the world and saying it is a double standard to consider that we are more responsible of what is happening than others is like saying all countries are equally responsible of pollution and global warming. Most of what is happening in the world right now is just the result of what was done then : Iraq, Syria already have effectively disappeared (borders are not respected), Ukraine is a mess, kosovo too (altho it was the result of the end of the URSS), and let's not even talk about Africa.
The Ukrainian mess has little to do with the western world, for it is a byproduct of an old struggle between Russia and Poland/the Commonwealth of Two Nations. The Kosovo mess, along with the rest of the unrest in the western Balkans, has its roots in the Russian-Ottoman rivalry. The Africans never needed any kind of outside influence to conquer, slaughter and sell each others in slavery.
And Iraq is probably the worst example you could pick to put the west on trial for the middle-east issues. The whole Mesopotamia had been a battle zone for five centuries before the British established a mandate on it. So tell me, why is it that Great Britain is regarded as responsible for screwing up the middle east with the borders they unilaterally drew, while the Ottoman Empire, Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu, the Safavid Persian Empire and the Mamluks had been doing the same for 500 years ? At least the British tried to draw borders that made sense, close from those of the late Mamluk rule in Iraq (the first independant rule in Iraq in centuries), which is more that can be said for the muslim realms of the region.
On August 05 2014 16:38 WhiteDog wrote:
About the Clinton Parameters you are wrong, and I don't really have to argue since the israeli foreign minister at the time think they pose a problem.
The Barak cabinet was overwhelmingly in favor of the CPs, they had only minor (and thus workable) reservations, with the exception of the right of return which was never going to happen in the first place anyway. Arafat bears the responsibility for the failure of the peace process in 2000.
On August 05 2014 16:38 WhiteDog wrote:
Do you see condamnation for zionist terrorism ? In fact two terrorist leaders became prime minister in Israel, and some institutions today participate in terrorist activity like the IDF.
You are eluding my discourse. I'm saying that the terrorist acts perpetrated by the zionists radicals pre-1948 played little to no part in the creation of the modern state of Israel, and that therefore, it is utterly wrong to say that terrorism is somehow a right and efficient pattern for the Palestinians.
On August 05 2014 16:38 WhiteDog wrote:
About Gandhi you don't know what you are talking about. Now the strong and dominator will even decide for the weak and dominated the way they should fight for their freedom, awesome. Bourdieu would have said Palestinians are a people object.
I'm not deciding anything for anyone, I'm merely pointing out the fact that the current trend of trying to strong-arm Israel into accepting Palestinian statehood and returning them lands will never, ever work. It didn't work when the neighbouring Arab states were waging coalisation wars against Israel, it didn't work when the OPEC countries were staging their oil embargo in 1973, it didn't work when the Palestinian streets were erupting in violence during the second intifada. It. Will. Never. Work.
And as long as the Arabs can't get in their thick heads the idea that they will never be in position to coerce Israel into accepting Palestinian statehood, they won't get anywhere near their goal. So the more they will launch rockets, send suicide bombers or abduct Israelis, the more suffering they will get in return and the farther they will be from peace and statehood.
So unless they make a 180° turn from what they're doing now and go for the full-on non-violent option, they are condemned to wait for the Israelis to elect a Yitzhak Rabin who will resume the peace process, which may never happen if the rightward shift in Israeli politics keeps on going.
|
On August 05 2014 19:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so. You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing. And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers.
What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza?
Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas.
The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process.
|
On August 06 2014 02:17 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 19:04 Big J wrote:On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so. You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing. And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers. What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza? Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas. The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process.
I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite.
|
It's going to take a while for Israeli politics to take a turn to the left, the population is getting more radicalized if anything..
Thanks alot to those who brought about the murder of Yitzhak Rabin (Benjamin Netanyahu among them).
|
On August 06 2014 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 02:17 DinoMight wrote:On August 05 2014 19:04 Big J wrote:On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so. You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing. And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers. What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza? Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas. The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process. I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite.
Palestinians in the West Bank have not hit anyone in a while and nobody was talking to them, even before this latest round of violence in Gaza.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
