On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote: [quote] They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace.
Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking)
"He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months. - A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years). - Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands."
And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side.
I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well?
I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it.
On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote: Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago.
And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people.
What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far.
Hamas and the Fatah were unified just before the attack, together they had enough authority. That's what Israel is trying to break. Not to mention the current state of the Fatah is the result of Israel unwillingness to settle.
Nyxisto your inability to have at least a more balanced view makes me wonder.
Lets not forget that the genesis of these attacks was the murder of 3 teenagers by someone in Gaza and then a reprisal killing by several zealots in Israel. Which had the intended effect the zealots on both sides wanted lead to tension and then the firing of rockets in to Israel. This entire situation was created and escalated by fanatics on both sides on the conflict who are just itching for violence.
It's a pretext. After the killing (someone in gaza ? I'm not sure there are even enough information to assume that) Israel arrested 600 people in the West Bank, with 11 deputee, killed 4 kids during the arrestation (called "abduction" by the Fatah). In 1967, De Gaulle made a famous speech about the attack from Israel on Egypt, saying the blockade (from Egypt) was just a pretext coming from a country that has a desire to expand itself - a desire the french felt during the joint attack on the Suez canal in 1956. Nothing changed since then.
I was talking about back in June of this year, which is what started the escalation now. Not 50 years ago, which hardly seem relevant.
"A simile is a rhetorical figure expressing comparison or likeness that directly compares two objects through some connective word such as like, as, so, than, or many other verbs such as resembles." The situation is exactly the same as in 1967 ; Israeli are using random event to justify an attack that has other objectives. That's the reason why I said that nothing changed.
Didn't Hamas fire rockets first after the teen from Gaza was killed? I remember that being the chain of events.
On July 30 2014 09:07 WhiteDog wrote: The situation is exactly the same as in 1967 ; Israeli are using random event to justify an attack that has other objectives. That's the reason why I said that nothing changed.
President Abdul Rahman Arif of Iraq said that "the existence of Israel is an error which must be recitified. This is an opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948". The Iraqi Prime Minister predicted that "there will be practically no Jewish survivors".
In May 1967, Hafez al-Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
Its started at the beginning of time with the first people to walk on that dirt. The place is pretty much cursed and no one can ever hold it without spilling blood.
On July 30 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote: I have already said what I think should be done about the Hamas. Demilitarize the Gaza-Strip, if necessary by force and break up the Hamas. And no, the Hamas is a largely monolithic movement. The only thing they don't agree upon is if they should shell Israel with five or ten rockets per day. The fact that they run some social programs doesn't change that. It's what all jihadist groups in the middle-east do to present themselves as the saviours and increase their numbers.
And you have still provided no actual example of how engaging the Hamas in diplomacy has resulted in less violence.
You always say something "should be done" about Hamas but you never mentioned what should be done about those on the Israeli side that follow the same ideology (annihilate the other party).
On July 30 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote: I have already said what I think should be done about the Hamas. Demilitarize the Gaza-Strip, if necessary by force and break up the Hamas. And no, the Hamas is a largely monolithic movement. The only thing they don't agree upon is if they should shell Israel with five or ten rockets per day. The fact that they run some social programs doesn't change that. It's what all jihadist groups in the middle-east do to present themselves as the saviours and increase their numbers.
And you have still provided no actual example of how engaging the Hamas in diplomacy has resulted in less violence.
Yes i'm sure you would love for Israel to be able to take all of their land without any comeback.
On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote: [quote] Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking)
[quote]
And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side.
I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well?
I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it.
On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote: Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago.
And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people.
What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far.
Hamas and the Fatah were unified just before the attack, together they had enough authority. That's what Israel is trying to break. Not to mention the current state of the Fatah is the result of Israel unwillingness to settle.
Nyxisto your inability to have at least a more balanced view makes me wonder.
Lets not forget that the genesis of these attacks was the murder of 3 teenagers by someone in Gaza and then a reprisal killing by several zealots in Israel. Which had the intended effect the zealots on both sides wanted lead to tension and then the firing of rockets in to Israel. This entire situation was created and escalated by fanatics on both sides on the conflict who are just itching for violence.
It's a pretext. After the killing (someone in gaza ? I'm not sure there are even enough information to assume that) Israel arrested 600 people in the West Bank, with 11 deputee, killed 4 kids during the arrestation (called "abduction" by the Fatah). In 1967, De Gaulle made a famous speech about the attack from Israel on Egypt, saying the blockade (from Egypt) was just a pretext coming from a country that has a desire to expand itself - a desire the french felt during the joint attack on the Suez canal in 1956. Nothing changed since then.
I was talking about back in June of this year, which is what started the escalation now. Not 50 years ago, which hardly seem relevant.
"A simile is a rhetorical figure expressing comparison or likeness that directly compares two objects through some connective word such as like, as, so, than, or many other verbs such as resembles." The situation is exactly the same as in 1967 ; Israeli are using random event to justify an attack that has other objectives. That's the reason why I said that nothing changed.
Didn't Hamas fire rockets first after the teen from Gaza was killed? I remember that being the chain of events.
You got the chronology all wrong... the boy from Gaza was killed the 2nd of july, the mass arrest were in mid june. They used a kidnapping that was completly unrelated to Hamas to arrest people (and kill some by accident) in the West Bank. 600 hundred people and some deputee... Things escalated from that.
I don't want to get involved into this debate, but I cannot believe how terribly hypocritical most people on this website are, it's fucking ridiculous.
On July 30 2014 21:01 rudimentalfeelthelov wrote: I don't want to get involved into this debate, but I cannot believe how terribly hypocritical most people on this website are, it's fucking ridiculous.
Could you be a tad more specific about the hypocricies? It is a bit easy to slam a broad condemnation on people without it. Not that I don't think you may have a point, but not wanting to get involved in a debate on one side and critizising people in a debate, could in itself be seen as... hypocricy.
On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote: [quote] That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem.
It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused.
So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false.
EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in.
Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true.
They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace.
Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking)
"He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months. - A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years). - Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands."
And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side.
I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well?
I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it.
On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote: Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago.
And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people.
What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far.
There is a difference between calling for a ceasefire in the context of a crisis of the type currently going on, and reaching an agreement with Israel as representatives of the PLO. In the latter case, it would be extremely difficult, and I would go as far as saying virtually impossible politically, for Hamas not to follow the agreement reached by Abbas, because an agreement would mean finally having set borders, no longer being constantly pushed back further by new settlements in the West Bank, Palestinians getting the recognition as citizens and as human beings they feel they've been denied, and in particular, for Gaza, finally having access again to necessary resources in much greater number. The support of Hamas would evaporate if they refused to follow such an agreement reached by Fatah with Israel. The extent of demilitarization is a tricky question considering Hamas does not even control all of the militant groups in Gaza, but given that it has proven itself to be willing to respect the previous ceasefire until Israel's "investigation" of the kidnapping resulted in several Palestinian deaths and multiple arrests, it is extremely likely that the organization would abstain from violence in the wake of an Israel-Abbas agreement of the type we mentioned.
Beyond all this, however, and as I explained earlier, implementation comes after an agreement on mutual concessions. At this point Israel isn't even refusing to outline borders based on the objection that they think Abbas would be able to implement his concessions - they're refusing to outline borders period.
There are several points here, that are based on conjecture and that you can chose to believe or not. Which makes this again a case in point for what I initially said. You're arguing that if Israel settles the territory question, there will be peace and violence will cease. I also believe that this is a possibility, but I also understand why Israel is not willing to take the risk. What you are proposing is basically the 2000 Roadmap, which was exactly an attempt to do what you outlined spread over three phases. It didn't work in part because the Palestinians didn't cease their violence. Their president at that time was... Abbas. So why should it work now? With Abbas weaker and Hamas stronger?
On July 30 2014 21:01 rudimentalfeelthelov wrote: I don't want to get involved into this debate, but I cannot believe how terribly hypocritical most people on this website are, it's fucking ridiculous.
Could you be a tad more specific about the hypocricies? It is a bit easy to slam a broad condemnation on people without it. Not that I don't think you may have a point, but not wanting to get involved in a debate on one side and critizising people in a debate, could in itself be seen as... hypocricy.
Some posters wear their bias either side on their sleeve and claim the other side of not being objective. People dismiss new articles as “propaganda” and simply refuse to accept that the side they support could be escalating the situation. This bias is strong in this thread.
And to be clear, I give zero fucks who wins or who is wrong in this conflict. At this point both sides deserve each other and if they somehow wiped each other out, I wouldn't be upset. Like many third party observers, I am just tired of the conflict and the parties need to rehash 70 years of history each time violence flairs up.
On July 30 2014 21:01 rudimentalfeelthelov wrote: I don't want to get involved into this debate, but I cannot believe how terribly hypocritical most people on this website are, it's fucking ridiculous.
Could you be a tad more specific about the hypocricies? It is a bit easy to slam a broad condemnation on people without it. Not that I don't think you may have a point, but not wanting to get involved in a debate on one side and critizising people in a debate, could in itself be seen as... hypocricy.
Some posters wear their bias either side on their sleeve and claim the other side of not being objective. People dismiss new articles as “propaganda” and simply refuse to accept that the side they support could be escalating the situation. This bias is strong in this thread.
And to be clear, I give zero fucks who wins or who is wrong in this conflict. At this point both sides deserve each other and if they somehow wiped each other out, I wouldn't be upset. Like many third party observers, I am just tired of the conflict and the parties need to rehash 70 years of history each time violence flairs up.
At some point you've got to make the first step and gather knowledge yourself. When someone's argument is that : the occupation is over since 2005, that Hamas refuse to talk, and that they use human shield, it is propaganda.
The occupation is not ended according to the UN, Hamas accepted to at least negociate some time ago, and many many international agencies showed that Hamas did not, or at least find no proof of using human shield, while Israel has been condemn, with many picture, on their use of palestinian civilians in war as human shield and for other duty (like checking bags for bombs). That you are ignorant of all those facts does not make those simple and false argument "not propaganda". I add that, when you think about the fact that Israel even paid Youtube for advertising on their attack on gaza, and when you think about how much israeli high officials are on TV, or how the IDF itself communicate and how the media take their information without any discussions on it, then I think it is safe to say "propaganda".
On July 30 2014 21:47 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Yea,h who gives a fuck if millions of people die in a conflict. Really?
Clearly I would like some sort of peaceful solution, but both parties appear to be incapable of making that a reality. Much like an abusive couple who keeps getting back together over and over, at some point you just have to look at it and say “Well, this won’t end well, so lets just hope it ends”.
And both sides aren’t going to wipe each other out, that was a bit of hyperbole to show my how not invested I am in the outcome of the conflict. I don’t care how it ends, just as long as it moves toward an end.
On July 30 2014 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Fair enough. But invested enough to tell everyone how not invested you are in the conflict lol.
I enjoy discussion like everyone else on internet forums. Clearly I find the conflict interesting and would like to see a solution. But when it comes to “picking a side” I have come to the conclusion that both sides suck in equal measure and neither side is the “rightful owner of that land”. And people who travel back in time forever in some effort to prove who should own that cursed pile of dirt I find to be the most comical of all.
Mr Gunness from the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) told the BBC that Israel had been told 17 times that the school in the Jabaliya refugee camp was housing the displaced.
"The last time was hours before the fatal attack," he said.
"Our initial assessment is that it was Israeli artillery that hit our school."
That's some pretty direct evidence that Israel is in no way trying to avoid civilian casualties. 17 times, they were warned that the shelter was holding civilians made homeless.
I don't think you've looked at conflicts where people truly don't care about civilian casualties. you also fail to prove the thesis, due to failing to cover the issue of the location being used by hamas to fire mortars; which is also rather dishonest, seeing as that claim was covered in the article.
EPT
