Discussion
jonby said:
I understand fully why so many people are so very upset with Israel's current strategy. But to suggest that Israel don't want a viable, stable Palestinian state is something I find incredulous. What do those people think Israel do want ? The total destruction of the Palestinians ? If so, they could & would have done it by now. It's Hamas who have no interest in peace, not Israel, as can be judged by their respective attitudes towards life & death. The Hamas billionaires could easily afford an Iron Dome system like Israel's if they actually wanted to reduce the loss of life. That doesn't excuse Israel's actions before I'm mis-interpreted, it's simply an interesting thought
Which leads onto the issue that many (not all) 'pro-Israel' posters try to at least look at things from a variety of perspectives, whilst many (but again not all) pro-Palestinian posters (on PH and in the wider communities) seem incapable of seeing anything other than they are in the right and everything Israel does is wrong.
You may not agree with everything in it, but a fascinating blog here trying to look at both sides. I appreciate many 'pro-gaza / pro-palestinian' ppl will still argue it is one sided despite being written by a (non-practising) muslim but it does raise some very interesting questions. Questions which the bulk of the 'freegaza' lobby seem to completely ignore
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_805...
For what it's worth, I take a stance similar to the author's penultimate paragraph - pro two state solution & democracy, anti Hamas & settlement expansion.
I believe you read the situation accurately.Which leads onto the issue that many (not all) 'pro-Israel' posters try to at least look at things from a variety of perspectives, whilst many (but again not all) pro-Palestinian posters (on PH and in the wider communities) seem incapable of seeing anything other than they are in the right and everything Israel does is wrong.
You may not agree with everything in it, but a fascinating blog here trying to look at both sides. I appreciate many 'pro-gaza / pro-palestinian' ppl will still argue it is one sided despite being written by a (non-practising) muslim but it does raise some very interesting questions. Questions which the bulk of the 'freegaza' lobby seem to completely ignore
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_805...
For what it's worth, I take a stance similar to the author's penultimate paragraph - pro two state solution & democracy, anti Hamas & settlement expansion.
FredClogs said:
jonby said:
But not a bad start considering how young the country is
Palestine (or an ancient naming of it) is over 4000 years old and the land was probably inhabited before then, hardly new, and people have been fighting over it on and off for most of that time...Life for arabs in Israel, especially in Jerusalem is getting increasingly difficult, it's well documented.
By 'young', I was referring to the system of Israel as we know it now, with Israeli passports & citizens, dealing with the government of a population that is majority jewish but with other faiths who have equal legal rights living in the same country. That's pretty young
jonby said:
Do you realise that in Israel, more than 20% of the population are Arab ? They have voting rights, rights to be an MP (there are a number), rights to equal healthcare & to equal pay
They also have the right to be a high court judge. There is indeed a current sitting Arab high court judge - The election committee, chaired by the Arab judge !
Can you possibly imagine that situation in reverse in a Palestinian run state ?
Good points. I ask that someone here tell me how the reverse would indeed work.They also have the right to be a high court judge. There is indeed a current sitting Arab high court judge - The election committee, chaired by the Arab judge !
Can you possibly imagine that situation in reverse in a Palestinian run state ?
FredClogs said:
jonby said:
But not a bad start considering how young the country is
Palestine (or an ancient naming of it) is over 4000 years old and the land was probably inhabited before then, hardly new, and people have been fighting over it on and off for most of that time...Life for arabs in Israel, especially in Jerusalem is getting increasingly difficult, it's well documented.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
On the settlement issue, I fully agree that what the govt are doing is wholly unhelpful. You ask why they are doing it - I can't be sure, but one assumes for bargaining chips and to appease certain of their own population. It's highly divisive within Israel as you probably are aware. The majority of the Israeli population, given the choice, would IMO not let that be the stumbling block to peace or a 2 state solution. The population is of course highly sceptical that the Palestinians would stick medium term+ to anything that was 'agreed' and that IMO is the biggest obstacle to peace on the Israeli sideOf course theoretically, the settlements could be part of a Palestinian state which allowed jews to live in it................... now I'll wait for people to get back up off the floor !
The Fatah question is interesting. I'd always thought the only realistic approach was a universal solution but one aspect of what's happening now is that it may just lead to a staged approach to peace (i.e. doing things separately with WB then Gaza). I do however find it highly unlikely, just less unlikely than it was
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
jonby said:
But you are naïve if you think a party like Hamas will ever be happy for more than a very brief period of time with any border until Israel no longer exists
This^^^Jonby, I asked you if you had the faith in the Israeli authorities having any long term willingness to relinquish the WB entirely. You actually haven't answered that.
I also asked you why in the case of a Fatah/Israel WB solution why Hamas would ever re-enter the equation. You didn't actually answer that.
The longer you half answer a question, give an answer to a question that wasn't asked and dodge answering the question asked the more I'll take you as seriously as Ribena, Twiglet and Jimbeaux.
I also asked you why in the case of a Fatah/Israel WB solution why Hamas would ever re-enter the equation. You didn't actually answer that.
The longer you half answer a question, give an answer to a question that wasn't asked and dodge answering the question asked the more I'll take you as seriously as Ribena, Twiglet and Jimbeaux.
Jimbeaux said:
FredClogs said:
jonby said:
But not a bad start considering how young the country is
Palestine (or an ancient naming of it) is over 4000 years old and the land was probably inhabited before then, hardly new, and people have been fighting over it on and off for most of that time...Life for arabs in Israel, especially in Jerusalem is getting increasingly difficult, it's well documented.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/27/the-n...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-ethnic-cleans...
and a more general journal...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/23/what_d...
jonby said:
I understand fully why so many people are so very upset with Israel's current strategy. But to suggest that Israel don't want a viable, stable Palestinian state is something I find incredulous. What do those people think Israel do want ? The total destruction of the Palestinians ?
In my opinion Israel wishes the Palestinians would just leave the West Bank - they want to annexe it permanently as they've done with the Golan Heights. Unfortunately for them the Palestinians don't want to leave. So Israel's strategy is to make sure they can't have a viable State by building settlements in strategic locations, criss-crossing the WB with Jewish-only roads and military checkpoints. This results in any "Peace Proposal" having to accommodate "Facts on the Ground" (i.e. Israel saying "we can't remove the settlements, they've been built, the Palestinians have to live with it, tough. Oh and we genuinely genuinely want peace. By the way did we mention we're building MORE settlements".
Hamas gets support because it can demonstrate, with a high degree of truth, that the current Israeli Govt aren't interested in any 2-state solution.
jonby said:
The Fatah question is interesting. I'd always thought the only realistic approach was a universal solution but one aspect of what's happening now is that it may just lead to a staged approach to peace (i.e. doing things separately with WB then Gaza). I do however find it highly unlikely, just less unlikely than it was
Bibi had the option to make a separate peace with Fatah. My understanding is that he said he couldn't because "Fatah didn't speak for ALL the Palestinians". When Fatah and Hamas reconciled he said "he wouldn't make peace with a Terrorist organsiation". As far as Im aware he also expects to have full control over the borders of any future Palestinian state and that any such State is completely demilitarised.It does not really matter what the Israelis and the Palestinians want. The reality is that the security of the region and the prospects for peace therein are entirely in the hands of all those other nations that are overtly and covertly pulling the strings. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, USA, Russia and many others all have their own role to play in securing a long lasting peace. And that's before you even get into the politics of Hamas, Fatah, Jewish extremist groups, alliances, allegiances, the various groupings within Islam, the various groupings within Judaism, the role of Christians and so on and so on. Simplistic notions of a "two state solution" are always doomed to fail when there are so many hands in the pot, any one of which can screw it up for everyone.
And sat in the back of all of this are the two awful truths that have to be faced...
1. That Israel, by reacting as it does to the rocket attacks and other atrocities and threats is in danger of becoming the very thing that would surely never want to be.. A nasty, unthinking, uncaring bully that, whilst it can rationalise defending itself extremely efficiently, is actually destroying itself morally and spiritually as it does so. I do not think that comparisons with Nazi Germany are either helpful or accurate, but in one sense there is a national psychosis within Israel that thousands of years of persecution culminating in the holocaust has created - namely that Israel will always believe that the ONLY people who will protect them, when push comes to shove, is themselves. From there leads a path of absolute resolution never to be the victims again.
2. That the Palestinian people are seemingly forever condemned to be the blood victims of not only their own leaders but also anyone else in the region who wishes to use them in their proxy war with Jews. And let's be candid here, at the root of that thinking is clear anti semitism, and as such is in itself has a more closer parallel to the Nazis!
Ironically that very anti semitism is further evidenced by the neighbouring Arab states approach to the Palestinians (who are also semites) in that the Palestinians are treated as being worthy of the status of little more than cannon fodder.
Everyone gets upset (and rightly so) about the suffering of the Palestinian people. However people are entirely wrong to focus on the imbalance in the conflict! Inequality of outcome does not negate reality of the intent. Palestinians are frequently the aggressors. The fact that the Israelis are rather better at it, are better equipped and as a result kill more than they are themselves killed is not the point. Following that logic would suggest that everyone would be happy if it was 1000 deaths on each side! The fact is that if the Palestinians COULD kill 1000 Jews then they WOULD.
It was said recently that the Israelis use their weapons to defend their people, whilst Hamas uses its people to protect its weapons. There is more than a grain of truth in this and it betrays the utter hopelessness of the current situation.
As long as Palestinians are dyeing to further the aims of others then there can be no peace.
As long as Israel feels threatened in the region there can be no peace
As long as the Palestinian people have no viable homeland there can be no peace
The answer then lies in the above 3 statements. For there to be peace
The other parties and countries currently meddling and using Palestine as a stick with which they can vicariously beat Israel need to butt out.
Israel needs to have it's security and status assured by all around it - and they have to be convinced that such assurances are real!
The Palestinians need to be helped to set up a viable homeland, free of extremist influences - a homeland capable of sustaining and nurturing its people for the future.
Everything else is candy floss.
And sat in the back of all of this are the two awful truths that have to be faced...
1. That Israel, by reacting as it does to the rocket attacks and other atrocities and threats is in danger of becoming the very thing that would surely never want to be.. A nasty, unthinking, uncaring bully that, whilst it can rationalise defending itself extremely efficiently, is actually destroying itself morally and spiritually as it does so. I do not think that comparisons with Nazi Germany are either helpful or accurate, but in one sense there is a national psychosis within Israel that thousands of years of persecution culminating in the holocaust has created - namely that Israel will always believe that the ONLY people who will protect them, when push comes to shove, is themselves. From there leads a path of absolute resolution never to be the victims again.
2. That the Palestinian people are seemingly forever condemned to be the blood victims of not only their own leaders but also anyone else in the region who wishes to use them in their proxy war with Jews. And let's be candid here, at the root of that thinking is clear anti semitism, and as such is in itself has a more closer parallel to the Nazis!
Ironically that very anti semitism is further evidenced by the neighbouring Arab states approach to the Palestinians (who are also semites) in that the Palestinians are treated as being worthy of the status of little more than cannon fodder.
Everyone gets upset (and rightly so) about the suffering of the Palestinian people. However people are entirely wrong to focus on the imbalance in the conflict! Inequality of outcome does not negate reality of the intent. Palestinians are frequently the aggressors. The fact that the Israelis are rather better at it, are better equipped and as a result kill more than they are themselves killed is not the point. Following that logic would suggest that everyone would be happy if it was 1000 deaths on each side! The fact is that if the Palestinians COULD kill 1000 Jews then they WOULD.
It was said recently that the Israelis use their weapons to defend their people, whilst Hamas uses its people to protect its weapons. There is more than a grain of truth in this and it betrays the utter hopelessness of the current situation.
As long as Palestinians are dyeing to further the aims of others then there can be no peace.
As long as Israel feels threatened in the region there can be no peace
As long as the Palestinian people have no viable homeland there can be no peace
The answer then lies in the above 3 statements. For there to be peace
The other parties and countries currently meddling and using Palestine as a stick with which they can vicariously beat Israel need to butt out.
Israel needs to have it's security and status assured by all around it - and they have to be convinced that such assurances are real!
The Palestinians need to be helped to set up a viable homeland, free of extremist influences - a homeland capable of sustaining and nurturing its people for the future.
Everything else is candy floss.
jonby said:
That's what makes accusations of apartheid so absurd. Incidentally arabs of course have the right to opt out of conscription to avoid personal conflict. As you say, it's not perfect but more chance of (legal) prosperity, there's freedom of speech & movement, a safer environment and so on. Room for improvement - sure ! But not a bad start considering how young the country is and how much pressure they must all be under, especially when you look at how poorly we seem to be managing integration here in the UK
It's not legally possible in Israel for a Jew to marry a non Jew .Jewish occupiers in the West Bank enjoy Israeli civil law .
Palestinians are subject to military law
The law of return applies only to Jews ( anywhere in the world )
and excludes Palestinians born in what now is Israel.
Palestinians cannot bring spouses from the occupied lands to live with them,Jews can .
I could bring up housing ,education and health but you get the drift .
Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter think it is Apartheid .
I think if it walks like a duck.quacks like a duck .............
It seems most of the pro Israeli zealots just want the Palestinians to settle down
be 'good uncle toms ' and everything will be fine .
kitz said:
It's not legally possible in Israel for a Jew to marry a non Jew .
Jewish occupiers in the West Bank enjoy Israeli civil law .
Palestinians are subject to military law
The law of return applies only to Jews ( anywhere in the world )
and excludes Palestinians born in what now is Israel.
Palestinians cannot bring spouses from the occupied lands to live with them,Jews can .
I could bring up housing ,education and health but you get the drift .
Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter think it is Apartheid .
I think if it walks like a duck.quacks like a duck .............
It seems most of the pro Israeli zealots just want the Palestinians to settle down
be 'good uncle toms ' and everything will be fine .
Very interesting points. Let me ask you though, are you as vociferous in your condemnation of those Arab states that expelled Jews, often not allowing them to take any of their possessions or value of their property, during the 50s, 60s and 70s? Jewish occupiers in the West Bank enjoy Israeli civil law .
Palestinians are subject to military law
The law of return applies only to Jews ( anywhere in the world )
and excludes Palestinians born in what now is Israel.
Palestinians cannot bring spouses from the occupied lands to live with them,Jews can .
I could bring up housing ,education and health but you get the drift .
Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter think it is Apartheid .
I think if it walks like a duck.quacks like a duck .............
It seems most of the pro Israeli zealots just want the Palestinians to settle down
be 'good uncle toms ' and everything will be fine .
I ask, not to be argumentative, but to point out that whichever way you look there is wrong on all sides. Israel HAS to reign back it's appalling treatment of the Palestinians and it simply HAS to withdraw settlements, but you can see and understand in a bizarre way why they do not - after all, everyone else in the region did the same things to them, and no -one stopped it but the Israelis themselves.
Note, I am not condoning, nor am I accepting or justifying. Just understanding.
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
jonby said:
But you are naïve if you think a party like Hamas will ever be happy for more than a very brief period of time with any border until Israel no longer exists
This^^^FredClogs said:
Jimbeaux said:
FredClogs said:
jonby said:
But not a bad start considering how young the country is
Palestine (or an ancient naming of it) is over 4000 years old and the land was probably inhabited before then, hardly new, and people have been fighting over it on and off for most of that time...Life for arabs in Israel, especially in Jerusalem is getting increasingly difficult, it's well documented.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/27/the-n...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-ethnic-cleans...
and a more general journal...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/23/what_d...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff