Discussion
Alpinestars said:
skyrover said:
Per capita, Israel receives 4x as much aid, although you are correct it is mostly military aid.
I would like to see Jordan use some of that vast aid it recieves to grant the Palestinians citizenship and integrate them properly.
Why should Jordan do that?I would like to see Jordan use some of that vast aid it recieves to grant the Palestinians citizenship and integrate them properly.
Countdown said:
skyrover said:
Because they promised to in return for the land, and a huge chunk of the population of Jordan is Palestinian.
In return for which land? And btw the reason there are so many Palestinians in Jordan is because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.Jordan was created based on the Faisal-Weizmann agreement by which Jews agreed to give away 78 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine to the Hashemites to establish a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs.
The Hashemites have never kept their promise. Even today, the UNHCR reports that Jordan’s Palestinian majority is still treated as “refugees” by Jordan’s king.
Do some reading on the history of Israel, Jordan and the British mandate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizma...
and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
skyrover said:
Because they promised to in return for the land, and a huge chunk of the population of Jordan is Palestinian.
Red Herring.Read and inwardly digest: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
skyrover said:
There is no such country as Palestine, it's an invented state.
Unlike . . . ?skyrover said:
. . . by which Jews agreed to give away 78 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine to the Hashemites to establish a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs.
'Give away'? What percentage of the population was Jewish then? About a third, even after the immigration of the late 1940s?skyrover said:
The Hashemites have never kept their promise. Even today, the UNHCR reports that Jordan’s Palestinian majority is still treated as “refugees” by Jordan’s king.
They can't Vote, obtain citizenship, own land, obtain a driving license, access public education, access social benefits etc etc... yet we never hear about this.
Because the 'right of return' is valid until it is (inevitably) given up as part of a lasting settlement. Attempts to get the representatives of the Palestinian people to renounce the right of return before negotiation are just a ploy to tilt the negotiations in Israel's favour by taking away the very few bargaining chips the Palestinians actually have.They can't Vote, obtain citizenship, own land, obtain a driving license, access public education, access social benefits etc etc... yet we never hear about this.
Give all the bargaining chips to the Israelis, reduce the Palestinian people and their representatives to such a state of desperation that they will agree to the Israeli/US wish list. Flexing Israeli military might and publicly spectacularly and messily crushing anyone who disagrees – combined with daily harassment and humiliation, continuing expropriation of land and water, economic strangulation, arbitrary arrests and assignations of popular leaders – is the way they are going about it. Crush Hamas, crush Hezbollah, crush hope – and eventually the Palestinians will sign away what Israel wants – it’s then theirs, and internationally guaranteed to be theirs.
Instead of a viable state, Palestinians end up with something little better than a series of US-style Indian reservations (perhaps they can open casinos and sell beads to tourists?). The fallacy is that that will produce peace, but it's a fallacy that seems to hold sway in Israeli and US political circles.
So instead of looking for peace Israel substitutes wack-a-mole for strategy.
skyrover said:
At the risk of repeating myself...
Jordan was created based on the Faisal-Weizmann agreement by which Jews agreed to give away 78 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine to the Hashemites to establish a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs.
The Hashemites have never kept their promise. Even today, the UNHCR reports that Jordan’s Palestinian majority is still treated as “refugees” by Jordan’s king.
Do some reading on the history of Israel, Jordan and the British mandate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizma...
and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
You are kidding?!?Jordan was created based on the Faisal-Weizmann agreement by which Jews agreed to give away 78 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine to the Hashemites to establish a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs.
The Hashemites have never kept their promise. Even today, the UNHCR reports that Jordan’s Palestinian majority is still treated as “refugees” by Jordan’s king.
Do some reading on the history of Israel, Jordan and the British mandate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizma...
and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
That would be akin to me and your neighbour agreeing how to divide up your house and "letting" you live in the garden.
And then labelling you a terrorist if you're not happy with this.
Countdown said:
skyrover said:
At the risk of repeating myself...
Jordan was created based on the Faisal-Weizmann agreement by which Jews agreed to give away 78 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine to the Hashemites to establish a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs.
The Hashemites have never kept their promise. Even today, the UNHCR reports that Jordan’s Palestinian majority is still treated as “refugees” by Jordan’s king.
Do some reading on the history of Israel, Jordan and the British mandate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizma...
and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
You are kidding?!?Jordan was created based on the Faisal-Weizmann agreement by which Jews agreed to give away 78 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine to the Hashemites to establish a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs.
The Hashemites have never kept their promise. Even today, the UNHCR reports that Jordan’s Palestinian majority is still treated as “refugees” by Jordan’s king.
Do some reading on the history of Israel, Jordan and the British mandate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizma...
and then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
That would be akin to me and your neighbour agreeing how to divide up your house.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but people seem to be blaming this entirely on the Israeli's when there were many power's involved.
There was fighting and unrest between Jews and Arab's in this area for years before the state of Israel was even created.
Lets not forget it was us Brits who drew the boundaries.
Realistically this cannot be solved by the Israeli's, nor the American's, nor the Jordanians, or Palestinians.
Octoposse said:
ecause the 'right of return' is valid until it is (inevitably) given up as part of a lasting settlement. Attempts to get the representatives of the Palestinian people to renounce the right of return before negotiation are just a ploy to tilt the negotiations in Israel's favour by taking away the very few bargaining chips the Palestinians actually have.
Something like releasing prisoners from Jail in Northern Ireland for the greater good of peace. Is it right or wrong?Octoposse said:
Give all the bargaining chips to the Israelis, reduce the Palestinian people and their representatives to such a state of desperation that they will agree to the Israeli/US wish list. Flexing Israeli military might and publicly spectacularly and messily crushing anyone who disagrees – combined with daily harassment and humiliation, continuing expropriation of land and water, economic strangulation, arbitrary arrests and assignations of popular leaders – is the way they are going about it. Crush Hamas, crush Hezbollah, crush hope – and eventually the Palestinians will sign away what Israel wants – it’s then theirs, and internationally guaranteed to be theirs.
The Palestinians are a pawn in a bigger game, victims of Jew and Arab alike.Octoposse said:
Instead of a viable state, Palestinians end up with something little better than a series of US-style Indian reservations (perhaps they can open casinos and sell beads to tourists?). The fallacy is that that will produce peace, but it's a fallacy that seems to hold sway in Israeli and US political circles.
So instead of looking for peace Israel substitutes wack-a-mole for strategy.
Their best chance lies with Jordan, but that would not be convenient for the Arab powers who do not want an Israeli state.So instead of looking for peace Israel substitutes wack-a-mole for strategy.
skyrover said:
Octoposse said:
ecause the 'right of return' is valid until it is (inevitably) given up as part of a lasting settlement. Attempts to get the representatives of the Palestinian people to renounce the right of return before negotiation are just a ploy to tilt the negotiations in Israel's favour by taking away the very few bargaining chips the Palestinians actually have.
Something like releasing prisoners from Jail in Northern Ireland for the greater good of peace. Is it right or wrong?• A viable Palestinian state based on Gaza and the West Bank;
• The permanent border between the two states freely negotiated between them – undoubtedly ending up as some close +/- to the 1967 border;
• Palestinian (and other relevant Arab state) recognition of Israel;
• Security guarantees for all states in the region;
• Surrender by the Palestinians of the right of return of refugees to lands falling within the agreed Israeli borders (compensation for which paid for by third parties);
• Partition and/or some form of international status for Jerusalem.
When it comes to the negotiation - especially land sawps and the status of Jerusalem - virtually all the cards are held by Israel. All the Palestinians have to bargain with is a) The Right of Return, b) Recognising Israel (which is virtually the same thing), and c) ending the armed struggle. Given the disparity of forces, asking Hamas (or whoever is at the time the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) to give up one, two, or all three, of their bargaining chips in advance of negotiations is hardly even handed . . .
Vandenberg said:
GTIR said:
I boycott any Israeli products and I love dates!
.
You may want to check which security and anti virus software you use as a lot of the code and information security software originates in Israel so you can boycott that as well to add to your warm cosy glow of self satisfaction but check to see if you are using Intel chips on your devices as you will need to remove them as well..
Also if you ever need any medical treatment you may want to check if any of the technology has been developed in Israel so you can boycott that as well.
A few generations of war and the Israeli mentality has resulted in some world changing technology, some of it for world good and some of it to make killing each other more efficient.
Its a lot more complicated than refusing to buy Israeli fruit and veg at M&S, if you going to have a moral stand and deprive Palestinian farmers of income at least spread that to the rest of the sectors in Israel.
Israel and the Palestinians deserve each other. The Israeli authorities and Hamas/Palestinains etc are both pathological liars.
It's like when Neil Hamilton and Al Fayed were fighting each other in court, you just wish they would both lose.
I hindsight, the mistake was made after WW2. The Jews should have been given their own state, and it should have been in Bavaria. The Germans started the damn war and carried out the holocaust, so let them get kicked out of their land.
My answer today would be to give the Palestinians their own free state in Bavaria. See how the Barder Meinhoff gang like that idea! Gaza and the area the Palestinians want is a dump anyway, just a patch a sand and scrub land. Bavaria is much nicer. I'm sure they'd warm to it once they'd been there a while and got used to it.
It's like when Neil Hamilton and Al Fayed were fighting each other in court, you just wish they would both lose.
I hindsight, the mistake was made after WW2. The Jews should have been given their own state, and it should have been in Bavaria. The Germans started the damn war and carried out the holocaust, so let them get kicked out of their land.
My answer today would be to give the Palestinians their own free state in Bavaria. See how the Barder Meinhoff gang like that idea! Gaza and the area the Palestinians want is a dump anyway, just a patch a sand and scrub land. Bavaria is much nicer. I'm sure they'd warm to it once they'd been there a while and got used to it.
Octoposse said:
Not comparable. As stated earlier, a lasting peace agreement would clearly involve a 'two state' solution:
• A viable Palestinian state based on Gaza and the West Bank;
• The permanent border between the two states freely negotiated between them – undoubtedly ending up as some close +/- to the 1967 border;
• Palestinian (and other relevant Arab state) recognition of Israel;
• Security guarantees for all states in the region;
• Surrender by the Palestinians of the right of return of refugees to lands falling within the agreed Israeli borders (compensation for which paid for by third parties);
• Partition and/or some form of international status for Jerusalem.
When it comes to the negotiation - especially land sawps and the status of Jerusalem - virtually all the cards are held by Israel. All the Palestinians have to bargain with is a) The Right of Return, b) Recognising Israel (which is virtually the same thing), and c) ending the armed struggle. Given the disparity of forces, asking Hamas (or whoever is at the time the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) to give up one, two, or all three, of their bargaining chips in advance of negotiations is hardly even handed . . .
Can't see it happening... too many fundamentalists on both sides• A viable Palestinian state based on Gaza and the West Bank;
• The permanent border between the two states freely negotiated between them – undoubtedly ending up as some close +/- to the 1967 border;
• Palestinian (and other relevant Arab state) recognition of Israel;
• Security guarantees for all states in the region;
• Surrender by the Palestinians of the right of return of refugees to lands falling within the agreed Israeli borders (compensation for which paid for by third parties);
• Partition and/or some form of international status for Jerusalem.
When it comes to the negotiation - especially land sawps and the status of Jerusalem - virtually all the cards are held by Israel. All the Palestinians have to bargain with is a) The Right of Return, b) Recognising Israel (which is virtually the same thing), and c) ending the armed struggle. Given the disparity of forces, asking Hamas (or whoever is at the time the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) to give up one, two, or all three, of their bargaining chips in advance of negotiations is hardly even handed . . .
Perhaps if the UN mediated, backed up by a hundred thousand impartial Chinese peacekeepers...
Octoposse said:
The tragedy is that everybody - Hamas, the Israeli government and opposition parties, the people just trying to get on with their lives, feed their kids, go to work - knows what a lasting peace deal will look like . . .
“Land for peace”, and two states;
• A viable Palestinian state based on Gaza and the West Bank;
• The permanent border between the two states freely negotiated between them – undoubtedly ending up as some close +/- to the 1967 border;
• Palestinian (and other relevant Arab state) recognition of Israel;
• Security guarantees for all states in the region;
• Surrender by the Palestinians of the right of return of refugees to lands falling within the agreed Israeli borders (compensation for which paid for by the EU and the US - ergo a lot tougher now than pre-crash);
• Partition and/or some form of international status for Jerusalem.
Right now it is Israel that doesn't want to pay the price of peace, because it's higher than the price of 'war', politically and economically. Israeli governments cannot conceive of paying the internal political price of giving up sufficient of the occupied territories that will give the Palestinians the land, water and resources they need to establish a viable state. The folly of concreting themselves into the West Bank is now plain to see - it's turned from a bargaining chip into an immovable object.
That, paradoxically, is why Israel is (again) attempting to crush Hamas - it's not that they are too militant, it is that they are disciplined and uncorrupt enough to deliver peace (unlike, say, Fatah under Arafat).
Palestinian strategy is therefore to create conditions in which it can increase the price of what Israel must pay to maintain the current status quo (thus making real peace more attractive), but Israel's tactics are to make the status quo 'affordable' (chiefly in Israeli lives) - hence the barrier, missile defence, the use of overwhelming force to crush dissent, and a tacit understanding by those on the front line that they have carte blanche to over react.
Sadly, that is simply not terribly accurate and with respect shows the fundamental issue here. There is generally very little understanding of the politics there and certainly a few media reports are unable to explain the complexities. Your final conclusion about Hamas and Israel, while very neat, rather ignores Palestinian politics, Israeli and US politics,and the feelings of the vast majority on the streets in both areas. They do want peace, they do broadly want a similar thing but as long as people assume to understand the situation these kind of easy appearing solutions will crop up. Sadly, no side would remotely agree to it as that will not remotely address the concerns and issues at the heart of the matter.“Land for peace”, and two states;
• A viable Palestinian state based on Gaza and the West Bank;
• The permanent border between the two states freely negotiated between them – undoubtedly ending up as some close +/- to the 1967 border;
• Palestinian (and other relevant Arab state) recognition of Israel;
• Security guarantees for all states in the region;
• Surrender by the Palestinians of the right of return of refugees to lands falling within the agreed Israeli borders (compensation for which paid for by the EU and the US - ergo a lot tougher now than pre-crash);
• Partition and/or some form of international status for Jerusalem.
Right now it is Israel that doesn't want to pay the price of peace, because it's higher than the price of 'war', politically and economically. Israeli governments cannot conceive of paying the internal political price of giving up sufficient of the occupied territories that will give the Palestinians the land, water and resources they need to establish a viable state. The folly of concreting themselves into the West Bank is now plain to see - it's turned from a bargaining chip into an immovable object.
That, paradoxically, is why Israel is (again) attempting to crush Hamas - it's not that they are too militant, it is that they are disciplined and uncorrupt enough to deliver peace (unlike, say, Fatah under Arafat).
Palestinian strategy is therefore to create conditions in which it can increase the price of what Israel must pay to maintain the current status quo (thus making real peace more attractive), but Israel's tactics are to make the status quo 'affordable' (chiefly in Israeli lives) - hence the barrier, missile defence, the use of overwhelming force to crush dissent, and a tacit understanding by those on the front line that they have carte blanche to over react.
Let me give a simple example. It is painted as a Jewish V Arab thing, it is nothing of the sort. It is also assumed that terms such as Israel, Zionist and Jew are interchangeable. They are not. Finally, it assumes that all Israelis share a view as do all Palestinians. They don't any more than you can say all UK citizens agree on anything much!
Your view and suggestion has, for a start, been specifically vetoed on several occasions by Hamas but not by Abbas. IIt also rather ignores the demand for a land link the prevent a state in two separate areas. Fair point. But as soon as you do that, Israel becomes a state in two areas. If it was so simple, it would have been respoved a long time ago because, contrary to the view it is in the benefit of Israel to maintain the siituation, the absolute reverse is true.
Alsom, events are taken in isolation, which is crazy. Finally, there is an assumption that police or Army who break the rules of engagement are covered up. The reverse is true. as a member of the Israeli armed forces, a black mark on your record, from a censure to a life prison term, will pretty much impact every area of your life. And they are pursued. Heavily. But its not news so you don;t see it covered on the media here.
Pappa Lurve said:
<snip>
Alsom, events are taken in isolation, which is crazy. Finally, there is an assumption that police or Army who break the rules of engagement are covered up. The reverse is true. as a member of the Israeli armed forces, a black mark on your record, from a censure to a life prison term, will pretty much impact every area of your life. And they are pursued. Heavily. But its not news so you don;t see it covered on the media here.
You are probably right, the concern shown by those kicking someone who's obviously unable to defend himself is palpable, you can see that they are very concerned about consequences of their actions. Alsom, events are taken in isolation, which is crazy. Finally, there is an assumption that police or Army who break the rules of engagement are covered up. The reverse is true. as a member of the Israeli armed forces, a black mark on your record, from a censure to a life prison term, will pretty much impact every area of your life. And they are pursued. Heavily. But its not news so you don;t see it covered on the media here.
league67 said:
Pappa Lurve said:
<snip>
Alsom, events are taken in isolation, which is crazy. Finally, there is an assumption that police or Army who break the rules of engagement are covered up. The reverse is true. as a member of the Israeli armed forces, a black mark on your record, from a censure to a life prison term, will pretty much impact every area of your life. And they are pursued. Heavily. But its not news so you don;t see it covered on the media here.
You are probably right, the concern shown by those kicking someone who's obviously unable to defend himself is palpable, you can see that they are very concerned about consequences of their actions. Alsom, events are taken in isolation, which is crazy. Finally, there is an assumption that police or Army who break the rules of engagement are covered up. The reverse is true. as a member of the Israeli armed forces, a black mark on your record, from a censure to a life prison term, will pretty much impact every area of your life. And they are pursued. Heavily. But its not news so you don;t see it covered on the media here.
Same as ever on these threads, people with largely no real understanding of the situation, or even who is involved or why, proclaim a view and often a fix. If it was that simple, it would have been dealt with years ago.
Pappa Lurve said:
Finally, there is an assumption that police or Army who break the rules of engagement are covered up. The reverse is true. as a member of the Israeli armed forces, a black mark on your record, from a censure to a life prison term, will pretty much impact every area of your life. And they are pursued. Heavily. But its not news so you don;t see it covered on the media here.
Hardly - pretty clear that the Israeli state, in practice if not in theory, is supportive of army marksmen / bulldozer drivers / et al who target children, journalists and foreign activists.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Israel and the Palestinians deserve each other. The Israeli authorities and Hamas/Palestinains etc are both pathological liars.
It's like when Neil Hamilton and Al Fayed were fighting each other in court, you just wish they would both lose.
I hindsight, the mistake was made after WW2. The Jews should have been given their own state, and it should have been in Bavaria. The Germans started the damn war and carried out the holocaust, so let them get kicked out of their land.
My answer today would be to give the Palestinians their own free state in Bavaria. See how the Barder Meinhoff gang like that idea! Gaza and the area the Palestinians want is a dump anyway, just a patch a sand and scrub land. Bavaria is much nicer. I'm sure they'd warm to it once they'd been there a while and got used to it.
UtahIt's like when Neil Hamilton and Al Fayed were fighting each other in court, you just wish they would both lose.
I hindsight, the mistake was made after WW2. The Jews should have been given their own state, and it should have been in Bavaria. The Germans started the damn war and carried out the holocaust, so let them get kicked out of their land.
My answer today would be to give the Palestinians their own free state in Bavaria. See how the Barder Meinhoff gang like that idea! Gaza and the area the Palestinians want is a dump anyway, just a patch a sand and scrub land. Bavaria is much nicer. I'm sure they'd warm to it once they'd been there a while and got used to it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff