Israel/Palestine in the News, Part IV

Discussion in 'International News' started by JBigjake, Nov 20, 2012.

  1. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Er... :confused:

    Have you run that past Odessit and his lot coz I'm not sure they're up for that mate. Having said that I'd have to see the details to be sure. I don't remember you specifying what you mean tbh.
     
  2. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    So you're saying Israel didn't exist before 1967?
     
  3. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member+

    Apr 14, 2011
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not sure how they would take it. My thoughts are essentially that West Bank and garza become Palestine right away. Any settlements there become part of Palestine and the settlers can either stay and be part of a new country or they can go back to Israel. All checkpoints be removed and all restrictions lifted. If cross border attacks occur, then a price would have to be exacted from the offending party. As for the issues of right of return and the 67 borders. I think that could be handled in later negotiations.

    To me this is a simple solution that at least resolves some issues like settlements and a new Palestine.
     
    Iranianfootie repped this.
  4. odessit19

    odessit19 Member+

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    No, I am not saying that
     
  5. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Well, it's both, isn't it. They've been turning ever further to the right but it's gathered pace with the increasing numbers coming from the former eastern block countries, about the 1970/80's I believe. Of course, the increasing numbers has put greater pressure on the land use.
     
  6. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    The problem is the settlements.

    Well, no... start again... ONE of the major problems is the settlements and the Israelis, (not unreasonably), wish to protect them as the people in them are, at the end of the day, still Jews. Also don't forget the state has been supporting the building of those settlements. They can't really turn around now and say,' tough shit lads, you're on your own'. Fact is they've created the problems and they have to take some responsibility for solving them.

    That's why I say that some form of unified program of helping Jews in the occupied territories move back inside the '67 borders, (or some version of them anyway), is the way to go. In reality, of course, it makes more sense for the Israelis to help the Palestinians build housing and infrastructure outside the borders and thus retain more than the 1967 borders, (effectively buying the land from the Palestinians that have had their lives disrupted), but that would necessitate negotiation with the Palestinians and I'm guessing they're not really on board with the idea of being agreeable under the circumstances.

    Truth is, it's a bloody mess... literally!

    The thing is the Israelis need a defensible border and that can't happen with the honeycomb of Israeli settlements and Palestinian villages alongside them. Either the Israelis won't be protected or the Palestinians lives will be effected in the most dreadful way as happens now.

    I think the REAL problem, in a sense, is that nobody knows what the Israelis intentions are. That's harming both the Israelis AND the Palestinians. I found some pics here that provide evidence of that situation. I mean, HOW is that helpful to anyone INCLUDING the settler families?

    Like I said before, you can see why we ended up with the partitioning of Ireland because it seemed reasonable at the time. The majority in the south got their own country to run as they saw fit and the people in the north who DIDN'T want to be part of it could stay part of the UK. The only thing that's always annoyed me, (as an Englishman), is that nobody's ever asked ME what I thought of having the protestant right-wing nutters in the north tagging along coz, trust me, those people are bloody idiots AND they cost a fortune. It's like having an elderly, half-wit uncle who nobody wants to have to sit next to at family dinners... a bleeding nightmare :(
     
    Mr. Conspiracy repped this.
  7. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I said I broadly supported the UN idea of returning to the '67 borders. You said that meant the end of the state of Israel so, logically, that must mean Israel didn't exist as a Jewish state prior to 1967. Is there any other way to see it?
     
  8. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Even if that were true in quite the simplistic way you're presenting here, does that mean the byword for Israel is going to change from 'Everything's better in Israel, to 'Come to Israel... we're not as big a pile of shite as Syria is '?

    Not sure it's got quite the same idiomatic ring to it, tbh. Y'know, not as big an attraction on the tourist front in my humble opinion.

    YMMV ;)
     
  9. odessit19

    odessit19 Member+

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    It means that if Israel were to give up land and accept over a million Arabs, it would cease to exist as a Jewish state. Seems logical to me
     
  10. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Accept over a million arabs? Do you mean INSIDE the 1967 borders? Who's suggesting that?

    We're talking about some Palestinians moving back inside the west bank land and the Jews moving insidethe '67 border, (if they can't agree to land swaps and aid in exchange for land OUTSIDE the '67 borders).

    In neither case would the state of Israel cease to exist. What it WOULD mean is the loss of control over some land but, as I say, that's exactly what's going to happen with my own country if the Scots decide to leave the United Kingdom.
     
  11. odessit19

    odessit19 Member+

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    I am fine with that in principle, as long as those Arabs living inside Israel leave to future PA state, just as hundreds of thousands of settlers leave inside 67 line, since they have been there for over 40 years now.
     
  12. Yaroni

    Yaroni Member

    Aug 31, 2007
    Tel Aviv
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Israel
  13. Yaroni

    Yaroni Member

    Aug 31, 2007
    Tel Aviv
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Israel
    Andy, (and post this specifically to you as you're the only one here who tries and post reasonable points) i really understand your sentiment towards the Palestinian cause. I understand your frustration with what you believe to be an unwilling peace seeking Israel.

    But you fail to understand the main underlying factor in this. Islamist key players who will not allow that. I'm not saying the Palestinian people do not want peace, im saying the autocracy that controls them (and those that control those very autocracies) will not allow it, which is precisely why there hasn't been a successful Arab Spring past the Levant.

    Keep in mind, that it has a lot to do with your country as well as mine. You seem like the type that would accept the Darwinian take on this issue, survival of the fittest society. But lets say that well look to the other side of it and say that we viscerally belligerent meatsacks do evolve to a level of co-existence, do you really expect the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah etc. to want legitimate peace with Israel, and in effect those very organizations backers wanting reconcile the US, UK, GCC, and most of Europe?

    And if yes, do you really think that will be the case in the near future.

    Why do you think we put religious psychos who most of us ourselves cant stand in the west bank? Its because its a strategically prudent tactic.

    We took em out of Gaza, what happened then? You could argue that Hamas will are still angry with the west bank situation. But ill respond with Lebanon, we left in 2000, got a war in 2006 and are still waiting for the impending one. You cannot however argue that Hezbullah fight for the Palestinians, and if you do then quite frankly i wont continue to discuss this with you because ive seen what Hezbullah is first hand and i know how they feel about Palestinians.

    Egypt is also full of crazies who wanna drown the Jews and the white man in blood, but the difference is that Egypt, for a long time now, and thankfully with the new regime as well, is a relatively rational one, but even more importantly, isn't under Irans thumb.

    This is very much about oil and gas. Why do you think Edrogan says israel is a terrorist state when he does the same to the Kurds? Because he know he cant have Tamar and Liviatan, 2 very large gas deposits on Israeli and Cypriot water.
     
    Mr. Conspiracy and odessit19 repped this.
  14. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I'm assuming we're discussing the idea that the Arabs living inside the '67 borders would choose to move OUTSIDE it into the areas formally occupied by the settlers inside the west bank.

    If so, then my guess would be, (and it's no more than that), that many of them probably would wish to move but, tbh, I also think it's not a good idea to start this 'new era of peace of cooperation' by pissing people off and telling them to bugger off if they've been living among Jews without problems for years, maybe decades.
    OK, not sure what you mean here? Do you mean that settlers would be asked to move back inside the '67 borders, (or something close to it anyway), in return?

    If so, as I think I've said before, if the Palestinians are agreeable to them staying OUTSIDE the '67 borders and they're fine with not having any support from the Israeli state, relying on the laws and customs of the future Palestinian state, then I don't see a reason with them staying. Of course, the fact I'm fine with it isn't really the point, is it ;)

    What I WOULD say is that, in the long run, it's amazing how quickly things can change. Obviously they can turn to shit real quick but they can also become 'normalized' a LOT quicker than you'd think. I don't mean weeks, months or even years but, certainly in a couple of decades, (not long as far as I'm concerned), people can learn to accept each other remarkable quickly if the areas of conflict are removed.

    I say that because an old workmate of my dad's retired to Southern Ireland back in the 60's to an area that would have been heavily anti-British back in the 40's, (don't forget, there were attempts by elements of the IRA to work with the Nazis during WWII), and lived there for many years with no problems whatsoever.

    Interestingly, an old workmate of MINE was an Irishman, born just outside Dublin in the south. He was a southern Irish protestant. He volunteered to fight for the British army against the Nazis, (as many thousands of them, both protestant and catholic, did), and actually spent time in the ME, including Palestine and Egypt as it happens. The thing is, when the war finished, because southern Ireland had remained neutral and there was anti-Irish feeling over here, he found it hard to get a job, the signs displayed at many employers saying, 'No Irish need apply'. Bear in mind this was AFTER he'd fought for us and spent time in a German POW before escaping. He actually got a job when he arrived for an interview in his army uniform one time. By the time I knew him any anti-Irish sentiments were largely gone, only to become inflamed again, (albeit to a very limited extent), when the 'troubles' started and stuff like the Birmingham pub bombings occurred.

    Anyway, my point is that one's enemy can seem incomprehensible and beyond the pale at the time but the truth is they ARE human beings and, as such, can be negotiated with if there's enough will. That's true whether they're Germans, Japanese, (my uncle spent time 'helping' them build the Burma Railway and dropped from 160lb to about 80lb when he returned), the Irish or any other group. Well... with the possible exception of the French. HEY! We gotta draw the line somewhere :D

    Anyway, I don't think the Palestinians are any different from anyone else.
     
    GiuseppeSignori repped this.
  15. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Anecdotal evidence suggests there is a level of disconnect between the people and the Hamas leadership, at least, to a degree. But, surely, that would lead one to argue for acts to strengthen the hands of those that want peace in their communities. As it is the current Israeli leadership have repeated, (and extended), EXACTLY the same mistakes we made in Ireland and elsewhere, thinking there's a military solution to every problem when all that does is act as a recruiting sergeant for the very people you're fighting against.
    Actually, no. I think people are AMAZINGLY similar... quite depressingly so, tbh :( if you give them the same situations and conditions, most people will react in the same way.
    As I say, I think people want what people want. They want to watch TV and scratch their nuts. They want to argue about which film star has got the biggest norks. They want to argue about politics and religion, (as long as it doesn't distract from thinking about the norks, of course). They want to see their kids get a decent education and a good job. It's only when someone STOPS them worrying about those things they start to worry about other stuff.

    That was pretty much the point that the Gideon Levy character made in the piece I linked to earlier and it's something I've observed about my own countrymen too... that people would rather do ANYTHING other than think about stuff that's unpleasant if you give them the opportunity.
    Maybe, maybe not... but if you'd have asked me that question about the troubles in Ireland I'd have said there didn't seem much chance only a year or so before they ended. Fact is, if you START to give people what they want, they can change their minds pretty quickly.

    Bear in mind also that the IRA wanted a United Ireland which still hasn't happened as at this point. They've been kept quiet with stuff about involvement in the running of the north and some rather superficial woffle about the south having a part to play in the north, (even though it hasn't).

    IOW they wanted stuff we couldn’t give them because it wasn't up to us... their argument was with the people they shared the north of Ireland with, the protestants. The Israelis actually HAVE something the Palestinians want, the land so, strictly speaking it SHOULD be a lot easier.
    Well, that confirms what I've said many times... that area is the worlds largest open-air lunatic asylum :D
    There are a lot of crazies in that part of the world. My argument would be, try and sort them out when you can to reduce the severity of the 'crazy' or, at least, make it manageable.
    Y'see, I think the Palestinians grab at the only people who they think will help them in desperation. That's how Hamas got voted into power and how Hamas make friends with IM's mad mullahs. In short, I don't think they give a shit WHO helps them as long as someone does. As it is, of course, the people who they think are helping, aren't but all that shows is that they're not the brightest bulbs in the set.

    But I think when you mention Egypt you're indicating the way out of this mess because, for YEARS, we were told that the Muslim Brotherhood were a big evil Islamic boogie-man and now, they're the people who come charging over the hill to the rescue.

    Something doesn't quite add up there, wouldn't you say?
     
  16. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    Q: What has this ceasefire achieved which could not have been achieved around a week ago when israel decided to kill Jabari whilst he was looking at the drafts of a peace agreement?
     
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Of course they aren't the "brightest" for accepting Iran's generous help, when no one else stood by them:rolleyes: Those who aren't bright, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon (the latter, the first Arab group to have successfully fought Israel and brought some pride back to the Arabs who had otherwise always found themselves at the losing end of wars with Israel), work with Iran and accept Iranian assistance and end up in the place and position of Hezbollah. The kind of people you recognize as "bright" like to be starved financially and left defenseless against aggression, satisfied to beg for the crumbs that are to be offered them if they are offered anything at all.

    http://en.ria.ru/world/20121122/177653686.html

     
  18. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    What has been achieved, one would hope, is some future reluctance on the part of the Palestinians to welcome Qatari emirs bearing gifts. The story in Iran, at least, is that Jabari was killed because of a watch that he had received as a gift from Qatar's emir, with the watch containing a tracking devise that allowed Israel to locate and take him out.
     
  19. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member+

    Apr 14, 2011
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is hilarious! And they you have no sense of humor.
     
  20. yasik19

    yasik19 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Chelsea
    Ukraine
    Oct 21, 2004
    Daly City
    [​IMG]
     
  21. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    So instead of choosing the exact same ceasefire which they have now agreed to (and which they could have agreed to a week ago, and which wil allow Hamas to rebuild the damage and re-stock on weapons) they decided on a war which lead to their own people as well as the Palestinians suffering more deaths. You accept that they CHOSE war instead of the current peace, and they lost lives as a result.
     
  22. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    I can't take credit for the story and any humor you find in it, since it isn't mine. I won't even vouch for the accuracy of this rumor/story, which originated in the Iranian media and has since circulated around, but you have admit that the rumor at least has one positive aspect to it: it might make folks in Palestine think twice about welcoming emirs and other pigs hailing from the Arabian peninsula, and particularly make them reluctant taking their gifts. After all, the spectacle of seeing one of these pseudo potentates from the sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf leave his palace and embark on a publicized visit to Gaza, bringing financial aid and plenty of gifts to Hamas, as he tried to build an image of himself as some sort of a populist monarch, was probably a bit too much for those who have had to wage this war from the ghettos that make the trenches of this war. It was also not a very welcome site to Iran, which must find this Qatari emir quite annoying as he continues trying to punch well above the weight and place of his little sheikdom.
     
  23. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    So who won?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/w...es-in-gaza-give-tehran-government-a-lift.html
     
  24. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member+

    Apr 14, 2011
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    After the piss poor performance of those weapons I wouldn't claim any of them! How many we're fired? How many even came close to any targets?

    I wonder what the response would be if Israel supplied the MEK with rockets and they fired thousands of them into Iran? I am sure Iran would understand the MEK motives and would refrain from striking back at them right?
     
  25. Iranianfootie

    Iranianfootie Member

    Sep 8, 2009
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Here is what Fareed Zakaria has to say about Israel-Palestine.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...10dc7c-3428-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html

    If IM wants to know why Israel gets very few casualties compared to the Palestinians and prior to its Arab wars.

    <But money doesn’t begin to describe Israel’s real advantages, which are in the quality and effectiveness of its military, in terms of both weapons and people. Despite being dwarfed by the Arab population, Israel’s army plus its high-quality reservists vastly outnumber those of the Arab nations. Its weapons are far more sophisticated, often a generation ahead of those used by its adversaries. Israel’s technology advantage has profound implications on the modern battlefield.

    Then there are the asymmetrical threats from groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The study takes a look at them and analyzes Hezbollah’s huge arsenal of missiles. The authors conclude that these pose no real threat to Israel because the missiles are largely unguided and thus ineffective. Hamas’s rockets are even more crude and ineffective. Israel’s response, its “Iron Dome” defense system, has worked better than expected.
    As for terrorism, the other asymmetrical strategy against Israel: Despite Wednesday’s attack on a bus in Tel Aviv, Israel is largely protected from terrorists because of the wall it built in 2003.
    This is why Egypt, despite being under a new Islamist government, is not going to risk war with Israel. Nor are the other Arab states. They will make fiery speeches and offer humanitarian assistance. But they will not fight alongside the Palestinians in Gaza or do anything that could trigger a wider war.
    Turkey, another powerful regional player, has a government that has weakened its ties with Israel and clashed with it repeatedly over its treatment of the Palestinians. But these are verbal clashes, unlikely to amount to much more. In fact, Turkey is now facing a situation in which its efforts to become a regional power have backfired. It gambled that it would be able to dislodge the regime in Syria, which has not yet happened. Its relations with Iraq have deteriorated as it shields the Sunni vice president from Baghdad’s Shiite-led government, which wants to arrest him. And since Turkey has frosty relations with Israel, it can only watch from afar as Egypt becomes the bridge between Israel and Hamas. The only real outside broker in the region is, of course, the United States, Israel’s closest ally.
    These are the realities of the Middle East today. Israel’s astonishing economic growth, its technological prowess, its military preparedness and its tight relationship with the United States have set it a league apart from its Arab adversaries. Peace between the Palestinians and Israelis will come only when Israel decides that it wants to make peace. Wise Israeli politicians, from Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert to Ehud Barak, have wanted to take risks to make that peace because they have worried about Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. This is what is in danger, not Israel’s existence.>
     

Share This Page