Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
What lands are Israel occupying? Someone, please legitimately explain. President Obama called Israel occupiers.
Official Israel/Palestine topic
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
But what about Hamas? I think Hezbollah would work with Hamas if they could try and destroy Israel. They have more in common than different.
Nigel Tufnel said:
That is where you are mistaken. Their only common denominator is their will to destroy Israel. If exposed directly to each other, they would engage in sectarian violence that would be as least as heavy as that in post-Saddam Iraq. We aren't talking about moderates, but fanatics.
As for Hamas, the problem is that they are part of the Palestinian people, and part of their society.
Does anybody mind if I merge this current discussion with Foro's recent Palestine thread to create an "Official Israel/Palestine" thread?
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
January of 2009. Hezbollah works in concert with Hamas to coordinate rocket attacks in Northern Israel, during the Gaza War.
Sounds like a plan, buddy.
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are essentially ghettos. No, there aren't Israeli troops marching the streets, but they have hemmed in lands that did not originally belong to them. Of course...
This statement wasn't challenged at the time and is factually untrue. Here's the division of the Jewish state (Israel) and Arab state (Palestine) as proposed in the original 1948 UN mandate:
Well, what do we see here? Looks like all those areas were supposed to be part of Palestine. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, and I don't think that Hamas, etc. have a right to receive a state for nothing. They should have to prove they are peacable beforehand.
Hamas anbd Hezbollah have three things in common: They are Muslim, they hate Israel, and they start with the Roman letter H. That's it. Westerners often don't understand the depth of the Shi'a v. Sunni divde. They absolutely despise each other in a way that we can't replicate in Christianity.
Nigel Tufnel said:
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are essentially ghettos. No, there aren't Israeli troops marching the streets, but they have hemmed in lands that did not originally belong to them. Of course...
Nigel Tufnel said:
This statement wasn't challenged at the time and is factually untrue. Here's the division of the Jewish state (Israel) and Arab state (Palestine) as proposed in the original 1948 UN mandate:
Well, what do we see here? Looks like all those areas were supposed to be part of Palestine. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, and I don't think that Hamas, etc. have a right to receive a state for nothing. They should have to prove they are peacable beforehand.
Hamas anbd Hezbollah have three things in common: They are Muslim, they hate Israel, and they start with the Roman letter H. That's it. Westerners often don't understand the depth of the Shi'a v. Sunni divde. They absolutely despise each other in a way that we can't replicate in Christianity.
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
Shi'a and Sunnis are very much diametrically opposed in theology, and it has to do with the successors of Mohamed, who they follow. I know I am over simplifying.
In addition to the UN-partitioned area allotted to the Jewish state, Israel captured and incorporated[citation needed]a further 26% of the Mandate territory (namely of the territory to the west of the Jordan river). Jordan captured and annexed about 21% of the Mandate territory, which it referred to as the West Bank (to differentiate it from the newly-named East Bank – the original Transjordan). Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan taking the eastern parts, including the Old City, and Israel taking the western parts. The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt. In addition, Syria held on to small slivers of Mandate territory to the south and east of the Sea of Galilee, which had been allocated in the UN partition plan to the Jewish state. Negotiations involving the United Nations over the current status of Jerusalem as a capital city are still continuing as a part of the UN-sponsored "Two-State Solution". Currently, Jerusalem as a whole is not internationally or legal recognised as the capital city of the State of Israel or the Palestinian Territories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#UN_partition_and_the_1948_Israeli-Arab_War
There is the link to the Wikipedia entry. It was a 3 nation land grab it appears, with the Palestinians getting the shaft.
In addition to the UN-partitioned area allotted to the Jewish state, Israel captured and incorporated[citation needed]a further 26% of the Mandate territory (namely of the territory to the west of the Jordan river). Jordan captured and annexed about 21% of the Mandate territory, which it referred to as the West Bank (to differentiate it from the newly-named East Bank – the original Transjordan). Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan taking the eastern parts, including the Old City, and Israel taking the western parts. The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt. In addition, Syria held on to small slivers of Mandate territory to the south and east of the Sea of Galilee, which had been allocated in the UN partition plan to the Jewish state. Negotiations involving the United Nations over the current status of Jerusalem as a capital city are still continuing as a part of the UN-sponsored "Two-State Solution". Currently, Jerusalem as a whole is not internationally or legal recognised as the capital city of the State of Israel or the Palestinian Territories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#UN_partition_and_the_1948_Israeli-Arab_War
There is the link to the Wikipedia entry. It was a 3 nation land grab it appears, with the Palestinians getting the shaft.
LooseCannon said:
And the Arabic letter He.
What unites Hamas and Hezbollah is what in the world of sovereign nations is called a military alliance. I don't know for sure, but I think in this case it is even informal, i.e. no treaty or anything exists, and they only coordinate their actions when they see they can inflict more damage to their common enemy this way.
I don't want to Godwin this thread, but this situation is fairly similar to the Anglo-Soviet alliance in the Second World War. Churchill never made any secret of his contempt for Stalin. When he saw himself forced to ally with him after Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, he said: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil". And as soon as the war was over and Churchill lost his post of prime minister, he said, "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the Continent". Churchill saw that an Anglo-Soviet alliance was the only option to defeat Germany. As soon as the German threat was gone, he made belligerent comments towards the Soviets. What I mean to say is, military alliances can come into existence between the most bitter of enemies, if they have a common enemy to fight.
Hamas and Hezbollah are following radical ideologies that do not only differ from and are completely incompatible with each other, but actually demand the annihilation of each other. They consider each other heretics and infidels. As Loosey said, there is nothing in the Christian world resembling this.
Perun came in and made the exact comparison I was going to make. Churchill HATED Stalin. He just hated Hitler a tiny bit more. If Lebanon abutted the Gaza Strip, who knows whether they could agree on anything. Sometimes, I think they want Israel out of the way so Sunnis and Shi'as can go back to killing each other.
Nigel, I know what you're saying: but just because Egypt, Jordan, and Syria occupied those land partitions first doesn't mean that Israel's later land occupation is legitimate. Think about it this way. You, me, and Perun are neighbours and share a corner of our property with a tree on it. Legally, it's Perun's tree, but I put my fence around it. Then you knock my fence down and put yours around the tree. It's still Perun's tree.
Nigel, I know what you're saying: but just because Egypt, Jordan, and Syria occupied those land partitions first doesn't mean that Israel's later land occupation is legitimate. Think about it this way. You, me, and Perun are neighbours and share a corner of our property with a tree on it. Legally, it's Perun's tree, but I put my fence around it. Then you knock my fence down and put yours around the tree. It's still Perun's tree.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Auction off the tree.LooseCannon said:
They tried that with Jerusalem.
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
I see your point LC. But if Perun and you have tried to kill me, would it be reasonable for me to want the biggest, tallest and sturdiest fence that I can build? What if there were house guests that went on my property and killed and maimed my pets? I am not so concerned as to who has their fence around the tree, but my physical well being.
and Perun has a Kalashnikov
and Perun has a Kalashnikov
That's fair and all. I don't think anyone is saying Israel can't defend itself. We've all agreed Israel has a right to exist - the same rights the Palestinians have. That land was intended for them to develop their own state upon, a chance that was stolen from them by successive governments - both Arabic and Jewish. As it stands, the Arabic states that occupied originally the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have said they don't want that land anymore. Ipso facto, it should be Palestine.
The question now is whether or not Palestine can be created without causing (yet another) war.
I dunno. It's not an easy question, but two countries that hate each other have found ways to live peacably side-by-side. Pakistan and India, Ireland and Britain, Canada and the USA (and yes, that is serious). In order for a two-state solution to work, the Palestinians AND Israelis have to agree the others have a right to exist. And I think there is a serious moral dilemna if either body disagrees.
The question now is whether or not Palestine can be created without causing (yet another) war.
I dunno. It's not an easy question, but two countries that hate each other have found ways to live peacably side-by-side. Pakistan and India, Ireland and Britain, Canada and the USA (and yes, that is serious). In order for a two-state solution to work, the Palestinians AND Israelis have to agree the others have a right to exist. And I think there is a serious moral dilemna if either body disagrees.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I'm not sure at this point it can be created. Neither side wants the other to be there. The Palestinians view this as their homeland, Isreal sees it as theirs and their expansion (which is small in terms of actual space) came from repelling attacks and is needed to defend itself. When you have an issue of one side has land the other wants, the only options are for the Palesinians to give up the claim or the Israelis to leave. Both sides have legit claims to the same land. Add that into the larger Muslim versus the West/Jews conflict and you have strong forces on all sides.
I think they can possibly agree on practical day to day matters and basic needs, but I am not seeing a larger solution anytime soon. The Palestinians may just have to face the fact that Israel is where it is and that is not going to change.
I think they can possibly agree on practical day to day matters and basic needs, but I am not seeing a larger solution anytime soon. The Palestinians may just have to face the fact that Israel is where it is and that is not going to change.
If Palestine was interested in operating within their current borders, it's certainly feasible. Hamas isn't interested in that, obviously. Neither are certain aspects of Israel.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
LooseCannon said:
No arguments here, but one (really both) of those things need to change before any long lasting peace is achieved. This may be a case where it will take another generation or two before a bigger solution can be reached, but in the meantime try to keep fighting to a minimum and try to help the average citizen live a better life (which in part will reduce hostilities in the long run).
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
I don't know what will become of the settlements in the West Bank if the Palestinian State is created there. Like I said earlier, the Palestinians deserve a homeland, deserve to be able to move without restictions and deserve to self determine. That being said, there is going to have to be some kind of concrete compromise. Everybody has agreed that a two state solution is the best outcome. Israel, The Palestinians, the Arab Legue, the UN and the USA have all agreed, but it is the execution that is going to be the fly in the ointment. Will Hamas renounce it's call for the destruction of Israel, will Israel give up the settlements? Those are the two biggest issues that have to be dealt with b efore any kind of agreement is even thought of.
Nigel Tufnel said:
The settlers will be displaced, those who are defiant and refuse to leave will be discriminated against, at best.
Definitely. Anybody who says otherwise does not deserve a homeland himself.
There has been such a compromise. It was illustrated in the map Loosey posted. The Palestinians took up arms against that, and four wars were fought over it.
I'm not going to judge whether the Palestinians were entitled to fight against a newly-founded Jewish state or not, because it does not matter anymore. Israel is there, the Israelis are there. Whatever happened in 1948 is irrelevant: The Palestinians and everybody else have to live with that.
As it always has been. There have been many great peace plans, some of which were awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize. Sorry to say it, but anybody who believes the next peace plan will work is naive. There are enough radical elements on both sides determined to make it fail.
No. They never will, since that is the cause for their existence. If there should ever be a stable and lasting peace, they will probably fade to oblivion, but they will never renounce that call.
At least not officially. If what I said above should happen, that the Palestinians will drive the settlers out by force, the Israeli government will probably help towards a swift and painless deplacement, but I don't think it will ever formally give up those settlements.
I don't think Hamas is as big an issue as the settlements, simply because Hamas does not speak for all Palestinians. As I said earlier on, it is amazing how short-lived memories can be: There was actually a Palestinian civil war in 2007 between Hamas and Fatah supporters that ended up with Hamas occupying the Gaza strip and Fatah controlling the West Bank. Hence, I do not understand people who believe that this new alliance will last.
And that is the problem about a newly-founded Palestinian state, if there should ever be one. It is not going to be stable in a political sense because its people are going to be poor and, as absurd as that may sound, even more displaced than before. Many people were born and grew up in refugee camps in Jordan, the West Bank and elsewhere. They are going to return to a homeland they have actually never seen. They are displaced from their displacement, so to speak.
Palestine has no natural resources to speak of, and is always going to be economically dependent of its neighbours. Its people are either going to have to commute to the neighbouring countries for work, or migrate there completely. Palestine is going to have to import virtually all its necessities, including power, water and food. This pitiful dependency is going to leave people without a positive outlook for the future. Such are the perfect breeding grounds for radicals of whatever orientation, and even if there is formally peace and stability between Israel and Palestine, Palestinian radicals will find it easy to target this neighbour and accuse them of being responsible for all their problems, perhaps not even entirely without reason. Hence, from the Israeli point of view, Palestine is always going to be a threat for its very existence.
That, my friends, is why I don't see any chance for lasting peace in this region.