They’ve been trying for a 2 state solution and have accepted 2-state terms again and again. The Palestinians don’t have a chip because Israel doesn’t require their permission to exist. They don’t have a chip on violence because peace requires non-violence and if they ever actually came close to having the means to their goal, Israel would end them if it came to that. Them escalating violence escalates their own downfall. It hurts themselves more than Israel. However, a recognition of a Palestinian state and a renouncing of wiping the other side off the map are chips Israel actually has.
1 Like
None.
On a side note I’ve always felt the Israeli’s should have never given back the lands won in the 6-day.
I don’t see how this will ever be resolved.
I’m sorry, but most of this is bullshit. First of all, the Palestinian “state” is simply not viable economically nor physically, especially if you exclude Israeli settlements and military security zones. At best it’s a smattering of enclaves physically separated from each by settlement roads and security barriers.
Even if suddenly everyone sat down and started singing “Kumbaya” and agreed on the two-state solution the Palestinian state would at best be a source of cheap labor for Israel proper (as it used to be). But since Eritreans and Thais have filled the cheap labor needs, even that is questionable.
As far as Israeli “occupation and invasion” of Palestine, you do realize that all the territory currently controlled by the PA was ceded to them by Israel (Israeli military to be precise)? What would Israel gain from re-occupying PA territory? Do you seriously think Israel wants more Arabs?
Also, despite apocalyptic calls to “destroy Israel” and sincere belief, the Palestinians singularly lack any means to do so. I’d say the matter was pretty much resolved post-1948 in the case of Palestinian Arabs, and post-1967 for other Arab nations.
So no, Israel is not under imminent threat from “racial genocide”. From terrorist attacks yes, but the IDF won’t be dislodged by a bunch of Palestinians. If they couldn’t do it in 1948 when they were military superior and in 1973 when they had the backing of the USSR and their assorted hardware, they most certainly cannot do it now as the military gap increased a hundredfold.
The thing is - Palestinians are fucked up. I’m not trying to blame Israel - they’ve been fucked over by Arafat and PLO, Abbas, Hamas and above all by their fellow Arabs but that’s the fact of life. Israel is simply an military adversary that doesn’t give a shit about Palestinians beside security issues and respecting (usually) international treaties regarding the treatment of civilians.
Have you ever met anyone from Gaza? I have. Being born in Gaza is like losing in a lottery of life (same thing with other shitholes like Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan…), only this is giant ghetto with one of the highest population densities in the world. You probably live a dingy, cramped apartment with a dozen siblings and assorted relatives, have no job prospects, and if you’re male even sex is off the table (at least with women) as you’re probably not good marriage material financially. So, there’s nothing to do except loaf around and watch European soccer on TV or do drugs and hope Hamas goons don’t find you and make you “disappear”.
If you’re smart you can study and collect pointless university degrees that you’ll never use and the only “career” is landing a job with one of Western aid agencies.
So the point is Palestinians are fucked, Israel doesn’t give a shit (and why should they if you look at it objectively?) and the two state solution is a myth. Interestingly, probably virtually everyone involved knows this, buut they have to keep up the appearance.
2 Likes
Ok, not sure how this ties in with demands for an end to genocidal aims being a bar to peace.
I agree. I even mentioned this point.
I agree again. Point remains peace is entirely in the hands of the Palestinians. Israel’s demanding existence isn’t holding anything back.
1 Like
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/16/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-palestinian-state/
That is akin to Trump saying we should have taken Iraq’s oil.
It is also a violation of the 4th Geneva convention, to which Israel is a signatory.
Ok. Here’s a question - suppose Abbas and the PA remove all references to destroying Israel, which have objectively been a pointless mantra for 50 or so years I’m not saying they wouldn’t want it to happen, I’m saying it’s not possible. So, what happens then? Do we automatically get “peace”?
What does this “peace” entail and how it differs from the current situation on the ground?
He has accepted a 2 state solution numerous times.
No it’s not. For that to be equal Iraq would have had to roll tanks in the U.S unprovoked.
I don’t think any thing I’ve heard would lead to lasting peace. I also never said I blamed Palestine. All I ever said was that the notion that Israel demanding existence is what is preventing peace is complete nonsense.
Not exactly (or not wholly). Originally, those territories included the Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip and Jordanian-occupied Samaria (areas conquered by Jordon or Egypt in recent history).
So, yes, you are correct regarding the Sinai and partially correct re: Golan. And note they were returned (although Syria bitched about where the line was drawn on the Golan – not so much anymore, as Syrians flock to the protection of IDF artillery).
But with the exception of part of the aforementioned Golan and all of the Sinai, the 1967 territories were disputed at worst, part of Israel at best, or part of Jordan or Egypt (depending on what map and what treaty one looks at). Jordan and Egypt make no claim to the lands. And there is no invaded “country” there to have invaded – the entire concept of a “Palestine” as a country or people is new.
“Palestine” meant the predominately Jewish part of the British Zone of the defunct Ottoman Empire. It had its own flag starting in 1920:
Looks somewhat familiar, huh? “Jewish Palestine.” Here’s the map from the 1922 (?) League of Nations for Jewish Palestine:
Anyway, I wouldn’t make this argument, but one can (and people do) make a cogent legal argument that the Arab-occupied portion of Gaza and Samaria are really just territories in open rebellion against a valid central government due to invasion by neighbors – somewhat similar to now-Russian Crimea (which is part of the Ukraine).
Now I understand the LON may or may not have had the authority to split up the remains of the Ottoman Empire, and I respect that.
But the entire story of Israel as an invading force occupying land in violation of the Geneva Convention is nonsense.
The Geneva Conventions state one cannot keep (“annex”) land gained via warfare.
I understand and respect that you believe this. However, this is not the opinion held by the UN, the International Court of Justice, the United States (or any other Western government of which I am aware), or even the Israeli Supreme Court (although it is my understanding that the Israeli Supreme Court does not hold the occupation to violate Geneva IV).
No fooling…
Edit: Made me think of Ricky Bobby
1 Like
That looks like the original 1920 map.
The 1922 map looks the most like a reasonable division, but the 1947? one is preposterous.
Maps are in this link.
To use an often used quote in the area: “A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.”
Your link is also useful for a rather dry and reasonably impartial recitation of the underlying facts of the area, the UN’s “alternative facts” notwithstanding. Because the link relies on facts, as opposed to newly-created history that is taken as true, however, it will be taken as evil Joooo propaganda by the antisemitic left.
It would at least start the process. Nobody is claiming that the Palestinians acknowledging Israel’s right to exist wold suddenly mean prosperity for the Palestinians. It would be the start of a lasting peace that could lead to the building of a successful Palestinian state.
The only point be argued is that peace between Palestine and Israel is up to the Palestinians renouncing violence against Israel and recognizing it’s right to exist. Without these to menial conditions being met, peace is not possible.
A “successful Palestinian state” is an oxymoron. Not necessarily because of the Palestinians per se, but because of the fact that territory under the control of the Palestinian authority, even including territory that Israel would be willing to cede control of, amounts to basically unconnected bantustans and glorified ghettos.
Does the green area look to you like an outline of a potentially “successful state”? Do you know how much it takes to travel under current security regime from Jericho to Ramallah? There’s no fucking way Palestine could even remotely work, and everyone knows it.
Basically, the Israelis are, and have been, in a conundrum - how to get territory without the people. That’s why Israel fought tooth and nail to prevent being labeled an “occupying power” - not so much due to the opprobrium associated with it, but because an “occupying power” is responsible by the Geneva convention for the well-being of the local population and their administration.
Since ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was off the table - higher moral standards and all that (did you hear about the one million Greeks from Asia Minor? No? How about one million Europeans from Algeria? No? Well, there’s my point), Israel is trying to cherry pick specific territory for settlements excluding in the process areas settled by Palestinian Arabs, and in cases of smaller communities in the way, trying to ahem…subtly encourage them to relocate.
So their agenda is - we’ll take what we need, and the rest is…well, someone else problem, unless a full blow collapse occurs.
So, the point is - no peace is possible.
2 Likes
What was the justification for changing the boundaries in 1947 from 1922?
There was no way that crazy quilt map could benefit either party.
The point was so it doesn’t benefit anyone ie. conflict
Conflict has been the result, alright.
Are you saying it was also the reason?
If so, by whom and to what ends desired?
Conflict keeps the wheels turning, conflict allows people to profit from war, war and conflict makes people fearful and nationalistic, fear makes us behave irrationally.
Apologies if I’m coming off a little obscure but what I’m trying to get across is that many of the borders and lines that were created by the British and the French etc after the 1st and 2nd WW weren’t created out of ignorance, they pretty much knew who was getting f’ed over and to what effect. Ottoman empire collapses we draw lines here and there and place who we want in power.
The Israel/Palestine is totally messed up, but it would have been very naive to think that it would have been otherwise from its inception.