The Official Israel-Gaza Thread

[Broke Wave]

No one said any of that. I typed up a bigger response, but then I realized that you might be referring to the initial premise of Palestine looking to be recognized by the UN. You should have made that clear because it looked like you were chiming in on zerozero and I's conversation. I literally had no idea what you were talking about.

We were not arguing about any of the stuff you just asked questions about. But I will respond to your point about the 1940s borders. Remember it was the Palestinians and Arabs who launched that war because they disagreed with those borders and then lost. It's not often that the loser gets to come back and make demands. They are asking for those borders solely because of that loss. They didn't care much about international law when they thought they could win so let's not use that argument.

We're here because many feel that borders along those lines are the only rational solution we can come to, that's fine. I agree, but let's not act like the Palestinians have some sort of legitimacy in that regard historically. As far as pursuing their own statehood? By all means, go ahead. But Israel has every right to be against the ascension of a state whose leadership's stated charter says that Israel should not exist and whose declarations of peace are suspect. If this were different leadership, there would be less push back.

The Canada-US argument is simple, replace Israel with the US and Palestine with Mexico, and then tell me the reaction would be any different.

Oh is that why the Arab nations decided to launch a war against Israel, when they were outnumbered 2 to 1, or was it the Zionist terrorist groups doing this



So international law doesn't apply to you after you lose a war what kind of absurd notion is that? Why should the Palestinians be punished for Egypt's actions? Who are they? The Arabs? Arabs as an ethnic group are now a political entity? You're way in over your head on this one...

As far as your US/Canada Comparison, all I can literally say is

Why not replace Israel with Zimbabwe and Palestine with South Africa?

How about Russia and Mongolia?

How about any 2 adjacent countries

its not about race its about a religion that breeds hate if you're taught from birth to hate something no matter what you do to make peace it will never be enough to subside that hate its just the truth that's why it will never end

This is ignorance, no disrespect to you, but I feel like you have been brainwashed or confused greatly about Islam. I am a Muslim, and not only do I not hate you, or anybody else, I do not hate Jews or Israel. I was taught from birth to be loving and compassionate and I feel my faith reflects this and If you want to know more about Islam I can help you along that path friend, no need for hatred

 

[No1]

I think you're showing some unwarranted assumptions there yourself. The current administration won't be persuaded to give the Palestinians any kind of practical political sovereignty. Their idea of a 2-state solution would leave the Arabs with permeable borders that were dominated by Israel, almost no economically-viable land, etc. I think that's an empirical point, too, when you consider the details of their ideas in previous negotiations. Just because this administration (thankfully) doesn't run with the genocidal desires of the extreme Israeli Right, doesn't mean their plan will produce anything fair for the Arabs.

I'm not making any unwarranted assumptions. I think you believe I meant Likud. I meant Israel historically. I was referring to Barak and others. The point was simple. the nation of Israel has come to the table earnestly before with big concessions, there is no sign that this Palestinian leadership of Hamas will be earnest in such a regard. Notice, I said this government and not the Palestinian people. I was justifying distrust of this group. That's how these Likud lunatics came to power in the first place, but there coalition can be broken up.

Think about this from a power perspective. The Arabs quite literally have almost none, so there's no legitimate reason for Israel to fear anything new going in. That being said, the negotations wouldn't be with Hamas, especially if they're UN-brokered. Hamas governs the Gaza Strip, which is only one of the Palestinian territories. The PLO (which has relatively minor Hamas representation in it) would be the ones on the opposite end of the table if Israel wanted to talk. In addition, even if negotiations started now, there's no telling which administrations they would end with, so it's not as if Hamas (or Likud) will be the two defining intermediaries of the general political will on either side.

Hamas has upwards of 52% popular support right now. No, it's safe to say that they would still be there. The last time the other Palestinian segments tried to go at Hamas militarily, they lost and they lost politically. Let's not act like they will not be influential. If you do deal with the PLO and get something done, who is to say that it is the will of the Palestinian people? As far as the Arabs having no power, I agree. But at the same time, citizens don't want to live in constant fear. But I'm no Likud supporter.

Your right that from a Likud perspective, there isn't much reason for them to negotiate beyond the distant end of the conflict, but that mentality itself is only going to be an obstacle. Asking the Palestinians to shape up before they can come to the table is less reasonable than asking Israel to for a number of reasons, imo.

I think Likud exacerbates the situation and that they don't really want an Palestinian state. BUT, asking to be recognized is not asking for too much. That alone would probably get us at the negotiation table. Israeli's whole thing is, if they don't acknowledge our right to exist, then there is nothing to exist. I don't consider that an extreme position. The right to return will be what kills every negotiation.

 

[Blackgate]

palestinians have a right to be hostile...allowing settlements to be built is a soft invasion related in aim [but not tactic] to the 6 day war and the suez crisis of '56...plus they probably still mad about what happened in beirut in '82...

 

[No1]

Oh is that why the Arab nations decided to launch a war against Israel, when they were outnumbered 2 to 1, or was it the Zionist terrorist groups doing this

Israeli Historian Describes Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine in 1948 (Nakba) - YouTube

So international law doesn't apply to you after you lose a war what kind of absurd notion is that? Why should the Palestinians be punished for Egypt's actions? Who are they? The Arabs? Arabs as an ethnic group are now a political entity? You're way in over your head on this one...

As far as your US/Canada Comparison, all I can literally say is

Why not replace Israel with Zimbabwe and Palestine with South Africa?

How about Russia and Mongolia?

How about any 2 adjacent countries



This is ignorance, no disrespect to you, but I feel like you have been brainwashed or confused greatly about Islam. I am a Muslim, and not only do I not hate you, or anybody else, I do not hate Jews or Israel. I was taught from birth to be loving and compassionate and I feel my faith reflects this and If you want to know more about Islam I can help you along that path friend, no need for hatred

You're arguing like a child. I'm not in over my head,and anyone who has followed these discussions from SOHH until now knows that. You're so biased towards Palestine you're being purposefully obtuse. You won't hear the comparisons because it doesn't fit your narrative. I'm asking you WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD? No one said, international law doesn't apply but if you think anyone will take you seriously if you're implying that ethnic cleansing is why all the Arab Nations tooled up against Israel then you've lost your mind.

This is basically all you're capable of doing, "Oh shyt BarNone is sonning me on the subject so let me act purposefully obtuse and pretend that the "Arabs" isn't a reference to all the Arab states."

"Let me ask dumb questions like why should Palestine be punished for what the Arab states did even though I should know that back then, there was no conception of a Palestinian nation and Arab states tried to crush their sense of nationalism whenever they fled to them."

"Let me act like I know what I'm talking about and post one youtube video." Should I post up how Palestinians participated in the Holocaust and some of the leadership was down with Hitler?

You're incapable of divorcing yourself from your sympathies to make a reasonable argument and to understand anything logically. Even worse, you're foolishly arguing with me as if I'm a Zionist...go sit down Broke, I'll holla at you when the Lakers game comes on.

 

[zerozero]

New York Times The U.N. Bid From Palestinians - NYTimes.com

Earlier this month, Israel warned that if the resolution passed, it could cancel the 1993 Oslo accords, oust President Abbas and dismantle the Palestinian Authority. Some in Congress have also threatened more sanctions. Israel has since toned down the threats, but it should drop them altogether, as should Congress. It makes no sense to punish the one Palestinian institution that has committed to a peaceful solution.

The Obama administration has spent political capital in a failed effort to pressure countries to oppose the resolution. It now needs to put its energies into forging commitments to restart peace talks.

Britain has urged the Palestinians to give assurances that they would return to negotiations with Israel without preconditions; Mr. Abbas would be wise to do so. That might give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel a reason to follow suit.

The vote on Thursday is timed to coincide with the 65th anniversary of the General Assembly resolution that called for the division of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. It’s long past time begin a serious new effort at a negotiated two-state solution.

 

[Broke Wave]

You're arguing like a child. I'm not in over my head,and anyone who has followed these discussions from SOHH until now knows that. You're so biased towards Palestine you're being purposefully obtuse. You won't hear the comparisons because it doesn't fit your narrative. I'm asking you WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD?

This is basically all you're capable of doing, "Oh shyt BarNone is sonning me on the subject so let me act purposefully obtuse and pretend that the "Arabs" isn't a reference to all the Arab states."

"Let me ask dumb questions like why should Palestine be punished for what the Arab states did even though I should know that back then, there was no conception of a Palestinian nation and Arab states tried to crush their sense of nationalism whenever they fled to them."

"Let me act like I know what I'm talking about and post one youtube video." Should I post up how Palestinians participated in the Holocaust and some of the leadership was down with Hitler?

You're incapable of divorcing yourself from your sympathies to make a reasonable argument and to understand anything logically. Even worse, you're foolishly arguing with me as if I'm a Zionist...go sit down Broke, I'll holla at you when the Lakers game comes on.

Why not address what I said rather than talk about me being obtuse? You call my question dumb but you have yet to answer it. The Palestinian people have always existed regardless of the war or not, why should they be punished for the actions of their ethnic brethren? You didn't answer that and now you've made this about me... You're literally making absurd comparisons between Mexico and the U.S. and Israel and Palestine, anyone would agree that it doesn't make any sense. What is my narrative? That the Palestinian people should have a state? Is that an extreme narrative?

Palestinian leader down with Hitler? You mean the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem... an un-elected figurehead? Why would you reach for something so obscure and irrelevant and when I give you the direct example of the Nakba, you dismiss is as "obtuse"?


Why make this about me? You are in over your head talking to me right now, that is probably why you make comparisons like that. Very strange...

BarNone explaining The Second World War

... Now consider New York State invaded New Jersey, but had a Pact with Pennsylvania... How would you feel as New Hampshire?

 

[No1]

?? I didn't say Likud is going to dissolve the Israeli state. I said they don't accept a Palestinian state. Palestinians aren't a "terrorist entity", they're a stateless people, a huge portion of whom are refugees.

When there are peace talks between the PLO and Israel Hamas is going to agree to the final agreements. They've said that all the time. You've bought into some distraction stalling tactics that Israel puts out there to avoid getting to the table. Hell, they won't even stop explicitly doing what you've pointed out is derailing the process, which is building settlements in the occupied territories

You think it's legit to stall negotiations until you can read the minds of some other guys about whether they'll agree before the agreement talks. Meanwhile Israel won't even stop BEHAVIORS that literally eat away at the potential agreement, while many of their leaders don't agree with the potential 2 state solution either. Both sides are only half way committed. The full commitment and resolution will be a process

No, you were trying to equate the two. But at the same time, you misunderstood me. I was referring to Israel as a nation, I don't consider Likud's coalition as one that will stand if true peace is on the horizon. They'll be forced to back down. That's what I was getting at.

I think it is legitimate to stall negotiations while one is unsure of whether one's negotiating partner is serious. It's that simple, it's not about reading minds. For the longest time, many in the international community felt that Hamas was a proxy for Iran and indeed the missiles launched in this recent conflict were Iranian. But there are many indications that Iran does not have the flex over Hamas that it used to. I was not arguing about what should happen on 11/29/2012. I was justifying the interim.

 

[zerozero]

No, you were trying to equate the two. But at the same time, you misunderstood me. I was referring to Israel as a nation, I don't consider Likud's coalition as one that will stand if true peace is on the horizon. They'll be forced to back down. That's what I was getting at.

I think it is legitimate to stall negotiations while one is unsure of whether one's negotiating partner is serious. It's that simple, it's not about reading minds. For the longest time, many in the international community felt that Hamas was a proxy for Iran and indeed the missiles launched in this recent conflict were Iranian. But there are many indications that Iran does not have the flex over Hamas that it used to. I was not arguing about what should happen on 11/29/2012. I was justifying the interim.

Not only do I happily equate the two, I think the Israeli parties are far worse. Hamas having some pie in the sky idea about having one palestinian state in all the land is nothing like Israelis actually de facto controlling the remaining lands of Palestinian people since 1967! and still being like "hmm... Judea and Samaria are integral parts of Israel"

I think Palestinians deserve a state innately. Any delay on this matter is a compounding of a long injustice. The only legit delays are process based, like all the Palestinian factions coming together, Israel asking for a cessation of violence, etc.

 

[No1]

Why not address what I said rather than talk about me being obtuse? You call my question dumb but you have yet to answer it. The Palestinian people have always existed regardless of the war or not, why should they be punished for the actions of their ethnic brethren? You didn't answer that and now you've made this about me... You're literally making absurd comparisons between Mexico and the U.S. and Israel and Palestine, anyone would agree that it doesn't make any sense. What is my narrative? That the Palestinian people should have a state? Is that an extreme narrative?

Palestinian leader down with Hitler? You mean the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem... an un-elected figurehead? Why would you reach for something so obscure and irrelevant and when I give you the direct example of the Nakba, you dismiss is as "obtuse"?


Why make this about me? You are in over your head talking to me right now, that is probably why you make comparisons like that. Very strange...

BarNone explaining The Second World War

I answered your question but in your foolishness you failed to see it. I straight up said Palestinians had every right to want their own state and to go for it, and then explained Israeli concerns. LOL@you thinking that you're really going to get me to discuss anything with you...reply if it makes you feel better. I won't. :deadpau:

 

[No1]

Not only do I happily equate the two, I think the Israeli parties are far worse. Hamas having some pie in the sky idea about having one palestinian state in all the land is nothing like Israelis actually de facto controlling the remaining lands of Palestinian people since 1967! and still being like "hmm... Judea and Samaria are integral parts of Israel"

I think Palestinians deserve a state innately. Any delay on this matter is a compounding of a long injustice. The only legit delays are process based, like all the Palestinian factions coming together, Israel asking for a cessation of violence, etc.

Then we have nothing to discuss. I have class, but I don't think they'll ever stop fighting. But if they do, it will be because they thought like the people in the late 90s did, and that is not by doing what you're doing. I'm exhausted with this subject.

 

[88m3]

Drove by the UN this morning about to drive past it tonight.

 

[Brown_Pride]

No one said any of that. I typed up a bigger response, but then I realized that you might be referring to the initial premise of Palestine looking to be recognized by the UN. You should have made that clear because it looked like you were chiming in on zerozero and I's conversation. I literally had no idea what you were talking about.

We were not arguing about any of the stuff you just asked questions about. But I will respond to your point about the 1940s borders. Remember it was the Palestinians and Arabs who launched that war because they disagreed with those borders and then lost. It's not often that the loser gets to come back and make demands. They are asking for those borders solely because of that loss. They didn't care much about international law when they thought they could win so let's not use that argument.

We're here because many feel that borders along those lines are the only rational solution we can come to, that's fine. I agree, but let's not act like the Palestinians have some sort of legitimacy in that regard historically. As far as pursuing their own statehood? By all means, go ahead. But Israel has every right to be against the ascension of a state whose leadership's stated charter says that Israel should not exist and whose declarations of peace are suspect. If this were different leadership, there would be less push back.

The Canada-US argument is simple, replace Israel with the US and Palestine with Mexico, and then tell me the reaction would be any different.

from a legal standpoint though aren't those the "real" borders. Them losing at a power grab doesn't negate those borders does it?

I also don't agree that a state should be able to dictate the existence of another state. Arabs don't like Israel, that doesn't mean any future Arab nations need to seek permission to be formed. I guess Israel has a right to voice an opinion but it really is just that...an opinion.

@zerozero i'll have to check that video.

 

[The Real]

I'm not making any unwarranted assumptions. I think you believe I meant Likud. I meant Israel historically. I was referring to Barak and others. The point was simple. the nation of Israel has come to the table earnestly before with big concessions, there is no sign that this Palestinian leadership of Hamas will be earnest in such a regard. Notice, I said this government and not the Palestinian people. I was justifying distrust of this group. That's how these Likud lunatics came to power in the first place, but there coalition can be broken up.

Ok, if you were referring to Israel historically, then you're right, I misunderstood and thought you were referring to the current admin. If that is the case, though, then why speak of Israel as a diachronic whole, but then only speak of Hamas on the other side?

Hamas has upwards of 52% popular support right now. No, it's safe to say that they would still be there. The last time the other Palestinian segments tried to go at Hamas militarily, they lost and they lost politically. Let's not act like they will not be influential. If you do deal with the PLO and get something done, who is to say that it is the will of the Palestinian people? As far as the Arabs having no power, I agree. But at the same time, citizens don't want to live in constant fear. But I'm no Likud supporter.

I think the 52% thing is somewhat exaggerated. Different polls seem to indicate wildly different things, with some even placing Hamas's popularity at "all times lows." Even if the 52% thing is true, though, that's only for people living under Hamas, not for the Palestinians as a whole, and considering that, it isn't such a great number. The other problem here is that it's hard to pin down Hamas as a unitary entity. Regardless, I don't think they would have to be as significant a part of the negotiations as you suggest here. That isn't to say that I don't agree- Hamas presents a serious problem here, but not one that is worth sacrificing or delaying the peace process over. I think both can be dealt with simultaneously, and maybe that would be the best way to do it, too. Imagine the pressure they'd face against a united front of Israeli/Palestinian/International institutions.

I think Likud exacerbates the situation and that they don't really want an Palestinian state. BUT, asking to be recognized is not asking for too much. That alone would probably get us at the negotiation table. Israeli's whole thing is, if they don't acknowledge our right to exist, then there is nothing to exist. I don't consider that an extreme position. The right to return will be what kills every negotiation.

Well, the recognition thing is a fair point, but it's only Hamas that clearly doesn't recognize Israel. The PLO does, of course, and the stance of the PA is unclear, though Abbas has declared before that recognition of Israel would be a necessary precondition to Hamas re-joining the coalition government, which is promising. He has also recently called the Arab rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan a mistake. He himself has flip-flopped a bit on the issue, but I think when it comes down to it, if there's a chance that a real deal is on the table, he'll take it.

 

[No1]

Ok, if you were referring to Israel historically, then you're right, I misunderstood and thought you were referring to the current admin. If that is the case, though, then why speak of Israel as a diachronic whole, but then only speak of Hamas on the other side?



I think the 52% thing is somewhat exaggerated. Different polls seem to indicate wildly different things, with some even placing Hamas's popularity at "all times lows." Even if the 52% thing is true, though, that's only for people living under Hamas, not for the Palestinians as a whole, and considering that, it isn't such a great number. The other problem here is that it's hard to pin down Hamas as a unitary entity. Regardless, I don't think they would have to be as significant a part of the negotiations as you suggest here. That isn't to say that I don't agree- Hamas presents a serious problem here, but not one that is worth sacrificing or delaying the peace process over. I think both can be dealt with simultaneously, and maybe that would be the best way to do it, too. Imagine the pressure they'd face against a united front of Israeli/Palestinian/International institutions.



Well, the recognition thing is a fair point, but it's only Hamas that clearly doesn't recognize Israel. The PLO does, of course, and the stance of the PA is unclear, though Abbas has declared before that recognition of Israel would be a necessary precondition to Hamas re-joining the coalition government, which is promising. He has also recently called the Arab rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan a mistake. He himself has flip-flopped a bit on the issue, but I think when it comes down to it, if there's a chance that a real deal is on the table, he'll take it.

I actually think we're not disagreeing with each other on anything but Hamas' popularity.

As far as Abbas goes, his own popularity is up and down. Why did I speak of Hamas and but then Israel historically? It is because I consider a terrorist entity rising to power a disconnect from the arguments that Fatah made that won the world over. I consider them almost entirely different movements, however I see your point.

Other than that, you've basically staked out my position. I think HL has a problem where when someone shows another sides reasoning they get accused of supporting it. I should've stuck to my pledge to curtail my HL posting.

 

[88m3]

Palestinians aren't a "terrorist entity", they're a stateless people, a huge portion of whom are refugees.

I wont be an issue when they are returned to Egypt and Jordan.