West Bank - whose is it?

[Togo]

This was what you said about the Palestinians:

1) Just because they're kicked out doesn't mean they won't just attack from elsewhere. Thus the effect is neutral.

And this is what you said about the Israelis:

2a) If the Jews are kicked out they aren't going to be engaging in any widespread terrorism.
2b) If they were disarmed they would likely die before they had time to flee.

Can you explain why you are treating the two sides so very differently?


Also, is there anything behind your opinion other than a personal distrust of Palestinians as an ethnic group?

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes, I assume the Palestinians will keep fighting even if they get an agreement. That's what they say they want, why shouldn't we believe them when they say they won't stop fighting?

Which is just as valid as saying the Israelis would negotiate a peace agreement and keep putting people on the West Bank because why should we believe them when they say the will stop settlements?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This was what you said about the Palestinians:




And this is what you said about the Israelis:

2a) If the Jews are kicked out they aren't going to be engaging in any widespread terrorism.
2b) If they were disarmed they would likely die before they had time to flee.

Can you explain why you are treating the two sides so very differently?


Also, is there anything behind your opinion other than a personal distrust of Palestinians as an ethnic group?

Moving the battlefield won't change the terrorism.

Removing the Jews would remove the reason for defending themselves, though, so the fighting would end.

(Note, though, that the would would be no more peaceful--Jihadists want to engage in Jiahd, without Israel they'll do it elsewhere.)

 

[Rhea]

This was what you said about the Palestinians:




And this is what you said about the Israelis:


Can you explain why you are treating the two sides so very differently?


Also, is there anything behind your opinion other than a personal distrust of Palestinians as an ethnic group?

Moving the battlefield won't change the terrorism.

Removing the Jews would remove the reason for defending themselves, though, so the fighting would end.

(Note, though, that the would would be no more peaceful--Jihadists want to engage in Jiahd, without Israel they'll do it elsewhere.)

I'm curious about your imagined scenario where Jews are expelled and they just quietly go away to somewhere else. Where do they go? Taking the USA up on the offer the occupy the Rio Grande valley and protect us from 8 year old Guatemalans? And if they are so willing to go quietly, why is this not an excellent solution then?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moving the battlefield won't change the terrorism.

Removing the Jews would remove the reason for defending themselves, though, so the fighting would end.

(Note, though, that the would would be no more peaceful--Jihadists want to engage in Jiahd, without Israel they'll do it elsewhere.)

I'm curious about your imagined scenario where Jews are expelled and they just quietly go away to somewhere else. Where do they go? Taking the USA up on the offer the occupy the Rio Grande valley and protect us from 8 year old Guatemalans? And if they are so willing to go quietly, why is this not an excellent solution then?

I don't think they would be expelled peacefully but if they are expelled I don't think they would continue the fight. Those that managed to escape would go to various western countries.

 

[Rhea]

I'm curious about your imagined scenario where Jews are expelled and they just quietly go away to somewhere else. Where do they go? Taking the USA up on the offer the occupy the Rio Grande valley and protect us from 8 year old Guatemalans? And if they are so willing to go quietly, why is this not an excellent solution then?

I don't think they would be expelled peacefully but if they are expelled I don't think they would continue the fight. Those that managed to escape would go to various western countries.

Then it sounds like the best solution to stop the fighting would be to expel the Israelis right away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think they would be expelled peacefully but if they are expelled I don't think they would continue the fight. Those that managed to escape would go to various western countries.

Then it sounds like the best solution to stop the fighting would be to expel the Israelis right away.

And what becomes of their nuclear weapons?


I rather suspect Russia would pre-empt at that point.

 

[Rhea]

Then it sounds like the best solution to stop the fighting would be to expel the Israelis right away.

And what becomes of their nuclear weapons?


I rather suspect Russia would pre-empt at that point.

I was being facetious, because I think you're wrong that some of the Israelis would ever stop fighting. Look at how many American Jews are very strongly involved from waaaay over here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what becomes of their nuclear weapons?


I rather suspect Russia would pre-empt at that point.

I was being facetious, because I think you're wrong that some of the Israelis would ever stop fighting. Look at how many American Jews are very strongly involved from waaaay over here.

The Jews aren't very inclined to tilt at windmills.

They know terrorism won't work against Islamists. Even those inclined to keep fighting would have no means of doing so.

 

[Arctish]

Then it sounds like the best solution to stop the fighting would be to expel the Israelis right away.

And what becomes of their nuclear weapons?

Sell them to the highest bidder to help defray the costs of relocation.

I rather suspect Russia would pre-empt at that point.

F**k Russia. They can pay in cash, oil, or diamonds, or they can take a hike.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what becomes of their nuclear weapons?

Sell them to the highest bidder to help defray the costs of relocation.

I rather suspect Russia would pre-empt at that point.

F**k Russia. They can pay in cash, oil, or diamonds, or they can take a hike.

Russia has the firepower. They would rightly be very afraid of nukes in terrorist hands. I rather suspect they would ensure that doesn't happen.

 

[arkirk]

Yes, it did move. The general vicinity of "Gush Etzion settlement bloc" is not a clearly defined border. What matters is whether the land is by Israel considered "state land" or not, because Israel has a policy that any outposts in Palestinian privately owned land are illegal and are eventually going to be dismantled (yeah right!), but the ones in "state land" may be legitimized. By changing the border so that the outposts now reside inside "state land" effectively opens the door for legalizing their status as has been done for several other such outposts within the last decade.

And did you miss the part about this making the Palestinian-owned land into enclaves? This would not be possible if the border did not change. Unless of course you think the "border" is really the entirety of the West Bank and that Israel can take whatever land it wants.

Anything labeled a "settlement block" is inside the wall.

- - - Updated - - -

You're dodging. And how is ANY DE-ESCALATION AT ALL working out for the West Bank Palestinians?

Peace, violent resistance, it's all the same for the Palestinians. Israel continues to expand and oppress.

But what they have found is that when they are violent they get noticed and have a voice.

But when they are peaceful and still being slowly crushed nobody notices. Nobody seems to take notice of Israeli oppression unless the Palestinians violently resist in some way.

Continuing to repeat that expansion myth doesn't make it true.

What's the expansion myth? Is it a myth that settlements are being built outside of Israel?

The borders haven't moved in a decade other than the Gaza pullout. I find it hard to imagine how you can have expansion with no change in the border.

Draw a line that includes all the West Bank settlements and compare it to the pre-1967 borders. I find it hard to imagine how you can look at just the past nine years and say there is no expansion.

Draw that line now, draw it 10 years ago. See any difference?

That would be good if no one could remember more that 10 years ago. It's difficult to go to the table and say, "Yeah, we pretty much fucked you out of everything, but we haven't stolen any of your stuff for at least ten years, so that should make us cool, right?"

Here's the possible solutions for peace. There maybe more.
1. Israel pushes all Palestinians into Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and tells them to never come back.
2. Palestine pushes Israel into the Mediterranean Sea.
3. The Israelis remove their citizens from the West Bank and let the Palestinians create a landlocked sovereign nation. Gaza would still be a problem, but a diplomatic corridor could be negotiated.
4. Israel claims the West Bank and Gaza and gives Palestinians full Israeli citizenship. This would include compensation for all property seized of lost in the past 50 years of armed conflict. Amnesty is granted by both sides for all previous acts of patriotism-terrorism-military defense-PYL. Any further acts of violence are treated as criminal offenses.

Which one do you think would work? Got any other ideas?

I was referring to the eternal claims of continued loss of land.

2 would bring the peace of death.
1 would be neutral
3 & 4 would make the problem worse, not better.

You don't know that 3 and 4 would make the problem worse. Unless the "problem" is the conflict starts to cool down and somebody who makes bombs loses business and profits. At least somebody is suggesting a solution that does not involve continued hatred. You ought to try it yourself. See what you could come up with that would hurt a minimum number of people. Just try it. I dare you! Remember Palestinians are to be counted as people...even if they are Hamas.

 

[Clivedurdle]

. Israel claims the West Bank and Gaza and gives Palestinians full Israeli citizenship. This would include compensation for all property seized of lost in the past 50 years of armed conflict. Amnesty is granted by both sides for all previous acts of patriotism-terrorism-military defense-PYL. Any further acts of violence are treated as criminal offenses.

Actually, if this were done on a federal basis, like Canada, it would work. Add in an EU structure for the entire region. Canada has similar issues of different groups with the English and French speaking parts.

 

[Clivedurdle]

What is the wording of the front of an EU passport?

EU citizens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passports_of_the_European_Union

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't know that 3 and 4 would make the problem worse. Unless the "problem" is the conflict starts to cool down and somebody who makes bombs loses business and profits. At least somebody is suggesting a solution that does not involve continued hatred. You ought to try it yourself. See what you could come up with that would hurt a minimum number of people. Just try it. I dare you! Remember Palestinians are to be counted as people...even if they are Hamas.

You're still falling for the cover story that they'll settle for 67 borders.

They've made it clear that they intend to continue the conflict after getting a "peace" deal. 3 and 4 will give them more military ability, thus more deaths.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You're confusing two different questions.

Which country does it belong to, is a matter of politics and who claims what country. Most countries put the Israeli border at the so-called green line, which is based on the 1967 border.

What isn't deniable, is that Palestinians who live in the area are cleared away to make way for Israelis transferred by the Israeli government as part of a state-run settlement program. That's the war crime, the violation of the Geneva convention, and the problem.

Israel is trying to have it both ways, clearing the land for use by its citizens, but not claiming the land so that the Palestinians aren't part of their country. Either Israel is the country portrayed in the second picture (1967), and it is illegally Occupying its neighbour, stealing land and resources. Or it is the country in the third picture, in which case it isn't a democracy at all, but rather an apartheid state bombing and brutally repressing it's own citizens for the crime of being the wrong religion/ethnicity. Since Israel has always claimed to be Occupying the West Bank, rather than adding it to it's territory, its not a brutal and repressive apartheid state, but rather a democratic state brutally repressing its neighbour.

There is no way it can legally claim the land without claiming all the people.

Which is why it's in a dilemma. It can't both be Israel and keep the settlements. Unless the Palestinians can be cowed into accepting resettlement, concentrating them into smaller areas (camps), or into leaving the area voluntarily. Hence the restrictions on imports and exports, and the restrictions on Palestinians moving freely.

This sums it up better than anything I have read before on this subject.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Except the premise is either or. If you have two choices, take the third.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What is the third?

 

[arkirk]

You don't know that 3 and 4 would make the problem worse. Unless the "problem" is the conflict starts to cool down and somebody who makes bombs loses business and profits. At least somebody is suggesting a solution that does not involve continued hatred. You ought to try it yourself. See what you could come up with that would hurt a minimum number of people. Just try it. I dare you! Remember Palestinians are to be counted as people...even if they are Hamas.

You're still falling for the cover story that they'll settle for 67 borders.

They've made it clear that they intend to continue the conflict after getting a "peace" deal. 3 and 4 will give them more military ability, thus more deaths.

You don't know what they intend. I am not "falling" for any cover story. You have not answered my question with anything but more hateful innuendo. WHAT IN YOUR ESTIMATION WOULD BE A WAY TO SETTLE THIS CONFLICT THAT WOULD HURT A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE? This question is straight forward and deserves an answer. We all ought to be trying to answer it. The people in the area need to change their focus from war tactics to planning a sustainable peace. We could probably help by stopping the inflow of arms to the area...that would include Israel. Israel has killed the most people with their weapons. You seem to hate Hamas. Why not take away the recruiting impetus your thinking affords Hamas by ceasing the killing of civilians?

Some time ago in Laguna Beach Calif., a wild fire destroyed a lot of homes. These home owners were wealthy and immediately started to rebuild. It ended up being a building bonanza for housing contractors. If construction can create an economic boom, cleaning up the mess of thousands of homes blown apart in Gaza could improve that economy as well...of course it would have to involve aid of some kind, but nothing militates against war and discontent like improvements...Every dollar spent in an effort like that is multiplied many times over...unlike buying a missile that just goes boom once and is gone.
Of course, these would be improvements that directly benefited the people of Gaza. 3.5 billion dollars went to blow the place up...and nobody blinked as the money just flew away. The best way to cope with hatred is to stop doing things that generate resentment and revenge....regardless of how long it has been going on.

It should not be our place to judge Muslims or Jews on the basis of their past wars...or even their past practices. It should be our place to be honest brokers of peace. I am sure as soon as we start on that approach, this conflict could cool and eventually be extinguished. As it is militarism is just pouring fuel on the fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still falling for the cover story that they'll settle for 67 borders.

They've made it clear that they intend to continue the conflict after getting a "peace" deal. 3 and 4 will give them more military ability, thus more deaths.

You don't know what they intend. I am not "falling" for any cover story. You have not answered my question with anything but more hateful innuendo. WHAT IN YOUR ESTIMATION WOULD BE A WAY TO SETTLE THIS CONFLICT THAT WOULD HURT A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE?

I do not believe that as things currently stand there is a method of settling the conflict that would kill less than the status quo does.

This question is straight forward and deserves an answer. We all ought to be trying to answer it. The people in the area need to change their focus from war tactics to planning a sustainable peace. We could probably help by stopping the inflow of arms to the area...that would include Israel. Israel has killed the most people with their weapons. You seem to hate Hamas. Why not take away the recruiting impetus your thinking affords Hamas by ceasing the killing of civilians?

Terrorist movements do not happen because of oppression. Terrorist movements happen because somebody funds them.