What should Israel do?

[bleubird]

Keep on doing what you are doing,and expect a different outcome.


Einstein may have never said this,but still good advice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, you're out to bash Israel rather than to solve the problem.

The problem is that Israel wants what it cannot have.

The solution is to discourage them from taking it.

If and when the Palestinians' desire to claim Israeli land actually becomes a problem -- and not a far off, lofty pipe dream on the Jihadist Grand Bucket List -- then the exact same solution applies to them as well. In the HERE AND NOW, however, Israel is the problem.

What Israel wants is peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm still of the opinion that nuclear war is very unlikely. The *ahem* fallout in public opinion would be massive and not just for the country that has it but for much of the Islamic world more broadly. Even then the likelihood that they manage to develop it without getting smashed first is a longshot.

The Islamists in Pakistan keep trying to egg on a war with India. If they succeed it almost certainly goes nuclear. And Pakistan *HAS* the bomb, that cat is already out of the bag.

Pakistan keeps walking a tightrope between being taken over by it's Islamists and pissing off it's people too much. If they fail expect to see the mushroom clouds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The difference is this: the Palestinians are willing to let the past go and form a state on what little land they can still realistically make a claim to. Namely, the parts of the West Bank and Gaza outside of Israel's 1967 borders. The are, in other words, willing to look the other way on that ethnic cleansing in exchange for peace.

Let that sink in for a bit.

Except you have it exactly opposite. It's the Palestinians that won't accept the 67 borders. They pretend to agree--but have made it very clear they'll continue to fight.

Furthermore, it's treason for any Palestinian leader to agree to a peace treaty that gives an inch on the right of return--and Israel can't accept the right of return. Thus they can't make peace. (And it's also treason to try to change the law.)

- - - Updated - - -

There's nothing to let sink in here - in that you apparently don't understand the quandary that I'm in.

The '48 partition was enacted by the UN, not unilaterally by regional Jews. A two-state solution necessitated people being uprooted and relocated. If you think that's a case of ethnic cleansing on the part of the newly formed Israeli state then what solution should have been enacted at the time?

A one-state solution? Who would have control here?

A two-state solution where everyone stays where they are? How would such a thing be implemented?

No. The UN partition didn't envision any displacement. The original idea was people would stay put unless they chose to move.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep on doing what you are doing,and expect a different outcome.


Einstein may have never said this,but still good advice.

Israel understands this. They know their actions won't bring actual peace. It's just they have no better course of action--peace is impossible so long as all the Islamist money pours in.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem is that Israel wants what it cannot have.

The solution is to discourage them from taking it.

If and when the Palestinians' desire to claim Israeli land actually becomes a problem -- and not a far off, lofty pipe dream on the Jihadist Grand Bucket List -- then the exact same solution applies to them as well. In the HERE AND NOW, however, Israel is the problem.

What Israel wants is peace.

Most of Israel wants peace but while the peace process is dead it is an opportunity for Zionists to seize land. I stress Zionists and not Israelis. Peace in the Middle East with Israeli Jews (who are skilled in modern technology and living in harmony with the Palestinians will benefit both the parties more than land seizures.

 

[Deepak]

This is simply not true. The attacks went both ways.

Zionist terrorists were bombing markets, tossing grenades at lines of people, conducting drive by shootings, kidnapping and murdering people throughout the 1930s-1940s, right up to the founding of the State of Israel, at which point they officially became the Israeli armed forces. They killed hundreds and maimed thousands.

Ignoring that truth doesn't help anything. You know the saying "The first step to solving a problem is to admit you have one"? Well, the first step towards reconciliation is to admit each side has legitimate grievances.

And what was happening prior to that in the '20s?

I'm still of the opinion that nuclear war is very unlikely. The *ahem* fallout in public opinion would be massive and not just for the country that has it but for much of the Islamic world more broadly. Even then the likelihood that they manage to develop it without getting smashed first is a longshot.

The Islamists in Pakistan keep trying to egg on a war with India. If they succeed it almost certainly goes nuclear. And Pakistan *HAS* the bomb, that cat is already out of the bag.

Pakistan keeps walking a tightrope between being taken over by it's Islamists and pissing off it's people too much. If they fail expect to see the mushroom clouds.

It's a bit off topic here, but I bet dollars to donuts that this doesn't happen. The nuclear weapons are a threat against possible retaliation for attacks on India which are ultimately conducted as a distraction from internal politics. The ISI is smart enough to know that their troubles are much bigger than India, who they're already unable to fight through conventional warfare. These people are not ardent Islamists and they're more concerned with maintaining power than dying for their god.

Except you have it exactly opposite. It's the Palestinians that won't accept the 67 borders. They pretend to agree--but have made it very clear they'll continue to fight.

Furthermore, it's treason for any Palestinian leader to agree to a peace treaty that gives an inch on the right of return--and Israel can't accept the right of return. Thus they can't make peace. (And it's also treason to try to change the law.)

- - - Updated - - -

There's nothing to let sink in here - in that you apparently don't understand the quandary that I'm in.

The '48 partition was enacted by the UN, not unilaterally by regional Jews. A two-state solution necessitated people being uprooted and relocated. If you think that's a case of ethnic cleansing on the part of the newly formed Israeli state then what solution should have been enacted at the time?

A one-state solution? Who would have control here?

A two-state solution where everyone stays where they are? How would such a thing be implemented?

No. The UN partition didn't envision any displacement. The original idea was people would stay put unless they chose to move.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep on doing what you are doing,and expect a different outcome.


Einstein may have never said this,but still good advice.

Israel understands this. They know their actions won't bring actual peace. It's just they have no better course of action--peace is impossible so long as all the Islamist money pours in.

I think a right of return will be a major impediment to progress. A compensation agreement would probably have the best chance, but even that I think would be rejected by Netanyahu

 

[Deepak]

What Israel wants is peace.

Most of Israel wants peace but while the peace process is dead it is an opportunity for Zionists to seize land. I stress Zionists and not Israelis. Peace in the Middle East with Israeli Jews (who are skilled in modern technology and living in harmony with the Palestinians will benefit both the parties more than land seizures.

Do you think this is a possibility even with a detente? I still suspect, in the event of an end to hostilities, a lot of distrust among both sides and most likely will not result in mutual cooperation - at least for quite some time. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a bit off topic here, but I bet dollars to donuts that this doesn't happen. The nuclear weapons are a threat against possible retaliation for attacks on India which are ultimately conducted as a distraction from internal politics. The ISI is smart enough to know that their troubles are much bigger than India, who they're already unable to fight through conventional warfare. These people are not ardent Islamists and they're more concerned with maintaining power than dying for their god.

The current Pakistani government is smart enough. What I'm worried about is if Pakistan falls to the fundies.

I think a right of return will be a major impediment to progress. A compensation agreement would probably have the best chance, but even that I think would be rejected by Netanyahu

I don't think they would agree even to a compensation agreement unless someone can come up with a system that ensures the Palestinian state will be peaceful. Since I have seen no realistic suggestions in this regard Israel would be right to reject it.

All of this "negotiation" is about getting as much as they can from talking rather than shooting but it is not meant to replace shooting. The only reason Israel might agree is pressure from the idiots in the world that keep thinking the Palestinians will abide by their agreements this time.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of Israel wants peace but while the peace process is dead it is an opportunity for Zionists to seize land. I stress Zionists and not Israelis. Peace in the Middle East with Israeli Jews (who are skilled in modern technology and living in harmony with the Palestinians will benefit both the parties more than land seizures.

Do you think this is a possibility even with a detente? I still suspect, in the event of an end to hostilities, a lot of distrust among both sides and most likely will not result in mutual cooperation - at least for quite some time. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Distrust isn't the issue. The issue is that the Palestinians are determined to "liberate" all of Israel.

 

[untermensche]

The problem is that Israel wants what it cannot have.

The solution is to discourage them from taking it.

If and when the Palestinians' desire to claim Israeli land actually becomes a problem -- and not a far off, lofty pipe dream on the Jihadist Grand Bucket List -- then the exact same solution applies to them as well. In the HERE AND NOW, however, Israel is the problem.

What Israel wants is peace.

Total nonsense.

Israel has been trading expansion for peace for almost 50 years. They want land, not peace. Once they get all the land they want then they might begin to think about peace.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This is quite simply preposterous. The Ottoman Empire existing after WW1 is a bit of a stretch, but both the Palestinian and Jewish Nationalist movements sided with the Triple Entente whereas the Ottoman Empire was one of the Central Powers. Even if in the, admittedly unlikely, event that the Ottoman Empire continued to exist after its defeat neither party desired to be a part of it and wanted sovereignty.

Nobody's talking about the Ottoman empire still existing. But the way in which it was dismantled sowed the seeds of regional chaos that we are still harvesting more than a century later. Palestine is just another example.

What SHOULD have happened was that the local governments in the region were encouraged to get together and incorporate into larger administrative districts that could eventually become countries. The local governments of the existing Ottoman provinces were mostly still intact at the time, and it was these political remnants that the Zionists wound up overthrowing when they took Palestine. To some limited extent this is what occurred in other parts of the former Empire, but in Palestine the British started flirting with the Zionists and making decisions based on political expedience rather than the reality in the ground.

And as I mentioned about a half dozen times already the Faisal-Weizmann agreement was a mutual one-state agreement.

Which the Zionists rejected because it wouldn't have resulted in a JEWISH state. It has to be recalled that the basic reason for the conflict in the first place stems from the Arab population knowing full well what the Zionists were up to and not being able to do anything about it; as it stands, the Zionist bloc didn't have a leg to stand on outside of the intervention of foreign governments playing off their own agendas, which is why I maintain that NOTHING should have been agreed to except at a purely local level (even Faisal-Weizmann was probably a step in the wrong direction).

If Jewish immigrants couldn't find a way to integrate into their new country and win the acceptance of their neighbors, then they definitely wouldn't be able to make a homeland there without expelling said neighbors in a violent confrontation.

The key component to a two-state solution is that the respective parties will be split, and populations will be relocated in accordance with the split. Read the Peel Commission report if you don't believe me - this wasn't something which was a Zionist idea

The two-state solution WAS a Zionist idea; it was David Ben Gurion himself who lobbied for it. He argued at the time that due tot heir lower population and lack of military power it would be easier to claim a portion of the land and transfer the Arabs out of it than it would be to try and take the whole thing all at once.

The Arabs didn't want a two-state solution. They didn't want increased Jewish immigration either. They wanted things to stay the way they had been for hundreds of years, as from THEIR perspective there was no reason for anything to change.

In summary, the problem is this: the Zionists managed to convince just about everyone in the European world that creating a Jewish state in Palestine was a good idea, so European powers supported the plan. They never actually got the ARABS to go along with that plan; the closest they got was getting their negotiators to not strongly object to it on pragmatic grounds.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What Israel wants is peace.

Total nonsense.

Israel has been trading expansion for peace for almost 50 years. They want land, not peace. Once they get all the land they want then they might begin to think about peace.

Of course, this is how Israel created peace with Jordan and Egypt - trading land for peace. That's why Israel won't be conceding land to the Palestinians without getting some peace.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The problem is that Israel wants what it cannot have.

The solution is to discourage them from taking it.

If and when the Palestinians' desire to claim Israeli land actually becomes a problem -- and not a far off, lofty pipe dream on the Jihadist Grand Bucket List -- then the exact same solution applies to them as well. In the HERE AND NOW, however, Israel is the problem.

What Israel wants is peace.

If they don't also want peace for the Palestinians, then peace is not what they're after.

Israel wants DOMINANCE, not peace. If they could put a one-way forcefield over Gaza that would allow them to bomb at will without the return fire coming near them, they would do it in a heartbeat (that's essentially what the Iron Dome already does). They do not want to make peace with the Palestinians, they want to make the Palestinians give in and accept their dominance.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Except you have it exactly opposite. It's the Palestinians that won't accept the 67 borders.

...

Furthermore, it's treason for any Palestinian leader to agree to a peace treaty that gives an inch on the right of return

...

 

[steve_bnk]

Total nonsense.

Israel has been trading expansion for peace for almost 50 years. They want land, not peace. Once they get all the land they want then they might begin to think about peace.

Of course, this is how Israel created peace with Jordan and Egypt - trading land for peace. That's why Israel won't be conceding land to the Palestinians without getting some peace.

During the wars Israel was backed by the USA and the Arabs by the Soviets.

Israel and Jordan were mostly bribed with post Soviet American aid.

Israel eventually gave up gains in the Sinai and Gaza was given up. The Golan Heights was kept as a strategic point.

Today Israel demands the right to keep troops in the Jordan valley as a buffer, and has unilaterally declared Jeruslm as its capitol with a low level ethnic purge of non Jews form the Jerusalem area.

if you read the link on the wall, Israel has taken around 8% of border land which isolates Palestinian farmers from their farmland and water..

Israel gave up Gaza which it did not want in the first pace, while pushing settlements on the West Bank.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Distrust isn't the issue. The issue is that the Palestinians are determined to "liberate" all of Israel.

The potential ambition of the Palestinians to "liberate all of Israel" is not and has never been relevant to this conflict. Peace can be established NOW along the 1967 borders. The Palestinians might break the peace in 2020, or they might break it in 2025, or they might break it in 2040. That does not change the fact that they have offered to make peace NOW on the 1967 borders.

If war breaks out again in the future, guess what we'll do? We'll insist on an armistice based on the 1967 borders. If the Palestinians build a robot army with the power to drive Israel into the sea in their 2040 Universal Jihad, guess what we'll do? We'll kick their robot asses and insist on an armistice based on the 1967 borders.

But we're setting this process up for epic failure if we do not force Israel to dismantle its settlements and abide by its own borders; if we refuse to make Israel abide by the law, on what basis would we do the same for Palestine? What if 50 years from now the Palestinians start building settlements on unclaimed Isaeli land with the intent of slowly pushing them out demographically? What if Palestinians start illegally immigrating into and building huge enclaves in the negev and then setting up military posts to cut off Israeli access to the Red Sea?

We should not demand anything from Israel that we would not demand from the Palestinians, and vice versa. It doesn't matter who they are or what you think they believe: if you do not negotiate from a fair position, you cannot complain when one side doesn't accept your solution.

 

[untermensche]

Total nonsense.

Israel has been trading expansion for peace for almost 50 years. They want land, not peace. Once they get all the land they want then they might begin to think about peace.

Of course, this is how Israel created peace with Jordan and Egypt - trading land for peace. That's why Israel won't be conceding land to the Palestinians without getting some peace.

So when does Israel intend to stop stealing land, building on the land they have stolen, and begin making peace?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of course, this is how Israel created peace with Jordan and Egypt - trading land for peace. That's why Israel won't be conceding land to the Palestinians without getting some peace.

So when does Israel intend to stop stealing land, building on the land they have stolen, and begin making peace?

When they are offered a reasonable peace.

 

[untermensche]

So when does Israel intend to stop stealing land, building on the land they have stolen, and begin making peace?

When they are offered a reasonable peace.

Yet in every negotiation they insist on keeping the settlements.

What is this reasonable peace?

Give Israel everything it wants?

 

[Harry Bosch]

When they are offered a reasonable peace.

Yet in every negotiation they insist on keeping the settlements.

What is this reasonable peace?

Give Israel everything it wants?

Do you have a link that supports your position?

 

[untermensche]

Yet in every negotiation they insist on keeping the settlements.

What is this reasonable peace?

Give Israel everything it wants?

Do you have a link that supports your position?

What do you mean?

You tried to feed me this gibberish about some 50 year master plan by Israel, to throw people off land, build on it and then send the craziest settlers in the world into it.

And this insane plan you say is the Israeli plan for peace.

Where exactly does this come from?