Gaza

[scoober78]

Let's not forget that when the land was "usurped" by the jews, it was basically given as a consolation prize and "sorry for the genocide. U mad bro?", and given AS-IS, which was a fucking disgusting swampy swath of land. So.... it begs the question why the israeli side has turned a swamp wasteland into a beautiful, first-world democratic nation at the world table, whereas the palestinian side is a dump? I know the first argument is going to something along the lines of "Yeah, well with US as an ally....". Well, guess what? Allies make or break a lot of places, no startup nation goes it completely alone and if the palestinians weren't such a backward, corrupt and terrorist-harboring settlement, I'm sure they could get large-power democratic allies to help turn their land into a beautiful and formidable state/country/settlement/etc.


Anyway, this debate will never be over. Even if the Arabs and Jews got along famously tomorrow morning, the focus would just turn into civil war between the secular majority and fringe orthodox jewish minority in Israel. Believe me.... you put enough jews together and the bitching never quite goes away. They are just political bedfellows while the Arabs are afoot.

Oh, except for the Neturei Karta and similar fringe wackos. Those assholes meet with palestinian and arab leaders and applaud their efforts to overthrow the israeli government. Beyond orthodox-orthodox jews. Because "If god didn't give us Israel it doesn't belong to us, so we need to give it back until he does". What fucking assholes....

How's the view through those anyway?

It's not the points your making, it's that we already know what you are going to say...

 

[wink]

Uhhh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_boundary_agreement_(1920)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan_memorandum

Your claim is simply wrong. This isn't me advocating any position or another, it's simply history. That map dates to 1920...




India and Pakistan have fought four major wars since 1947. Sounds awfully familiar. Additionally, they are currently in "semi-active" conflict in the Kashmir. Finally, let's not forget that their mutual animosity led to them both developing the A/H-bomb. Again...pretty familiar and rising out of the same basic issues. Religious differences and forced partition.

That is a map of the British Mandate, not two independent countries with self determination. I can show you maps from Arab countries that don't show Israel existing. You can debate the right of return of Palestinians, or even the borders of Israel. You can't say Palestine was ever a country by any rational definition. And that does have some bearing on the debate. If you believe that map proves Palestine was a nation then you are not wear the rose colored glasses, you need Coke bottle corrective lenses. As to Kashmir, you make my point. India/Pakistan is nothing like Hamas/Israel. Not even close. I won't even waste my breath pointing out the vast differences between the two disputes or how their representatives deal with it.

 

[wink]

It's not the points your making, it's that we already know what you are going to say...

Actually, I'd bet you a case of beer you couldn't have predicted what Otto said regarding extreme Orthodox and the breath of opinion in Israel. Yet you think his comments are predictable because he is Jewish. Conversely, up to this point you haven't said a thing that I couldn't predict or was nuanced, insightful or entertaining.

 

[Flash]

So we agree, there never was a state or nation of Palestine. I have no interest in going back two thousand years for the purposes of this discussion, but to be clear, Israel was not only a state by any definition but I believe that Israel existed with Jerusalem as it's capital more than once before modern democratic Israel. Palestine, never. Some folks forget that.

You just did go back over two thousand years ago since that was the last time anything remotely similar to the current state of Israel existed.

As to where the Palestinians should live, well correct me if I am wrong, but there never were forcible relocations or cleansing of Arabs from the partitioned Israel. Palestinians left of their own accord to join their brethren in Trans Jordan or immigrated to other Arab countries. I also believe that all privately held Palestinians property was paid for and title transfered when they chose to leave. Then, the countries they fled to took up arms against Israel and no doubt many Palestinians fought in that war. Ever since then the other Arab nations have used Palestinians as pawns.

HA HA! Good one! You had me going there for a second........Oh, wait, you are serious?! Give me a break, there was a violent war after the partition in 1947 and many in the region were forced from their homes and made refugees, tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs included. That is almost as rich as Arabs who say that the Jews who lived throughout the Middle East prior to 1947 all left voluntarily to go to Israel after 1947. Certainly a lot of them did but the hostility and violence that many ancient Jewish communites had to endure also provided ample incentive for the vast majority who eventually emigrated to Israel.

It's messy, both the history and the current conflict. But I remain convinced that the only possible enduring solution is to give the Palestinians what they want which is a state within the current internationally recognized borders. Either that or Israel will have to endure the current situation of continual conflict with it's immediate neighbors, and with us continuing to pay for a large portion of their defense (ie. Iron Dome, etc).

 

[squorch2]

Actually, I'd bet you a case of beer you couldn't have predicted what Otto said regarding extreme Orthodox and the breath of opinion in Israel. Yet you think his comments are predictable because he is Jewish. Conversely, up to this point you haven't said a thing that I couldn't predict or was nuanced, insightful or entertaining.

Eh, being Jewish has little to do with the consistency of the talking points. I hear the same stuff from my more charismatic evangelical friends.

 

[Fog]

Flash says that the "only possible enduring solution is to give the Palestinians . . . a state within the current internationally recognized borders" [of Israel. Does anyone think for a moment that such an act would stop Palestinians from shooting rockets into Israel every day or getting a good night's sleep until Israel is destroyed and all Jews killed? Of course not. There is sufficient oil money and enough angry arabs in the Mideast to ensure this struggle will last another thousand years w/ no resolution.

 

[Renegade One]

If there isn't some sort of "statute of limitations" on national statehood and borders, there ought to be. Except for whatever so-called "occupied territories" (depending on your persuasion) Israel should CHOOSE to cede to another entity, the nation-state of Israel is here to stay...against ALL enemies...foreign and domestic. Yes..the WORLD was basically "sorry for the genocide". I truly believe that the US will actively work, by whatever means necessary, to be a guarantor of that. Even when it's unpopular...at home or abroad. Chalk it up to "the right thing to do". MHO, obviously...

And just to help you get over the "Well, of course he thinks that...he's Jewish..." theory of idea-dismissal, I'm Roman Catholic. Says so on my dog tags.

 

[Mew]

Well so this is clearly a complex topic and I suspect one in which the concept that "anyone with sufficient power or intelligence to fix the problem is most likely not complaining about it online" holds very true.

Rather than bore you all with my under-quialified thoughts on the matter I think there is some academic research you all might find interesting to read that at the very least I found helpful in understanding the why of the conflict.

At the heart of the issue this is a refugee conflict

https://www.msu.edu/course/pls/461/stein/MNREXP1.htm this article does a decent job giving a quick and dirty overview of refugee theory.

http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/developpement/shared/developpement/cours/DE021/Kunz.pdf Kunz is considered to be the father of refugee theory and is still the definitive author on the different type of refugees and the predictive models for a groups success and diaspora patterns.

Then it is also worth taking a look at the polices (conventions) that created this modern idea of a refugee

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html

If you spend some time reading about how the 1951 conventions were created you can start to see why the "laws" have been very unhelpful in resolving this particular crisis.

Then take a look at that stats for Gaza

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

You have a young, male population with almost no economic possibilities and it doesn't take a genius to see that how that is not going anyplace good.

Hopefully this is interesting and if anyone would like me to dig up some more articles or the names of some of the better books it is a really interesting if not depressing topic.

 

[Brett327]

Israel, the US and at least the PA have all agreed that a two state solution is the desired end state. So, arguing over the historical precedent of Palestinean statehood is moot. FOG, the answer to your question is, we won't know until we try it out. Since the status quo doesn't seem to be working out for either side in this conflict, it seems to me that there's not much risk to Israel going down that road. Maybe they continue to conduct rocket attacks. If so, we're back to square one. Maybe the attacks stop, and that's the basis for trust building and a pathway to normalized relations.

 

[Fog]

. . . FOG, the answer to your question is, we won't know until we try it out.

Israel voluntarily vacated Gaza and gave it to the Palestinians. The place is now totally trashed, full of Hamas terrorists and is a pipeline of Iranian rockets & other arms aimed at Israel. And your recommendation is to give more of Israel to the Palestinians in the hope things get better?!?! Are you out of your f'ing mind?

 

[Brett327]

?

Quote fail. What do you mean by more? The PA essentially already "has" Gaza and the WB. This stuff has already been agreed upon.

 

[jmcquate]

Israel, the US and at least the PA have all agreed that a two state solution is the desired end state. So, arguing over the historical precedent of Palestinean statehood is moot. FOG, the answer to your question is, we won't know until we try it out. Since the status quo doesn't seem to be working out for either side in this conflict, it seems to me that there's not much risk to Israel going down that road. Maybe they continue to conduct rocket attacks. If so, we're back to square one. Maybe the attacks stop, and that's the basis for trust building and a pathway to normalized relations.

Didn't Arafat decline that very deal when Clinton took his turn at solving this Cluster Fuck?

 

[Brett327]

Indeed, but he obviously hasn't been a factor in about a decade. Jerusalem notwithstanding, the pre '67 borders are what most people understand as the area that would become the Palestinian state.

 

[SkywardET]

Indeed, but he obviously hasn't been a factor in about a decade. Jerusalem notwithstanding, the pre '67 borders are what most people understand as the area that would become the Palestinian state.

Who's blocking this wonderful two-state compromise, if it's really what all players have already agreed to?

 

[Brett327]

There are many more contentious issues in play other than where the boundaries will be.