News Stories

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The Gaza Strip, however, does. Any lasting deal will have to cede that to the new Palestinian state.

no...
in any lasting deal the "west bank" would be come the new Palestinians state, and the Gaza strip would remain an isolated strip of land belonging to no one, and controlled by an Islamic radical group.
it has land passes that lead to Egypt for the transfer of goods and people, but other then that, and it gets humanitarian aid pumped into it through israeli land passes.
other then that, its no mans land since neither Israel nor Egypt make any claim to it.

or are you under the impression that Hamas is ever going to give up its control over it and let the Palestinian authority take over ?

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I would not call allowing Israeli settlers to move into Palestinian areas bending over backwards to try to make a Palestinian state.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

/s

Lol Israel bend over backwards???? Proof please, I guess those settlements are the Israeli way of bending over backwards.

its called Leverage
its not Israel's job to make a Palestinian state, but mearly to determine its boarders (how much of the west bank would form the new state) with MAJOR settelment blocks eventually being annexed to Israel (you can't forcefully move half a million people who came there willingly).

the Palestinians have two competing interests
on the one hand, they have an interest in getting as much land as they can in the final deal.
on the other, they have an interest to drag it out as long as possible to keep getting charity.

the settlements are a nice way of saying "the more time you wait, the less land you'll get"
otherwise, what reason do the palestinians have to form a state of their own ever ?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by mindovermatter

a state that doesn't daily shoot rockets into nearby Israeli towns.
And it's not unreasonable for Israel to want to make sure that any ships going into Gaza aren't carrying weapons.

Israel has bent over backwards to try and make a Palestinian state. Not much has come of it

/s

Lol Israel bend over backwards???? Proof please, I guess those settlements are the Israeli way of bending over backwards.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

/s

Lol Israel bend over backwards???? Proof please, I guess those settlements are the Israeli way of bending over backwards.

read my last post.

[mindovermatter]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

no...
in any lasting deal the "west bank" would be come the new Palestinians state, and the Gaza strip would remain an isolated strip of land belonging to no one, and controlled by an Islamic radical group.
it has land passes that lead to Egypt for the transfer of goods and people, but other then that, and it gets humanitarian aid pumped into it through israeli land passes.
other then that, its no mans land since neither Israel nor Egypt make any claim to it.

or are you under the impression that Hamas is ever going to give up its control over it and let the Palestinian authority take over ?

but Israel did pull of of there a few years ago (was it '05?). It was a great farming area until the pull out.
and btw, Israel does pump in tons of aid to Gaza. All of the electricity in Gaza comes from an Israeli power plant -ie Israeli tax dollars. How would you feel if you were paying to supply electricity, and medical care to the same people who shoot rockets at you?

I would not call allowing Israeli settlers to move into Palestinian areas bending over backwards to try to make a Palestinian state.

Israel was willing to 'give back' something like 97% and were turned down. That's what I call bending over backwards. Besides, if you've ever been to the west bank you would see that there is a whole lot of desert, and a cr@p load of empty space. Plenty of room for everyone.

*the reason I "quote/unquote" 'give back' is because it's all land that Isreal won through various wars. They just never officially annexed it like they did the Golan, so now everyone sees it only as "occupied territory"

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by mindovermatter

but Israel did pull of of there a few years ago (was it '05?). It was a great farming area until the pull out.

at this point its not relevant.
its Hamas territory, and that means that there is no chance of it becoming part of a single state with the PLO controlled west bank.
the palestinians are now effectively divided into two different entities who are hostile to one another.
instead of two state solution, you now have a de-facto three state solution.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

no...
in any lasting deal the "west bank" would be come the new Palestinians state, and the Gaza strip would remain an isolated strip of land belonging to no one, and controlled by an Islamic radical group.
it has land passes that lead to Egypt for the transfer of goods and people, but other then that, and it gets humanitarian aid pumped into it through israeli land passes.
other then that, its no mans land since neither Israel nor Egypt make any claim to it.

or are you under the impression that Hamas is ever going to give up its control over it and let the Palestinian authority take over ?

That's something the New Palestinian government would have to work out for themselves. Since you claim Israel makes a claim to it, nor Egypt, surely you have no problem giving it to the Palestinian authority and let them worry about it. After all, if Hamas and the PNA are fighting each other, they won't be lobbing rockets at Israel, right?

its called Leverage
its not Israel's job to make a Palestinian state, but mearly to determine its boarders (how much of the west bank would form the new state) with MAJOR settelment blocks eventually being annexed to Israel (you can't forcefully move half a million people who came there willingly).

the Palestinians have two competing interests
on the one hand, they have an interest in getting as much land as they can
on the other, they have an interest to drag it out as long as possible to keep getting charity.

the settlements are a nice way of saying "the more time you wait, the less land you'll get"
otherwise, what reason do the palestinians have to form a state of their own ever ?

It's borders are already determined in the 1967 agreement. You of course realize how petty and asinine that sounds, correct? Change the names of the countries involved to ones you have no emotional investment in and reread what you just wrote. It's things like that which makes the Palestinian cause sympathetic and makes Israel look like the bad guy internationally.

Originally Posted by mindovermatter

Israel was willing to 'give back' something like 97% and were turned down. That's what I call bending over backwards. Besides, if you've ever been to the west bank you would see that there is a whole lot of desert, and a cr@p load of empty space. Plenty of room for everyone.

*the reason I "quote/unquote" 'give back' is because it's all land that Isreal won through various wars. They just never officially annexed it like they did the Golan, so now everyone sees it only as "occupied territory"

Deserts are generally unlivable unless there's a source of fresh water. You probably already know that and are just trolling.

Further, winning land in wars doesn't work any more. This is not the age of colonialism where land is yours by right of conquest.

Also this is all completely off topic. The topic at hand is a book written by a former Israeli PM that claims Bush offered to grant "citizenship rights" to 100,000 Palestinian refugees.

[mindovermatter]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

at this point its not relevant.
its Hamas territory, and that means that there is no chance of it becoming part of a single state with the PLO controlled west bank.
the palestinians are now effectively divided into two different entities who are hostile to one another.
instead of two state solution, you now have a de-facto three state solution.

I meant it in the context of "look what happened in Gaza, why should we think that anything different would happen if Israel left the West Bank"

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That's something the New Palestinian government would have to work out for themselves. Since you claim Israel makes a claim to it, nor Egypt, surely you have no problem giving it to the Palestinian authority and let them worry about it. After all, if Hamas and the PNA are fighting each other, they won't be lobbing rockets at Israel, right?

actually, they ARE lobbing rockets at us.
thats part of the problem.

the Gaza strip and the west bank don't actually boarder one another, and both are too far apart to be able to conduct any kind of effective war between them.
instead, the method of warfare consists of basically trying to turn each areas population against one their own government and thus increase their own support base in the enemies territory in the hopes of eventually pulling off an effective coup (which is part of why its not possible to just let the PNA "have" the gaza strip).
and the main method of gathering support is with showing force.
and since the gaza strip and west bank are too far apart for either side to show their force by attacking EACH OTHER, they show their force by attacking us instead.

It's borders are already determined in the 1967 agreement. You of course realize how petty and asinine that sounds, correct? Change the names of the countries involved to ones you have no emotional investment in and reread what you just wrote. It's things like that which makes the Palestinian cause sympathetic and makes Israel look like the bad guy internationally.

the 1967 "boarders" are not an agreement
they are an armistice line drawn at the end of the 1948 war by the troop positions on the ground.
its not an actual agreement.
and the 1967 lines imply that the west bank belongs to Jordan, who in an ACTUAL peace treaty, wavered any claims to it.
as far as legally binding treaties go, the west bank belongs to Israel on paper (since its previous owner relinquished any claim to it)
but since we don't WANT most of it, we never annexed it ourselves.

the formation of an independent palestinian entity (state or otherwise) is actually something thats in ISRAEL's interest, more then it is in the Palestinians interest (because by forming a state, they relinquish any claims to OUR territory)
hell, it might be true to say that its in their better interest to keep this going for DECADES, because it makes us look bad, and because they keep getting more and more money for it.

but since they are taking their own sweet time with the idea of forming a state, we're giving them a reason to want to rush things a bit more.
the more time they wait, the less territory they get.

Originally Posted by mindovermatter

I meant it in the context of "look what happened in Gaza, why should we think that anything different would happen if Israel left the West Bank"

from a certain standpoint, it might be better for israel to do so
in the west bank, Israel has to deal with an internationally recognized PNA who is a member of the UN, and who's leadership get invited to the white house.
in Gaza, Israel has to deal with Hamas, who nobody recognizes and who is shunned by even most of the arab states as nothing more then terrorist scum.

it might be preferable for israel to just pull out of most of the west bank, and let Hamas take over and destroy the PNA.
both the PNA and Hamas want Israel's destruction, but Hamas is the only one who says it up front.
which means, that with Hamas, we don't talk about anything at all
no negotiations
not talk about refugees, jerusalem, settalments, final boarders, or any of the other stuff thats fundamentally unsolvable and yet we keep having to discuss in our negotiations with the NPA
our relationship with Hamas is the same as that with any other hostile nation.
they don't shoot, we don't shoot.
nothing more.

[Vexx]

Deserts are generally unlivable unless there's a source of fresh water. You probably already know that and are just trolling.

Points for noting that the underlying issues include RESOURCE driven aspects (arable land, agriculture, water sources, mining potential). Looking at a resource map and comparing to the "settlements" and other border aspects makes the situation a lot more ... interesting.

Its also worth noting that it isn't just "Palestine" and it isn't just "Israel" -- there are factions with conflicting interests on both sides including particular factions who love the status quo and never-ending violence -- on both sides.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

actually, they ARE lobbing rockets at us.
thats part of the problem.

Future tense how does it work

the Gaza strip and the west bank don't actually boarder one another, and both are too far apart to be able to conduct any kind of effective war between them.
instead, the method of warfare consists of basically trying to turn each areas population against one their own government and thus increase their own support base in the enemies territory in the hopes of eventually pulling off an effective coup (which is part of why its not possible to just let the PNA "have" the gaza strip).
and the main method of gathering support is with showing force.
and since the gaza strip and west bank are too far apart for either side to show their force by attacking EACH OTHER, they show their force by attacking us instead.

You of course realize the only reason Hamas has any support at all is because Israel as repeatedly proven to be uninterested in a peaceful resolution and willing to break past agreements, correct? If the PNA shows some actual progress in dealing with Israel, Hamas loses a big part of its appeal.

the 1967 "boarders" are not an agreement
they are an armistice line drawn at the end of the 1948 war by the troop positions on the ground.
its not an actual agreement.
and the 1967 lines imply that the west bank belongs to Jordan, who in an ACTUAL peace treaty, wavered any claims to it.
as far as legally binding treaties go, the west bank belongs to Israel on paper (since its previous owner relinquished any claim to it)
but since we don't WANT most of it, we never annexed it ourselves.

the formation of an independent palestinian entity (state or otherwise) is actually something thats in ISRAEL's interest, more then it is in the Palestinians interest (because by forming a state, they relinquish any claims to OUR territory)
hell, it might be true to say that its in their better interest to keep this going for DECADES, because it makes us look bad, and because they keep getting more and more money for it.

Then recognize its independence, tell the settlers that land now belongs to Palestine and be done with it. If the Palestinians still attack, they're the ones who look like the bad guys. You can't say, "well we don't want it" when you have Israelis moving onto the land.

but since they are taking their own sweet time with the idea of forming a state, we're giving them a reason to want to rush things a bit more.
the more time they wait, the more Israeli settlers will have to move or accept living under Palestinian jurisdiction.

Fixed. Do you honestly not see how that isn't a motivation for Palestinians to make a deal quickly, but to continue fighting?

from a certain standpoint, it might be better for israel to do so
in the west bank, Israel has to deal with an internationally recognized PNA who is a member of the UN, and who's leadership get invited to the white house.
in Gaza, Israel has to deal with Hamas, who nobody recognizes and who is shunned by even most of the arab states as nothing more then terrorist scum.

Then Israel needs to stop violating their agreements.

it might be preferable for israel to just pull out of most of the west bank, and let Hamas take over and destroy the PNA.
both the PNA and Hamas want Israel's destruction, but Hamas is the only one who says it up front.
which means, that with Hamas, we don't talk about anything at all
no negotiations
not talk about refugees, jerusalem, settalments, final boarders, or any of the other stuff thats fundamentally unsolvable and yet we keep having to discuss in our negotiations with the NPA
our relationship with Hamas is the same as that with any other hostile nation.
they don't shoot, we don't shoot.
nothing more.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You of course realize the only reason Hamas has any support at all is because Israel as repeatedly proven to be uninterested in a peaceful resolution and willing to break past agreements, correct? If the PNA shows some actual progress in dealing with Israel, Hamas loses a big part of its appeal.

no, the reason Hamas has any support is because they shoots anyone who speaks out against them in the back of the knees and cripple them for life.
an attitude that makes NOT supporting them less appealing.
plus, the PLO is viewed as old, corrupt, incompetent, and to a large amount of Palestinians, they are viewed as nothing more then a western backed puppet regime formed and kept alive by Israel and the US (to be fair, that last part is mostly true)
funny how that works

Then recognize its independence, tell the settlers that land now belongs to Palestine and be done with it. If the Palestinians still attack, they're the ones who look like the bad guys. You can't say, "well we don't want it" when you have Israelis moving onto the land.

no
we want them to say "we relinquish all rights to any territories beyond those agreed upon" first.
just as the peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan did before they got their territories back.
we pulled out of south Lebanon and Gaza without an agreement, and both cases resulted in making things WORSE.
this is the middle east damn it, consessions are a sign of WEAKNESS, and to be viewed as weak is to invite an attack.

Fixed. Do you honestly not see how that isn't a motivation for Palestinians to make a deal quickly, but to continue fighting?

the end result would be that the major settlemt blocks would be annexed to Israel.
territorial exchanges are already a done deal, recognized by the US, EU, UN and even the Palestinian authority itself.
the palestinians don't want 500,000 jews living on their land.

Then Israel needs to stop violating their agreements.

we're still waiting to HAVE agreements before we can violate them.

i belong to a school of thought that says that if the PLO can't be trusted to actually do their job (they we're formed for the sole purpose of closing a deal with Israel and ending the conflict) then their continued existence is just a waste of time.
better to have an enemy that is recognized as such by EVERYONE, then an enemy who is disguised as a friend.

if you can't "solve" the conflict, its better to be able to "manage" it under terms that are more favorable to us.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

no, the reason Hamas has any support is because they shoots anyone who speaks out against them in the back of the knees and cripple them for life.
an attitude that makes NOT supporting them less appealing.
plus, the PLO is viewed as old, corrupt, incompetent, and to a large amount of Palestinians, they are viewed as nothing more then a western backed puppet regime formed and kept alive by Israel and the US (to be fair, that last part is mostly true)
funny how that works

Yes, I'm sure it has nothing to do with how the people there view Israel. I'm sure it also has nothing to do with how it's obvious trying to negotiate with Israel hasn't worked. Of course Israel is completely innocent and can do no wrong.

no
we want them to say "we relinquish all rights to any territories beyond those agreed upon" first.
just as the peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan did before they got their territories back.
we pulled out of south Lebanon and Gaza without an agreement, and both cases resulted in making things WORSE.
this is the middle east damn it, consessions are a sign of WEAKNESS, and to be viewed as weak is to invite an attack.

the end result would be that the major settlemt blocks would be annexed to Israel.
territorial exchanges are already a done deal, recognized by the US, EU, UN and even the Palestinian authority itself.
the palestinians don't want 500,000 jews living on their land.

See this is why you haven't reached a deal. The Palestinian people, even the ones that accept Israel's existence will not accept Israeli settlers there, and you very well know it.

we're still waiting to HAVE agreements before we can violate them.

Like the deal to stop expanding settlements and remove some existing ones? How long did that last?

i belong to a school of thought that says that if the PLO can't be trusted to actually do their job (they we're formed for the sole purpose of closing a deal with Israel and ending the conflict) then their continued existence is just a waste of time.
better to have an enemy that is recognized as such by EVERYONE, then an enemy who is disguised as a friend.

if you can't "solve" the conflict, its better to be able to "manage" it under terms that are more favorable to us.

I belong to the school of thought that says that attitude only serves to create more conflict and make things worse for everyone. History generally bares that out.

Now once again this is completely off topic to the actual article I commented on.

[bladeofdarkness]

i will stop commenting mostly because its off topic, but i will say this
Israel has peace with Egypt (for 30 years) and Jordan (for over a decade), both of who's citizens hate Israel's guts.
at the end of the day, peace is between Israel and any of its neighbors is entirely political and made with governments rather then peoples.
and any peace treaty with the Palestinians would be the exact same way.
a cold peace, with little actual relations, who's main advantage is a reduction of violence and allowing for a reduced defense expenditure for both parties.
thats pretty much it.

anyone seeking an end to the conflict, must adjust their expectations properly.
you will never get a time when the Jews and Arabs will be like Germany and France are today.

[mindovermatter]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Deserts are generally unlivable unless there's a source of fresh water. You probably already know that and are just trolling.

Further, winning land in wars doesn't work any more. This is not the age of colonialism where land is yours by right of conquest.

I've been there, don't tell me that it isn't desert. Also, don't call me a troll. Also, Israelis are well known for making the desert bloom. Generally other than Israelis, only Bedouins live there, and they are wanderers. It's not like they lived there for thousands of years and Israel came in and make life bad for them...they lived wherever they wanted, and have no historical attachment to that land.
oh, and since Israel has 'occupied' that area, living quality for the Bedouins has gone way up.

When you win land in a war like the 6 day war, sure it works. Israel won Sini, Golan, Gaza, and the West bank during that war. Sinai was given back to Egypt as part of a peace agreement, and Israel annexed the Golan. In the West bank, they started to build settlements on hill tops for strategic reasons. Call it a colony if you want. The prime minister has even put a freeze on building in anticipation the two state agreement...but the reason the talks for a two state solution aren't working is because Abbas want's Jerusalem as the capital, and Israel won't give it up. IMO that's totally reasonable.
/rant/ If you want Israel to pull out of the West bank, tell that to the thousands of people who live there who would have to be kicked out of their homes, and who act as a buffer zone for the rest of Israel. Tell that to the 4 people who were shot last week by terrorists along the road to Hebron. Tell that to the the people who have rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at their cars. When I went to hebron, I had to go in an armord bus and I could only stay in very small parts of the city which were guarded by Israeli soldiers because it wasn't safe for an American in the rest of it. My family visited a kibbutz near there, and that same day, a few hours after they left it was attacked. None of that sounds very conducive to peace talks.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by mindovermatter

I've been there, don't tell me that it isn't desert. Also, don't call me a troll.

If you aren't a troll, then you have no idea what you're talking about. To live in the desert, you need something called water. A lack of it is what makes it a desert in the first place. Without water, it's unlivable. The amount of land isn't relevant. It's access to water that's important.

Also, Israelis are well known for making the desert bloom.

Because they have access to water. See how that works?

Generally other than Israelis, only Bedouins live there, and they are wanderers. It's not like they lived there for thousands of years and Israel came in and make life bad for them...they lived wherever they wanted, and have no historical attachment to that land.

Because the Palestinians that previously lived there were forced off their land at gunpoint by the Israelis.

oh, and since Israel has 'occupied' that area, living quality for the Bedouins has gone way up.

Red herring.

When you win land in a war like the 6 day war, sure it works.

Only because the pro-Israeli lobby in the US calls any politician that tells them to knock that shit off anti-semitic.

In the West bank, they started to build settlements on hill tops for strategic reasons. Call it a colony if you want.

And you don't see the problem with doing something like that?

The prime minister has even put a freeze on building in anticipation the two state agreement...

How long did that last again?

but the reason the talks for a two state solution aren't working is because Israel wants Jerusalem as the capital, and Israel won't give it up.

Fixed for accuracy

IMO that's totally reasonable.

No, it isn't reasonable at all.

/rant/ If you want Israel to pull out of the West bank, tell that to the thousands of people who live there who would have to be kicked out of their homes, and who act as a buffer zone for the rest of Israel. Tell that to the 4 people who were shot last week by terrorists along the road to Hebron. Tell that to the the people who have rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at their cars. When I went to hebron, I had to go in an armord bus and I could only stay in very small parts of the city which were guarded by Israeli soldiers because it wasn't safe for an American in the rest of it. My family visited a kibbutz near there, and that same day, a few hours after they left it was attacked. None of that sounds very conducive to peace talks.

Cool appeal to emotion. It's really a shame how Israelis are being victimized like that. I mean they have no way to defend themselves against the overwhelming firepower of the Palestinians. Oh wait, that's backwards.

Seriously, what would you be doing in the Palestinians' position?

[thevil1]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Cool appeal to emotion. It's really a shame how Israelis are being victimized like that. I mean they have no way to defend themselves against the overwhelming firepower of the Palestinians. Oh wait, that's backwards.

Seriously, what would you be doing in the Palestinians' position?

I agree with Mind Over Matter on this debate.

The Palestinians are shooting from civilian places ie, schools. They don't care to kill civilians, but they and everyone else makes a big fuss if Israel attacks back. Israel cares about the civilians. That is why they can't attack back.
It's not right to use civilians as shields and then excuses. Even you should know that.
(I think this debate should be moved to it's own thread since it's getting a bit big.)

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Seriously, what would you be doing in the Palestinians' position?

surrender.
negotiate a future for your children.
take what you can get, and move on.
and most importantly, don't fire missiles at the people who's sympathy you need in any future negotiations.

they were already offered 90% of all the territory that they want in 2000.
they aren't likely to get a better offer then that.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Elo the Blue

The Republicans strike again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

I can't believe this. This marks the first time in 48 years that Congress will not have passed a defense authorization bill before heading out of town.

The overall big picture called the Defense bill would have passed yesterday if Harry Reid allowed more time to debate the bill and allow Republicans the opportunity to offer amendments.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by thevil1

I agree with Mind Over Matter on this debate.

The Palestinians are shooting from civilian places ie, schools. They don't care to kill civilians, but they and everyone else makes a big fuss if Israel attacks back. Israel cares about the civilians. That is why they can't attack back.
It's not right to use civilians as shields and then excuses. Even you should know that.
(I think this debate should be moved to it's own thread since it's getting a bit big.)

What would you have the Palestinians do then? Look at it from their perspective. They've been living on land for generations, then Israelis come along and force them off. They have no hope of standing up against Israel conventionally. What other options do they have? Remember, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

surrender.
negotiate a future for your children.
take what you can get, and move on.

they were already offered 90% of all the territory that they want in 2000.
they aren't likely to get a better offer then that.

No you wouldn't and you know it.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

No you wouldn't and you know it.

i wouldn't surrender.
i won.