Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 238

Thread: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

  1. #101

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Biden says that the two states solution is the best option. Yet, Israel isn't interested in a two states solution,even with the Palestinian Authority taking control of Gaza. It will never happen.
    In 2018, Israelis and Palestinians were asked if they would support the following peace agreement:

    a de-militarized Palestinian state, an Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line with equal territorial exchange, family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall under Israeli sovereignty and the Muslim and Christian quarters and the al Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount under Palestinian sovereignty, and the end of the conflict and claims
    The result: 61% of Palestinians and 54% of Israeli Jews were explicitly opposed to such a solution. Only 37% of Palestinians and 39% of Israeli Jews said they would support it.

    The international community's preferred solution isn't popular with any local demographic except Israeli Arabs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  2. #102

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    This well is very polluted with snarky false narratives, but they were actually responding to a point I made and I think it was relevant.
    It was relevant in the sense that it was trying to create a defensible position against a wide dubious issue that is easier to argue against.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The only way Israel can stop giving Hamas reasons that are recognised by its backers is to stop existing. Hamas does not exist to serve world opinion (although it has got better at satisfying it) nor does it exist to serve the people in Gaza (who it uses as human shields), it serves Islamist ideology that scores points by killing Israelis. It has happily spent many Arab lives to take a few Israeli ones and calls that a victory.

    Israel mostly satisfy world opinion by observing the rule of law, keeping treaties, holding elections, extraditing wanted criminals (sometimes slowly but they get there) etc. They do overstep the mark, and have some media tactics for dealing with critics like all regimes do.

    Yes I don't like the settlements, but in a remorseless war for territory with Hamas that denies any chance of peaceful coexistence any tool will be used.
    It's not all or nothing with Hamas the way its presented, evident from truces it proposed and occasional rhetoric it promised, and we don't even have to look at that. Hamas is not some robot that is impervious to outside pressure. Suicide bombings largely stopped early in 2000s. Because they suddenly developed love Israel? Certainly not. Because Israeli authorities suddenly become omniscient with the help of the barrier? Not really since this omniscience didn't stop rocket supplies from entering Gaza or the suicide attacks could easily develop into a Hamas suicide attacks on international Israeli missions. Public perception was a big factor there. An Israel that recognizes Palestine, disallows colonization of East Jerusalem and West Bank would force Hamas to reconsider its rocket attacks greatly. The Gazans themselves would start looking at them differently.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I hope you are right, and Israel can relax. You can surely understand why they might not. It would be cheap to reply with the John Oliver meme, but I will mention this. In 1901 if you said "a major European power will try to exterminate all Jews" most people would have said "come on people its the 20th century". A few wise heads would have said "maybe the Tsar will go crazy", and one or two people might have suspected Republican France might go off the rails. No one would have tipped the Second Reich as the locus of the Holocaust, no one. It was tolerant, orderly and looked on as a refuge for Eastern European Jews en route to the US.

    More recently Israel felt so secure in 1973 they ignored an Egyptian mobilisation ("there has already been two in the previous six months, its just sabre rattling, Egypt has learned their lesson") and sent everyone home for Yom Kippur, and got booted out of the Sinai peninsula.

    History is not on your side in your assessment that threats to Israel are over.

    Israel got to this point of relative security by savage warmaking, campaigns of assassination and unilaterally seizing land, and not letting an inch go with having it prised from their fingers by superpowers (I think both the USA and the Soviets have had to browbeat Israel at various stages) and allegedly holding their neighbours to nuclear ransom. Most of time they adopted a collectivist Socialist regime which outraged the US and they knifed the USSR when it suited them, they gave zero ****s.

    Smashing the Egyptians in the face until they saw reason seems to have worked, ditto the PLO, murdering Hamas leaders whenever there was a suicide bombing seems to have worked, but you want them to not reply to rocket fire? Why would they not? I agree the settlements are a bad thing but why wouldn't Israel use them as a cats paw? Iran uses Hamas as a cats paw, this is how the game is being played in Palestine.
    I doubt that would be the response in 1901 when were still seeing the rise of nationalism. The Old World with all its thousands of small groups was bound to explode in one way or an other. It's easy to say what you say from today's perspectives but for a person living in those times the political landscape was hardly stable.

    Egypt-Israeli relations came a long way since 1973. They're at a different league now compared to pre-1979 era. Hence, its not a good comparison. Same with Jordan. We're living in a different era where the history is on my side. A lot has to happen before either of them become a threat to Israel. Even the turmoil in Egypt with the on and off governments didn't change it with respect to Israeli security from the Egyptian side. The factors Israel faced before no longer exist.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  3. #103
    Tribunus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,062

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    It was relevant in the sense that it was trying to create a defensible position against a wide dubious issue that is easier to argue against.
    I accept you're a good faith poster, I feel they are too: there is a wider issue of outside powers positioning Israel and the Arab State for their own purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    It's not all or nothing with Hamas the way its presented, evident from truces it proposed and occasional rhetoric it promised, and we don't even have to look at that. Hamas is not some robot that is impervious to outside pressure. Suicide bombings largely stopped early in 2000s. Because they suddenly developed love Israel? Certainly not. Because Israeli authorities suddenly become omniscient with the help of the barrier? Not really since this omniscience didn't stop rocket supplies from entering Gaza or the suicide attacks could easily develop into a Hamas suicide attacks on international Israeli missions. Public perception was a big factor there. An Israel that recognizes Palestine, disallows colonization of East Jerusalem and West Bank would force Hamas to reconsider its rocket attacks greatly. The Gazans themselves would start looking at them differently.
    Israel has a problem recognising Palestine per se because Israel occupies (in the legal sense, it exists upon) half of Palestine. The international community forced, through the UN, a solution that mandates Palestine as an entity cease to exist, and be replaced by Israel and an Arab State. The n we walked away, and left them to sort it out, then keep interfering every time one side (usually Israel) gets the upper hand. My country and probably your country, but most of al the US and regional powers, have cooked this dish that Gazans and Israelis have to eat every day.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I doubt that would be the response in 1901 when were still seeing the rise of nationalism. The Old World with all its thousands of small groups was bound to explode in one way or an other. It's easy to say what you say from today's perspectives but for a person living in those times the political landscape was hardly stable.
    In 1901 the tide of nationalism was at a low ebb. Empires were expanding (the race for Africa was on), Ireland was subdued, even the Balkans had quieted down somewhat. The stress and depletion of Empires led to uncorked nationalism: the IRB in 1914 was a weak ghost, in 1916 they took moral leadership of Catholic Ireland.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Egypt-Israeli relations came a long way since 1973. They're at a different league now compared to pre-1979 era. Hence, its not a good comparison. Same with Jordan. We're living in a different era where the history is on my side. A lot has to happen before either of them become a threat to Israel. Even the turmoil in Egypt with the on and off governments didn't change it with respect to Israeli security from the Egyptian side. The factors Israel faced before no longer exist.
    Likewise in 1991 "history was over", capitalism had saved the world. I can't tell the Bosniak Muslims that history is over, or the Yazidis, or the Houthis, or the Rohingya, or the Uyghurs, or the Muslims of India. History is still happening.

    An aggressive Israeli nationalist would argue the current relative security of Israel was won with the mailed fist. I mentioned in the other thread that military strength comes with its own weaknesses and Israel is now susceptible to being portrayed as the "occupier": this is because in many areas they are. If they withdraw and disarm that might lead to Hamas ceasing terror attacks? I have my doubts.

    In the clash of claims no one can take all Palestine. The existence of one side is an affront to the claims of the other. I think Hamas has a stated agenda for "Palestine" to exist, which is predicated on the erasure of Israel. Yes they may change but so far change has come from Israel smashing them.

    I take your point the move away from suicide bombing could be because of western opinion, but I honestly think the barrier and harsh reprisals explains that change better.

    I feel like Palestine represents a similar challenge to Israel as the Kurds do to Turkiyye. They have some valid claims based on antiquity, they get to do terrorism because they are freedom fighters, and they claim land that is integral to the existing state's existence. They get some slack cut for them in the press because of the underdog status and the ruling power always looks like a bad guy.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  4. #104
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    11,855

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    It's not all or nothing with Hamas the way its presented, evident from truces it proposed and occasional rhetoric it promised, and we don't even have to look at that. Hamas is not some robot that is impervious to outside pressure... An Israel that recognizes Palestine, disallows colonization of East Jerusalem and West Bank would force Hamas to reconsider.
    That's my opinion, too.What is the difference between a band of terrorists and a liberation movement? democracies don't negotiate with terrorists. Biden applauded the ceasefire agreement.
    From the news,
    We informed all parties that we would accept a mutual ceasefire between Israel and Hamas with two conditions," Dr. Basem Naim, a former Palestinian health minister who is now head of Hamas' international relations council, told ABC News on Tuesday evening. "One, Israeli forces must stop incursions into the Al-Asqa compound and respect the site. Two, Israel must stop the forced evacuation of the Palestinian residents in the Sheikh Jarah neighborhood. This condition is in accordance with international law, not only a condition expected by the Hamas authority."
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Israel is now susceptible to being portrayed as the "occupier"
    Since a long time ago, according to the international law.
    Yes, Israel 'occupies' West Bank, US says
    US President Joe Biden's administration said Wednesday that Israel's control of the West Bank is indeed "occupation," clarifying its stance after the release of a report that seemed to downplay the term, adopting language used by Donald Trump's government.
    The only way to solve the conflict between the occupying power and the Palestinians is the respect for the international law- but it will never happen.
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 23, 2021 at 05:49 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  5. #105

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Since the benchmark for reality (apparently) is what the Biden administration thinks, it is worth mentioning that it, along with the European Union, regards Hamas as a terrorist organization. The suggestion that Hamas' acceptance of convenient ceasefires or offering of duplicitous truces is evidence of its willingness to compromise on its core objective (the destruction of Israel) is at best naive.

  6. #106
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    That's my opinion, too.What is the difference between a band of terrorists and a liberation movement?
    Is this also your stance on ISIS?

  7. #107

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Hamas in their own words...

    Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh on Al-Jazeera, May 15, 2021:

    Indeed, Jerusalem unites us. Today, the geographical barriers within historic Palestine have been removed. The geographical barriers within historic Palestine have been removed. Today, Palestine is waging an Intifada from Rosh HaNikra to Umm Al-Rashrash [Eilat], and from Rafah to the farthest points to the North, East, and West of Palestine. Yes, they have thought that 70 years or more could kill the spirit of belonging of our people within the land occupied in 1948.

    They thought that [our people] there would lose their identity, and would assimilate in the Zionist entity. They thought that they would forget their identity and their sense of belonging, but today, our people within the 1948 borders are the ones defending the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They are the ones waging an Intifada against the occupier and the settlers.

    Today, brothers and sisters, some theories collapse and some are being rebuilt. The theory of coexistence between the two people within the 1948 borders – a theory they have been cultivating for 70 years – is being trampled underfoot today by our sons and brothers in Lod, in Ramla, in Umm Al-Fahm, in Nazareth, in Baqa Al-Gharbiyye, in the Galilee, in the Negev, in Rahat, in Beersheba, and in Safed... Let me reiterate: In Safed! In Safed! Safed is ours! Safed is ours! Safed belongs to us and to nobody else!
    Hamas Political Bureau Member and former Minister of the Interior Fathi Hammad from a public address, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV, May 7, 2021:

    People of Jerusalem, we want you to cut off the heads of the Jews with knives. With your hand, cut their artery from here. A knife costs five shekels. Buy a knife, sharpen it, put it there, and just cut off [their heads]. It costs just five shekels.
    Ismail Haniyeh, Lusail TV, July 26, 2020:

    We will never overlook even one span of Palestine's soil because Palestine is an endowed land and no person, leader, organization or group is entitled to the right to ignore this land ... Israel has no future in the Palestinian lands and our motto is that we will never recognize the Zionist regime.
    Fathi Hammad then Hamas Minister of the Interior, July 2019:

    Seven million Palestinians outside, enough warming up, you have Jews with you in every place. You should attack every Jew possible in all the world and kill them.
    Ismail Haniyeh, Fars News Agency, October 27, 2012:

    We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, the Right of Return [must be fulfilled], the prisoners must be set free, and a fully sovereign Palestinian state must be established with Jerusalem as its capital.
    Deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council Sheik Ahmad Bahr, sermon broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV, August 10th, 2012:

    If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female. A woman may set out without her husband’s permission. … Why? In order to annihilate those Jews. Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.
    Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip commenting on the killing of Osama Bin Laden, May 2, 2011:

    We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood…We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.
    Sermon delivered by 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh, former Hamas minister of culture, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV, April 8, 2011 (ADL):

    Whoever is killed by a Jew receives the reward of two martyrs, because the very thing that the Jews did to the prophets was done to him.

    The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah.
    Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, Future News TV, June 15, 2010 (ADL):

    We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land...

    Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy.
    The list could go on and on and on...

    The mainstream Israeli view:

    Most Israeli Jews, meanwhile, are convinced Palestinian violence is not ultimately a protest at their misbehavior or at unjust policies, but is rooted in the ideology described so clearly by Abu Marzouk: Incessant and remorseless violence until the Jews all flee from the country or are killed.

    Israelis believe that partly because the major Palestinian factions routinely say it. But they also believe it because they experienced it. The world may have forgotten the Second Intifada that began in 2000, in which relentless waves of well over 100 suicide bombings detonated in Israel’s cities and left the Oslo-supporting left shattered and marginalized for a generation and counting. Israelis have not.

    That wave of shocking, sustained violence began not three decades into a failed peace process, but in 2000, scarcely eight years into what most observers believed was a successful effort to that point. Israeli troops had left Palestinian cities starting in the mid-1990s, the Palestinian Authority was established, and Israeli, Palestinian and American leaders were in Camp David negotiating — so Israelis were told at the time — the final boundaries of the two-state solution. It was then that a paroxysm of violence and brutality suddenly swept over Palestinian society and dashed the hopes of a generation.

    The point here is not that the Second Intifada is unexplainable. There are many explanations, such as the argument heard from some Palestinians over the years that the violence began as a grassroots rebellion against Yasser Arafat’s tyranny and was diverted by his frightened, teetering regime into an assault on Israel. The point here is only to say that the Israeli experience of those terror waves did not see them as an attack on the occupation, but as an attack on an Israel trying to dismantle the occupation.

    Israeli Jews do not feel as vulnerable as Palestinians; they do not believe the other side is likely to succeed. But the belief that Palestinians are trying to remove them drives the corollary belief that Palestinian violence is ultimately not an argument against Israeli policies, but against Israelis’ existence. Palestinian terrorism, this mainstream Israeli view holds, is not unthinking and reactive. It is planned and purposeful, rooted in the strategy described by Abu Marzouk, a strategy that interprets any Israeli compromise or accommodation as evidence of weakness.
    Elie Wiesel wrote “History has taught us to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends.” Which pretty much sums it up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  8. #108

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Hamas in their own words...
    With that bunch, good luck peacefully negotiating what to have for lunch.
    == El Burrito Senoro ==

  9. #109

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    With that bunch, good luck peacefully negotiating what to have for lunch.
    That sort of vicious animosity is precisely why Israel cannot risk a unilateral withdrawal from the occupied territories.

  10. #110
    Tribunus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,062

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    With that bunch, good luck peacefully negotiating what to have for lunch.
    People turn to extreme leaders when they are in pain and feel so hopeless there's no other option. The pain of people in Gaza or the West Bank who have been evicted from their old family homes and farms and villages is very real. The outside world hasn't done a lot for them, and if we mock them as well it does nothing to help them or Israel.

    I take this stuff personally because I have family in the Palestinian Arab community, and Jewish relatives (not in Israel though).
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  11. #111

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    If Hamas is the spawn of Satan why is the ceasefire holding now? Why did similar ceasefires hold before? Sure, it makes a convenient excuse but it doesn't change the fact that a lot has been successfully negotiated with Hamas and a lot more can be. This approach is especially hypocritical given the foundation of Israel and how Jewish groups of the time conducted.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  12. #112

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    If Hamas is the spawn of Satan why is the ceasefire holding now? Why did similar ceasefires hold before? Sure, it makes a convenient excuse but it doesn't change the fact that a lot has been successfully negotiated with Hamas and a lot more can be. This approach is especially hypocritical given the foundation of Israel and how Jewish groups of the time conducted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The suggestion that Hamas' acceptance of convenient ceasefires or offering of duplicitous truces is evidence of its willingness to compromise on its core objective (the destruction of Israel) is at best naive.
    No one is buying the childish non-sequitur that if Hamas is rational enough to agree to terms preventing its own annihilation it must be willing to engage in reasoned negotiations w/regard to a permanent peace settlement.

  13. #113

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    No one is buying the childish non-sequitur that if Hamas is rational enough to agree to terms preventing its own annihilation it must be willing to engage in reasoned negotiations w/regard to a permanent peace settlement.
    Which is nothing but arbitrary. The groups that created Israel and then later made up IDF were not much different then Hamas. Yet, we see Israel as a party worthy of negotiations despite continuous colonization of Palestine. What you're banking on is self-fulfilling cycle.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  14. #114

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Which is nothing but arbitrary. The groups that created Israel and then later made up IDF were not much different then Hamas. Yet, we see Israel as a party worthy of negotiations despite continuous colonization of Palestine. What you're banking on is self-fulfilling cycle.
    Setting aside the incoherence (no idea what is being described as "arbitrary" or "self-fulfilling"), Israel is treated as a "party worthy of negotiations" because it is prepared to negotiate reasonably. For it to be comparable to Hamas, it would have to demand nothing less than the annexation of the entire West Bank and Gaza strip while promising to disenfranchise and subjugate the Muslims in its territories.

    If, as, and when, Hamas is willing to discuss a lasting peace outside of the context of its Islamist fantasies of total victory, negotiations can be treated as viable.
    Last edited by Cope; May 24, 2021 at 04:25 AM.

  15. #115
    Tribunus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,062

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    If Hamas is the spawn of Satan why is the ceasefire holding now? Why did similar ceasefires hold before? Sure, it makes a convenient excuse but it doesn't change the fact that a lot has been successfully negotiated with Hamas and a lot more can be. This approach is especially hypocritical given the foundation of Israel and how Jewish groups of the time conducted.
    Its a great sign actually, some of these clashes have lasted years. Put in context though they started firing rockets indiscriminately, then stopped when Israel fired back so in one view they respected and rewarded Israeli violence.

    That's just twisting events to create a false impression though. It would be silly to say Hamas is creating Israeli oppression, as its silly to say Israel created Islamic extremism. Both Hamas and the Israeli military serve masters they must satisfy, some of them remote from the locus in quo and wishing hellfire to rain, and reign.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Which is nothing but arbitrary. The groups that created Israel and then later made up IDF were not much different then Hamas. Yet, we see Israel as a party worthy of negotiations despite continuous colonization of Palestine. What you're banking on is self-fulfilling cycle.
    Israel certainly was established by a terrorist campaign against a colonial power. The socialists who built Israel received some backing from the Soviets who I guess favoured a strong functioning state to disrupt UK and US interests in the region. Nek minnit...anyway the UN rubber stamped it, but like a good step parent made sure Israel did not get what it wanted. The other kid got bubkiss "oh your Muslim friends will look after you".

    Other states were born in terror too. Ireland has a myth the men of blood carved out a noble independent country of free and brave blah blah although the civil disobedience of the ordinary people and the war exhaustion of Britain (and a decision not to concede to the Orange faction the war of retribution they thirsted for) to my ignorant mind were the chief determining factors. The murderers were there and they made it unpleasant enough that the British washed their hands of it, and the Oranges got to humiliate Greens in 6 counties as a payoff. The old divide and conquer, even when you lose you poison the cup. Reminds me of what the British did in India, maybe the two state solution was a British idea to screw the Jews? Geez I can feel the little wheels in my tiny brain turning as I type.

    The backers of Hamas (and generally people opposing Israel) don't seem to be offering the Arab State in Palestine the support they need to manifest a functioning state structure, or even to be interested in creating Palestine. Jordan and I think the UAR were looking to swallow the place whole. Iran maybe wants a universal Caliphate? The Saudis definitely do (or at least their disgusting fig-leaf pet theologians say they do).

    This is not surprising, very few independence movements succeed against a functioning major power without other major power support, and many end up as a policy option. I'm certain that's what Palestine means to the House of Saud, a way to kick Jewish people to create a distraction from their vile regime's disgusting behaviour at home. Has the war in Yemen been going badly recently? (more brain wheel noises)
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  16. #116

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Setting aside the incoherence (no idea what is being described as "arbitrary" or "self-fulfilling"), Israel is treated as a "party worthy of negotiations" because it is prepared to negotiate reasonably. For it to be comparable to Hamas, it would have to demand nothing less than the annexation of the entire West Bank and Gaza strip while promising to disenfranchise and subjugate the Muslims in its territories.

    If, as, and when, Hamas is willing to discuss a lasting peace outside of the context of its Islamist fantasies of total victory, negotiations can be treated as viable.
    Your arguments are seeping with arbitrariness. There is no suggestion there to provide us a criteria on how to determine how a particular party is willing or prepared to negotiate reasonably. What exactly does Israel demand though? Meanwhile Hamas demands all of Israel, Israel is actually colonizing most of Palestine. Somehow, I am to give more attention to useless rhetoric compared to actual deeds.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  17. #117

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    The groups that created Israel and then later made up IDF were not much different then Hamas.
    Nonsense, the Haganah was the primary paramilitary group of the pre-state Zionists that later became the IDF.

    Recycling an old post:

    The IDF came from the Haganah not Irgun. Beginning in 1920, a segment of the Arab Palestinian population, who were anti-immigrant before it was cool, started attacking and killing Jews randomly. Tensions were rising over the Balfour Declaration, although this wasn't exactly something new, there had been several pogroms against Jews in Palestine in the Nineteenth Century before political Zionism existed. Since the British authorities were failing to sufficiently protect the Jewish communities, the Haganah, meaning "the defense" was formed in 1921. They maintained a policy of "restraint", meaning they only defended Jewish communities, they never attacked or actively retaliated against Arab militants. Although there was later a buildup in preparation for independence, restraint was more or less maintained until the 1948 war when they became the IDF. Because of the restraint policy, some hardliners split in 1931 to form Irgun, who from 1936 on were involved in revenge attacks against Arabs. Irgun also fought the British from 1944 to 1948. Shortly after the Haganah became the IDF, the IDF forced Irgun to disband, killing 16 of them and arresting another 200. Although most were released a few weeks later because Israel needed anyone who was able to fight. Irgun was never more than 4,000 at its peak, whereas the Haganah had 75,000 at its peak (30,000 on active duty).

    Although, there was a group in pre-state Israel that was quite similar to Hamas.

    Another old post:

    Yes, the catalyst for Hamas and the First Intifada really was a traffic collision, but the ideological roots of the movement go back to the late 1920s. They are after all a local incarnation of the Muslim Brotherhood, and likewise inspired by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, after whom the Hamas military wing and rockets are named. As I’ve mentioned before, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was anti-immigrant before it was cool. After the 1929 Hebron massacre that left 67 Jews dead, al-Qassam got the idea that the best way to solve the Jewish problem was to go around throwing bombs into Jewish homes at night, so he put together an organization of several hundred pious men of good character to go around doing just that.

    After six years of having been engaged in these good works, he was gunned down in a firefight with British police. By that time, he had become a bit of a folk hero, so his death contributed to the tensions that lead to the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt against the British, in which many of his disciples, the Qassamiyun, played leading roles.
    Last edited by sumskilz; May 24, 2021 at 05:11 AM. Reason: "the Haganah" is convention, but it's like saying "ATM machine"
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  18. #118

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Your arguments are seeping with arbitrariness. There is no suggestion there to provide us a criteria on how to determine how a particular party is willing or prepared to negotiate reasonably. What exactly does Israel demand though? Meanwhile Hamas demands all of Israel, Israel is actually colonizing most of Palestine. Somehow, I am to give more attention to useless rhetoric compared to actual deeds.
    The fact that Israel is occupying most of Palestine serves only to illustrate the the absurdity of Hamas' demands.

  19. #119

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The fact that Israel is occupying most of Palestine serves only to illustrate the the absurdity of Hamas' demands.
    Can you not tell us what Israel demands exactly?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  20. #120

    Default Re: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Can you not tell us what Israel demands exactly?
    Israel isn’t making any demands. Hamas has nothing to offer them that they want other than the cessation of hostilities.
    Last edited by sumskilz; May 24, 2021 at 10:49 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •