Political So now what

[Houndoc]

I ran the question as to " why there has been no creation of a Palestinian State" past my daughter who will graduate at the end of this semester from USU with a bachelor degree in international studies, a minor in anticipatory intelligence (basically national security risk analysis) and a graduate certificate in peace building (plus a bachelors in wildlife ecology, but that one isn't very relevant).

Her response:

Hmm, there’s a lot that goes into it, but I think one of the major factors is the lack of connected territory or cohesive leadership in Palestine. Since Palestinian territory is divided into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with territory claimed by Israel in between, a two-state solution would have to find a way to bridge that divide, and Israel isn’t willing to give up any of its territory for that to happen. And partially because of that division, the Palestinian Authority really doesn’t have control over Gaza, so Hamas would have to be part of any negotiations, and Israel is unwilling to work with them.

Israel has also built illegal settlements in the West Bank, encroaching on Palestinian territory, so there’s a lot of Israelies living in Palestine, which muddles up the territorial boundaries that would have to be drawn even more. Both Israel and Palestine also have claims to Jerusalem, with neither groups really willing to give it up or, especially for Israel, divide it.

I think one of the biggest reason establishing a Palestinian state has failed though is because Israel has enough political support and military power to keep the status quo how it is; if there was more political pressure from their allies to actually resolve the Palestine issue something likely could’ve been done by now to move towards a peaceful resolution, but as is they know they can deal way more damage to Gaza then they will ever receive so there isn’t sufficient motive for Israel to concede and allow the formation of a Palestinian State. And the US and other western powers aren’t going to recognize Palestine as a state without Israel being fully onboard.

Also, Hamas has really messed up attempts for a Two State solution, since their use of violence throughout the conflict has continued to set back the peace process, and they weaken the Palestine Authority’s authority.

 

[anderson750]

I ran the question as to " why there has been no creation of a Palestinian State" past my daughter who will graduate at the end of this semester from USU with a bachelor degree in international studies, a minor in anticipatory intelligence (basically national security risk analysis) and a graduate certificate in peace building (plus a bachelors in wildlife ecology, but that one isn't very relevant).

Her response:

Hmm, there’s a lot that goes into it, but I think one of the major factors is the lack of connected territory or cohesive leadership in Palestine. Since Palestinian territory is divided into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with territory claimed by Israel in between, a two-state solution would have to find a way to bridge that divide, and Israel isn’t willing to give up any of its territory for that to happen. And partially because of that division, the Palestinian Authority really doesn’t have control over Gaza, so Hamas would have to be part of any negotiations, and Israel is unwilling to work with them.

Israel has also built illegal settlements in the West Bank, encroaching on Palestinian territory, so there’s a lot of Israelies living in Palestine, which muddles up the territorial boundaries that would have to be drawn even more. Both Israel and Palestine also have claims to Jerusalem, with neither groups really willing to give it up or, especially for Israel, divide it.

I think one of the biggest reason establishing a Palestinian state has failed though is because Israel has enough political support and military power to keep the status quo how it is; if there was more political pressure from their allies to actually resolve the Palestine issue something likely could’ve been done by now to move towards a peaceful resolution, but as is they know they can deal way more damage to Gaza then they will ever receive so there isn’t sufficient motive for Israel to concede and allow the formation of a Palestinian State. And the US and other western powers aren’t going to recognize Palestine as a state without Israel being fully onboard.

Also, Hamas has really messed up attempts for a Two State solution, since their use of violence throughout the conflict has continued to set back the peace process, and they weaken the Palestine Authority’s authority.

Her explanation makes sense for my limited knowledge and understanding of the area.

The human atrocities that have played out with this attack......if true......warrants a wiping out of Hamas. The reported decapitation of kids and the report of an unborn baby cut from a woman's body laying next to the mother with the umbilical cord still attached is beyond barbaric.

 

[Stephen]

I ran the question as to " why there has been no creation of a Palestinian State" past my daughter who will graduate at the end of this semester from USU with a bachelor degree in international studies, a minor in anticipatory intelligence (basically national security risk analysis) and a graduate certificate in peace building (plus a bachelors in wildlife ecology, but that one isn't very relevant).

You can tell her that someone with degrees in History, International Relations and a minor in Geography says to go get a job as a plumber. She'll be make more money.

Her response:

Hmm, there’s a lot that goes into it, but I think one of the major factors is the lack of connected territory or cohesive leadership in Palestine. Since Palestinian territory is divided into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with territory claimed by Israel in between, a two-state solution would have to find a way to bridge that divide, and Israel isn’t willing to give up any of its territory for that to happen. And partially because of that division, the Palestinian Authority really doesn’t have control over Gaza, so Hamas would have to be part of any negotiations, and Israel is unwilling to work with them.

Israel has also built illegal settlements in the West Bank, encroaching on Palestinian territory, so there’s a lot of Israelies living in Palestine, which muddles up the territorial boundaries that would have to be drawn even more. Both Israel and Palestine also have claims to Jerusalem, with neither groups really willing to give it up or, especially for Israel, divide it.

Lets go back to the beginning. "Palestine" was once known as Judea, or home of the Jews. This is the cradle of Jewish civilization, and as many of you religious types will recall, they were driven from their homeland and scattered to the winds. But, there has always been a Jewish presence in the region. And there has always been a belief among Jews that one day they should return to Zion, or their ancestral homeland. The Zionist movement picked up steam in the 19th century as antisemitism (hatred of Jews) escalated in Europe, and there began to be more and more Jews migrating to Palestine, which at this time was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. This small conflict called the First World War happened in the early 20th century, and since the Ottomans sided with the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary) who lost, their empire collapsed. The League of Nations (poorly crafted predecessor to the United Nations) carved up the Middle East into various "Mandates" to be temporarily controlled by mainly Britain and France. Britain was given the Palestine Mandate.

During the Mandate (1919 - 1947), migration of Jews continued to increase. In this period we start to see the beginnings of our modern problem because as the Jewish population increased exponentially, the Arabs that lived there started to target them more with violence. Now, this had obviously happened before under Ottoman rule, but this time the Brits weren't going to put up with that shit, and they quickly would put and end to it. So for the first time in the area, the Jews had a powerful protector and a chance to grow and thrive without (as much) fear.

So thats all 100,000 foot back story for you. Next is what everyone has been hoping for: World War II. Obviously, by the time the war ended, nothing was the same anymore. The Holocaust. which killed upwards of 6 million European Jews, was a catalyst for them to get the hell out and Palestine was the place they wanted to go. And they came in droves, boatload after boatload of desperate refugees looking for a home. A place that they could be themselves without fear of pogroms or SS death squads. And the Brits were not willing and/or able to stop them. During the war when Churchill started to find out about what the Nazi's were doing, he stated that he was in favor of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It was never official policy, but even the Attlee government after the war was nominally in favor. Also, Britain was tired and broke, they didn't have the means or the will to try and keep the Jewish refugees out or maintain the peace in the Mandate any longer.

Enter the spiffy new United Nations, they proposed to partition the Mandate into two roughly equally sized Jewish and Arab states, joined in an economic union, with Jerusalem administered as an open, international city. It looked like this:

The Brits, eager to get out, said lets do it. Jewish leader, the Holocaust fresh in their minds, said sounds good. The Arabs said not a chance. This was the closest as there has ever been to a true "Two State" solution. Between the adoption of the Partition by the UN General Assembly in November 1947 and the end of the British Mandate in May of 1948 there were increasing levels of violence between both groups. Once the mandate ended, the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese all invaded with the goal of driving the Jews into the sea. After nine months of brutal fighting, the Jew's had destroyed the combined Arab armies and established basically what are the borders for Israel to this day:

(I know its in French, but it's pretty and colorful)

Now this did more than just establish the borders of the state of Israel, it also showed the new country that they were surrounded on all sides by enemies. So they became resolute in defending their country and building a military that could do that. From the 1950's through the 1970's Israel fought nearly constantly on its borders and within their territory to maintain their countries existence, most notably the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Three times the Arabs had tried to drive the Jews into the sea, and three times they had been repulsed. That does a lot to a countries mentality about giving up any territory to a potentially hostile power.

I think one of the biggest reason establishing a Palestinian state has failed though is because Israel has enough political support and military power to keep the status quo how it is; if there was more political pressure from their allies to actually resolve the Palestine issue something likely could’ve been done by now to move towards a peaceful resolution, but as is they know they can deal way more damage to Gaza then they will ever receive so there isn’t sufficient motive for Israel to concede and allow the formation of a Palestinian State. And the US and other western powers aren’t going to recognize Palestine as a state without Israel being fully onboard.

Also, Hamas has really messed up attempts for a Two State solution, since their use of violence throughout the conflict has continued to set back the peace process, and they weaken the Palestine Authority’s authority.

There have been numerous proposals for a two state solution since 1949, Israel has been willing to negotiate on all of them. The Arab powers originally, and then the various Palestinian groups such as the PLO, have never been willing to in good faith (you know, things like launching genocidal invasions...). The major problem here is that the people who proport to represent the Palestinian cause are not interested in two states if one of them is occupied by Jews. Thats not to say that the Palestinian people aren't supportive, but the PLO/PLA don't want to have Jewish neighbors, and then Hamas and Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. etc. want to eradicated all Jews in the world. So its understandably hard for Israel, and their allies, to seriously push for a Palestinian state when the people who would control that state are committed to the destruction of Israel.

This is exemplified by Gaza. Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and the West Bank in 2005 and allowed self rule. What happened? Hamas murdered the PLA leaders in Gaza, got themselves "elected" in 2006 and then started lobbing rockets into Israel and is now murdering Israeli grandmothers and decapitating babies when they get the chance. No state should ever have to put up with barbarians at their borders like that. A Palestinian state will never happen as long as groups like Hamas exist. If the Palestinian people truly want peace with Israel and their own country, then they will have to work real hard to get ride of the hate that lives amongst them.

 

[nnnnnate]

I've been listening to the Martyr Made podcast that Derek posted a few days ago. The first 6 episodes of the podcast are on the "new Jerusalem" and kind of start in the late 1800's talking about the situation in Europe and the ME that led to the start of the Zionist movement. I finished #4 last night, they are really long, #5 starts with Hitler and leading up to WW2. It feels like the guy is doing a decent job at giving balanced views but I might be wrong.

A couple interesting things that I've been thinking about from the podcast.

When the movement started to pick up steam the "Jewish National Fund" was started (1905) that Jews around the world donated money to for the express purpose of buying land in Palestine. They were buying the land legally then sending settlers to it to live and subsist on. The Arabs that were living on the land weren't really the ones that owned it. The land had been given or awarded or whatever to nobles or big families or important allies of the Ottomans and even after the Ottoman empire crumbled in WW1 the land owners still retained the land rights. Many had never even visited the land they "owned" and the people living there were subsistence farmers who paid a tax to live and work the land. Many of the families had lived there for generations and were barely making it. Anyway, so the Jews bought land from the wealthy land owners then kicked the farmers off the land that they had lived on for generations and they had no remediation. Initially the JNF would only buy land when they had settlers to move on to it but in the 20's things were going well in the world and immigration slowed. At some point the Zionists decided to just keep buying land, kick the Palestinians off the land regardless of whether any Jews were able to move in and work the land so homes, farms, and orchards just started to waste away unoccupied. JNF bought property couldn't be occupied or worked by Arabs so it wasn't an option for the vacant land to be rented out to the families that had been living there.

The British didn't have their army in Palestine, they were trying to keep the peace with a small police force and it didn't work that well. The European Jews would do stuff to piss off the Palestinians and then it would escalate and there would be skirmishes and a few from each side would be killed before things would calm back down. (1920 Nebi Musa riots and others) The Brits would commission a report and they'd conclude basically that the Palestinians started the fighting but the Jews were instigating it and essentially that they had it coming. This culminated in 1929 with the "Western Wall" riots or the "Hebron Massacre." 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed.

There were different movements within the Jews that had moved to Palestine. Some wanted to coexist with the Palestinians as brothers and others were more extreme and wanted to build a nation state. Palestinians didn't have the organization, cohesion, or influence with the Brits that the Jews did. Again, the Palestinians were mostly poor, uneducated subsistence farmers. The Jews that moved to Palestine at this point had mostly been city folk with education and little to no farming experience and were mostly from eastern Europe. They were nothing like the Palestinians.

My view of British colonialism is pretty poor at this point. According to the podcast the Brits promised the world to EVERYONE during WW1 and afterwards and then betrayed all of those groups in the coming decades. Part of why the Ottomans fell was because the Brits got the Arabs to fight against them by saying they would be given an independent Arab state. The Balfour declaration said that the British supported a Jewish national home in Palestine. Finally, they Sykes-Picot agreement was a deal between Britain and France to carve up the Arab parts of the Ottoman Empire and divide control of the region.

This is probably enough for now...

 

[Stephen]

I've been listening to the Martyr Made podcast that Derek posted a few days ago. The first 6 episodes of the podcast are on the "new Jerusalem" and kind of start in the late 1800's talking about the situation in Europe and the ME that led to the start of the Zionist movement. I finished #4 last night, they are really long, #5 starts with Hitler and leading up to WW2. It feels like the guy is doing a decent job at giving balanced views but I might be wrong.

A couple interesting things that I've been thinking about from the podcast.

When the movement started to pick up steam the "Jewish National Fund" was started (1905) that Jews around the world donated money to for the express purpose of buying land in Palestine. They were buying the land legally then sending settlers to it to live and subsist on. The Arabs that were living on the land weren't really the ones that owned it. The land had been given or awarded or whatever to nobles or big families or important allies of the Ottomans and even after the Ottoman empire crumbled in WW1 the land owners still retained the land rights. Many had never even visited the land they "owned" and the people living there were subsistence farmers who paid a tax to live and work the land. Many of the families had lived there for generations and were barely making it. Anyway, so the Jews bought land from the wealthy land owners then kicked the farmers off the land that they had lived on for generations and they had no remediation. Initially the JNF would only buy land when they had settlers to move on to it but in the 20's things were going well in the world and immigration slowed. At some point the Zionists decided to just keep buying land, kick the Palestinians off the land regardless of whether any Jews were able to move in and work the land so homes, farms, and orchards just started to waste away unoccupied. JNF bought property couldn't be occupied or worked by Arabs so it wasn't an option for the vacant land to be rented out to the families that had been living there.

The British didn't have their army in Palestine, they were trying to keep the peace with a small police force and it didn't work that well. The European Jews would do stuff to piss off the Palestinians and then it would escalate and there would be skirmishes and a few from each side would be killed before things would calm back down. (1920 Nebi Musa riots and others) The Brits would commission a report and they'd conclude basically that the Palestinians started the fighting but the Jews were instigating it and essentially that they had it coming. This culminated in 1929 with the "Western Wall" riots or the "Hebron Massacre." 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed.

There were different movements within the Jews that had moved to Palestine. Some wanted to coexist with the Palestinians as brothers and others were more extreme and wanted to build a nation state. Palestinians didn't have the organization, cohesion, or influence with the Brits that the Jews did. Again, the Palestinians were mostly poor, uneducated subsistence farmers. The Jews that moved to Palestine at this point had mostly been city folk with education and little to no farming experience and were mostly from eastern Europe. They were nothing like the Palestinians.

My view of British colonialism is pretty poor at this point. According to the podcast the Brits promised the world to EVERYONE during WW1 and afterwards and then betrayed all of those groups in the coming decades. Part of why the Ottomans fell was because the Brits got the Arabs to fight against them by saying they would be given an independent Arab state. The Balfour declaration said that the British supported a Jewish national home in Palestine. Finally, they Sykes-Picot agreement was a deal between Britain and France to carve up the Arab parts of the Ottoman Empire and divide control of the region.

This is probably enough for now...

To say that the situation is complex and nuanced would be an understatement.

 

[Gravy]

And that's only the last 200ish years. Imagine 2k plus of tensions.

 

[Tonkaman]

I've been listening to the Martyr Made podcast that Derek posted a few days ago. The first 6 episodes of the podcast are on the "new Jerusalem" and kind of start in the late 1800's talking about the situation in Europe and the ME that led to the start of the Zionist movement. I finished #4 last night, they are really long, #5 starts with Hitler and leading up to WW2. It feels like the guy is doing a decent job at giving balanced views but I might be wrong.

A couple interesting things that I've been thinking about from the podcast.

When the movement started to pick up steam the "Jewish National Fund" was started (1905) that Jews around the world donated money to for the express purpose of buying land in Palestine. They were buying the land legally then sending settlers to it to live and subsist on. The Arabs that were living on the land weren't really the ones that owned it. The land had been given or awarded or whatever to nobles or big families or important allies of the Ottomans and even after the Ottoman empire crumbled in WW1 the land owners still retained the land rights. Many had never even visited the land they "owned" and the people living there were subsistence farmers who paid a tax to live and work the land. Many of the families had lived there for generations and were barely making it. Anyway, so the Jews bought land from the wealthy land owners then kicked the farmers off the land that they had lived on for generations and they had no remediation. Initially the JNF would only buy land when they had settlers to move on to it but in the 20's things were going well in the world and immigration slowed. At some point the Zionists decided to just keep buying land, kick the Palestinians off the land regardless of whether any Jews were able to move in and work the land so homes, farms, and orchards just started to waste away unoccupied. JNF bought property couldn't be occupied or worked by Arabs so it wasn't an option for the vacant land to be rented out to the families that had been living there.

The British didn't have their army in Palestine, they were trying to keep the peace with a small police force and it didn't work that well. The European Jews would do stuff to piss off the Palestinians and then it would escalate and there would be skirmishes and a few from each side would be killed before things would calm back down. (1920 Nebi Musa riots and others) The Brits would commission a report and they'd conclude basically that the Palestinians started the fighting but the Jews were instigating it and essentially that they had it coming. This culminated in 1929 with the "Western Wall" riots or the "Hebron Massacre." 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed.

There were different movements within the Jews that had moved to Palestine. Some wanted to coexist with the Palestinians as brothers and others were more extreme and wanted to build a nation state. Palestinians didn't have the organization, cohesion, or influence with the Brits that the Jews did. Again, the Palestinians were mostly poor, uneducated subsistence farmers. The Jews that moved to Palestine at this point had mostly been city folk with education and little to no farming experience and were mostly from eastern Europe. They were nothing like the Palestinians.

My view of British colonialism is pretty poor at this point. According to the podcast the Brits promised the world to EVERYONE during WW1 and afterwards and then betrayed all of those groups in the coming decades. Part of why the Ottomans fell was because the Brits got the Arabs to fight against them by saying they would be given an independent Arab state. The Balfour declaration said that the British supported a Jewish national home in Palestine. Finally, they Sykes-Picot agreement was a deal between Britain and France to carve up the Arab parts of the Ottoman Empire and divide control of the region.

This is probably enough for now...

I’m glad you like it! I had to listen to each of those episodes as they were released over the course of 2 years!

At the end of the series I was left to realize nobody is innocent, everybody has blame to share. Colonialism really screwed the world up and we’re still dealing with the fallout today.

 

[Corban_White]

Thank you @Stephen for the nice watered down explanation that I have time to read and can understand.

 

[johngottfredson]

Ron Paul is the only politician I’ve even given money to. I don’t agree with all his policy ideas, but the dude is a legend.

 

[Houndoc]

You can tell her that someone with degrees in History, International Relations and a minor in Geography says to go get a job as a plumber. She'll be make more money.

Lets go back to the beginning. "Palestine" was once known as Judea, or home of the Jews. This is the cradle of Jewish civilization, and as many of you religious types will recall, they were driven from their homeland and scattered to the winds. But, there has always been a Jewish presence in the region. And there has always been a belief among Jews that one day they should return to Zion, or their ancestral homeland. The Zionist movement picked up steam in the 19th century as antisemitism (hatred of Jews) escalated in Europe, and there began to be more and more Jews migrating to Palestine, which at this time was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. This small conflict called the First World War happened in the early 20th century, and since the Ottomans sided with the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary) who lost, their empire collapsed. The League of Nations (poorly crafted predecessor to the United Nations) carved up the Middle East into various "Mandates" to be temporarily controlled by mainly Britain and France. Britain was given the Palestine Mandate.

During the Mandate (1919 - 1947), migration of Jews continued to increase. In this period we start to see the beginnings of our modern problem because as the Jewish population increased exponentially, the Arabs that lived there started to target them more with violence. Now, this had obviously happened before under Ottoman rule, but this time the Brits weren't going to put up with that shit, and they quickly would put and end to it. So for the first time in the area, the Jews had a powerful protector and a chance to grow and thrive without (as much) fear.

So thats all 100,000 foot back story for you. Next is what everyone has been hoping for: World War II. Obviously, by the time the war ended, nothing was the same anymore. The Holocaust. which killed upwards of 6 million European Jews, was a catalyst for them to get the hell out and Palestine was the place they wanted to go. And they came in droves, boatload after boatload of desperate refugees looking for a home. A place that they could be themselves without fear of pogroms or SS death squads. And the Brits were not willing and/or able to stop them. During the war when Churchill started to find out about what the Nazi's were doing, he stated that he was in favor of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It was never official policy, but even the Attlee government after the war was nominally in favor. Also, Britain was tired and broke, they didn't have the means or the will to try and keep the Jewish refugees out or maintain the peace in the Mandate any longer.

Enter the spiffy new United Nations, they proposed to partition the Mandate into two roughly equally sized Jewish and Arab states, joined in an economic union, with Jerusalem administered as an open, international city. It looked like this:

The Brits, eager to get out, said lets do it. Jewish leader, the Holocaust fresh in their minds, said sounds good. The Arabs said not a chance. This was the closest as there has ever been to a true "Two State" solution. Between the adoption of the Partition by the UN General Assembly in November 1947 and the end of the British Mandate in May of 1948 there were increasing levels of violence between both groups. Once the mandate ended, the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese all invaded with the goal of driving the Jews into the sea. After nine months of brutal fighting, the Jew's had destroyed the combined Arab armies and established basically what are the borders for Israel to this day:

(I know its in French, but it's pretty and colorful)

Now this did more than just establish the borders of the state of Israel, it also showed the new country that they were surrounded on all sides by enemies. So they became resolute in defending their country and building a military that could do that. From the 1950's through the 1970's Israel fought nearly constantly on its borders and within their territory to maintain their countries existence, most notably the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Three times the Arabs had tried to drive the Jews into the sea, and three times they had been repulsed. That does a lot to a countries mentality about giving up any territory to a potentially hostile power.


There have been numerous proposals for a two state solution since 1949, Israel has been willing to negotiate on all of them. The Arab powers originally, and then the various Palestinian groups such as the PLO, have never been willing to in good faith (you know, things like launching genocidal invasions...). The major problem here is that the people who proport to represent the Palestinian cause are not interested in two states if one of them is occupied by Jews. Thats not to say that the Palestinian people aren't supportive, but the PLO/PLA don't want to have Jewish neighbors, and then Hamas and Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. etc. want to eradicated all Jews in the world. So its understandably hard for Israel, and their allies, to seriously push for a Palestinian state when the people who would control that state are committed to the destruction of Israel.

This is exemplified by Gaza. Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and the West Bank in 2005 and allowed self rule. What happened? Hamas murdered the PLA leaders in Gaza, got themselves "elected" in 2006 and then started lobbing rockets into Israel and is now murdering Israeli grandmothers and decapitating babies when they get the chance. No state should ever have to put up with barbarians at their borders like that. A Palestinian state will never happen as long as groups like Hamas exist. If the Palestinian people truly want peace with Israel and their own country, then they will have to work real hard to get ride of the hate that lives amongst them.

Very good information, but there are a couple of key points that I do not agree with.

First of course is that the area was "originally" called Judea. There has always been others in that region before and after the people if Israel came to be.

Second, the idea that modern Israel has been willing to negotiate in good faith on a two state solution. I would say that has little to no basis in fact. Closest they came was granting "self rule" in Gaza and the West Bank (keep in mind these areas where not within the original boundaries if Israel but captured during war) which certainly was derailed by extremists.

However, the ongoing construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas deliberately undermines the potential for a future nation for Palestine.

But that history aside, if we look at what is happening now I think most of us would agree on two basic ideas.

1) The Hamas attack was horrid and justifies an aggressive response.
2) Full blockade that cuts off food, water, medicine and other basic needs to over two million people is morally repugnant.

I would also argue the second is in the long-term counter productive as well. Never helps your position to give your enemies additional reasons to hate you.

 

[ID Bronco]

None of this matters, this is not a land war. Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis and all the other "Extreme Muslims" out there want "Death to Isreal" and "Death to America"

Do you think that means death to the borders as they now stand? Or is it death to the Jewish, American and western way of life? Or is it to every Jew AND American citizen (PERSON)?

I submit when they tell us in their own speeches and writings that they want Isreal and America wiped off the face of the Earth we should believe them.

They use the borders as an excuse to be extreme and to kill. They use their citizens as shields so they can claim "Isreal killed xxx number of innocent civilians", they discourage or even prohibit their innocent civilians to leave the country.

We believe them when they say they are the victims of Isreal, why don't we believe them when they say they want to kill all of them?

Pick a side, I don't believe there will be any grey area here. I want my grandkids to know I sided with Life for all, even Jews. I want them to know I condemned evil in the form of Muslim Terrorists. Germans and the entire world didn't believe Hitler when he said he wanted to kill all Jews. Let's not make that same mistake.

I don't know all the historical details nor want to play historical ping pong, right is right and killing and beheading ANY age person with a garden hoe in the name of your prophet or God is wrong and evil. We'd prosecute this kind of behavior (Tammy and Chad Daybell) if it was on our soil, but make excuses for those doing it elsewhere? Well I guess if your land was won in war and then given back and you handed it to terrorists you are justified.

Change my mind.

(I'm having a bad day prior to this so maybe I shouldn't press Post Reply)

 

[Stephen]

Very good information, but there are a couple of key points that I do not agree with.

First of course is that the area was "originally" called Judea. There has always been others in that region before and after the people if Israel came to be.

Well, sure. But to the Jewish people, this is where their story begins. This is Judea, home of the Jews. So to them, that is what the land was "originally" called before they were brutally driven from it.

Second, the idea that modern Israel has been willing to negotiate in good faith on a two state solution. I would say that has little to no basis in fact. Closest they came was granting "self rule" in Gaza and the West Bank (keep in mind these areas where not within the original boundaries if Israel but captured during war) which certainly was derailed by extremists.

However, the ongoing construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas deliberately undermines the potential for a future nation for Palestine.

Okay... The 1948 partition plan was agreed to by Jewish leaders, rejected by Arab/Palestinians. After the Six Day War Israel agreed in concept to withdrawal to prewar boarders and begin negotiations or creating a Palestinian state, the PLO rejected it. Late 70's the PLO started to recognize that there was a need for negotiations on the topic, which Israel entertained. But things like the first intifada kinda upended that. And then Hamas was formed and called for all of the old Mandatory Palestine to be "returned" to the Palestinians and ethnically cleansed of Jews. Things finally get serious in '96 with the Oslo Accords which ultimately led to Israel ending their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and allowing self rule in 2005/6. This was supposed to have led to a Palestinian state eventually, but as mentioned, Hamas came to power in Gaza promising to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. Keep in mind, the current boundaries of Israel were determined by Israel defending itself from genocidal invasions!

Should Israeli authorities done more to stop the illegal settlements in the West Bank? Yes. Israel is not innocent in all this. Many of their policies over the last 75 years have been harsh towards the Palestinians. But as I mentioned, when a nation has spent its entire existence fighting to remain in existence, sometimes you come to the conclusion that you have to do what you have to do.

But that history aside, if we look at what is happening now I think most of us would agree on two basic ideas.

1) The Hamas attack was horrid and justifies an aggressive response.
2) Full blockade that cuts off food, water, medicine and other basic needs to over two million people is morally repugnant.

I would also argue the second is in the long-term counter productive as well. Never helps your position to give your enemies additional reasons to hate you.

I disagree with your second point. Hamas has spent the last 20 years turning Gaza into a fortress. Completely blockading it is strategically the right thing for Israel to do. Is it going to lead to a horrible humanitarian crisis? Yes. That's Hama's fault, not Israel's. And its easy to say "oh the Palestinian's in Gaza should have seen this coming and overthrown Hamas." But thats sorta true. They've had neigh on 20 years to to get rid of Hamas, its been no secret what they wanted to do. Well, this is the consequence. Its terrible, its horrible, but war is hell and Hamas brought on this war.

Israel is already hated by their enemies on an existential level. Israel could be opening the borders and dropping candy bars and the majority of Palestinians in Gaza would still happily burn Israeli flags and yell "Death to Jews". No the only option Israel has at this point is to lay siege to Gaza and then hunt down ever last member of Hamas even if it means turning every square inch of Gaza into rubble.

 

[Stephen]

None of this matters, this is not a land war. Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis and all the other "Extreme Muslims" out there want "Death to Isreal" and "Death to America"

Do you think that means death to the borders as they now stand? Or is it death to the Jewish, American and western way of life? Or is it to every Jew AND American citizen (PERSON)?

I submit when they tell us in their own speeches and writings that they want Isreal and America wiped off the face of the Earth we should believe them.

They use the borders as an excuse to be extreme and to kill. They use their citizens as shields so they can claim "Isreal killed xxx number of innocent civilians", they discourage or even prohibit their innocent civilians to leave the country.

We believe them when they say they are the victims of Isreal, why don't we believe them when they say they want to kill all of them?

Pick a side, I don't believe there will be any grey area here. I want my grandkids to know I sided with Life for all, even Jews. I want them to know I condemned evil in the form of Muslim Terrorists. Germans and the entire world didn't believe Hitler when he said he wanted to kill all Jews. Let's not make that same mistake.

I don't know all the historical details nor want to play historical ping pong, right is right and killing and beheading ANY age person with a garden hoe in the name of your prophet or God is wrong and evil. We'd prosecute this kind of behavior (Tammy and Chad Daybell) if it was on our soil, but make excuses for those doing it elsewhere? Well I guess if your land was won in war and then given back and you handed it to terrorists you are justified.

Change my mind.

(I'm having a bad day prior to this so maybe I shouldn't press Post Reply)

This is about as clear cut of a right vs. wrong, good vs. evil scenario as you can find. Sending hordes of barbarians into innocent peoples homes to rape and pillage is evil. Killing babies in their cribs is evil. Kidnapping children and holding guns to their heads on video is evil. Hamas is evil and deserves to be eradicated from the face of the earth. Will innocents be caught in the crossfire, yes and that is tragic. But Hamas started this, Israel has the unfortunate job of finishing it.

I really have zero tolerance for anyone who is trying to play the "both sides" game right now. Go look at the pictures of decapitated babies and bloody crib sheets and then tell me with a straight face that Israel needs to temper its reaction.

 

[Houndoc]

Well, sure. But to the Jewish people, this is where their story begins. This is Judea, home of the Jews. So to them, that is what the land was "originally" called before they were brutally driven from it.

Right there you show the perspective (bias) of your view of history. Other people can and do make historical claims to the land.

And the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is not simply something the government has failed to stop, under current leadership promoting them is government policy.

But as I said before, the actions of Hamas are not justified in the least- pure evil.

However I cannot defend the blocking access to basic survival (food, water etc) to millions of people.

 

[Stephen]

Right there you show the perspective (bias) of your view of history. Other people can and do make historical claims to the land.

We're talking specifically about the history of Israel and the reasons that Jewish people feel a historic claim to the land. Not about land claims in the Levant since the beginnings of humanity. But if you're accusing me of being biased towards Jews having a claim to having a homeland in Israel rather than Nigeria or Miami-Dade County; the answer is emphatically yes.

And the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is not simply something the government has failed to stop, under current leadership promoting them is government policy.

Yes, but previous Israeli governments have discouraged them. Its a very active debate within Israel. Also, if we're going to discuss bias, using the term "occupied territories" is a misnomer promoted by those opposed to Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory, taken from Jordan and Egypt respectively after they launched their invasion of Israel in 1967 and then lost. And if we really want to get into the weeds here, Israel suggested that Gaza be turned over to Egypt as part of their peace treaty, but Egypt didn't want it because they didn't want to deal with the Palestinians, same reason they aren't opening the Rafah gate now to refugees. Jordan has also said that they have no interest in administering the West Bank again for the same reasons.

But as I said before, the actions of Hamas are not justified in the least- pure evil.

However I cannot defend the blocking access to basic survival (food, water etc) to millions of people.

Hamas launched a brutal war against Israel and then scurried back into their fortress, which just so happens to rely on Israel for water, most of its power, and access to food, medicine, etc. So what is Israel supposed to do? Just keep providing these necessities to their enemy? That's like the US continuing to send Japan oil after Pearl Harbor, why would any rational actor do that?

Hamas has been in total control of Gaza for 17 years. In that time have they used any of the billions in aid money to improve the lives of their citizens by making the Strip more self sufficient? Have they built water treatment facilities? Have they built desalination plants? Have they built more power plants? Installed solar panels on buildings? Built hydroponic farms? No on all of those. Hamas has done nothing to improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza. Rather they have embezzled the money that they've received to buy arms, stored those arms in schools and hospitals, and turned apartment buildings into rocket launch sites. Hamas has shown that they have no concern for the lives Palestinian civilians and wish only to use them as human shields and propaganda tools. This is why they are currently preventing them from escaping to the south, where Israel has restored water.

Hamas has left Israel with no choice, they had to shut off those services in order to make the lives of their enemy more difficult. Its Hamas fault that innocent Palestinians are suffering because of it.

 

[Jesser04]

 

[Houndoc]

We're talking specifically about the history of Israel and the reasons that Jewish people feel a historic claim to the land. Not about land claims in the Levant since the beginnings of humanity. But if you're accusing me of being biased towards Jews having a claim to having a homeland in Israel rather than Nigeria or Miami-Dade County; the answer is emphatically yes.

Yes, but previous Israeli governments have discouraged them. Its a very active debate within Israel. Also, if we're going to discuss bias, using the term "occupied territories" is a misnomer promoted by those opposed to Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory, taken from Jordan and Egypt respectively after they launched their invasion of Israel in 1967 and then lost. And if we really want to get into the weeds here, Israel suggested that Gaza be turned over to Egypt as part of their peace treaty, but Egypt didn't want it because they didn't want to deal with the Palestinians, same reason they aren't opening the Rafah gate now to refugees. Jordan has also said that they have no interest in administering the West Bank again for the same reasons.

My point is that Israel is not the only people with a historical claim or cultural ties to the land. You can't look at the conflict honestly if you accept one and disregard the other, especially when one has been in the area continuously, the other mostly absent for centuries (agree no fault of their own.)

As to the term 'occupied territories' we could just describe them as territories that Israel occupies since that is what happened.

I think is what it all boils down to is the underlying, decades old conflict is far from the simple "good (Israel)" v "Bad (Palestinians)". And the simple reality is that US foreign policy has often failed in seeking true solutions, as is usually the case on any issue with political impacts.

 

[TRD270]

 

[DAA]

The history, complexities, events etc. in the region are very interesting. And I appreciate the effort to educate.

But to me, this is dirt simple. Gaza/Hamas made war on Israel. Israel is making war back. And anyone with a casual interest in the history of war knows that it is just plain stupid to half ass it. If you are going to make war and want to succeed, make total war. Just how it goes.

- DAA

 

[Stephen]

My point is that Israel is not the only people with a historical claim or cultural ties to the land. You can't look at the conflict honestly if you accept one and disregard the other, especially when one has been in the area continuously, the other mostly absent for centuries (agree no fault of their own.)

Who's "disregarding the other"? Not I. All I'm arguing is that the Jews have as much right to claim a homeland there as anyone else. The main difference is that "the other" that you are most likely referencing have had a tendency to call for the destruction of Israel and eradication of all Jews. Israel and its citizens don't do that when discussing the Palestinians. Generally speaking, Israeli's are happy to live beside them peacefully. Sure, some of the more radical elements would like them to be segregated, which ain't cool, but you don't hear the government of Israel or Israeli citizens calling for the genocidal murder of Palestinians in street protests on a weekly basis.

As to the term 'occupied territories' we could just describe them as territories that Israel occupies since that is what happened.

So the United States occupies Utah, which it gained through winning the Mexican American War in 1848. Is Utah an "Occupied Territory"? Is Navajo land in Arizona that was once claimed by the Hopi "Occupied Territory"? Okinawa was conquered and annexed by Japan in the 12th century or something, is that "Occupied Territory"? I mean we can play this game forever. The fact of the matter is that Jordan and Egypt violated international law by invading Mandatory Palestine in 1948. Israel beat them back to the 1949 armistice lines, which granted Jordan the West Bank and Egypt Gaza. Jordan and Egypt again launched an illegal invasion of Israel in 1967, they again lost (badly) and Israel pushed Jordan out of the West Bank and Egypt to the Suez Canal. As previously mentioned, Egypt refused to take control of Gaza again after they signed their peace treaty with Israel in 1979. And Jordan officially relinquished all claims to the West Bank in 1988. So by all right, even if you wanted to say that they were occupied, they haven't officially been occupied for 35 plus years. And practically speaking, they haven't been occupied since 2005 when Israel unilaterally pulled all forces out of both Gaza and the West Bank and granted self rule.

The only people using the term "Occupied Territory" or "territories that Israel occupies", if you'd like, are people who have a vested interest in portraying Israel as an aggressor. And the only reason that Israel had control over either territory is because they were defending themselves against an invasion who's stated goal was a holy war to destroy their country and drive their people into the sea.

I think is what it all boils down to is the underlying, decades old conflict is far from the simple "good (Israel)" v "Bad (Palestinians)".

Most conflicts are shades of grey, true. But more often than not, there is one side that is "good" and one who is "bad". Sadly, the people who the Palestinians have had representing them for the last three-quarters of a century have generally fallen on the "bad" side of the ledger. That is unless you feel that hijacking airplanes, killing Olympic athletes, suicide bombing markets, killing babies, and calling for ethnic cleansing is a valid way to advance your cause; which no rational person would. Israel and Israeli's don't do that kind of stuff. I think I said it before, but if the Palestinians truly want peace, then they need to root out the hatred that has fester in their society for far too long. Does that make me biased toward the Israeli view of the world because they are more aligned with Western values of acceptance and tolerance, absolutely.

And the simple reality is that US foreign policy has often failed in seeking true solutions, as is usually the case on any issue with political impacts.

The US has done more than anyone to try and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian question. From Truman to Nixon to Biden every administration has had some sort of plan. Some have been more successful than others, the Camp David and Oslo Accords for example. But I'd love to hear what these true solutions that have evaded 75 years of US brokered peace talks are?