Israel/Palestine discussion

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:05 am UTC

yurell wrote:Then any offence is from your own inability to interpret my statement despite clarification provided. Have fun feeling insulted, I guess.

My offence is from your inability to express your ideas clearly. My interpretation was reasonable, and I explained how. I'm glad you did not mean to suggest that I am capable of holding only one response, but that is what you said.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:41 am UTC

That is one interpretation of what I said, and I later clarified the correct interpretation which you still did not accept. So any insult exists only in your mind now. Enjoy your 'righteous' indignation, though.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:49 am UTC

yurell wrote:That is one interpretation of what I said, and I later clarified the correct interpretation which you still did not accept. So any insult exists only in your mind now. Enjoy your 'righteous' indignation, though.

Obviously I accept that it was your intent. However, using that statement to convey that meaning did not make sense in the context.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
dedalus
Posts: 1169
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:16 pm UTC
Location: Dark Side of the Moon.

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby dedalus » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:05 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:However, using that statement to convey that meaning did not make sense in the context.

If you go back to the original post, you'll notice that yedidyak said 'seems incapible', so your statement 'Yedidyak said Livni can only hold one opinion, not that she does' is incorrect. And, given that TMT and myself (and I'll wager a few others, and you haven't provided any examples to the contrary) cannot remember you making any concessions about Israel's behaviour without special pleading, I argue that you seem as capable of holding anything but a pro-Israel stance as Livni does of holding anything but an anti-Netanyahu stance.
doogly wrote:Oh yea, obviously they wouldn't know Griffiths from Sakurai if I were throwing them at them.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:14 am UTC

dedalus wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:However, using that statement to convey that meaning did not make sense in the context.

If you go back to the original post, you'll notice that yedidyak said 'seems incapible', so your statement 'Yedidyak said Livni can only hold one opinion, not that she does' is incorrect. And, given that TMT and myself (and I'll wager a few others, and you haven't provided any examples to the contrary) cannot remember you making any concessions about Israel's behaviour without special pleading, I argue that you seem as capable of holding anything but a pro-Israel stance as Livni does of holding anything but an anti-Netanyahu stance.


I normally support Israel, true. That's based on Israel's actions and policies. Livni is against Netanyahu, whatever he does. She switches based on what he says. Also, you seem to be confusing me and sourmilk.

User avatar
dedalus
Posts: 1169
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:16 pm UTC
Location: Dark Side of the Moon.

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby dedalus » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:23 am UTC

I'm talking about sourmilk arcing up at yurell's comment. Sorry for any confusion yediyak - no offence intended in your direction :)
doogly wrote:Oh yea, obviously they wouldn't know Griffiths from Sakurai if I were throwing them at them.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:39 am UTC

Sorry - not been following the thread in detail lately, seems to have moved from a I-P thread to more of a 'teach sourmilk logic' thread without the teaching part.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:19 pm UTC

dedalus wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:However, using that statement to convey that meaning did not make sense in the context.

If you go back to the original post, you'll notice that yedidyak said 'seems incapible', so your statement 'Yedidyak said Livni can only hold one opinion, not that she does' is incorrect.

What? My statement accurately conveys what Yedidyak said. Unless you're going to nitpick about the "seems" word, I don't see the actual difference.

And, given that TMT and myself (and I'll wager a few others, and you haven't provided any examples to the contrary) cannot remember you making any concessions about Israel's behaviour without special pleading, I argue that you seem as capable of holding anything but a pro-Israel stance as Livni does of holding anything but an anti-Netanyahu stance.

Or people at naturally bad at remembering these things. I recall criticizing Israel's policy that made it easy for Palestinians to lose their residency status, I am certainly opposed to the anti-boycott law, I recall criticizing the demolition plans in Aqabah, and I said that this settlement acceleration wasn't an ideal way to go about things. The concession I didn't make is that Israel is in regularly violation of international law and a consistent violator of human rights.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Malconstant » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:50 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Palestine can't put everything on hold until there's peace with Israel, and its a ludicrous thing to demand.

Define "everything." Anyways, if Palestine were to actually negotiate, sure it could.

Hey all, I'm also just dropping in as a casual observer of this thread, so my apologies if this has been covered more than I could find. But my understanding was that since the Palestine Papers got leaked, it became pretty clear that Palestine had been working towards real earnest negotiations and compromise while Israel was flatly refusing to be reasonable in this respect.

You seem to be working under a different narrative, so what are you basing yours from?
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:07 pm UTC

The Palestine Papers, as I understand it, showed that some of the PA leadership was trying to push for a peace. It was evidently not supported by the general populace or rest of the organization, and was not taken seriously by the Israeli's.

Someone described it to me as being akin to Joe Biden deciding without any other approval, to declare war on Canada. Obviously the Canadian Prime Minister is going to sort of roll his eyes at the prospect, and obviously America and the rest of the American government is going to oppose.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:17 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
Palestine can't put everything on hold until there's peace with Israel, and its a ludicrous thing to demand.

Define "everything." Anyways, if Palestine were to actually negotiate, sure it could.

Hey all, I'm also just dropping in as a casual observer of this thread, so my apologies if this has been covered more than I could find. But my understanding was that since the Palestine Papers got leaked, it became pretty clear that Palestine had been working towards real earnest negotiations and compromise while Israel was flatly refusing to be reasonable in this respect.


No, the Palestinians still made no concessions. From Ha'aretz
Ha'aretz wrote:Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday denied offering secret concessions to Israel and said that reporting of purportedly leaked documents had presented Israeli positions as those of his own negotiators.


According to Abbas, the document actually shows more Palestinian intransigence and more Israeli concessions. The Palestinian citizens are particularly against all of the concessions as well. And again, see my earlier post: the Palestinians have stated that will not make any concessions, and Israel has given them a variety of offers, each of which equates to significant land loss for Israel and the displacement of tens of thousands of its citizens.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Malconstant » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:45 pm UTC

Ahh, Is there any chance one of you would have a good source to point to for this? I've done plenty of casual reading on the papers and never picked up a whiff of that particular spin. I don't know any better to argue with that, but it's incongruent with all I've learned from reading up on it, and that's pretty dang important in my own little narrative of the events the papers.

In my cartoon interpretation of things, Israeli leadership has been unreasonable/uncompromising dicks regarding any sustainable solution other than total victory (1 state solution and it's Israel, and the Palestinians can find somewhere else to live). Palestine is in a much weaker situation socio-economically, and their leadership has been much more willing to try and accept sustainable two-state solutions as being ultimately necessary. Meanwhile my cartoon has the Israeli populace being more reasonable people trying to do their thing, while the Palestinian populace feels totally beaten down, victimized, and finds ideas of the most guerilla/suicide bomber/David vs. Goliath type resistance to be the only compelling response. In their cartoon eyes, the Israelis will never accept a sustainable solution for the Palestinians, and so they will offer resistance with everything they have, which pretty much includes their people and rocks, trying to gain sympathy by getting their children harmed in conflict. And because of this cartoon populace, the cartoon Palestinian leadership can't afford to appear as though they are actively seeking compromise from a knowingly weakened position, because that's not what the cartoon people want to see, and they'd get voted out for someone with stronger resistance-based rhetoric, as they are, after all, a democracy.

It's not a good thing, what the Palestinian people are doing, it's an awful awful thing. But in my cartoon narrative it's a perfectly expected human response to the perception of being taken advantage of and persistently aggressed on by a vastly stronger power. After 60 years of this, it's perfectly reasonable to feel helpless and desperate, and to find ideas of grassroots resistance to be compelling.

I find this cartoon of a narrative to be far more compelling to me in the face of the papers and everything I've read about the conflict, than a cartoon of "the Israelis really want a sustainable solution for the Palestinians, and the only way to do this is to periodically take away more of their land to expand on until they stop trying to put up grassroots/guerilla resistance. Once they stop then we can have peace."

So is there some compelling reading which should inspire me to change my cartoon of this narrative?

Edit: Ninja'd! I'll read up on that.

Second Edit: Sure, that quote fits trivially into my cartoon where the Palestinian leadership needs to appear as though they are not willing to compromise, unless an actual meaningful sustained solution can be reached, in which case the cards can finally be on the table. I understand this is a very difficult thing to disprove, but on the other hand if the negotiations were secret in the first place, why would it ever be compelling to hear an official deny their validity? God that sounds like a conspiracy theory kind of argument. And I could just totally be wrong, but this interpretation seems to make a whole lot more sense with how human nature works. So then is your argument that the Palestine papers were fabricated? Cause that sounds a whole lot more conspiratorial.
Last edited by Malconstant on Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:50 pm UTC

Here's the introduction to The Palestinian Papers on Al Jazeera.

Here's the main subject area on Al Jazeera.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:54 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:Ahh, Is there any chance one of you would have a good source to point to for this? I've done plenty of casual reading on the papers and never picked up a whiff of that particular spin. I don't know any better to argue with that, but it's incongruent with all I've learned from reading up on it, and that's pretty dang important in my own little narrative of the events the papers.

I linked to Ha'aretz for my arguments.

In my cartoon interpretation of things, Israeli leadership has been unreasonable/uncompromising dicks regarding any sustainable solution other than total victory (1 state solution and it's Israel, and the Palestinians can find somewhere else to live). Palestine is in a much weaker situation socio-economically, and their leadership has been much more willing to try and accept sustainable two-state solutions as being ultimately necessary. Meanwhile my cartoon has the Israeli populace being more reasonable people trying to do their thing, while the Palestinian populace feels totally beaten down, victimized, and finds ideas of the most guerilla/suicide bomber/David vs. Goliath type resistance to be the only compelling response. In their cartoon eyes, the Israelis will never accept a sustainable solution for the Palestinians, and so they will offer resistance with everything they have, which pretty much includes their people and rocks, trying to gain sympathy by getting their children harmed in conflict. And because of this cartoon populace, the cartoon Palestinian leadership can't afford to appear as though they are actively seeking compromise from a knowingly weakened position, because that's not what the cartoon people want to see, and they'd get voted out for someone with stronger resistance-based rhetoric, as they are, after all, a democracy.

It's not a good thing, what the Palestinian people are doing, it's an awful awful thing. But in my cartoon narrative it's a perfectly expected human response to the perception of being taken advantage of and persistently aggressed on by a vastly stronger power. After 60 years of this, it's perfectly reasonable to feel helpless and desperate, and to find ideas of grassroots resistance to be compelling.

I find this cartoon of a narrative to be far more compelling to me in the face of the papers and everything I've read about the conflict, than a cartoon of "the Israelis really want a sustainable solution for the Palestinians, and the only way to do this is to periodically take away more of their land to expand on until they stop trying to put up grassroots/guerilla resistance. Once they stop then we can have peace."

So is there some compelling reading which should inspire me to change my cartoon of this narrative?

Edit: Ninja'd! I'll read up on that.


Israel has actually made plenty of offers for a two-state solution, an the official stance of the government for at least two decades has been one of a two-state solution. You can look at camp david, Taba, the Olmert offer etc. All of them offer Palestine at least 96% of the amount of land they'd have under the armistice lines, and all of these offers displace thousands of Jews and involve a great deal of land loss for Israel. The Palestinians, however, have refused any concessions at all: they so far have only been willing to accept everything up to the '49 armistice lines with west Jerusalem and the "return" of 5 million Palestinians to Israel. This would mean the destruction of Israel, which would make sense, as that's the stated goal of the majority of the Palestinians.

It's not really fair to say that Palestinian terrorism has been a response to Israeli oppression. The Palestinians have been attacking the Jews for about a century now, before there was even an Israel. The PLO was founded three years before the six-day war with the intention of destroying Israel. In fact, Palestinian terrorism has always increased the more control they'd been given. After the Oslo Accords, Palestinian terrorism rates more than quadrupled. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, the elected body there immediately declared war on Israel and started launching rockets.

Also, al-Jazeera probably isn't the best source if you want an unbiased viewpoint (or at least complete coverage). They don't even try to keep their opinions separate from their reporting when it comes to Israel and Palestine. Wikipedia often has arguments from both sides with a report on what the international consensus is and full context for everything, though you'll want to watch out for some of the articles in which the neutrality is disputed. Ha'aretz usually has good coverage: their plain news articles tend to be unbiased (though overall they lean a bit further to the left than I'd like.)
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Vanzetti
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:31 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Vanzetti » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:10 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:ut my understanding was that since the Palestine Papers got leaked, it became pretty clear that Palestine had been working towards real earnest negotiations and compromise while Israel was flatly refusing to be reasonable in this respect.


Where do you pull your understanding from? If Palestinians were serious about peace, why keep the offer secret? If I were the Palestinian leader who actually wanted peace and offered Israelis a good deal, and they refused, why - I'd trumpet it around the world. Israel would look like the biggest dick for refusing.

But, of course, Palestinians are not serious. That's why papers are leaked and then Abbas deny them. It's all a pile of bullshit.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Dream » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:15 pm UTC

Vanzetti wrote:If Palestinians were serious about peace, why keep the offer secret?

Because every time Israel does anything to Palestine, like say an airstrike on Gaza, negotiating with them becomes politically unpopular for Abbas. So he keeps concessions secret in order that he doesn't have to back out every time the IDF kills somebody.

Vanzetti wrote:If I were the Palestinian leader who actually wanted peace and offered Israelis a good deal, and they refused, why - I'd trumpet it around the world.

Israel would react very badly to triumphalism, and would likely not consider it possible to negotiate at all with anyone who did so.

Vanzetti wrote: Israel would look like the biggest dick for refusing.

Israel already looks like the biggest dick, because of the settlements and the Gaza blockade. They aren't afraid of that, and it doesn't affect them in the slightest.

Vanzetti wrote:Palestinians are not serious. That's why papers are leaked and then Abbas deny them.

Abbas denies them because he must to maintain the support of extremist elements in Palestinian politics.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:20 pm UTC

Vanzetti wrote:
Malconstant wrote:ut my understanding was that since the Palestine Papers got leaked, it became pretty clear that Palestine had been working towards real earnest negotiations and compromise while Israel was flatly refusing to be reasonable in this respect.


Where do you pull your understanding from? If Palestinians were serious about peace, why keep the offer secret? If I were the Palestinian leader who actually wanted peace and offered Israelis a good deal, and they refused, why - I'd trumpet it around the world. Israel would look like the biggest dick for refusing.

But, of course, Palestinians are not serious. That's why papers are leaked and then Abbas deny them. It's all a pile of bullshit.

You mean, like that time Israel walked away from the table (2001) and the world didn't vilify Israel and the shitty offer they keep proffering.

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Malconstant » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

@ Sourmilk. I wouldn't paint all of anti-Israeli terrorism under the same brush, although certainly the kinds of forces which would lead to the PLO would help with the modern resistances. And for things like post-Oslo, these forces which just want to destroy Israel tried to extend their reach.

But the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is something I'm assuming shouldn't be controversial, it's a thing, it's been going on for a long time. Of course the modern day conflict is in response to the results of the conflicts from yesterday. It's a cycle of awful awful things. This also shouldn't be controversial. If you're trying to argue that the contemporary Palestinian populist resistance is interchangeable with that of conflicts back in 1911, you'd be crazy. Yes, there are older grievances, but that's not what keeps the conflict fueled, that fuel is the fresher grievances, and the feeling that this is their last resort, that nothing else has any hope for victory, so this David vs. Goliath rock-throwing guerilla grassroots struggle is easily romanticized.

There are plenty of Palestinians who want the total destruction of Israel, and you only need a small fraction of them to run in suicide bombs to make it an enormous problem. Also, because of the sheer duration of this conflict, the forces which led to the PLO have shaped the culture, the distinction between terrorist organization and community center became totally grayed out in some cases. And this has shaped the populace.

In my cartoon, I see the Palestinian populace as being disproportionally unwilling to compromise, though I see this as being disproportionately exasperated by a smaller core of actually terrible people, rather than indicative of a lasting consensus when given the opportunity for an honest, sustainable situation. But I see the Palestinian leadership as being much more realistic than their populace regarding this, and the tension between this and the democratic process has its consequences, but I see that as largely a matter of posturing.

I've only ever heard pristine things said of Al-Jazeera's unbiased reporting. Where's this coming from?

@Vanzetti. As I said, it's because the populace won't tolerate a government who is willing to negotiate from a weakened position, so it's all posturing. If a sustainable resolution can be reached, then they can try to sell it to their people in ways to suggest that the outcome was not from a weakened position, but if the whole process was transparent, the populace would see the negotiations for what they are, and they would get angry and respond by voting in more militant uncompromising politicians.

Does this not sound like a plausible thing? Do you not think the Palestinians would vote in more right wing militant politicians if they believed their leaders negotiated in a weak and heavily compromising way against an enemy that has been demonized? And if the Palestinian leadership understands this, do you think they would be more or less inclined to say "yeah, those talks are real, we really pleaded for compromise, made serious concessions because we just want to end this, and the Israelis said 'no.' "?

What's the pile of bullshit? Do you believe the papers were legitimately leaked but that they Palestinian leadership wouldn't have respected a resolution? What would be the point of the secret negotiations at all then? What's their angle in that case, if they weren't being serious and they weren't looking for an opportunity to make Israel look bad in international politics?
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:47 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Stopping terrorism is in the interest of the Palestinians. The decline in terrorism has caused the GDP of the West Bank to quintuple.


I would assume this is mostly because Israel isn't constantly bombing their infrastructure and shutting off their essential services. It is in their interests insomuch as ending the occupation is in their interests. Achieving independence would give the same result, with the added benefit of actually having a state. My point is more specific than that, though. The Palestinians don't get to vote in Israeli elections and don't have members in the Knesset. That is, they have a government that is exercising control over them that is not responsive to their needs, and, as I mentioned, is pursuing goals that are fundamentally opposed to their interests. If Israel were to annex the West Bank, then at least the Palestinians would be Israeli citizens and would be able to engage their government in relevant ways; in the current situation, they are incapable of doing such things. This, in my mind, creates a strong case for the Palestinians to pursue independence. I don't honestly see any particularly compelling reason why they can't or shouldn't pursue independence, and why they can't or shouldn't pursue it unilaterally. Israel certainly can and will be upset about it, but the Palestinians don't have any particular reason to care about what Israel thinks, considering that the Israeli government doesn't care what they think.

sourmìlk wrote:So, the opinion of Israeli courts is automatically irrelevant because a country's high court will tend to be biased towards its own country?


I don't know enough about the independence of the Israeli courts to be able to comment specifically. In theory, a properly independent court does not necessarily act in the best interests of their country, but rather in the interests of fundamental justice. I don't know enough about the Israeli High Court to be able to say whether or not they're a mouthpiece for the government or not. A court like, I don't know, the Supreme Court of Luxembourg or something, would be preferable because they more clearly have no stake in the situation one way or the other. To be honest though, I'd be extremely surprised if you could even find an Israeli High Court ruling to this effect.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:14 pm UTC

One compelling reason for Israel to be against unilateral Palestinian independence is this one. Last time any land was ceded Hamas took over. They launched over 30 rockets in to Israeli cities over this weekend. From the 'West Bank' those same rockets could reach all Israelis not living in Mitzpe Ramon or Eilat.

EDIT - It wasn't Hamas this weekend, but the point stands.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:45 pm UTC

yedidyak wrote:One compelling reason for Israel to be against unilateral Palestinian independence is this one. Last time any land was ceded Hamas took over. They launched over 30 rockets in to Israeli cities over this weekend. From the 'West Bank' those same rockets could reach all Israelis not living in Mitzpe Ramon or Eilat.

EDIT - It wasn't Hamas this weekend, but the point stands.


Oh, I'm not denying that Israel has compelling reasons to be against unilateral Palestinian independence. I'm just not convinced that those reasons are actually in Israel's long-term best interests. I've suggested, were the Palestinians to gain independence, the militants would lose much of their justification (in the eyes of the average Palestinian) for pursuing violence against Israel.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Dream » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:59 pm UTC

yedidyak wrote:One compelling reason for Israel to be against unilateral Palestinian independence is this one. Last time any land was ceded Hamas took over. They launched over 30 rockets in to Israeli cities over this weekend.

Can you demonstrate that Hamas' election victory was caused by Gaza settlements being vacated? That there were no other significant factors at play, not least factors to do with Israeli policies with regard to Palestine?

Can you also demonstrate that once Hamas took over Gaza, it began rocketing because of the settlement vacations? It seems to me that in order for your point to stand you'd have to believe that Hamas were unlikely to attack Israel before the settlements were removed, and that removing them was the central cause of Hamas suddenly deciding that rockets were the way forward.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby buddy431 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:55 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Although not directly related to Israel/Palestine, I think this is probably close enough to topic not to warrant a new thread.

Israel successfully test-fires ballistic missile capable of striking Iran. Reports suggest that the Prime Minister and Defense Minister are in favour of a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.


The reports I've read suggest that it's just a bit of saber rattling to try to drum up more sanctions. I really do hope that Israel isn't stupid enough to start shit with a country that actually has a military and might try to fight back.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yoni45 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

buddy431 wrote:The reports I've read suggest that it's just a bit of saber rattling to try to drum up more sanctions. I really do hope that Israel isn't stupid enough to start shit with a country that actually has a military and might try to fight back.


Eh -- Iran's hardly that much of a threat. Their missiles will do some damage, but I'd imagine that's the extent of their military might.

If anything, Hezbollah and Hamas are probably the more salient threats should Israel hit Iran.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:04 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
yedidyak wrote:One compelling reason for Israel to be against unilateral Palestinian independence is this one. Last time any land was ceded Hamas took over. They launched over 30 rockets in to Israeli cities over this weekend.

Can you demonstrate that Hamas' election victory was caused by Gaza settlements being vacated? That there were no other significant factors at play, not least factors to do with Israeli policies with regard to Palestine?

Can you also demonstrate that once Hamas took over Gaza, it began rocketing because of the settlement vacations? It seems to me that in order for your point to stand you'd have to believe that Hamas were unlikely to attack Israel before the settlements were removed, and that removing them was the central cause of Hamas suddenly deciding that rockets were the way forward.


I don't think I need to. The fact is it happened. By occupying the WB, Israel can ensure that no rockets are fired on Gush Dan.

LaserGuy wrote:the militants would lose much of their justification (in the eyes of the average Palestinian) for pursuing violence against Israel.


History would say otherwise. Hamas certainly say they won't give up until all of Palestine is liberated. (Actually until there are no more Jews). Even members of the PLO Central Committee have said that independence for Gaza and the WB is just the first step.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Dream » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:12 pm UTC

yedidyak wrote:I don't think I need to. The fact is it happened. By occupying the WB, Israel can ensure that no rockets are fired on Gush Dan.

You claimed that ending Gazan settlements led to the Hamas election victory, or perhaps to their successful resistance in Gaza to attempts to reverse that outcome. You went on to say that this also led to rocket attacks. Yes, you very much have to substantiate a claim that Israeli maniac fundamentalists being booted out of stolen land was the cause of Hamas being in power, and of them firing rockets at Israel. There is no self evident connection there.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Malconstant
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Malconstant » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:19 pm UTC

yedidyak wrote:Even members of the PLO Central Committee have said that independence for Gaza and the WB is just the first step.

Lets adopt this as the new criterion for what we believe a government's real intentions are. By saying that there exist some members of an organization that at one point was solidly embedded in terrorism and has since focused on politics, that some members of this organization have terrible views, and therefore the actual populace all probably share these views and would never be happy with peace.

Actually, lets just demonize the others as much as possible as a rule using whatever could possibly count as supporting evidence and allow us to totally ignore any opposing evidence. Lets do that. It's probably the most realistic and productive lens in a discussion of incredibly prolonged, terrible conflict.
Technical Ben wrote:PS, doogly, way to miss the point.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:39 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:
yedidyak wrote:Even members of the PLO Central Committee have said that independence for Gaza and the WB is just the first step.

Lets adopt this as the new criterion for what we believe a government's real intentions are. By saying that there exist some members of an organization that at one point was solidly embedded in terrorism and has since focused on politics, that some members of this organization have terrible views, and therefore the actual populace all probably share these views and would never be happy with peace.

Actually, lets just demonize the others as much as possible as a rule using whatever could possibly count as supporting evidence and allow us to totally ignore any opposing evidence. Lets do that. It's probably the most realistic and productive lens in a discussion of incredibly prolonged, terrible conflict.


If I was saying that some members of the PLO Central Committee were against the existence of Israel therefore the PLO is against the existence of Israel your point would be valid.

However, my point was that there is well founded wariness in Israel for a unilateral independence which would be followed by uncertainty. When that uncertainty has a history of using rockets and targeting civilians, and a significant part is committed to your destruction, you want it as far away from where the vast majority of your population and infrastructure are. Not in the hills overlooking it.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:28 pm UTC

Malconstant wrote:Hey all, I'm also just dropping in as a casual observer of this thread, so my apologies if this has been covered more than I could find. But my understanding was that since the Palestine Papers got leaked, it became pretty clear that Palestine had been working towards real earnest negotiations and compromise while Israel was flatly refusing to be reasonable in this respect.

You seem to be working under a different narrative, so what are you basing yours from?


As a point of context, Israel has made a number of serious two state solution peace offers, all giving a very large majority of The West Bank to the Palestinians, in excess of 90%. Including concessions regarding Jerusalem. They have been made public and are publicly available.

This is not true for the Palestinians, they have made no such offer, short of them wanting everything, including 'right of return' and by consequence the destruction of Israel. If the Palestinians were serious about ending the conflict, they would make such offers as to what they would expect from a two-state solution.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:44 pm UTC

Granting the Palestinians independence would not stop Palestinian terrorism, or even slow it. It would probably accelerate it by making it easier. That's what happened in 1993 and 2005: unless you have a guarantee of peace, the Palestinians use their new control to attack. The majority of Palestinians say that the two-state solution is a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel. Palestinian terrorism has been going on for at least 80-something years, probably more. These things combined indicate that Palestinian terrorism has nothing to do with occupation, except that that's their latest excuse.

Jahoclave wrote:You mean, like that time Israel walked away from the table (2001) and the world didn't vilify Israel and the shitty offer they keep proffering.

Shitty offer? How was the Israeli offer shitty? And you should also know that the Palestinians were intransigent there as well, refusing to allow Israel to annex any settlement blocs, which would equate to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. It's just not reasonable to state that the Israelis are being intransigent and the Palestinians aren't: I've shown plenty of reasonable Israeli offers, and I've yet to see a single Palestinian one.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:42 am UTC

[quote="BattleMoose"]As a point of context, Israel has made a number of serious two state solution peace offers, all giving a very large majority of The West Bank to the Palestinians, in excess of 90%. Including concessions regarding Jerusalem. They have been made public and are publicly available.[/quote

And what concessions were demanded of Palestine in those deals? You can't say "look what Israel offered!" in a vacuum ... one can offer the right arm while taking the left.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:47 am UTC

yurell wrote:And what concessions were demanded of Palestine in those deals? You can't say "look what Israel offered!" in a vacuum ... one can offer the right arm while taking the left.

Depends on how exactly you define concessions. So I'll answer the question by detailing the offers:

All offers included the following: Palestinians would retain an area of land equivalent to about 97-100% of what they would have under the armistice lines. Israel would accept a small amount of Palestinians refugees (about 100,000) and their descendants in, but the Palestinian refugee problem should ultimately be solved in their host countries or in Palestine. The Palestinian state would be demilitarized, but with sovereignty over its airspace. Israel would keep a few listening posts at the Jordan valley. There would be a safe transit route between Hevron and Gaza, under Palestinian control but Israeli sovereignty. East Jerusalem would be divided on the basis of ethnicity: Jewish neighborhoods would go to Israel while Palestinian neighborhoods would go to Palestine. The issue of sovereignty over the Temple Mount was generally not discussed, or it was decided that it would be moved to a later date. The Palestinians would have to promise an end to hostilities.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:56 am UTC

So Palestine has to concede the right of return for millions of Palestinians and their 'seconded' land & property, and agree to become a defenceless state, while losing areas of East Jerusalem that have become Israeli due to deliberate population manipulation on part of the Israeli government? Well, good to see recognising Israel as a Jewish state at least isn't on those demands.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:09 am UTC

yurell wrote:So Palestine has to concede the right of return for millions of Palestinians and their 'seconded' land & property, and agree to become a defenceless state, while losing areas of East Jerusalem that have become Israeli due to deliberate population manipulation on part of the Israeli government? Well, good to see recognising Israel as a Jewish state at least isn't on those demands.


Oh, it is. I forgot that. Anyways, Palestine isn't a defenseless state, it has the IDF protecting them. Anyways, why should Palestine have a military? Japan didn't after WWII, and neither did Germany. These situations were completely acceptable then. Also, I think it's disingenuous to say that Palestine is conceding a right of return: that would imply that such a right exists. Do you really think that demand is unreasonable though? If Israel were to appease the Palestinian demands, there would be no Israel. And how could Palestine lose areas of East Jerusalem? They never had it to begin with. Ever.

Really though, that paragraph is beside the point: if those offers aren't reasonable, what should Israel have offered?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:15 am UTC

Perhaps to stop being an apartheid state while they're at it? Stop their demands for Palestinians to be a second-class citizen? Give them their land as their right, not as a bargaining chip (such as the parts that Israel hasn't annexed), and actually make concessions to for things like the Right of Return, instead of insisting that you're doing a favour by accepting back a negligible proportion of them? Perhaps stop the settlement building that is in violation of military law? Or maybe stop stealing the tax money that right fully belong to the PA that they're withholding as a punitive measure?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:20 am UTC

The settlements aren't illegal under international law, as I explained. Israel does not treat Palestinians as second class citizens: that's like saying America treats Mexicans as second class citizens. The claims of apartheid have already been addressed. The Palestinians don't have a right to the land, and I don't know of a single legal body that thinks it's off the table as a bargaining chip (and thus a right), so even your appeal to popular opinion doesn't work.

Your post shows a willful ignorance of everything that's been said in this thread, and the only thing actually relevant to my question was your statement that Israel should make concessions regarding the right of return. Why? The right of return isn't an actual right, there is no precedent for exercising it as a right, and exercising it as a right would destroy Israel.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Torchship » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:39 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Oh, it is. I forgot that. Anyways, Palestine isn't a defenseless state, it has the IDF protecting them. Anyways, why should Palestine have a military? Japan didn't after WWII, and neither did Germany.


I believe the issue is more that Palestine will be undefended from the IDF, rather than Palestine being undefended except for the IDF. There is a huge undercurrent of suspicion and hatred directed against the IDF in Palestine, and pretending that putting Palestine at the mercy of the IDF is some small thing is utterly ludicrous. Japan and Germany had to be absolutely flattened before they would accept those terms; evidently giving up defence to a foreign power is something that most countries are unwilling to accept unless it is delivered at the barrel of a gun. How then is this not a major concession?

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yurell » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:42 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:The settlements aren't illegal under international law, as I explained.


No, you've argued that, and as numerous legal experts have argued that they are illegal, I'm still not inclined to take your opinion on international law over theirs, especially since I agree with their reading and not your own.

sourmìlk wrote:Israel does not treat Palestinians as second class citizens: that's like saying America treats Mexicans as second class citizens. The claims of apartheid have already been addressed.


Except the US isn't occupying Mexico, is it? Or installing racist laws, or requiring that Mexico become a 'protestant' state (a means by which to class the Catholic majority as second-class citizens), especially given the marriage laws and other racist laws established in Israel.

sourmìlk wrote:The Palestinians don't have a right to the land, and I don't know of a single legal body that thinks it's off the table as a bargaining chip (and thus a right), so even your appeal to popular opinion doesn't work.


Appeal to popular opinion my arse.

sourmìlk wrote:Your post shows a willful ignorance of everything that's been said in this thread, and the only thing actually relevant to my question was your statement that Israel should make concessions regarding the right of return. Why? The right of return isn't an actual right, there is no precedent for exercising it as a right, and exercising it as a right would destroy Israel.


Oh, I disagree with Sourmilk! I must be ignorant! Or it could be I I disagree with you and your arguments haven't been sufficient to convince me. No, clearly that's ludicrous!
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby BattleMoose » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:43 am UTC

yurell wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:As a point of context, Israel has made a number of serious two state solution peace offers, all giving a very large majority of The West Bank to the Palestinians, in excess of 90%. Including concessions regarding Jerusalem. They have been made public and are publicly available.


And what concessions were demanded of Palestine in those deals? You can't say "look what Israel offered!" in a vacuum ... one can offer the right arm while taking the left.


What concessions? It is entirely a matter of perception, the offers are clear and what you or anyone else would define as a concession is a matter of perspective. Point is the offers are there.
It is a very important step in negotiating, one side presents what they are willing to offer and then the other side makes a counteroffer and so on and so forth. Palestine unfortunately and tragically steadfastly refuses to partake in such a process.

And whats this vacuum nonsense, we are 68 pages or so in this discussion, I am very familiar with the offers and the context of them and fully expect you to be similarly informed. You should know the context of the offers.

If Palestine's only interest was to have their own state, they can have it, but they want to so much more as everyone is generally able to recognize.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:52 am UTC

Torchship wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Oh, it is. I forgot that. Anyways, Palestine isn't a defenseless state, it has the IDF protecting them. Anyways, why should Palestine have a military? Japan didn't after WWII, and neither did Germany.


I believe the issue is more that Palestine will be undefended from the IDF, rather than Palestine being undefended except for the IDF.

Oh. Well yes, if they attempted to attack the IDF, they would be defenseless. Otherwise they don't need defense. It's not a concession because, not only do they not now have a military, they don't need one, and they don't deserve one.

yurell wrote:No, you've argued that, and as numerous legal experts have argued that they are illegal, I'm still not inclined to take your opinion on international law over theirs, especially since I agree with their reading and not your own.

I have cited expert individuals who agree with me. And anyways, what's wrong with my reading?

Except the US isn't occupying Mexico, is it? Or installing racist laws, or requiring that Mexico become a 'protestant' state (a means by which to class the Catholic majority as second-class citizens), especially given the marriage laws and other racist laws established in Israel.

Israel isn't requiring that Palestine become a Jewish state. Palestine can become a Zoroastrian state for all they care. But Palestine isn't letting Israel become a Jewish state. And for the umpteenth time, being a Jewish state does not mean that goyim are second-class citizens. I have explained this several times: this is exactly what I'm talking about when I discuss willful ignorance. Your statements rely on mine being wrong (or not having been made), but you don't actually present arguments to show why they're wrong. You assume that they are.

Oh, I disagree with Sourmilk! I must be ignorant! Or it could be I I disagree with you and your arguments haven't been sufficient to convince me. No, clearly that's ludicrous!

I would say that's ludicrous, because if you were aware of my arguments you would have addressed them.
Last edited by sourmìlk on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests