[Khalak]

(Original post by arnoob)
I don't know whether to trust the source but I salute this woman for her actions http://972mag.com/armed-border-offic...ng-flag/46412/

You are anti semitic and you should be ashamed of yourself . The Palestinians are an existential enemy to Israel. they need to be deported to Jordan. What is there to salute in a woman who is a self hating Jew?

[arnoob]

(Original post by Khalak)
You are anti semitic and you should be ashamed of yourself . The Palestinians are an existential enemy to Israel. they need to be deported to Jordan. What is there to salute in a woman who is a self hating Jew?

I am an anti-semite now am I? I have a Jewish friend who himself is against zionism, believe it or not...

[Khalak]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
As I said, all Israeli administrations in the past twenty years have accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood after negotiations, the American government accepts this too, yet it is the rejectionist camp in Palestinian politics that doesn't. Hamas, who you mentioned, do not accept the existence of the Israeli state. This is not a point that is debatable - they simply do not accept Jewish statehood in the area whilst most Israelis and the current government accept Palestinian statehood as being a legitimate goal.

Israel is happy (genuinely if I was an hard core Israeli I probably would be as well) with the status quo and this is what Israel wants and always intended ever since the Oslo Accords, it does not want responsibility for the Palestinians but wants control of the West Bank.

Israel willl continue building settlements and will pretend that in negotiations that the idea of 'giving up' of these settlements is a concession and they know Palestinians cannot see this as a concession at all in fact it is as much of a concession as the Palestinians Authority saying that they forfeit their claims to Haifa or Tel aviv, neither are a concession.

And tbh Israel would not be wasting millions on these settlements if it had any intention of giving them up, Israel wants a total foothold in the west bank and it is getting it. I mean would you throw away money if you knew you will be destroying and razing these settlements in any peace treaty?

The problem is that Israelis neither want to live with the Palestinians (and the Palestinians do not want that either tbf) nor does they want a Palestinian state as that would mean losing control of vital land in the West Bank. Meaning Israel wants status quo, which it has.

[Khalak]

(Original post by arnoob)
I am an anti-semite now am I? I have a Jewish friend who himself is against zionism, believe it or not...

I was being sarcastic lol

[Khalak]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
the debate was raised about the levels of sufferring in palestine and the comparative media time that conflict gets - the counter argument held that there are many more more important conflicts in the world that get less media time, based on how many more people have been and are sufferring - sudan? sri lanka? turkey?

it took us 15 years o get off our backsides and end saddams genocide of a million kurds and shia muslims.

I seriously cannot remember the last time the BBC News, ITV News or Sky News had a story on the Israeli Palestine conflict, infact they are more focued on Afghanistan, the EU, and Banks.

[arnoob]

(Original post by Khalak)
I was being sarcastic lol

Oh, I didn't neg you btw...

[Politricks]

They're going to dig up Arafat's grave
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/wo...ning.html?_r=1

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Khalak)
Israel is happy (genuinely if I was an hard core Israeli I probably would be as well) with the status quo and this is what Israel wants and always intended ever since the Oslo Accords, it does not want responsibility for the Palestinians but wants control of the West Bank.

Israel willl continue building settlements and will pretend that in negotiations that the idea of 'giving up' of these settlements is a concession and they know Palestinians cannot see this as a concession at all in fact it is as much of a concession as the Palestinians Authority saying that they forfeit their claims to Haifa or Tel aviv, neither are a concession.

And tbh Israel would not be wasting millions on these settlements if it had any intention of giving them up, Israel wants a total foothold in the west bank and it is getting it. I mean would you throw away money if you knew you will be destroying and razing these settlements in any peace treaty?

The problem is that Israelis neither want to live with the Palestinians (and the Palestinians do not want that either tbf) nor does they want a Palestinian state as that would mean losing control of vital land in the West Bank. Meaning Israel wants status quo, which it has.

Of course they like the status quo. The Palestinians did rather well out of working and trading in Israel during the days before the intifadas, but that doesn't mean they didn't want a state of their own. A majority of Israelis don't actually want sovereignty over the West Bank and it will be given to the Palestinians one day, provided that they shun the rejectionist politics that has given rise to Hamas and the total rejection of the Israeli state. The settlements are a pain and I cannot see them being evacuated when a Palestinian state is created which makes your point somewhat void (nobody seriously thinks the Israelis will agree to 'razing these settlements' and evacuating nearly half a million Jews), but the settlements currently constitute something like 1.5% of all West Bank land area; they're not exactly the largest 'footholds' that the Israelis can construct - a few military bases along the banks of the Jordan would have a better effect.

[levantine]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Of course they like the status quo. The Palestinians did rather well out of working and trading in Israel during the days before the intifadas, but that doesn't mean they didn't want a state of their own. A majority of Israelis don't actually want sovereignty over the West Bank and it will be given to the Palestinians one day, provided that they shun the rejectionist politics that has given rise to Hamas and the total rejection of the Israeli state. The settlements are a pain and I cannot see them being evacuated when a Palestinian state is created which makes your point somewhat void (nobody seriously thinks the Israelis will agree to 'razing these settlements' and evacuating nearly half a million Jews), but the settlements currently constitute something like 1.5% of all West Bank land area; they're not exactly the largest 'footholds' that the Israelis can construct - a few military bases along the banks of the Jordan would have a better effect.

So your claim is that in your words "but the settlements currently constitute something like 1.5% of all West Bank land area". Dude there are 500,000 illegal
they sure cover more than 1,5%! and also your saying its only 1.5% occupation so its ok!! Also let me point out that hamas is democraticly elected and yes they are terrorist but voters dont always elect who YOU want them to eg. coalition government in Uk- no one wanted them!

Maybe you should read this report

http://palsolidarity.org/2012/07/isr...cked-uk-study/

and

http://www.childreninmilitarycustody...ull_Report.pdf

[levantine]

(Original post by Super Cicero)
The new Islamist President of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, has said he wants an Egyptian-Iranian alliance and also to end the Peace Treaty with Egypt. Looks like if Assad is overthrown and Iran loses a key ally in Syria, it won't matter as it will gain a far more powerful ally in Egypt.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/co...ies-with-iran/

If Egypt did start to get very aggressive, I think that Israel could declare war and seize control of the Sinai Peninsular as a buffer zone. Thoughts?

Absolutely Ludicrous!!!
you use the term Islamist interchangeable with terrorsit it seems. Look at the facts most world countries have diplomatic relations with Iran. Mursi also said that to maintain the peace treaty with israel then there would be a foreign minister that is not from the muslim brotherhood.

ahh so israel wants to illegally occupy another bit of land. I think all Israeli politicians would laugh at your claims as would all inteligent beings,

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by levantine)
So your claim is that in your words "but the settlements currently constitute something like 1.5% of all West Bank land area". Dude there are 500,000 illegal
they sure cover more than 1,5%! and also your saying its only 1.5% occupation so its ok!! Also let me point out that hamas is democraticly elected and yes they are terrorist but voters dont always elect who YOU want them to eg. coalition government in Uk- no one wanted them!

Maybe you should read this report

http://palsolidarity.org/2012/07/isr...cked-uk-study/

and

http://www.childreninmilitarycustody...ull_Report.pdf

I'm terribly sorry, I got it horribly wrong. Settlements don't make up 1.5% of the land, they constitute 1.7% of the land. Seriously, all settlement housing amounts to less than 2% of the West Bank land area. Your excuse making for Hamas is totally unrelated to what I said, plus the fact that I'm a liberal not a democrat and I don't believe terrorism can be excused because a majority of people happen to like it. (I also happen to know that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together won 59.1% of the vote so they certainly are wanted by the electorate, but that is off topic.) I don't care about your (biased) links; they have nothing to do with what you quoted me as saying.

[levantine]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I'm terribly sorry, I got it horribly wrong. Settlements don't make up 1.5% of the land, they constitute 1.7% of the land. Seriously, all settlement housing amounts to less than 2% of the West Bank land area. Your excuse making for Hamas is totally unrelated to what I said, plus the fact that I'm a liberal not a democrat and I don't believe terrorism can be excused because a majority of people happen to like it. (I also happen to know that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together won 59.1% of the vote so they certainly are wanted by the electorate, but that is off topic.) I don't care about your (biased) links; they have nothing to do with what you quoted me as saying.

The figure is actually about 40% my friend.

haaretz quotes it at 42%
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...-bank-1.300303

Also i didnt say terrorism is tobe excused because people like it. I said hamas is a terrorist organisation but its also elected. I am not biased im just pointing out your false statistics and flawed logic. "so we only occupy a bit of there land, so what" that is your logic

[anarchism101]

That Hamas have the strength and popularity that they do is partly the fault of the PLO/Fatah and partly the fault of the Israeli government.

It's partly the PLO's fault because they are pathetic bureaucrats who care about their own power and nothing else. Since they were created in 1964 they've done almost nothing to develop roots and social structures in the Palestinian communities, and are and always have been very distant from the Palestinian people. One of the main reasons Arafat agreed to Oslo in 1993 was that he felt he had to get something or Hamas, which was quite a new group at the time, would continue to grow (which they did anyway but probably slower than they otherwise would have done).

Hamas had been growing because they did develop those grassroots and community structures that the PLO failed to do - they set up soup kitchens and charity shops and suchlike, and this is why Hamas gained popularity among Palestinians - they don't necessarily agree with all the religious fundamentalism or ultra-hawkish attitudes, but they feel that Hamas have been there for them when no-one else has been.

It's also partly the Israeli government's fault because if the more they'd have been willing to offer the PLO, the less influence Hamas would have gained.

The problem of course is how to get rid of Hamas. Attacks, however prolonged, will always fail because they'll just go underground (literally and metaphorically) and then come back as strong as before if not stronger. They're funded by the Saudis, and due to the role of the US in this Israel can't lay a finger on the Saudis, so Hamas are basically sat on a gold mine. To get rid of them their base needs to be provided with an alternative, and as much it depresses me to say this, that realistically has to be the PLO. And from what I've outlined above the solutions are fairly obvious - for Israel, give the PLO more; for the PLO, build grassroots and social structures.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by levantine)
The figure is actually about 40% my friend.

haaretz quotes it at 42%
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...-bank-1.300303

Also i didnt say terrorism is tobe excused because people like it. I said hamas is a terrorist organisation but its also elected. I am not biased im just pointing out your false statistics and flawed logic. "so we only occupy a bit of there land, so what" that is your logic

Wow. Did you even read the link you just sent me? From the very first line, I'll quote the bit that completely backs up what I was saying:

"Israeli settlers and their organizations control some 42 percent of West Bank land, even though the settlements' built-up area is just one per cent of the territory, the Israel B'tselem Human Rights Organization said in a report released Tuesday."

Case dismissed, quite literally.

EDIT: You've also strawmanned me quite badly. Nowhere did I say that it's okay if the Israelis occupy land because it's only a small bit. I stated that West Bank settlements constitute but 1.7% of the land area of the West Bank not as an excuse but in response to someone who said that they were a severe impediment to the creation of a Palestinian state. Most settlements are very close to the Israeli border and I'm sure they will be incorporated into the Israeli state should a Palestinian state be created.

[levantine]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Wow. Did you even read the link you just sent me? From the very first line, I'll quote the bit that completely backs up what I was saying:

"Israeli settlers and their organizations control some 42 percent of West Bank land, even though the settlements' built-up area is just one per cent of the territory, the Israel B'tselem Human Rights Organization said in a report released Tuesday."

Case dismissed, quite literally.

EDIT: You've also strawmanned me quite badly. Nowhere did I say that it's okay if the Israelis occupy land because it's only a small bit. I stated that West Bank settlements constitute but 1.7% of the land area of the West Bank not as an excuse but in response to someone who said that they were a severe impediment to the creation of a Palestinian state. Most settlements are very close to the Israeli border and I'm sure they will be incorporated into the Israeli state should a Palestinian state be created.

So in future Palestinian state israel steals more palestinian land yeah?

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by levantine)
So in future Palestinian state israel steals more palestinian land yeah?

No, since the settlements would not ever be part of the Palestinian state. The people who live on the land are mostly Jewish. I have a faint feeling that the Palestinian state will not want 500,000 Jews in it. I think realpolitik dictates the Palestinians will deep down be more than happy that half a million Jews and their houses will merge with the Israeli state, but on the surface all the Palestinian politicians will scream 'land theft' even though they don't actually believe this.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
No, since the settlements would not ever be part of the Palestinian state. The people who live on the land are mostly Jewish. I have a faint feeling that the Palestinian state will not want 500,000 Jews in it. I think realpolitik dictates the Palestinians will deep down be more than happy that half a million Jews and their houses will merge with the Israeli state, but on the surface all the Palestinian politicians will scream 'land theft' even though they don't actually believe this.

I doubt there'd be that much of a big deal over the land itself. Not that they don't care, but they'd be prepared to let it go. What's more important is the resources (for example, Jewish settlers get virtually all the water at the moment) and the contiguity of the West Bank, as Israeli proposals for settlement annexations tend to involve breaking the West Bank into chunks.

What's also interesting is that a lot of the Jewish settlers are religious fanatics and they aren't particularly liked by ordinary Israelis, some of who see the West Bank almost as a dumping ground for them to get them out of Israel.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I doubt there'd be that much of a big deal over the land itself. Not that they don't care, but they'd be prepared to let it go. What's more important is the resources (for example, Jewish settlers get virtually all the water at the moment) and the contiguity of the West Bank, as Israeli proposals for settlement annexations tend to involve breaking the West Bank into chunks.

What's also interesting is that a lot of the Jewish settlers are religious fanatics and they aren't particularly liked by ordinary Israelis, some of who see the West Bank almost as a dumping ground for them to get them out of Israel.

The land itself isn't what people are interested in, it's the people on it. Identity politics usually trumps politics and I doubt the half a million or so settlers, most of whom, as you say, are religious fanatics, but others are somewhat moderately religious Israelis or Americans looking for cheap subsidised housing, will want to join the Palestinian state and they're certainly not going to be asked to leave their homes. Naturally it looks like the settlement blocs close to the border will be incorporated into Israel and some Israeli land transferred to the Palestinians (a la the Olmert Plan).

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
The land itself isn't what people are interested in, it's the people on it. Identity politics usually trumps politics and I doubt the half a million or so settlers, most of whom, as you say, are religious fanatics, but others are somewhat moderately religious Israelis or Americans looking for cheap subsidised housing, will want to join the Palestinian state and they're certainly not going to be asked to leave their homes. Naturally it looks like the settlement blocs close to the border will be incorporated into Israel and some Israeli land transferred to the Palestinians (a la the Olmert Plan).

Probably, but what about the settlements deep inside the West Bank? Having them as Israeli exclaves doesn't seem realistic, and nor is realistic for the Palestinians to accept the further splitting into chunks of their country. Their removal seems the only option.

The moderate settlers, most of whom are near the border anyway, are most likely perfectly happy to become part of Israel, but it's another story for the religious settlers, many of whom detest the Israeli state for its liberal, democratic and secular nature (the irony that their way of life is entirely dependent upon it doesn't seem to have got through to them), and some even call themselves 'Judean' rather than Israeli.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Probably, but what about the settlements deep inside the West Bank? Having them as Israeli exclaves doesn't seem realistic, and nor is realistic for the Palestinians to accept the further splitting into chunks of their country. Their removal seems the only option.

The moderate settlers, most of whom are near the border anyway, are most likely perfectly happy to become part of Israel, but it's another story for the religious settlers, many of whom detest the Israeli state for its liberal, democratic and secular nature (the irony that their way of life is entirely dependent upon it doesn't seem to have got through to them), and some even call themselves 'Judean' rather than Israeli.

The ones deep inside the West Bank will be evacuated, yeah. That's the only realistic option. The destruction of the outposts that is taking place now may be seen as a prelude to this, I don't know. But the vast majority of the settler population live close to the border. I know about the hardline settlers' political-identity issue, but as I said identity will trump politics and if they're given the choice between staying in Israel and contributing to the religious political parties or becoming part of a Palestinian state then they'll most likely choose the former.