Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.III

Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    I don't care who attacked who. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You cited casualty figures as proof that Israel were wrong. My point is that casualty figures don't tell who is wrong at all, and my A/B example intended to prove this separately from the issue of Israel v Hamas.

    Edit: In future, please remember that I do not care what Normal Finkelstein has to say about this.
    You still haven't defined 'terrorism', are you intentionally ignoring it?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Exactly. And since Hamas' funding and weapons are largely coming from the Saudis and other groups within the Arab world, cutting off their coastline was never going to achieve much except irritate Palestinians.

    'Containing' Hamas is never going to be a solution.

    Legitimate or not, what's the best practical option is the question we need to answer.

    It's offered to make it a vassal state, a protectorate. That's not quite the same thing.
    Containing Hamas is not meant as a solution, only as the best Israel can achieve right now.


    (Original post by Suetonius)
    It would exhaust all diplomatic avenues before resorting to violence and aggression. It would take the lead, and make its own proposals, in an attempt to bring its occupation to an end. It would not act as an obstacle to Palestinian reconciliation. It would take seriously alternative peace plans that don't fall within the framework of the Quartet (e.g. the Arab Peace Plan - which, upon implementation, would ensure mutual peace between Israel and all signatory Arab states - or the Geneva Accord). It would stop building settlements and fences within occupied territory, deemed illegal under international law. It wouldn't violate the territory of Gaza unless it was completely necessary to do so (now that the Iron Dome and other rocket shields exist, there is no excuse). Hell, it would propose an international conference on Middle East peace, with a stated purpose to bring an end to the conflict. These are material concessions that would overshadow any of the verbal PR shows that have defined the Israeli position hitherto.
    So stopping building settlements is a concession but removing existing ones you said was not. That's slightly odd.

    Personally, I think Israel has made peace offers in the past and made concessions. Consider that in the period prior to 1994 the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza was under direct Israeli military control. Since then Israel has granted self-rule to Palestinians over a significant portion. The process was on going when Palestinians launched their intifada which stalled further progress and reversed some of what had been achieved. And then Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza. It has not established a new settlement since the late 90s and has halted expansion of existing ones for periods (though I agree here that they should stop expansion completely. I find it unjustified and stupid).

    During this period of time when Israel has made these concessions (and I do consider them concessions even if you don't) I do not see any concessions from Palestinians. Incitement continues. Terrorism continues. They have not dropped the claim to the so-called "Right" of return that applies to only them and no other group in the history of the world. They have not renounced violence nor apparently have they taken final peace deals seriously. Many, including Hamas, make it clear that their end game is the destruction of Israel.

    If you ask for Israel to make the first move I say that it has done so. If you ask Israel to take the risks of granting sovereignty to the Palestinians with nothing in return I say that this is not a risk Israel ought to take.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So stopping building settlements is a concession but removing existing ones you said was not. That's slightly odd.

    Personally, I think Israel has made peace offers in the past and made concessions. Consider that in the period prior to 1994 the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza was under direct Israeli military control. Since then Israel has granted self-rule to Palestinians over a significant portion. The process was on going when Palestinians launched their intifada which stalled further progress and reversed some of what had been achieved. And then Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza. It has not established a new settlement since the late 90s and has halted expansion of existing ones for periods (though I agree here that they should stop expansion completely. I find it unjustified and stupid).

    During this period of time when Israel has made these concessions (and I do consider them concessions even if you don't) I do not see any concessions from Palestinians. Incitement continues. Terrorism continues. They have not dropped the claim to the so-called "Right" of return that applies to only them and no other group in the history of the world. They have not renounced violence nor apparently have they taken final peace deals seriously. Many, including Hamas, make it clear that their end game is the destruction of Israel.

    If you ask for Israel to make the first move I say that it has done so. If you ask Israel to take the risks of granting sovereignty to the Palestinians with nothing in return I say that this is not a risk Israel ought to take.
    A settlement freeze in the West Bank is obligatory under the Road Map. I didn't say that "stopping building settlements is a concession", so much as totally conforming to past treaties and, most importantly, international law is the only thing that can amount to full concession. Concession would necessitate far more than just a settlement freeze. It would require total and utter commitment to ending the conflict, and neither party is fulfilling its requirements. You seemingly can't view this conflict through any prism other than the U.S.-Israeli dogmatism that provably runs counter to international law. A settlement freeze isn't a concession. It's a condition. It's an essential requirement before serious peace talks can resume. It's a practical tactic that reveals intent. In fact, I find a universal settlement freeze, and subsequent entry to serious negotiations, to be more indicative of a peace effort than a convenient token disengagement from the Gaza Strip. If the disengagement had been extended to the West Bank (or even if it had just been complemented by a settlement freeze in the West Bank) then that would clearly have been a show of intent, but restricting it to Gaza merely demonstrates that Israel wants to focus on colonizing the West Bank while Gaza is strangled from without. You're just spouting rhetoric against Hamas without proposing any serious solution. You know what? It's easy to throw all the blame onto the other guy. It's a cop-out and certainly not original. If you really want to defend Israel then you ask of it only that it be responsible and acts according to the standard required of it under international law. Surrendering "direct Israeli military control" (which, remember, came after a mutual agreement between two parties that had previously mistrusted each other), and the other token actions that you allude to, are not concessions in the true sense of the term. A concession would be total and utter commitment to the principles of UNSC Resolution 242, which calls, because of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security", for:

    "(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."


    In other words, the only full concession would be an end to the occupation. The "withdrawal" from Gaza did not conform to principle (ii), and scarcely conformed to principle (i), considering that Gaza's air and water routes are still controlled by the Israeli military. And, sure, let's call for the Palestinians to act according to the same principle. But don't use their violation of the resolution as an excuse to permit Israel to do the same.

    Israel certainly hasn't "made peace offers", and, you will see, that just because the Palestinians (or at least an element or two among the Palestinians) haven't ceased terrorism it does not absolve Israel from the requirement of entering into negotiations or pursuing all means necessary to end the conflict. You seem to forget that Israel is the occupying force. It has all the cards in its hands, and all the power needed to either act for better or for worse.

    As for preconditions. The PA doesn't refrain from negotiations because Israel hasn't adhered to the first principle of Resolution 242, and in turn Israel should not refrain from negotiating with Hamas because they haven't adhered to the second principle. After negotiation, Hamas will be required to terminate "all...states of belligerency...and acknowledg[e]...the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Israel. However, nowhere in international law is that deemed a precondition for negotiations.

    On the right of return. (Which is rejected in the Geneva Accords; a proposal Israel have just dismissed, probably because it's not orchestrated by its benefactors in the Quartet). Again, the Palestinians should not be required to renounce this as a precondition for negotiation. Do you think Israel should be required to withdraw all of its settlements from the West Bank as a precondition for negotiation? Obviously not. If the Palestinians believe in a right of return, which is a major issue (and I disagree with your claim that it "applies to only them and no other group in the history of the world"; every displaced group has a right of return, even if that right isn't realized), then you acknowledge the grievance and try to resolve it on a mutual basis. You don't just reject it and say that they have no right. You apologize for the injustice like a grown up, and come to a mutual compromise. It's like when Israel says that it wants the Palestinians to recognize it as a Jewish state (for which there's far less support in international law than there is for the right of return). The Palestinians shouldn't reject it out of hand, but should acknowledge that Israel can define itself however it wants to as long as it doesn't violate basic Palestinian rights. Your position is nothing but a sure recipe for further antagonism, and that's the last thing the region needs. I ask you: do you support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination within a viable and contiguous state?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suetonius)
    A settlement freeze in the West Bank is obligatory under the Road Map. I didn't say that "stopping building settlements is a concession", so much as totally conforming to past treaties and, most importantly, international law is the only thing that can amount to full concession. That would necessitate far more than just a settlement freeze. It would require total and utter commitment to ending the conflict, and neither party is fulfilling its requirements. You seemingly can't view this conflict through any prism other than the U.S.-Israeli dogmatism that provably runs counter to international law. A settlement freeze isn't a concession. It's simply an essential requirement before serious peace talks can resume. You're just spouting rhetoric against Hamas without proposing any serious solution. You know what? It's easy to throw all the blame onto the other guy. It's a cop-out and certainly not original. If you really want to defend Israel then you ask of it only that it be responsible and acts according to the standard required of it under international law. Surrendering "direct Israeli military control" (which, remember, came after a mutual agreement between two parties that had previously mistrusted each other), and the other token actions that you allude to, are not concessions in the true sense of the term. A concession would be total and utter commitment to the principles of UNSC Resolution 242, which calls, because of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security", for:

    (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.


    In other words, the only full concession would be an end to the occupation. The "withdrawal" from Gaza did not conform to principle (ii), and scarcely conformed to principle (i), considering that Gaza's air and water routes are still controlled by the Israeli military. And, sure, let's call for the Palestinians to act according to the same principle. But don't use their violation of the resolution as an excuse to permit Israel to do the same.

    Israel certainly hasn't "made peace offers", and, you will see, that because the Palestinians (or at least an element or two among the Palestinians) hasn't ceased terrorism it does not absolve Israel from the requirement of entering into negotiations or pursuing every means to end the conflict. You seem to forget that Israel is the occupying force. It has all the cards in its hands, and all the power needed to either act for better or for worse.

    As for preconditions. The PA doesn't refrain from negotiations because the first principle of Resolution 242 hasn't been adhered to by Israel, and neither should Israel refrain from negotiating with Hamas because they haven't adhered to the second principle. After negotiation, Hamas will be required to terminate "all...states of belligerency...and acknowledg[e]...the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" of Israel. However, nowhere in international law is that deemed a precondition for negotiations.

    On the right of return. (Which is rejected in the Geneva Accords; a proposal Israel have just dismissed, probably because it's not orchestrated by its benefactors in the Quartet). Again, the Palestinians should not be required to renounce this as a precondition for negotiation. Do you think Israel should be required to withdraw all of its settlements from the West Bank as a precondition for negotiation? Obviously not. If the Palestinians believe in a right of return, which is a major issue (and I disagree with your claim that it "applies to only them and no other group in the history of the world"; every displaced group has a right of return, even if that right isn't realized), then you acknowledge the grievance and try to resolve it on a mutual basis. You don't just reject it and say that they have no right. You apologize for the injustice like a grown up, and come to a mutual compromise. It's like when Israel says that it wants it to be a precondition that the Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state (for which there's far less support in international law than there is for the right of return). The Palestinians shouldn't reject it out of hand, but should acknowledge that Israel can define itself however it wants as long as it doesn't violate basic Palestinian rights. Your position is nothing but a sure recipe for further antagonism, and that's the last thing the region needs. I ask you: do you support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination within a viable and contiguous state?
    I hope you'll be OK with me only responding to the bits in bold.

    I was talking about Hamas because that was the topic of conversation (Why doesn't Israel talk to Hamas). The topic of conversation was not how to solve the conflict and so I wasn't talking about that.

    If there is an agreement and one side fails to keep to it then what obligation has the other side got to do so? If the two elements of the agreement (or resolution) are independent then you may have a case. But demanding or expecting one side to keep to a deal and risk its safety while the other doesn't keep to its end of the bargain which would alleviate that risk, is wrong in my opinion. Its like you see two people attacking each other with knives. You demand or get them to agree to both lower their weapons together. Is it right to expect one to lower his regardless of whether the other does so too?

    This ties into the second point. Israel certainly has the power to end the occupation overnight. But it is far from holding all the cards. Ending the occupation is a risk to Israel because it creates a sovereign Palestinian state right next door which is not under Israel's control. We have seen what rockets from Gaza and Lebanon can do. What might rockets do if Israel cannot prevent their being smuggled into the new Palestine? Or what if the new Palestine serves as a convenient launchpad for a conventional attack? It is wrong to suppose that just because Israel is the occupying force it is able to end the occupation risk free. It is very risky.

    I didn't suggest that Hamas had to officially recognise Israel as a precondition of negotiations and certainly didn't relate it to International Law. I was relying on simple logic. You don't negotiate with someone who should not be trusted unless you can somehow guarantee that he cannot renege on his agreement. Hamas cannot be trusted and part of the reason is that they refuse to repudiate their antisemitic charter which, among other things, calls for the destruction of Israel. Its not a question of withholding recognition like Syria, its far more belligerent than that.

    I fully support Palestinians statehood (contiguous if somehow both Israel and Palestine can be). However, I do not at all support it at the cost of Israel. Palestine must be alongside Israel not on top of it. At this moment in time (as indeed at every moment in the past as well) I do not believe that the Palestinians desire their state to be alongside Israel. They show every sign of wanting their state to be on top of Israel and that I do not support.

    Sometimes it really is the other guy's fault.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    why do you think Israel is allowed get away with genocide, using the same techniques the germans did to their people?
    no trolls, no racism, have an intellectual debate
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    :rolleyes:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    LOOOOOL
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INKlwJYIH64
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMpv0sktR7A
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmeN_PsQXZQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7Sy_EhJKM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqshklMzpq4
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Im sure it does (y) Im laughed how ignorant a person can be to not think there isnt elements of a ethnic cleansing/genocide going on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    israel is like the weedy little kid who always sticks around that big school bully in the playground :lol:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    israel is like the weedy little kid who always sticks around that big school bully in the playground :lol:
    very true if Israel didnt have america it would get crushed
    but why do you think there allowed to get away with genocide?
    do you think its the power if its allies?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I dont hate jews, my gf is a jew and I know much about the culture
    also many non-musims are against israel
    more of the world are against it than for it
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamgoingmad)
    I dont hate jews, my gf is a jew and I know much about the culture
    Then you're a step ahead of a lot of Muslims in this country...

    also many non-musims are against israel
    more of the world are against it than for it
    Do they really know what they're talking about though?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamgoingmad)
    why do you think Israel is allowed get away with genocide, using the same techniques the germans did to their people?
    no trolls, no racism, have an intellectual debate

    You ask for an intellectual discussion, but the underlying premise of your question is ludicrous. Israel is not engaging in genocide. In fact, on most days, not a single Palestinian is being killed. You probably don't even know this, because you are just sprouting out nonsensical anti-Israel rhetoric, but Jews and arabs live together in Haifa in peace and prosperity. The very existence of Haifa belies your underlying premise.

    If Israel was engaging in genocide against the arabs, there would be a mass exodus of arabs out of Israel. But there is no mass exodus. Why? Because the arabs living in Israel know that they are far better off living in the jewish state of Israel, than the arab state of Egypt or Syria.

    Further, given the fact that in Syria, thousands of people are being killed, in a REAL genocide, I think your anti-Israeli post is truly misguided.

    When Clinton was President, peace had almost been reached. But Arafat chose war instead, and Israel built such things as "The Wall" to protect it from vicious terrorist attacks. Now the Palestinians complain about The Wall, but there had been no wall until the Palestinians started blowing up commuter busses and school busses.

    Is there some Israeli oppression against the Palestinians? No doubt. But it can hardly be called a "genocide".
    • 0 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaintSoldier)
    Then you're a step ahead of a lot of Muslims in this country...



    Do they really know what they're talking about though?
    huh what are you talking about muslims dont hate jews we hate zionism
    what have jewish people done to muslims nothing. the muslims you see that hate jews are a product of gang culture in britain.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iamgoingmad)
    I dont hate jews, my gf is a jew and I know much about the culture
    also many non-musims are against israel
    more of the world are against it than for it
    How do you know this?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ganhad)
    the muslims you see that hate jews are a product of gang culture in britain.
    Gang culture?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    israel is like the weedy little kid who always sticks around that big school bully in the playground :lol:


    Only.... No.


    Even without US backing Israel is a major power in the region.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    OP, don't waste your time.
    I'm Lebanese and have seen the Israeli mass killings in Lebanon in front of me.
    I know Palestinians, even those who are Israeli citizens who's Parents (and them as children) remember how their homes were rushed with Zionist gunmen and were told to choose between life & death. Others remember seeing their fathers shot because they would refuse to leave their homes after the British withdrew.
    People will sit and argue like the post above me, you'll never find a solution to this argument.
    People only hear what they want to hear and don't want to face up to the truth that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were indeed massacred after the British withdrawal in 1967. Others life's were spared. The only difference is that the number of Palestinians killed isn't as significant as 6 million. Mainly because there weren't enough at the time to accumulate such a figure. Also the fact that Palestinians are Arab. Nobody cares about us Arabs, we are terrorists apparently.
    People need to acknowledge that the Palestinian genocide/mass exodus occured after British withdrawal. NOT within the past few years, as the post above me was also saying.
    Point is, your wasting your time. I've seen it with my eyes, whilst some other person will casually pretend they know what they're talking about and haven't even been anywhere near the middle east, some people think its typical Muslims being biased towards Jews. Reality is, it's just people telling the truth.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think that's a very one-sided and ignorant view to have. I don't have a strongly polarised opinion on the Israel-Palestine debate, I tend to avoid it like the plague, but there's no point acting like Palestine are perfect and don't commit atrocities either.
Updated: August 3, 2014
New on TSR

GCSE results day

Waiting for your grades? Let off some steam in our results chat megathread

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.