This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Scroll to see replies

The intractable problem of self-perpetuating Palestinian victimhood

If peace is ever to come to the Levant, and the Palestinians are to sort out their problems, they really must deal with the intractable minority (a substantial minority, but nevertheless a minority) within their midst who are psychologically addicted to victimhood, to playing the martyr. They gain a great deal of psychological gratification from perpetuating this situation.

It reminds me very much of a mate of mine whose girlfriend, an absolute nutcase, used to start screeching and throwing things at him, hitting him, and getting in his face saying "Hit me, you pussy". A few times he pushed her away and she fell over, injuring herself, and then she'd say "Now don't you feel like a big man" and would complain to his friends that he was abusive. Naturally he got rid of her pretty quickly, but that damaged mindset is very much reminiscent of a certain section of the Palestinian community.

The fact that I could simply replace every instance in this passage of the word 'Palestinian' with 'Israeli' and it would easily pass as a Palestinian denunciation of Israel makes it relatively clear that there's nothing which can be substantively addressed here.

The substance of this can be seen in the Palestinian failure to grasp peace and freedom when it was within their grasp. In 1948, the UN committee suggested that the Jewish-majority areas be permitted to form their own government.

The UN Partition Plan (which was actually suggested in 1947) gave the proposed Jewish state a good deal more than just the Jewish majority areas, shown here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Jewish_zones_12147.PNG

The proposed partition put more than half the land and population of Palestine under the control of the proposed Jewish state, despite the fact that the Jews were just a third of the population. Not to mention the fact that while the overwhelming majority of the Arab population had been born in Palestine and had family there for generations, the majority of the Jews had just arrived.

Furthermore, the Jewish Agency's 'acceptance' (subsequent actions make it seem doubtful that their nominal acceptance was ever sincere) of the plan was not based simply on the basis of self-determination for Jewish areas; on the contrary, they still didn't think the plan gave them enough of Palestine.

Of course, they refused

It's quite a bit more complicated than that; many Palestinians accepted partition. So did some Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah of Jordan. Many of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states rejected partition, as did the British-appointed Muslim authorities in Palestine. So did Irgun and Lehi on the Jewish side, in addition to the aforementioned questionable 'acceptance' by the Jewish Agency.

and with their Arab sugar daddy's

Funny sugar daddies that supplied them with almost nothing. In contrast to the over $100 million sent to the Zionists from American supporters (the bulk of which was spent on military equipment), the Palestinian Arabs were promised just £1 million by the Arab League - and even that promise was never fulfilled. As for the Arab states' entry into the war in May 1948, they had no intention of assisting the Palestinians - they just wanted to carve up Palestine for themselves.

In 1967, Syria and Egypt were determined to have war with Israel. They expelled the UN peacekeepers from Sinai

Nasser initially requested that UNEF only vacate part of the Egypt-Israel border, in response to false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was preparing an attack on Egypt. UNEF responded by withdrawing completely; they offered to redeploy on the Israeli side of the border, but the Israeli government rejected the offer.

, and then blockaded the Strait of Tiran, which Israel had specifically said it would consider an act of war.

Israel doesn't get to decide what constitutes an act of war. Nasser offered to refer the issue of the legality of the closure to the ICJ, but the Israeli government rejected the offer.

Syria and Egypt engaged Jordan as a secret ally (despite Israel begging Jordan to stay out of it). Israel concluded it wouldn't just sit around waiting for them to attack, struck first and absolutely cleaned their clocks.

Even the Israelis have admitted that Egypt was not intending to attack:

"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" - Menachem Begin

"Nasser did not want war." - Abba Eban, then Israeli foreign minister

"The whole story about threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories." - Mordechai Bentov, then Israeli cabinet minister

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." - Yitzhak Rabin, then Chief of Staff

"I am convinved that our General Staff never told the government that there was any substance to the Egyptian military threat to Israel... All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded toward the full mobilization of our forced, no-one in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary for our 'defence' against the Egyptian threat...To pretend that the Egyptian force concentrated on our border were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Zahal [the Israeli Army]." - Mattityahu Peled, then Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces

Despite all this, in 1968 in pursuance of UN resolution 242, Israel offered peace terms where it would withdraw from Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza and West Bank, in exchange for peace and recognition. The Arab world unanimously refused and vowed to destroy Israel. This must be the first war in history where the total victor pleaded for peace and for terms to return the conquered land, and the defeated refused.

Again, later events can tell us a lot about the sincerity of this; practically from the moment he became President of Egypt in 1970, Sadat attempted to secure peace with Israel, yet they wouldn't even listen to him (with Moshe Dayan famously saying, "Israel has no foreign policy, only a defense policy") . Ironically, when the US finally dragged Israel to the negotiating table in the late 1970s, the result was a peace more favourable to Egypt than Sadat had initially offered in 1971.

In the 1990s, Prime Minister Rabin managed to engage a very productive peace process with Arafat. The PLO recognised Israel's right to exist and rejected the use of terrorism. In exchange, Israel accepted the existence of legitimate Palestinian aspirations for statehood.

Note how asymmetrical this supposed compromise was; the Palestinians renounced the use of violence to achieve their goals, and recognised the other side's full right to a state of their own. The Israelis did neither.

Ariel Sharon, a hard-right Likud man who I acknowledge was a butcher and war criminal re Sabra and Shatila, had an epiphany and realised that Israel could not continue on as it was. They had to come to a final settlement. In a highly commendable and brave political move, he left the Likud Party and started his own centrist Kadima Party, taking many Likud MKs with him, and making common cause with the Israeli Labour Party and the Israeli centre-left. As the first phase of this, he ordered the complete withdrawal from Gaza, including removing all Jewish settlers and all Israeli soldiers.

He did this at great political cost, and in fact when Israeli withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there was no blockade that the pro-Hamas terrorist sympathisers like to pretend has existed forever, and their pathetic, bitter, unlettered ignorance of history.

Nope, the blockade was only introduced when Palestinians elected the 'wrong' people.

Sharon unfortunately had a stroke, but his successor Olmert was determined to continue on with the plan to repeat this in the West Bank (on different terms).

Olmert went to Abu Mazen in 2008 and offered him an astonishing deal, the likes of which the Palestinians had never seen before and might never see again. Condi Rice quote "couldn't believe her eyes" at how advantageous it was to the Palestinians. It involved Israeli withdrawal from 94% of the West Bank, all settlers would be moved into the largest settlement blocks in the remaining 6%, while Palestine would be compensated with an equivalent amount of land from within the 1967 borders. Palestine would have sovereignty over the Jerusalem holy sites, there would be no Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley and Palestine would be made contiguous through an underground highway linking Gaza and the West Bank.

Extraordinarily, Abu Mazen didn't even deign to respond to Olmert's offer. He thought he would get a better deal under the next US president.

Abbas broke off the talks because Olmert announced his resignation - in large part because his proposed peace was pulling his government apart.

I do feel sorry for Olmert as I do think he was genuinely willing to make peace; the trouble was he most likely didn't have the confidence of his government or the Knesset to do so.

I'll ignore the strawman rant at the end for more or less the same reasons specified at the start of this post about the opening passage.

Reply 5781

tsr1269

Cuba sends 6 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Reply 5782

The Right

Original post by tsr1269

Cuba sends 6 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

I.e cuba sends weapons to hamas. There is a reason these guys were the enemy during the cold war

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5783

tsr1269

Original post by The Right

I.e cuba sends weapons to hamas. There is a reason these guys were the enemy during the cold war

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think the aid was given to the PA and the Egyptian Red Crescent, not HAMAS.

Reply 5784

Cameron DeGale

Hi thanks for the missing link. These conflicts seem so pointless. Is n,t life more valuable than anything else.
I can only understand this from a biblical perspective. I'm reading on the bullet proof marriage, is there such a thing here where every day is a trade in bullets

Reply 5785

The Right

Original post by tsr1269

I think the aid was given to the PA and the Egyptian Red Crescent, not HAMAS.

I would happily donate crates of water and food to Gaza but never would I donate money. This is because I do not want to fuel this war.

Reply 5786

tsr1269

Original post by The Right

I would happily donate crates of water and food to Gaza but never would I donate money. This is because I do not want to fuel this war.

Why not just let the Palestinians become self sufficient? :confused:

Reply 5787

The Right

Original post by tsr1269

Why not just let the Palestinians become self sufficient? :confused:

That would require economic stability. They could potentially build an economic basis if only Hamas were ousted. The problem is Hamas do not care for the economic stability of the region but rather their political and personal motives(for example they have not even incorporated economists into their government). We must remember Palestine makes up a very small region so natural recourses are out the question and agriculture is not reliable so they would need foreign direct investment. The problem is who would invest into a war torn region(unless for military purposes)?

Reply 5788

tsr1269

Original post by The Right

Why does HAMAS need to be ousted? Surely the first step is lifting the economic blockade imposed by the Israel no?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5789

The Right

Original post by tsr1269

Why does HAMAS need to be ousted? Surely the first step is lifting the economic blockade imposed by the SS/SC, no?

No that will never work, NEVER! HAMAS will direct all the trade towards their political motives. The blockade is there to restrict the influx of military arms from the likes of Iran, Syria and Qatar. The building materials coming in were used for illegal tunnel and underground networks rather than much needed infrastructure. It is pointless. HAMAS have no care for the economic stability and will never contribute to it. If HAMAS is ousted a government which focuses on the social, economic and environmental needs of it's people will turn the nation around.

HAMAS defaulted on it's promise for a 2010 presidential election as well as the 2011 and 2012 local elections. In a few years of presidential term HAMAS have already eliminated democracy in the region.

(edited 9 years ago)

Free Palestine !

Original post by The Right

Who is talking about trade "coming in"? Why don't we start off with exports and then talk about imports?

Surely even you can't find any objections to exports from Gaza, can you?

HAMAS defaulted on it's promise for a 2010 presidential election as well as the 2011 and 2012 local elections. In a few years of presidential term HAMAS have already eliminated democracy in the region.

Why are you complaining about democracy when the PA, upon the instruction or with the tacit approval of the US and the SS/SC, tried to oust HAMAS from power after they won in the landslide elections?

Furthermore, when HAMAS and the PA struck a unity agreement in April of this year with a view to holding elections in 6 months, it was written off as a gimmick but when steps were taken by HAMAS personnel to actually form the government in preparation for the elections, the Israel suddenly realised that the Palestinians were dead serious and so they started a war, hoping that it would derail the Palestinian plans by putting the PA and HAMAS at odds with each other.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5792

The Right

Original post by tsr1269

Who is talking about trade "coming in"? Why don't we start off with exports and then talk about imports?

Surely even you can't find any objections to exports from Gaza, can you?

Why are you complaining about democracy when the PA, upon the instruction or with the tacit approval of the US and the SS/SC, tried to oust HAMAS from power after they won in the landslide elections?

Furthermore, when HAMAS and the PA struck a unity agreement in April of this year with a view to holding elections in 6 months, it was written off as a gimmick but when steps were taken by HAMAS personnel to actually form the government in preparation for the elections, the SS/SC suddenly realised that the Palestinians were dead serious and so they started a war, hoping that it would derail the Palestinian plans by putting the PA and HAMAS at odds with each other.

Exports are not really an issue but the problem is for Gaza to even establish trade links they first need investment into the region and consequently the movement of recourses for infrastructure. Israel have practically levelled the strip and so we need investors to be willing to rebuild it. HAMAS has restricted all economic growth so their current economic potential will not suffice for redevelopment. They are relying on aid however this is more human aid rather than economic aid. We need a government that will regulate the movement of goods in and out of Gaza with no political motive(that being the annihilation of Israel). We need a government whose sole focus is on development(not the eradication of an entire nation).

Your second point is debatable. Your views would match up with Al Jazeera for example yet contrast with that of popular western organisations(governmental, media and NGO). It is who you believe at the end of the day so I could argue(and we consequently end up with the Zionist or ISIS argument we had before) or we just agree to disagree. I am happy to follow on with the issue but honestly I am tired of the arguments people have on this thread. Let's just stick to things we can all agree on.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5793

tsr1269

Original post by The Right

How have HAMAS "restricted all economic growth"?

Your second point is debatable. Your views would match up with Al Jazeera for example yet contrast with that of popular western organisations(governmental, media and NGO). It is who you believe at the end of the day so I could argue(and we consequently end up with the Zionist or ISIS argument we had before) or we just agree to disagree. I am happy to follow on with the issue but honestly I am tired of the arguments people have on this thread. Let's just stick to things we can all agree on.

Do they? I didn't know that.

Reply 5794

The Right

Original post by tsr1269

How have HAMAS "restricted all economic growth"?

Do they? I didn't know that.

Well they have released next to no economic policies. They have no manifesto for their economic plans(which evidently do not exist). There are no economic ministers within HAMAS. This shows similar characteristics to the Muslim brotherhood who were ousted on the fact they lacked economic potential and were solely interested in their political motives being the establishment of religious values in the nation of Egypt. They were a very religious based party and that was their prime motive. HAMAS have been known to use aid funding on their military projects against Israel. Their argument is the money is required for their defensive measures however we all know they will achieve nothing militarily. Israel over power them. The funds would be best directed to economic development. They have starved Palestine of much needed economic infrastructure. Education facilities have downgraded under HAMAS.

Well few believe HAMAS promised the Palestinian authorities an election at any level. Even if they did based on their history of promising elections it has transferred to an actual election 0% of the time. Why would HAMAS of delivered differently this time? How have they changed to become democratic?

To say Israel was threatened by the prospect of this and consequently went on the offensive is stupid I am sorry. There was rocket fire and illegal tunnel networks which were reason enough to launch any offensive. I am interested why Israel would feel threatened by any potential election. Are they scared Hamas would be re-elected? Did they want to make sure the people have less reason to re-elect them?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5795

Chindits

'Palestinian' politician salutes ISIS, says they are based on the Koran. He also says he hoped Syrian soldiers were slaughtered 100,000 times over.

"peaceful" 'palestinains.

Makes you want to give them a state :rolleyes:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5796

cizzlar

Original post by tsr1269

How have HAMAS "restricted all economic growth"?

Do they? I didn't know that.

I don't see how people can try to defend Hamas, they are a terrorist organisation, unfortunately with them in charge the Gaza won't be prosperous anytime soon.

Reply 5797

tsr1269

Original post by cizzlar

I don't see how people can try to defend Hamas, they are a terrorist organisation, unfortunately with them in charge the Gaza won't be prosperous anytime soon.

So HAMAS are stopping Palestinians from exporting goods out of Gaza?

Reply 5798

tsr1269

Original post by The Right

It is a little hard to implement economic policies when you are under siege by the SS/SC. It means you control virtually no aspect of your economic policy.

Take exports and tax receipts. Both are controlled by the SS/SC, are they not?

Well few believe HAMAS promised the Palestinian authorities an election at any level. Even if they did based on their history of promising elections it has transferred to an actual election 0% of the time. Why would HAMAS of delivered differently this time? How have they changed to become democratic?

Well, when there is an attempted coup, 3 periodic wars, a siege in place, and dirty tactics engaged in by your opponents, one can reasonably understand that it is a little difficult to hold elections.

To say Israel was threatened by the prospect of this and consequently went on the offensive is stupid I am sorry. There was rocket fire and illegal tunnel networks which were reason enough to launch any offensive. I am interested why Israel would feel threatened by any potential election. Are they scared Hamas would be re-elected? Did they want to make sure the people have less reason to re-elect them?

There was rocket fire in 2012, 2013 and 2014. There was no war.

The tunnel networks were only added AFTER the SS/SC became aware of their existence. In fact, in the lead up to the operation, instigated by the stepping down of the HAMAS government, there were multiple arrests in the WB of HAMAS officials.

The SS/SC realised that if this unity government was to go ahead, then Fatah will become more like HAMAS (in fact, the rhetoric and differences between both groups is vanishing).

Spoiler

Reply 5799

cizzlar

Original post by tsr1269

So HAMAS are stopping Palestinians from exporting goods out of Gaza?

Yes they are, because they are a terrorist organisation...the EU or USA certainly would not trade with them also throughout history countries/territories deemed a threat have been blockaded or had sanctions that would affect them placed on them. I wouldn't want terrorists next door to me to gain the ability to more arms that would be used indiscriminately to attack their neighbours.