The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Original post by R£SP£CT

-Palestinians deposed off and restricted to two strips of lands which Israel continue to lay siege to
-Current Israeli Settlement expansion within the West Bank.
etc

That's not the issue here. A stable government will come in time. Israel have had opportunity after opportunity to come to agreements with 'Palestine'. Frankly over non-issues have Israel rejected countless propositions. How can Palestinians seek peace when Israel continually inflict a collective punishment on a people? Ask yourself this, What right have the Jewish people to Israel? Is it an insatiable religious desire to return to the so called Holy land? Why did Arthur Balfour declare the intention to create a Jewish homeland amidst of a land consisting of more than 90% non-jewish people? How about a refuge for Jewish people from European barbarism in the early twentieth century? A Palestinian state will ultimately serve as a more robust barrier against Israeli colonialist expansion. Just to balance the status quo and level the playing field.

Clearly this is a blunderbuss of barely related issues and I am not going to engage with most of them. I am not arguing from the basis of one side's revanchist claims being more justified than the other's. I am saying that Israel is here now and that it is broadly a well-governed country that treats its citizens well. By those measures it is above the world average and far above the average of the region it is in. For that reason it should be preserved. That doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be a Palestinian state but it does mean that a Palestinian state should only be supported if it is really part of a good faith attempt to end the conflict.

The fundamental problem is that Israel and the Arabs will not agree on borders that both sides will respect and enforce - that means, for instance, borders that the Palestinian Authority (or the two scions into which it has split) will itself actively punish Palestinians for breaching.

My reading of the situation - which may be wrong, but if you think so please justify it - is that the Arabs have no interest in making peace on status quo borders. Their goal is to recapture Jerusalem and eventually eliminate Israel and all non-Arab, non-Muslim settlement in the Middle East. The creation of a Palestinian state is just a tactical move toward this goal and will not result in any concessions from the Palestinians. Whether or not the area "should" have been made all-Arab, all-Muslim at some point in the past (when? 1910? 500AD? 500BC?), completing this programme would involve mass murder and political regression.

Reply 6323

Original post by viddy9

Where do you get your probabilities from? I doubt that the State of Palestine will wage a war against Israel - its current leadership acknowledges Israel's right to exist (despite Israel not doing the same for Palestine) and simply won't have the backing of regional nations. It's not in their interests to wage a war against Israel, and any solution will incorporate Israeli security into it, as the Palestinians have agreed on multiple occasions. There would be opposition to the implemented two-state solution on both sides, but overall, if the solution is finally agreed upon by a non-rejectionist Israeli leadership which doesn't cave into the demands of the Messianic maniacs who want to ethnically cleanse the area of all Arabs, and the secular leaderhip of the State of Palestine which currently exists, which doesn't cave into the demands of jihadists, then a peaceful solution will hold. The expected utility from this is, in my view, greater than that of the current Apartheid system in the Occupied Territories or the other solution which is to adopt a one-state solution with a binational state, which would be unstable and threaten the existence of such a state as a homeland for the Jewish people.

As far as I'm aware HAMAS doesn't even recognise the sovereignty of Israel let alone its current borders. You are describing a situation that would be acceptable to me but which I think doesn't exist.

Reply 6324

Original post by Observatory

As far as I'm aware HAMAS doesn't even recognise the sovereignty of Israel let alone its current borders. You are describing a situation that would be acceptable to me but which I think doesn't exist.

Hamas don't lead the Palestinian government, though; the secularists do. And, of course Hamas doesn't recognise Israel's current borders when it's occupying Palestinian land. Hamas have been sending mixed messages on Israel's "right to exist". There have been scattered reports of their accepting Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution, although at other times statements from other officials suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, they do not lead the Palestinian government.

The situation has existed for a long time: the State of Palestine and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation accept Israel's right to exist, and have done so for more than two decades. The Palestinians have made a number of concessions in negotiations which the Israelis rejected, in line with the US-Israeli policy of rejecting the overwhelming international consensus on the two-state solution since the 1970s.

Any two-state solution which will be agreed upon will incorporate Israel's security into it, and, indeed, negotiations have always done so between the PLO and the Israeli government. This, along with the fact that the Israelis have an extremely powerful military, are backed by the US, and the fact that ending the occupation and annexation of Palestinian land will improve relations between Israel and Palestine, means that the probability of a war breaking out is small.

The real question we have to ask is: when will the Israeli government recognise Palestine's right to exist, because once this is accepted, the prospects for peace will be greatly enhanced. Unfortunately, successive Israeli governments, and especially the ruling Likud Party, have engaged in farcical negotiations whilst having no intention to ever accept a Palestinian state.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6325

Original post by viddy9

Hamas don't lead the Palestinian government, though; the secularists do. And, of course Hamas doesn't recognise Israel's current borders when it's occupying Palestinian land. Hamas have been sending mixed messages on Israel's "right to exist". There have been scattered reports of their accepting Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution, although at other times statements from other officials suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, they do not lead the Palestinian government.

The situation has existed for a long time: the State of Palestine and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation accept Israel's right to exist, and have done so for more than two decades. The Palestinians have made a number of concessions in negotiations which the Israelis rejected, in line with the US-Israeli policy of rejecting the overwhelming international consensus on the two-state solution since the 1970s.

Any two-state solution which will be agreed upon will incorporate Israel's security into it, and, indeed, negotiations have always done so between the PLO and the Israeli government. This, along with the fact that the Israelis have an extremely powerful military, are backed by the US, and the fact that ending the occupation and annexation of Palestinian land will improve relations between Israel and Palestine, means that the probability of a war breaking out is small.

The real question we have to ask is: when will the Israeli government recognise Palestine's right to exist, because once this is accepted, the prospects for peace will be greatly enhanced. Unfortunately, successive Israeli governments, and especially the ruling Likud Party, have engaged in farcical negotiations whilst having no intention to ever accept a Palestinian state.

HAMAS controls the Gaza Strip which is now in effect in secession from the rest of the Palestinian territories. The Gaza Strip is also the location of almost all the military power of the Palestinian territories. So the people whose military and police forces would have to back any agreement refuse to recognise, not Israel's current borders, but any Israeli borders. This makes the whole discussion of an equitable and peaceful settlement moot.

I suggest therefore that this isn't about creating an equitable and peaceful settlement. It's about legitimising HAMAS by anointing it as a state actor rather than a terrorist militia.

Reply 6326

thunder_chunky

19

Original post by R£SP£CT

You probably will :lol:

.

Israel have no right to that land. After the dismantlement of the Ottoman empire the British through conferences, treaties and pacts gained control of Palestine. Their objective under Article 22 of the convenant of the league of nations should have been to administer Palestine until the locals were able to stand for themselves. Yet they perpetuated the existence of Israel. The British were never really explicit in what they wanted to do, except in a few occasions, notably the Balfour declaration.

Why don't they have a right to that land? The Jews have inhabited that land for as long as the Arabs. I couldn't comment on the legality and the small print, but I personally recognise Israel.

Reply 6327

Jammy Duel

21

Not sure if it's been commented on yet, but Israel is so desperate to stop Palestinian ICC membership that they're refusing to give the PA their ~ $100m monthly tax revenues that constitute about two thirds of the revenue budget. I assume the US has no issue with this, being Israel's lapdog on the international stage.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6328

R£SP£CT

15

Original post by yo radical one

What locals?

The Palestinian people is less than 70 years old, there were no "Palestinians" when Britain captured the land.

But hey, I'm still waiting for the Arabs to move out of Syria and Lebanon and return the land to it's rightful Christian owners. I don't actually want these things to happen, but it's what goes through my mind every time I hear someone say that Israel has no right to exist.

What History book have you been reading? From the early 1900s there was a populace consisted of roughly several hundred thousands of Palestinians, of which roughly 80% were non Jewish. When Britain captured Palestine this too was the case demographically.

Reply 6329

Original post by Observatory

HAMAS controls the Gaza Strip which is now in effect in secession from the rest of the Palestinian territories. The Gaza Strip is also the location of almost all the military power of the Palestinian territories. So the people whose military and police forces would have to back any agreement refuse to recognise, not Israel's current borders, but any Israeli borders. This makes the whole discussion of an equitable and peaceful settlement moot.

I suggest therefore that this isn't about creating an equitable and peaceful settlement. It's about legitimising HAMAS by anointing it as a state actor rather than a terrorist militia.

Hamas are part of the Palestinian Unity government and, if an agreement were reached, would have to accept the two-state solution as they have indicated they might do. The longer this goes on, the more extreme the situation will get.

Of course, we're still approaching this from the view that Israel wants peace; it doesn't. It's a neocolonialist power which wants to effectively annex more Palestinian land, take what is of value and subject the Palestinian people to Apartheid and brutal occupation, keeping them in the world's largest open-air prison or, in the West Bank, some unviable cantons.

There appear to be three options: the status quo, which Israel wants; the full annexation of Palestinian land into Israel, which leaves Israel with the so-called "demographic problem"; or a Palestinian state which would allow Israel to "cleanse" its population (like it did in 1948 with the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians) and transfer the Arabs to the Palestinian state, but would mean that they give up land and resources.

There is a fourth option, however: despite the lack of media coverage, many Palestinians have been employing non-violent resistance to Israeli state terror and crimes against humanity. In addition, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is growing and, if we combine this with nonviolent resistance from within Palestine, it may force the Israelis out of their illegal settlements. It would not end the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but it would mean that the Palestinians at least have their land back. Now, if we get a nonviolent movement this big, it could force groups like Hamas to resort to nonviolent methods and, eventually, a Palestinian state could be formed. Israel's worst nightmare, is, incidentally, the march of tens of thousands of Palestinians to the checkpoints and the illegal borders. The first intifada was broadly non-violent until the Israelis responded with brutal force - most likely to elicit a violent response from the Palestinians so that Israel can shout "terrorism!".

This option appears to be the most promising, seeing as the status quo is unacceptable, the second option would most likely lead to second-class citizenry for non-Jews and the third is simply not going to happen because Israel doesn't support a two-state solution, meaning that if Hamas did accept Israel's right to exist, nothing would change. The Israelis have been changing their tune for decades - Hamas weren't even in power for a long time, yet nothing was done. Then, when militant groups started to rise, Israel said "ah, no, you can't have your State seeing as you're divided". Then, when the Palestinians formed a Unity Government, Israel said "ah, no, you can't have your state seeing as you work together". Hence, more pressure needs to be applied to Israel, as it is the only way to stop them.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6330

anarchism101

17

Original post by Sic semper erat

Unfortunately we don't live in June 1967. Types of weaponry, cities, demographics and diplomacy have all changed.

The same is true of just about everywhere. Yet for the most part, there's no mass border-altering. Even the Eastern European nationalist groups trying to alter borders there are generally unrecognised

Palestinians don't have security concerns, we haven't exactly had Jewish terror groups firing rockets at Ramallah or Jewish suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Palestinian restaurants.

They have had the small matter a foreign army occupying them for nearly 50 years, however.

Reply 6331

anarchism101

17

Original post by Sic semper erat

Israel should make a claim over the West Bank then, they are being foolish

Go ahead. If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and make all 2.5-3 million Palestinians who live there full citizens of Israel, then I'd be fine with that. Of course, they don't, because that would threaten Israel's claim to be a "Jewish state".

Reply 6332

Sic semper erat

4

Original post by anarchism101

The same is true of just about everywhere. Yet for the most part, there's no mass border-altering. Even the Eastern European nationalist groups trying to alter borders there are generally unrecognised

They have had the small matter a foreign army occupying them for nearly 50 years, however.

Ukraine is a sovereign country with recognized borders. The West Bank was never part of a country, so I wouldn't make too much comparison. In fact Google maps doesn't even recognize the 1949 lines (or pre-1967 lines) as borders, but as a ceasefire line.

Okay. But the IDF ended up in the West Bank after Jordan started shelling Jerusalem on the second day of the 6 Day War and until 1988 the dispute was with Jordan. The Palestinians were nobodys back in the day.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6333

Original post by Jammy Duel

Not sure if it's been commented on yet, but Israel is so desperate to stop Palestinian ICC membership that they're refusing to give the PA their ~ $100m monthly tax revenues that constitute about two thirds of the revenue budget. I assume the US has no issue with this, being Israel's lapdog on the international stage.

Indeed. The United States condemned the move as "counterproductive" or something, as usual, but I don't see how justice being served for Israeli war crimes (and Hamas's, for that matter) is "counterproductive". Hamas actually gave their blessing to this move, while Israel are running scared.

Reply 6334

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by viddy9

Indeed. The United States condemned the move as "counterproductive" or something, as usual, but I don't see how justice being served for Israeli war crimes (and Hamas's, for that matter) is "counterproductive". Hamas actually gave their blessing to this move, while Israel are running scared.

Well, it's interesting to none that, unsurprisingly,neither the US nor Israel are members themselves, but they do a good job of crap vigilante justice no being criminals themselves

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6335

Sic semper erat

4

The ICC handles cases of genocide like in African countries where the government in question does not investigate the crimes committed. It is not a puppet of the Palestinian propaganda machine. Nonetheless Abbas should continue with this move. Ironically both him and his PLO will probably end up being prosecuted. As the Palestinian UN rep recently said - "every missile fired from Gaza at Israel is 'a crime against humanity'."

Reply 6336

Original post by viddy9

Hamas are part of the Palestinian Unity government and, if an agreement were reached, would have to accept the two-state solution as they have indicated they might do.
HAMAS have effective sovereignty, i.e. military control over a defined territory. It is more accurate to say that the Palestinian government can only offer recognition of Israel if HAMAS agrees to do so, not that the Palestinian government can force HAMAS to accept a deal that it agrees independently with Israel.

The basic problem here is that the creation of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution are, although you've used the terms interchangeably, only tangentially related. The Palestinians are not proposing to have their state recognised by Israel in exchange for a deal that will ensure the permanent sovereignty of Israel and the personal safety of its citizens; they are proposing to have their state recognised by Europe and the US and this then presented as a fait accompli to Israel.

The purpose of a recognised Palestinian state is, in the eyes of HAMAS and probably many of the others, not to advance a two-state solution, but a one-state solution: an Arab Islamic state that covers the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine.

Reply 6337

Original post by viddy9

The Palestinians have entered negotiations and made a number of significant concessions, directly with Israel, to ensure that a two-state solution is implemented that recognises the security needs of Israel. As US negotiator Robert Malley stated regarding Camp David, the Palestinians accepted Israel's security needs and the two-state solution. Similarly, in 2008-2009, the same happened. Whether or not that's the desire of certain groups like Hamas is irrelevant to whether that one-state will be implemented and, as I've stated earlier, there are good reasons to think that it won't.
Once again you are not engaging with the point (and the similarity of the words and phrasing you use looks almost like a press release or something, not spontaneous response): clearly HAMAS is not "recognising" (whatever that means) the security needs of Israel if they do not even recognise Israel's status as a state, and their opinions are controlling because they possess the only effective military force in Palestine. Israel can make whatever agreements it wants with a paper government but only HAMAS can actually stop the attacks.

Reply 6338

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Sic semper erat

The ICC handles cases of genocide like in African countries where the government in question does not investigate the crimes committed. It is not a puppet of the Palestinian propaganda machine. Nonetheless Abbas should continue with this move. Ironically both him and his PLO will probably end up being prosecuted. As the Palestinian UN rep recently said - "every missile fired from Gaza at Israel is 'a crime against humanity'."

The thing is, several of the things aren't investigated by Israel because they think there is nothing wrong, the likes of their West Bank settlements, then you do have to question whether they really do investigate what they say they do. Then you get some of the potentially questionable military actions seen as legitimate strategy and there are very much things that could be raised against Israel. No doubt there will then be cases against Palestinian factions, but assuming things go as the Palestinians hope, despite the inevitable cases against them, they will all in all ultimately ''win"

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6339