9

And who have I "lionized?"

[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason : -]

1/24/2009 12:57:35 PM

Name your Israeli heroes I guarantee there's at least 3 war criminals and terrorists in the mix
Of course you'll call them "defenders" or some BS like that

Quote :

"I remember when Arafat died the Arab students had a vigil for him on campus. All I remember thinking was "there are video recordings of this guy handing checks to families of suicide bombers...how can you actually hold a service honoring this guy?" Now I'm sitting here wondering why Palestinian civilians are protecting Hamas leaders."

Gaza has been closed for god knows how long. It's not like regular civilians can roll around and easily form a militia without Hamas being aware of it. Besides, there WAS a fight in Gaza over Hamas control if you care to remember.

1/24/2009 1:18:50 PM

tmhatem -- you make a lot of references to the "home" and "identity" of the Palestinian people. Let me take the opportunity to remind you that the Jews lived in diaspora for nearly two thousand years, maintaining their identity during that time. According to you, the Palestinians have managed to lose theirs in the span of half a century. Surely they're not that much worse than their Israeli counterparts at maintaining a sense of self?

Quote :

"The only cause is that Israel was trying to reach to its "biblical heritage” in Hebron, Shiloh and Elon Moreh, as the article I sent says, "

The article suggests that "ideological settlers" are the ones attempting to reach that heritage, not the government of Israel or the majority of its population.

You have also failed to answer my question about why peaceful resistance cannot work in Palestine. You wrote three indignant paragraphs that did not address the issue at all. I understand that the United States provides an enormous amount of support to Israel. How does that make nonviolent resistance impossible?

Quote :

"I agree it is not the smart thing to do, but it is the only option they have! "

No, it isn't. The Palestinians could lay down their arms and begin nonviolent demonstrations and protests. The process wouldn't be easy, painless, or immediate -- certainly it wasn't in India, or in America's own Civil Rights movement -- but there is a lot of historical precedent for it working.

Quote :

"If you take the common definition as placed in Wikipedia, I think most of us will agree on, is "those acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants"."

By this definition and other simple ones put forward on wikipedia, virtually every military action in the history of the world qualifies as terrorism.

Quote :

"By the end, what I want to say is NOT that we cannot achieve peace in peaceful manner but that to achieve it in this way we must acknowledge the right of Palestinian people to exist and to have an identity, past, future and a place to call it home."

This option has existed for some time. Perhaps if everyone could keep from bombing each other for ten fucking minutes it could be developed further.

1/24/2009 1:53:31 PM

Quote :

"Let me take the opportunity to remind you that the Jews lived in diaspora for nearly two thousand years, maintaining their identity during that time."

Is that necessarily a commendable feat?

1/24/2009 2:56:38 PM

I don't have any specific "hero" aside from Theodore Hertzel, who never saw Israel in his lifetime but Tel-Aviv was named after his publication on his dream for the Jewish state. He never hurt or killed anyone, never condoned any act of violence, and was incredibly secular.

That's what I love about people who call Israel a state of religious fanatics...the "father" of Israel wasn't religious in the slightest.

1/24/2009 2:59:40 PM

Quote :

"That's what I love about people who call Israel a state of religious fanatics...the "father" of Israel wasn't religious in the slightest."

*ignores the large amount of orthodox immigrants*

1/24/2009 8:12:37 PM

^And you ignore the fact that over 60% of Israelis today are secular. There's more religious fanatics in our government than there are in theirs, and they are supposed to be the religious state.

Quote :

"Quote : "Let me take the opportunity to remind you that the Jews lived in diaspora for nearly two thousand years, maintaining their identity during that time." Is that necessarily a commendable feat?"

Considering that so many groups who tried to either wipe out or convert the Jews (Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, the Spanish crown) are all gone, I'd say yeah it is.

[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 2:02 AM. Reason : -]

1/25/2009 1:59:56 AM

Quote :

"you make a lot of references to the "home" and "identity" of the Palestinian people."

What I mean is that today, there is no country called Palestine; Palestinians are not granted any rights in Israel; Palestinians are over-ruled by Israeli government in "West Bank and Gaza"; Palestinians cannot control their boarders, their land, or their representatives; and more than 5 millions refugees are NOT granted their rights to return to their "home". These rights are granted to the other 6.7 billions human on this earth!

Today, the infrastructure of Gaza and West Bank are completely destroyed by Israeli attacks in 2002 and 2008; Palestinians farms and homes are destroyed by Israeli army to be converted to empty settlements; wars are declared against almost non-armed population, without any regards to the safety of civilians and international individuals and properties; a segregation wall surround Gaza and West Bank, and many times go through Palestinians territories to isolate population on these areas, and to set new borders for West Bank and Gaza.



While, the international community find Israel guilty on its policies and actions, i.e. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&p1=3&p2=1&case=131&p3=6 , it takes no actions against Israel because the "enormous amount of support" US provides to Israel in U.N. and elsewhere, and the failure of Europe to impose pressure on Israel. Pressure that is necessary to achieve peace, as the article I sent before suggest implicitly.

GrumpyGOP, I would be interested to listen to your suggestion about nonviolent approach to solve the problem, how exactly it can be done? Please note that West Bank and Gaza are completely isolated from Israeli territories so it is almost impossible to send a strong message to Israelis through "nonviolent demonstrations and protests", and that time don't favor Palestinians who already in great suffering.

bdmazur, I would like to comment on your last post:

Quote :

"Considering that so many groups who tried to either wipe out or convert the Jews (Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, the Spanish crown) are all gone ... "

Actually all of these "groups" still exist today, they might convert their religion (similar to many Jews who converted to Christianity or Islam). Their old empires though (Romans, Byzantines, Spanish crown, Persians and many others) are over because of Muslims (few tribes coming from Arabian peninsula by this time), who succeeded to defeat them in less than 80 years. Jewish and the populations of these territories were treated fairly and granted their rights for the first time in so long.

After the Egyptian population massacred for so long to keep their Christian believes, Muslims granted them their full rights, that after Muslims conquest Egypt, a Christian Egyptian whom was hit unfairly by the son of the Egyptian ruler (Amr Ibn El-Aas), went to the Caliph (Umar Ibn Al-Khattab) to complain to him. The Caliph ordered the ruler and his son to come, and asked the Egyptian to hit the son of the ruler back, and told the ruler a famous phrase "When you took the people slaves while they were born free!".

Muslims are commanded to value the life and the dignity of themselves and others. Muslims are not terrorists, or want to destroy and kill Jewish or anyone else. Nevertheless they will not surrender to those who want them to surrender, those who treat them unfairly, or think of them as un-equal.

[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2009 12:54:52 PM

Pictures I found for the isolation walls around Gaza and West Bank, both from the Palestinian side of the wall, I think they are nice.



Israeli soliders!




I think the guy in the middle is a terrorist and the other two are human shields

[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2009 1:22:57 PM

Quote :

"Actually all of these "groups" still exist today, they might convert their religion (similar to many Jews who converted to Christianity or Islam). Their old empires though (Romans, Byzantines, Spanish crown, Persians and many others) are over because of Muslims (few tribes coming from Arabian peninsula by this time), who succeeded to defeat them in less than 80 years."

You really don't take the time to read, do you? It was a question of maintaining identity. If they converted or were defeated by Muslims, then did those groups maintain their identity?

The Jews still exist as they did 2000 years ago, just with a few more variations.

1/25/2009 3:12:05 PM

Quote :

"What I mean is that today, there is no country called Palestine; Palestinians are not granted any rights in Israel; Palestinians are over-ruled by Israeli government in "West Bank and Gaza"; Palestinians cannot control their boarders, their land, or their representatives; and more than 5 millions refugees are NOT granted their rights to return to their "home". These rights are granted to the other 6.7 billions human on this earth! "

For almost 2,000 years, Jews had no country; they were granted no rights in many places they lived, and limited ones in others; they were over-ruled by governments wherever they lived; they had no or limited control over themselves; and they had no/limited rights to return to their home.

Your last statement, of course, is patently false. There are groups and individuals all over the planet today[/i] that do not have the rights you list. Ask the Dalai fucking Llama about it.

Quote :

"Palestinians farms and homes are destroyed by Israeli army to be converted to empty settlements; wars are declared against almost non-armed population, without any regards to the safety of civilians and international individuals and properties; a segregation wall surround Gaza and West Bank, and many times go through Palestinians territories to isolate population on these areas, and to set new borders for West Bank and Gaza."

Pogroms and the Holocaust.

Look, my point is not, "The Israelies put up with it, so should the Palestinians." My point is that your talk about maintaining "identity" is almost condescending to the Palestinians: the Israelis managed it for 2,000 years but Gaza can't do it for 60?

The identity of the Palestinian people can endure a little longer. Constant insistence on using violence as a tool, though, will pervert and warp that identity. Some damage has already occured, but it can repaired and forgotten with some willingness to embrace peaceful, nonviolent resistance as a means to acheive peace, rule of law, and the rights accorded to practitioners of the same.

Quote :

"it takes no actions against Israel because the "enormous amount of support" US provides to Israel in U.N. and elsewhere, and the failure of Europe to impose pressure on Israel. Pressure that is necessary to achieve peace, as the article I sent before suggest implicitly."

Palestinians wield an enormous amount of control over the pressures exerted on their situation and in whose favor they are exerted. It's very easy for Americans to support more money and guns for Israel when suicide bombers and rocket-launchers are counted among the representatives of Palestine. Ask yourself how India's situation would be different in the past century had Ghandi promoted these tactics against the British and other groups?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP, I would be interested to listen to your suggestion about nonviolent approach to solve the problem, how exactly it can be done?"

This is a fairly transparent effort to avoid answering the question I have put to you several times now: Why won't nonviolent resistance and protest work in Palestine? Your only "answer" so far seems to be complaining about pro-Israeli policies in the US.

But you know what? I'll bite.

Before anything else, there needs to be at least several months of peace -- disciplined peace. NO rockets. NO suicide bombings. NO kidnappings.

Since dialogue does exist, if sometimes through intermediaries, between Palestinians and Israelis who oppose the actions of their government, a smart first step would be to coordinate efforts. As you say, the isolation of Gaza and the West Bank makes it difficult for their protests to resonate in Israel. Include thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Israelis in those protests or boycotts, and the impact is magnified immensely.

Start from there, and then, to start driving the point home, organize a mass march from the Palestinian territories on their borders, with Israel and with Egypt. Large crowds, being clearly, manifestly nonviolent, marching towards the checkpoints and gates, trying to cross them to protest in the neighboring countries. It almost certainly won't be pretty. There will be beatings, arrests, possibly (probably) shootings and deaths. But Palestine already has all those. You talk about international pressure -- do you really not think it would be change if Israelis were firing on crowds of obviously peaceful individuals? And of course it would also impact the Egyptians, forcing them into a tough spot. They don't want to kill fellow Arabs/Muslims. On the highest levels, they also don't want to ruin the peace with Israel -- we pay them too well to keep it. Their best option is to ratchet up the pressure on Israel to change the status quo.

The process would be bloody and unpleasant, but it would most likely be less bloody and unpleasant than the cycle of violence has been and continues to be. It would also be more likely to actually, you know, [b]work.

1/26/2009 12:20:14 AM

this just in: HAMAS is asking for a year off of hostilities so they can re-arm

1/26/2009 2:29:23 AM

I'm looking at my post, and I have no idea why so much of it is in bold. Sorry guys.

1/26/2009 9:53:11 AM

Hamas always does this, they get their asses kicked than ask for a truce to re-arm and regroup.

1/26/2009 1:29:40 PM

Quote :

"all over the planet today[/i] that do not"

You /i instead of /b

Quote :

"this just in: HAMAS is asking for a year off of hostilities so they can re-arm"

A 6 month cease-fire let Hamas missiles go from a 20 mile range to a 40 mile range...what could a year do?

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : -]

1/26/2009 1:39:48 PM

Oh well we'd better keep Palestine an unliveable, closed off shithole just in case.

1/26/2009 2:16:02 PM

good idea. or they could just move.

1/26/2009 2:43:55 PM

You can't honestly believe half of the shit you say unless you posit that Palestinians are sub-human, or at least sub-Israeli.

1/26/2009 4:32:34 PM

de-wad thine panties from thine buttcrack. twas butt a joke.

EDIT

you know though, why dont they fucking move? or at least move their families and their babies away from the carnage. same thing for the fucking jews bitching about the arabs. shit aint gonna change, no matter how much TSB debates them.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2009 4:36:57 PM

From what I recall, Gaza has been closed for 2 years. Plus it may be out of your reach to move if you're completely destitute. Plus, explain to me why you should move just because others are perpetrating violence against you?

1/26/2009 6:07:17 PM

It's impossible for them to move. Gaza is about twice the size of a postage stamp and contains about eleventy billion people. And even if you have money you can't just move to another country without that country's permission.

1/26/2009 7:11:11 PM

GrumpyGOP, I think several issues will come in place if your idea comes to work. Will Israel raise legal and security concerns to block these crowds? will the media cover this probably? will this can change the public opinion here in US? will this changes the politicians minds who used for too long to agree with what Israel do? would Israel respond to this positively or try to turn it to violent again? what type of violent Israel will face these crowds with?

With all of these questions, I actually like your idea! As I said before I cannot deny Palestinians their right to fight and even die for this rights, though I deny Israel using aggressive power against almost non-armed population that is over ruled by Israeli government. Though, I think it is time for the Palestinians to work smart in order to solve this conflict.

Quote :

"this just in: HAMAS is asking for a year off of hostilities so they can re-arm"

Hamas is asking for 12 months, and Israel for 18 months.

I have watched Arabian coverage for the massive amounts of destructions exist on Gaza by Israeli "army", and stories from victims there. I don't really want to disturb you with these pictures and movies, but one of the stories as told by one of the reporters, that I personally have full confidence on, is a story of Palestinians family that was killed (three daughters, mother, and grandmother) in front of the father of this family and in front of his house that was destroyed after. This happened while 6 Israeli tanks surrounded his house, and Israeli soldiers were eating and laughing, watching him as he see his family dying.

I know this beyond the imagination. I hope that international investigation will clear all of this. I hope US will not block these investigation in UN and the Security Council. In a mean while, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel will protect those soldiers from prosecution of these crimes! http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/27/war_crimes/index1.html

1/27/2009 12:27:38 AM

tmhatem--

Your first paragraph poses several questions, which I will answer in order rather than "quote-bombing," which is something I've been accused of quite a bit of late. Please bear in mind that when I refer to nonviolent action on the part of Palestine, etc., I do mean nonviolent action; anything beyond the slightest aggressive action would derail the process I describe.

Israel will almost certainly raise concerns to block the crowds. Similar behavior is visible in a number of historical contexts, for example in India's independence movement, and in the US civil rights movement.

The media has been eager to cover Israel/Palestine issues in the past...a shift to a nonviolent approach on the Palestinian side would, at the very least, be novel, and as a result likely to attract attention.

The public opinion of the United States will be swayed by hostile Israeli action on a manifestly nonviolent Palestinian movement. To what extent, I cannot say with certainty, but I suspect it would be substantial.

American politicians will continue to be, in part, at the mercy of pro-Israeli lobbies. But support for overt violence against clear nonviolence is a major political liability, and I believe it would cause at least some politicians to favor a peace more amenable to the Palestinian people.

Israel would likely continue to use violence for a time. Once again, we have seen the same historically, in India and in the US. As I said in my previous post, there would likely be arrests, beatings, shootings, etc. on the part of the Israelis. But the period in which these actions are acceptable, internationally and within Israel itself, would pass soon, so that peace could be achieved -- certainly sooner than the cycle of violence is likely to reach these goals.

Quote :

"As I said before I cannot deny Palestinians their right to fight and even die for this rights, though I deny Israel using aggressive power against almost non-armed population that is over ruled by Israeli government."

On the first point, I don't really disagree; Palestine has the right to defend itself with violence. But, as I've said several times, just because it has the right to do so doesn't mean it is prudent for them to do so. On the second point, I see where you are coming from, but I also like to think I understand the Israeli position -- a position formed be constant assault through a history far longer than that of the state of Israel, by a justifiable paranoia that much of the world is out to get them. Israel's goals are not expansionist per se. A good analogue would be the Soviet Union in the wake of WWII (or, really, Russia in the wake of any war in which it was invaded). It wants buffers, security zones, anything to make sure that it is protected. They have, at times, overreacted as a result of that concern, but it is no less real because of it. And because they are guided by that fear, Palestine holds the keys to peace.

1/27/2009 1:43:26 AM

Quote :

"Plus, explain to me why you should move just because others are perpetrating violence against you?"

because I like to live. I like to see my babies grow up in one piece. but hey, I am not some asshole fighting a bunch of other assholes over a dusty piece of holy dirt.

no one is too poor to walk. plus, I am pretty damn sure that Israel would throw anyone coordinating a Palestinian exodus a few bones for transportation.

Quote :

"And even if you have money you can't just move to another country without that country's permission."

what peace-loving muslim nation is going to deny their brothers and sisters the ability to relocate to within their borders? the Palestinians are suffering...why wouldnt their own kind take them in? is it because deep down, these other muslim countries NEED the Palestinians to stay there, live in squalor and get blown to bits by Israeli ordinance for political gain and global favor?

hmmmmmmmmm

o' blessed religion of peace.

1/27/2009 9:26:55 AM

Egypt, for one actively denies Palestinians entry. Jordan and Syria also deny any real entry and force them to stay in refugee camps in the hopes that they can be repatriated at some murky point in the future.

Arab "brotherhood" is a myth.

1/27/2009 2:08:57 PM

Quote :

"what peace-loving muslim nation is going to deny their brothers and sisters the ability to relocate to within their borders? the Palestinians are suffering...why wouldnt their own kind take them in? "

Goddamn, you're stupid.

Religion is a very minor part of this equation. The primary issue is that a large influx of poor, undocumented refugees is bad for any country. Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic; is the United States unchristian for not throwing open its borders to them? Sure, the US has a secular government -- but of course, so does Egypt. Two countries sharing race and religion aren't somehow obligated towards one another. Most of America's wars have been against Christian white people. How does that fit into the "their own kind" theory?

Quote :

"is it because deep down, these other muslim countries NEED the Palestinians to stay there, live in squalor and get blown to bits by Israeli ordinance for political gain and global favor?"

The other governments often have enough trouble keeping the lid on their countries; what they NEED is to avoid some major destabilizing factor like the arrival of half a million Palestinians wanting food, shelter, medicine, jobs, and education.

1/27/2009 2:37:27 PM

GrumpyGOP dropping some serious knowledge in this thread.

1/27/2009 2:49:09 PM

GrumpyGOP obviously loves sarcastic writing and is good at recognizing it.

I will try again...

the whole point is that while the other muslim countries of the world cry 'jihad' and side with their Palestinian "brothers and sisters," fanning the flames of violence and war calling for the destruction and elimination of Israel, they obviously care very little for the actual well being of the Palestinian people.

muslims do have a history of taking care of each other. look no further than Pakistan during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. sure, Pakistan had some self interests at heart, nevertheless, Pakistan excepted millions of refugees and lobbied the world for aid and supplies to take care of them. any country like Egypt or Iran could provide aid if they really wanted to. they just choose not to involve themselves past possibly supplying arms and vocalizing support of the overthrow of Israel (in the case of Iran). that speaks volumes.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ,,]

1/27/2009 3:40:12 PM

ACCEPTED ACCEPTED ACCEPTED

As in, you were (supposedly) ACCEPTED into college. Though it seems like you should have been the EXCEPTION to this assumption.

1/27/2009 7:06:14 PM

Quote :

"any country like Egypt or Iran could provide aid if they really wanted to. they just choose not to involve themselves past possibly supplying arms and vocalizing support of the overthrow of Israel (in the case of Iran). that speaks volumes."

Clearly since the surrounding countries won't accept the overflow of Israeli cruelty, we should simply let it continue. After all it's Arab vs. Jew and there's no more granularity to the situation than that.

1/27/2009 7:25:13 PM

Quote :

"sure, Pakistan had some self interests at heart, nevertheless, Pakistan excepted millions of refugees and lobbied the world for aid and supplies to take care of them."

Pakistan had nothing but self-interest at heart. The "Great Game" isn't new -- Russia/USSR has always wanted a route to the Indian Ocean. Afghanistan is a step towards that goal. Pakistan accepted refugees to solidify its position in the region, and hoped to send them back pronto. It solicited aid from around the world to push the Soviets back from its borders.

Quote :

"any country like Egypt or Iran could provide aid if they really wanted to. they just choose not to involve themselves past possibly supplying arms and vocalizing support of the overthrow of Israel (in the case of Iran)"

Pick up the latest issue of Time and read the Saudi representative's explanation for sending a billion dollars to help Gaza. Consider all the aid that is sent, from all sorts of countries. The weapons (and plenty of more legitimate things) come through Egypt, although with that government's "official" dissapproval. Iran provides plenty of support as well. They do provide aid. Other than Egypt and Jordan, they can't really offer refugee status -- no shared borders.

Of course, Egypt is corrupt. Iran is loony toons with a healthy dose of asshole. Jordan already has a large Palestinian refugee population.

Honestly, I can't tell how your suppoosedly "sarcastic" post differs in substance from the one following it. They're both pretty much equally idiotic.

1/28/2009 12:17:49 AM

Quote :

"Jordan already has a large Palestinian refugee population."

Considering that the Arab inhabitants in the West Bank were once considered to be Jordanian in the first place...

1/28/2009 12:26:42 AM

Yes, well, the inhabitants of all Palestine used to be considered Ottoman, Egyptian, Roman, etc. back as far as history, what they were once considered isn't entirely germane here. The past can be useful in demonstrating patterns, but not (as this argument has demonstrated over and over again) in determining nationality or ownership.

The facts are what they are. Jordan doesn't want the West Bank and nobody can make them take it. Even if they did, the problems would still be there, they would just be actively involving another country. As it is, a Palestinian state is the solution -- a solution that presents a whole host of serious problems. Even if Israel withdrew completely to its 1967 borders, that leaves a Palestinian state divided into two regions that are dependent on one another. One has a lot of people and access to the sea. The other has a lot more space for various productive uses. And they aren't connected, and can't reasonably be connected without even more serious concessions on the Israeli side. Some sort of relatively disinterested international force could maintain a corridor, allowing people and goods from both states to move through, but it would be inefficient and almost certainly unacceptable to Israel, whose UN mandate provides for no such division of its territory. Anything less is (and should be) patently unacceptable to Palestinians who want a unified country able to transfer people and goods.

That's the problem that needs to be discussed more. The two-state solution is essential but extremely problematic. I'm interested to see some ideas here that actually deal with that issue.

1/28/2009 1:01:48 AM

I truly believe that the only way for this to end is with a 3-state solution. The society and lifestyle within Gaza and within the West Bank are differing more and more every year. There would be no need for a corridor, international trade with the West Bank can take place the same way every other land-locked country handles it.

The first thing that needs to happen is a definitive cease-fire and peace treaty that I think could be brought about a lot quicker with Grumpy's suggestions. Part of the agreement should be a requirement for Israel to help with the process of establishing a new infrastructure within Gaza and the West Bank with equal contributions from Egypt and Jordan. This will give the Palestinian people reason to stop hating Israel and welcome it as a political partner.

Next, although this would never be agreed to, Israel should move its political capital out of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem (at least the old side where the religious points are, mainly the eastern half) should become its own entity similar to Vatican City. Israel's political capital should be placed in Tel-Aviv, the status of which as a modern Israeli city cannot be debated. It is already the center of Israel's economy, industry, and the highest levels of education. As a religious Jew I view the political locality in Jerusalem to be demeaning to what the city once stood for, and I feel it would be a very positive gesture to the Muslim population of the region.

Palestine would have to agree to a permanent peace plan, wherein the new government will be held responsible for putting an end to all terrorist and militant activity within their own borders. You won't risk Israel overreacting if you don't give them a reason to react in the first place. The government needs to control its own people and imprison its own nationalists who are caught creating or provoking violence with Israel.

Over time, once Israel feels secure at its own borders, can start decreasing the efforts spent at border control. In the ideal situation, an express highway or a train rail can be set up to get from Gaza to the West Bank. Since it would cut through Israel, the Israelis would have every right to charge a reasonable toll. However it would take a long time (at least a decade of no violent attacks) before Israel feels safe enough to not have to check every single person's belongings for weapons before crossing borders.

1/28/2009 1:32:58 AM

^ This is about as reasonable a proposal as I've seen. Of course the only problem is that the Israelis would run the checkpoint you're suggesting like they do every other one of their checkpoints, and it'd be a disaster.

Plus, if you open the borders with Palestine in any meaningful way (or scale back the borders of Israel), you'll end up with SOME violence. Of course the only way to trade that inevitable violence for the shit we saw in Gaza recently is to assume Palestinians are worth less than Israelis. Once that assumption is disposed with, this solution can go through (and naturally the perpetrators of violence can be dealt with).

The problem is, any anti-Israeli violence becomes a political shit-storm where something like 80+% of the population wants to trade as much Arab life as needed to achieve some arbitrary measure of "safety" and, most likely, revenge. Any government not willing to lock down and destroy Gaza like we just saw would get voted out in a jiffy the second they failed to trade hundreds of Palestinian lives for a single Israeli one.

1/28/2009 7:21:20 AM

Quote :

"I truly believe that the only way for this to end is with a 3-state solution. The society and lifestyle within Gaza and within the West Bank are differing more and more every year. There would be no need for a corridor, international trade with the West Bank can take place the same way every other land-locked country handles it."

True, the West Bank could probably make it OK on its own. Gaza is another issue. The place is packed to the gills with people. It would have to import nearly all of its food. Sure, there are other crowded coastal venues that manage to do this, Singapore and Hong Kong, but those places also have money and relevance to international trade.

Quote :

"Next, although this would never be agreed to, Israel should move its political capital out of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem (at least the old side where the religious points are, mainly the eastern half) should become its own entity similar to Vatican City. Israel's political capital should be placed in Tel-Aviv"

This part I agree with wholeheartedly. The question, though, is who should run this independent Jerusalem. I've heard making it a sort of UN protectorate thrown around as an option, but you'd have to be very careful about which countries sent security forces there.

1/28/2009 10:48:07 AM

If you go to Jerusalem you can see that the city is already divided. You have the Jewish quarters, the Muslim quarters, the Christian quarters, and then there is the underground. The underground is nothing but Arabs selling cheap shit to dumb American tourists (much like the Hispanic merchants in DC and NYC). It would be simple enough to leave each portion of the city under rule of the appropriate country (the Christians would most likely want to remain Israeli). The only place of security concern is the Wall/Dome of the Rock. The third holiest site in Islam was built on top of the absolute holiest site in Judaism, so obviously that is going to continue to be a problem.

^^Israelis do not view Palestinians as "less than." In fact, the majority of the Israeli population identifies strongly with the Palestinian people for being homeless and considered strangers in their own land. However, bombings and rocket fire has become an everyday aspect of Israeli life over the past 30 years. Another bus blows up this day and a crowded restaurant crumbles the next. It is at this point where the average Israeli no longer tries to understand the Palestinian view.

It isn't about trading life for life. It's about the government doing what it thinks is the best way to protect its people. I'm not saying they are doing it the right way, but its important that we understand why they respond the way they do. Sure, only 13 Israelis died over the past month during the recent struggle, but you have to look at this long term.

For example, in 2001, a Sbarro's Pizza in Jerusalem was hit by a suicide bomber, killing 15 (7 children) and injuring 130. Of course you can start saying it was forced by the way the government had been treating Palestinians or because of historical quarrel, but did those individuals deserve it? Was it really their own fault?

After the security wall and the checkpoints started up, the number of bombings within Israel dropped significantly. In February 2008 Israel saw its first suicide attack on over a year, which showed that its purpose worked.



[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 2:18 PM. Reason : -]

1/28/2009 2:05:50 PM

Quote :

"It would be simple enough to leave each portion of the city under rule of the appropriate country (the Christians would most likely want to remain Israeli)."

Maybe, but this situation would in no way be analogous to the Vatican, as you described earlier.

But of course, you bring up the major sticking point, which is that the two main sides both want to get their hands on a very particular piece of the city.

1/28/2009 3:12:49 PM

I wasn't saying it should be exactly like the Vatican, I was just making the comparison to another holy city that isn't considered part of a single country.

1/28/2009 3:25:54 PM

Quote :

" POINT: The Israeli Conflict Is Far Too Nuanced And Complex To Sum Up In One Op-Ed For as long as I can remember, the Israelis and Palestinians have been in conflict. And for as long as I can remember, there have been myriad opinions about who is right and who is wrong. They are often convincing opinions—passionate, personal, and eloquent. But the violence, the bloodshed, the senseless intractable hatred, is far too complicated to be explained by one newspaper column or a single on-air commentary, no matter how well composed. The names and dates in the latest violence are new, but the scars are from wounds that reach back more than a century—countless families across many generations, each with their own deeds and stories, all with their own reason to carry on the conflict. Opinions can be dangerous. They can provoke a people to take action, when that action might not be just. Opinions can be powerful. They can shape the way a nation sees a problem, when that one perspective might not be enough. Opinions are imperfect. They are based more in politics and preference than in facts, though facts are what matter most. And those facts remain, buried beneath the rubble in the Gaza Strip and Bethlehem. Facts and truths that only the men and women at the heart of the conflict can uncover for themselves—not professional journalists on a tight deadline or amateur bloggers with an ax to grind. No. The skirmishes fought in the desert are as ancient as the mountains that loom above and as complex as the eddies that swirl in the rivers below. The world must address this struggle with a measured approach that takes all sides into account and acknowledges the decades of conflict. It would be far too difficult—and far too arrogant—to attempt to sum up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one op-ed. COUNTERPOINT: Not If You Hate Jews! Interesting, but I really dislike the Jewish people, so this whole "unending conflict with no easy answers" thing doesn't seem very complicated to me at all. In fact, summing up the "delicate and multifaceted situation" in the Middle East couldn't be simpler: I hate the Jews, therefore everything the Jews do is automatically wrong, therefore I hate the Jews. Bam! Complex and nuanced issue resolved. Chalk another one up for blind, sweeping prejudice. Now, I know what you're saying. "How can you take decades of cyclical violence, and with no prior understanding of historical context, come to a tidy conclusion on the matter?" Well, kind of like this: I absolutely abhor every member of the Jewish race. Voilà. Done. Moral ambiguity cleared up. And with plenty of time for me to go on with my hateful day! It's easy as pie, really. For instance, when trying to parse out the conflict in the Middle East, there are many arguments for one to consider. There's the right to a homeland. There's the question of original sovereignty. And there's the fact that all Jews are inherently greedy and that I'd like for their whole godless country to burn in eternal hellfire. See? When you break it down like that, there's no uncertainty at all. Listen up, United Nations! You can learn a thing or two here. Don't get me wrong. It's not like I love the Palestinians. After all, they're Muslims, and all Muslims are trained to be suicide bombers at an early age. So, I don't like that. Also, the way they pray frightens me, and their skin color is different from mine, so that doesn't bode well for them, either. However, I can't start hating the Palestinians as much as I hate the Jews, because then how am I supposed to carelessly assign blame to one specific group of people? I'd be right back to square one! No thanks. I'll stick to vilifying the Jews, if you don't mind. Makes the whole entire thing a lot easier to sort out. Sure, I suppose I could probe deeper into the issues at hand, but I prefer to make up my mind based on myths I picked up from my father at the age of 12. After all, every moment spent deciding who took what land away from whom, and who fired retaliatory strikes against whom, is time that could be spent spouting off at the mouth with unrestrained vitriol. And isn't that what having an opinion is all about anyway? Now who wants to go egg a synagogue and run away like little schoolgirls before someone comes to the door?"

http://tinyurl.com/bnradg

1/28/2009 4:26:04 PM

^I was very confused and frankly disturbed until I clicked the link and saw where that came from. Now I find it kind of funny.

You should probably cite the source in the post next time.

1/28/2009 4:39:31 PM

^^Heh, I thought that might have been something from the Technician.

1/28/2009 5:18:58 PM

I think 3 states (and surely 4 states) solution will not be accepted by Palestinians people. Palestinians living now in Gaza and West Bank, and refugees have no association with one of these areas more than the other. I think the old agreement to provide a secured highway between both regions will be more visible and accepted, http://www.noticias.info/Archivo/2005/200507/20050706/20050706_81176.shtm. Diversity in resources, and borders would help Palestinians to achieve the economic stability and independence that is necessary for peace and prosperity of Palestinian people, which shall be reflected to more security to Israeli people, and success to the peace process in general. Another Major factors will be the full control of Palestinian government on their lands and borders, to return to 1967 borders so that enough space and resources exist, to grant the Palestinian refugees their rights to return to their home country.

Something I would suggest to accelerate this process, is for Arab league to mandate that all of trades and cooperation with Israel to happen through Palestinians territories and borders, i.e. current natural gas line between Egypt and Israel to go through Gaza-Israel-West Bank- .... Similarly, Highways and trains for goods, tourism and individuals transportation between Arab states and Israel, Electricity grids, Gas and Natural Gas, etc to go through both Palestinians territories. These line and projects shall integrate with current routes to connect North Africa, Middle East, Turkey and Europe, and will enable Israel to connect through these routes. Nevertheless this shouldn't be thought as a price Arab world pay for peace between Israel and Palestine, as it doesn't need to, but rather as commercial cooperation with "friend countries" which shall benefit every country on the region. In order to insure this, following conditions shall be followed:
1- Israel doesn't have the right to solve any conflict with any neighbor country, rather than military attacks, by a military action. Such situation creates a fragile peace, that doesn't promote further cooperation between these countries.
2- Any commercial conflict between Arab countries and Israel to be solved through international commercial courts, where fines can be applied.
3- Israel cannot discriminate between flow of individuals, goods, or natural resources coming from Palestine or other countries that is going through its land, and should be fined for this or for blocking such flow.
4- This shouldn't be a replacement for the previously suggested road between both regions.
5- This should happen after Israel grant Palestinians their legitimate right to have a country, and to enjoy security and prosperity there.
6- US and Europe commit to treat both sides equally, which insure fair trades between these countries.

This will enable Palestinians to get benefits of these trades, and pressure Israel to keep the flow of goods and individuals between the two Palestinians region smooth. Also it will be the best way for Israel to integrate with other countries in Middle East.

I think in Jerusalem the same solution should be applied, to return to 1967 borders. I think the city is a good source for tourism for both countries. What I would suggest that the city to be self controlled by a council that is equally elected by Palestinian and Israeli people and another part to be assigned by UN. This council will be able to plan the city resources for the best of the city and the revenue; nevertheless it cannot change the city demography or landscape, as it is part of another country. It will also make an easy access for tourists and residents to both sides of the city, while security points can be placed in the borders of the city, if needed.

Regard the Wall/Dome of the Rock, I believe Muslims, Jews and Christians religion scientists can find an appropriate solution for everyone to worship the same god on the same place. Currently, the place is owned and moderated by Muslim trust (Wakf), and it has been the same for almost 1400 years. Muslims built the current architecture and took care of the place very well through this long time. This is not part of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and shouldn’t be so. The Islamic council should be who negotiate with Jewish and Christian religion scientists to see how worshiping can happen.




Another major factors should be taken into consideration is the current settlement in west bank, see this video from 60 mins program last Sunday http://action.gazajustice.org/t/4436/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=963 .

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 7:15 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2009 6:47:52 PM

Quote :

"I think 3 states (and surely 4 states) solution will not be accepted by Palestinians people."

So they keep on asking for this, demanding for that, but when real solutions are presented they won't accept. That's the history of this conflict in a nutshell.

Quote :

"Something I would suggest to accelerate this process, is for Arab league to mandate that all of trades and cooperation with Israel to happen through Palestinians territories and borders"

Is that another joke from you Hate-em? The Arab League can't mandate anything having to do with Israeli trade, because Israel is not a member of the league and besides, an overwhelming majority of its members refuse to acknowledge that Israel is a country to begin with. And why would Israel's trade with anyone have to go through Palestine? That makes absolutely no sense at all. If Palestine is going to be an independent country then they shouldn't have to deal with other countries' trading. That really has to be the dumbest thing you've said in this entire thread.

Quote :

"In order to insure this, following conditions shall be followed: 1- Israel doesn't have the right to solve any conflict with any neighbor country, rather than military attacks, by a military action. Such situation creates a fragile peace, that doesn't promote further cooperation between these countries. 2- Any commercial conflict between Arab countries and Israel to be solved through international commercial courts, where fines can be applied. 3- Israel cannot discriminate between flow of individuals, goods, or natural resources coming from Palestine or other countries that is going through its land, and should be fined for this or for blocking such flow. 4- This shouldn't be a replacement for the previously suggested road between both regions. 5- This should happen after Israel grant Palestinians their legitimate right to have a country, and to enjoy security and prosperity there. 6- US and Europe commit to treat both sides equally, which insure fair trades between these countries."

1- Your plan for peace is to take away Israel's right to solve its own problems non militarily? I'm very confused, I thought it was the military strategy that got your panties in a wad.
2- Fines? We're not talking about overdue library books. And who would run those international courts? As soon as one rules in favor of Israel they'll just get blamed for being bribed with Jew gold anyway.
3- Actually, they can. If a Mexican wants to go to Canada and decides to do it by car, then the American border patrol has every right to inspect that car for weapons, drugs, or smuggled goods. No matter how much traffic gets blocked up because of it. If Israel felt safe letting Palestinians drive across, then there wouldn't be a problem. Tell the rocket launchers and suicide bombers to stop coming in and then we can talk.
4,5,6- Israel gave Palestine the right to have a country in 1948. Then they and their "friends" blew it. Israel tried again in the 60's...same result. And then came the pullout just a few years ago...oh wait, that didn't work either. Israel, US, and Europe will all look at Palestine fairly when the violence stops. Until then, the Palestinians need to stop getting in their own way of peace.

1/28/2009 7:21:54 PM

Quote :

"I think 3 states (and surely 4 states) solution will not be accepted by Palestinians people"

Agreed.

Quote :

"Something I would suggest to accelerate this process, is for Arab league to mandate that all of trades and cooperation with Israel to happen through Palestinians territories and borders, i.e. current natural gas line between Egypt and Israel to go through Gaza-Israel-West Bank- ...."

I don't see any reason why Israel should agree to this, as it will only make their imports from Arab countries more expensive. It's basically handing Palestine free money at the cost of efficiency and good sense.

1/29/2009 1:47:39 AM

Who said anything about 4 states?

1/29/2009 2:36:51 AM

Quote :

"I don't see any reason why Israel should agree to this, as it will only make their imports from Arab countries more expensive."

Israel doesn't have to agree. Even though the routes of trades between two countries need to be agreed by both countries, if Arab League mandates its members, this will be the only route for Israel to trade and transportation with Arab world. This will pressure Israel and Palestine to have a normal relation that is based upon respect and mutual interest, rather than a volatile relation that will end if you don't like the guy setting on the table.

This approach doesn't need to be more expensive, as it will connect the land routes between Middle East, North Africa, Turkey, and Europe together. This will benefit Palestine (and Israel also) from the trades going through the region, and give a strategic importance to Palestine as an essential gate for Israel. This will urge Israel also to connect both Gaza and West Bank smoothly, as I was trying to answer your question by thinking out of the box.

Moreover, I would argue that this would help Israel to have a normal trade relation with Arab countries, so the question is not if it will be more expensive, but if it will exist. Arab world proposed the "Arab Peace Initiative" to establish normal relations with Israel, if Israel draws to 1967 borders. Nevertheless, the majority of Arab populations want nothing to do with Israel. The reason is not because Arab hate Jewish, but because of many people killed by Israeli army, and the tremendous amount of war crimes and destruction Israel have committed through 60 years to end with Gaza massacre. No family in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine did not suffered directly from Israeli attacks. More important, Arab governments want nothing to do with Israel, after all the war in 1956 was a result of Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal, and similarly the war in 1967 was a result of closing Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. The continuous "overreacting" of Israeli government makes no one want to have any type of relation with it, but I will argue that if Palestinians will benefit from this relation and if restrictive conditions as I suggested earlier will be followed, Arab governments might consider it.

Let me give you an example from the last conflict, Egypt have natural gas line to export gas to Israel, tourism flow from Israel to Sinai and there are other minor trade relation with Israel. These relations have a very strong public opposition, i.e. due to many major flaws on the agreement of exporting gas to Israel, the public had a case in the courts against this agreement. The court ordered to stop the export, and this shall be executed after a second round in the court finish. After all, public sees that Egyptian natural resources are used to kill innocent Palestinians. On the other hand, if this line (and other trades) will go through Gaza and cross Israel to West Bank, the public will see this as a benefit for Palestinian people as well. Moreover, I would argue that this would made Israel more caution to start a major "War" against Gaza, or to start the blockade on Gaza on the first place. Furthermore, I would argue that would make Palestinians more caution to have a peace process, as they feel the results of the peace process. Today, the gallon of gas in Gaza cost more than $20!

Quote :

" It's basically handing Palestine free money at the cost of efficiency and good sense."

I think if Arab League will mandate this action the Palestinians will profit from it, and also Israel, and if it is executed on a right and fair way other countries should benefit from it as well. Israel and Palestine will be though the main beneficiaries by having a steady peace that is based upon respect and mutual benefits.

Certainly the efficiency of these routes will depend on a large part of the trust and the willing of each part to cooperate with the other, so if Palestinians and Israelis want to get more profits out of it they need to be more cooperative, which translate to more peace and prosperity on both countries and the region. Remember that there are already well-established routes for trade on the region, which this route needs to compete with.

good sense! What really about Israeli-Palestinian conflict make sense? To have a major war every election cycle? For someone to win election because he occupied an occupied territory? or for killing hundreds of children’s and destroying tens of thousands of homes, schools, mosques, and UN and red-cross properties? As a matter of fact, US have the same agreement with Egypt (Quiz); In order for Egypt to export textiles to US without customs or any kind of barriers it agreed to use a certain ratio of inputs imported from Israel. considering the huge difference between both cases (Egypt is an ally to US, while Israel is not for all Arab countries), I think this make more sense.

1/29/2009 7:49:40 AM

Quote :

"if Arab League mandates its members, this will be the only route for Israel to trade and transportation with Arab world."

Quote :

"the majority of Arab populations want nothing to do with Israel"

Quote :

"if Arab League will mandate this action the Palestinians will profit from it, and also Israel"

What? You continue to make arguments that make no sense whatsoever. First of all, Israel has no need to trade with Arab nations except for maybe oil and natural gas, which as you said they already get from Egypt. Why would Israel agree to pay extra money so that their imports go through Palestine instead of coming to them directly? And if the Arab League mandated it, Israel would have no reason to go along with the plan, mainly because it would be costing them extra money for things they are already getting for cheap. If anything, the Arab world would benefit more from trade with Israel, whereas Israel is a top producer of technological and pharmaceutical products. As you said the majority of Arabs want nothing to do with Israel, so they won't conduct trade that sends money into Israel. So in the end, there would be no trade, and Israel will continue to trade with USA, Canada, and Europe without any intervention of the Arab League.

1/29/2009 8:22:39 AM

Quote :

"Even though the routes of trades between two countries need to be agreed by both countries, if Arab League mandates its members, this will be the only route for Israel to trade and transportation with Arab world."

Historically, the Arab world uniting to put pressure on Israel has ended poorly for everybody.

Quote :

"This approach doesn't need to be more expensive"

Almost by definition, it does. In some situations, it would be natural and reasonable for things to route through Palestine. In others, though, such a system would be artificial, inflating costs from what they naturally should be.

Quote :

"Moreover, I would argue that this would made Israel more caution to start a major "War" against Gaza, or to start the blockade on Gaza on the first place."

True, it might, but by far the surest way to prevent Israeli wars and blockades against Gaza is for people in Gaza to stop doing things to really, really piss Israel off.

Quote :

"As a matter of fact, US have the same agreement with Egypt"

To be perfectly fair, I think the US agreement is pretty damn stupid.

[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 11:32 AM. Reason : I must admit I get a certain sick satisfaction watching bdmazur and tmhatem go at it]

1/29/2009 11:31:45 AM

^Why, are you keeping score? haha.

1/29/2009 5:41:42 PM