Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Turambar on September 23, 2011, 01:37:32 pm
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/palestinians-submit-statehood-bid-at-un.html
UNITED NATIONS —President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority formally requested the Security Council to grant full United Nations membership on Friday as a path toward Palestinian statehood, rejecting arguments by the United States and Israel that it was not a substitute for direct negotiations for peace in the Middle East.
My opinion is that this is a good move.
-
so this means that when rockets are launched from Gaza now it will result in a formal declaration of war between two nations?
-
While I think that recognition of a Palestinian state is the ultimate goal, I do see one gigantic, glaring, massive problem with recognition of a true Palestinian state:
Palestine is full of factions and lacks central control over its own populace, many members of which have shown little hesitation in flinging rockets at Israeli cities.
Now, if a central Palestinian government could be relied on to control its citizenry and quit the attacks on their neighbours, then I'd be all for this. The 1967 borders are a good starting point for discussions on state boundaries, and its time that Israel accepted that part of the solution to its security concerns is the actual creation of a Palestinian state. BUT. At the same time, the biggest hiccup in the peace process in general has been recognition of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and guarantees of border security.
The trouble with a Palestinian state basically declared by the UN is that it is not contingent on good behaviour - and were the US not to veto it in the SC, the next time rockets come flying into Israel from next door it won't be considered a localized attack in an unstable and fairly borderless region - it'll be an act of war by one sovereign nation upon another. Part of statehood is the responsibility to ensure rogue elements in your nation do not attack others; Palestinian government is incapable of enforcing that guarantee.
To play out the scenario somewhat further, if Israel takes defensive military action in response to rockets against the newly-recognized Palestinian (Arab) state, just how long do you think it will take newly-unstable Egypt, Syria, and Iran to mobilize their militaries in response? Even fairly-peaceful Jordan might be up in arms.
Palestinian statehood, without security guarantees curbing the extremists living there, gives rogue Arab states the best excuse they've had in four decades to launch offensive military operations against Israel. And don't kid yourself, that is exactly why the US will exercise their security council veto - which is quite unfortunate. If the Palestinian Authority (in particular) could guarantee the arrest and prosecution of those who would ignite war, this discussion would have an entirely different tone.
-
/*what I said in more words*/
yeah
-
/*what I said in more words*/
yeah
Sorry, I only saw your comment as I hit post :P
-
Still, negotiations were going absolutely nowhere. Big picture, it looked to me like Israel was going to stall talks and keep building illegal 'settlements' as long as possible. Time is not on Palestine's side here.
-
Then they better get to it, no?
-
Still, negotiations were going absolutely nowhere. Big picture, it looked to me like Israel was going to stall talks and keep building illegal 'settlements' as long as possible. Time is not on Palestine's side here.
True, but the fundamental obstacle here is security - the PA runs West Bank and can't control their populace fully; Hamas, whose stated goals include the destruction of Israel, is calling the shots in Gaza. The threat to Israel is very real.
Personally, I think the best solution is for the security council to adopt a resolution that Palestinian statehood will be fully recognized either based on negotiated terms, or using the 1967 borders provided that proposed Palestine provides meaningful security guarantees for its neighbors and the region as a whole, including disarmament of all non-governmental organizations and the ordinary citizenry. It gives the Palestinians a carrot to work on their internal security and quit attacking Israel, and its gives the Israeli government a stick to quit ****ing building settlements and accept that reasonable world opinion sees 1967 as a good starting point for negotiation.
-
give them statehood when one year has passed seance the last Palestinian has attempted to attack an Israeli.
-
Still, negotiations were going absolutely nowhere. Big picture, it looked to me like Israel was going to stall talks and keep building illegal 'settlements' as long as possible. Time is not on Palestine's side here.
Negotiations exist to defuse tensions. This act does not do that; entirely the opposite.
-
These negotiations existed to distract everyone while Israel stole Palestine's country out from under them.
-
To be perfectly honest I can't see how the creation of a Palestinian state is even conceivable right now under the current conditions. Not saying it can't be done but the terms both sides want just to get started are unreasonable to expect after such a long period of mutual enmity. Want to stop illegal settlement construction, make the establishment of borders the first item to be negotiated in the peace process and don't be inflexible over the terms. A lot has happened in the decades these lands have been disputed so one cannot simply expect to get back to what it was decades ago. At the same time Israel must approach the border negotiations fairly; yes security is important but you can only take that argument so far. Oh and while we are at it; it is next to impossible to establish infrastructure and security for multiple territories physically divided by another sovereign state with opposing political ideologies. A good first step would be to start with the West Bank and forget about including Hamas and Gaza for the time being. If the West Bank is successful at establishing their own state without getting into a pissing match with Israel, Gaza may in time throw off Hamas and seek terms of their own. This whole thing really needs to be approached in stages if it is to have any chances of success at this point.
-
give them statehood when one year has passed seance the last Palestinian has attempted to attack an Israeli.
That would be pretty ridiculous.
Give them statehood one year after the last Palestinian has tried to attack Israel and the government has done nothing.
-
These negotiations existed to distract everyone while Israel stole Palestine's country out from under them.
Sort of like how they stole it out from under the Crusaders who stole it out from under the Arabs who stole it out from under the Romans who stole it out from under the Jews.
So, y'know, nothing to see here, move along.
-
These negotiations existed to distract everyone while Israel stole Palestine's country out from under them.
Sort of like how they stole it out from under the Crusaders who stole it out from under the Arabs who stole it out from under the Romans who stole it out from under the Jews.
So, y'know, nothing to see here, move along.
That doesn't make it right or legitimate, bro. Just means people let history repeat itself.
-
These negotiations existed to distract everyone while Israel stole Palestine's country out from under them.
Sort of like how they stole it out from under the Crusaders who stole it out from under the Arabs who stole it out from under the Romans who stole it out from under the Jews.
So, y'know, nothing to see here, move along.
Don't forget about the Egyptians, Persians, and Turks!
-
And the Canaanites while we're at it!
-
Part of statehood is the responsibility to ensure rogue elements in your nation do not attack others; Palestinian government is incapable of enforcing that guarantee.
Not only that, the PLO itself is involved in such attacks, Fatah maintaining several militias and terrorist groups including the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. It's also important to note how the various Palestinian security forces are padded by members of these groups. In light of that, it's not that surprising that the Israeli soldiers faced Palestinian police forces when the second intifada broke out.
-
Israel should have just kicked them out when they first annexed the territory.
-
Israel should have just kicked them out when they first annexed the territory.
Israel should have never annexed the territory.
If i were running Palestine, and i got the 1967 borders, i wouldnt kick the 'settlers' out. I'd let them stay, as long as they operated under and paid taxes to the Palestinian government. Either they'd live in peace (unlikely) or they'd make the case for their removal to their own stolen country.
I don't mind most of the population of Israel, they seem like regular ordinary people. The 'settlers' seem like belligerent assholes, and they deserve whatever is coming their way.
-
I don't mind most of the population of Israel, they seem like regular ordinary people. The 'settlers' seem like belligerent assholes, and they deserve whatever is coming their way.
I would agree with that statement. Anyone who did settle in the occupied territories did so in full knowledge of the fact that they were moving to land that was seized from other nations. Pretty hard to believe that they are the innocent parties in this.
-
My history isn't as good as it should be, so what exactly happened in 1967? Was that the Six Day War?
-
My history isn't as good as it should be, so what exactly happened in 1967? Was that the Six Day War?
Indeed. Israel got wind of a combined attack coming from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. They struck pre-emptively, seizing the Golan heights from Syria, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Penninsula from Egypt. Egypt since got the Sinai back after renouncing the goal of Israeli destruction. The remaining territories are under de-facto Israeli control. There have been negotiations to return both Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, but none have been successful for a variety of reasons. The West Bank is basically the area reserved for the country of Palestine. However, Israel continues to settle people there in the hopes of establishing a claim for a permanent buffer zone to keep rockets from being able to reach its large population centers.
The Yom Kippur War (6 years later) was basically round 2. Jordan abstained from conflict that time around, and Egypt and Syria both got their asses kicked (again). Since that peace, the majority of the attacks on Israel have been of a terrorist-type, versus warfare between armies.
-
So from what you've said, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt were trying to destroy Israel, Israel kicked their asses, and people like Turambar are complaining that Israel took some land from the people who were trying to wipe them out?
-
yes, exactly.
-
So from what you've said, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt were trying to destroy Israel, Israel kicked their asses, and people like Turambar are complaining that Israel took some land from the people who were trying to wipe them out?
More or less. There's a lot more to it than that; Israel is not entirely the cooperative good guy, but their Arab neighbours basically operated from 1948 to 1979 on the premise that they wanted to destroy Israel by force to make way for Palestine. The Yom Kippur War in the 70s is what actually paved the way for peace negotiations, which [justifiably] Israel has been somewhat stubborn in.
-
Yes, because beating up a kid does entitle you to his lunch. Why don't we just keep Iraq and Afghanistan for ourselves?
-
If that kid is yelling to the whole playground about how he's going to beat your face in, I'd have taken his lunch too.
-
Yes, because beating up a kid does entitle you to his lunch.
Wrong analogy. Defending yourself and beating up the whole gang of bullies that want to break your face for no other reason than you are you, however, does entitle you to tell them to stay the **** away from you lest you have to defend yourself again.
I recall this little debate in another thread. Contrary to popular belief, there are some people in this world that hate and will kill you for no other reason than because their you are different than them. Jews have learned this the hard way for centuries, and the present situation in Israel is largely the result of a historical problem - many Arabs do not believe Jews have a place in the "Holy Lands" and therefore would be more than happy to wipe Israel off the map. They've been saying that since it was first formed in 1948, and I wonder why so many people like yourself seem to forget that.
The conflict in general is not about settlements, or borders, or Palestinian rights. It's about Israel's right to exist, and a large Arab population that doesn't historically believe that. It's only because Israel has successfully defended itself in four hot-wars that they've come to accept that Israel is not going to be destroyed by force of arms. That is the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to peace negotiations - the fact that many of the neighboring Arab states and large numbers (but probably not a majority) of Palestinians have no interest in seeing an agreement with security guarantees for Israel, because they fundamentally do not believe it has a right to be secure.
I don't support human rights violations, I don't like the settlements Israel keeps putting up in the West Bank, and I don't like the fact that Israel isn't a truly equal society with truly equal democracy... BUT, until the other side of this conflict comes to terms with Israel's right to existence, security, and peace for its citizenry, I will always support the Israeli position over that of the Palestinians. The election of Hamas, whose policy platform is that Israel does not have the right to exist, just goes to show how far we have to go before we can get a peaceful resolution.
-
That doesn't make it right or legitimate, bro. Just means people let history repeat itself.
You actually said bro. There are not enough :cripes: in the world.
But more seriously, yes, it's legitimate as legitimate gets, because denying its legitimacy like you mean it will result in millions of people dying and that's a whole ****ing lot less legitimate than the right of the state of Israel to exist.
It was also done to illustrate a simple fact: anyone making a "historical" claim to the land is at best deluded. Kosh forgot the Egyptians and the Babylonians and the Hittites but he can be forgiven for not wanting to deal with that either. Palestine has no historical right to exist and neither does Israel and anyone making a claim about who the land "historically" belongs to is slapfighting about whose imaginary friend is more awesome.
-
Not only that, but we can essentially say the same thing about every single scrap of soil on this planet. Last time I checked, European settlers weren't the first humans to set foot in the Americas, the Normans weren't the original inhabitants of the British Isles, and the Dutch didn't originate from southernmost Africa...but there you are. Everyone has taken land from someone else in the past, and if we were all to attempt to give it back, no one would have anywhere to live. The only thing that makes the state of Israel unique is that it just happens to be one of the more recent examples.
-
Indeed. Israel got wind of a combined attack coming from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. They struck pre-emptively
I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. For a start the Israelis insisted that they were repelling an invasion until America told them that that was a load of ****ing bollocks and that they didn't believe them! :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War seems to cover the issue somewhat fairly giving both sides of the argument.
We'll probably never know for certain what was planned so claiming that there definitely was an attack coming despite the mountains of evidence for and against that theory is pretty silly.
-
Indeed. Israel got wind of a combined attack coming from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. They struck pre-emptively
I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. For a start the Israelis insisted that they were repelling an invasion until America told them that that was a load of ****ing bollocks and that they didn't believe them! :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War seems to cover the issue somewhat fairly giving both sides of the argument.
We'll probably never know for certain what was planned so claiming that there definitely was an attack coming despite the mountains of evidence for and against that theory is pretty silly.
I *did* say it wasn't quite that simple. :P The pre-emptive strike theory is what is typically taught in Western history, and there IS a good chunk of historical evidence (on the side calling it an offensive attack) that Egypt was actually planning for war, just not as early as Israel struck.
Since it's unlikely we'll ever be able to piece together the whole picture (in part because all the documents from the Arab side will never see the light of day, given the state of the countries involved), and we have the benefit of historical hindsight concerning the actions of the same Arab nations both before and after 1967, the fact that most Western history books call it a pre-emptive war is generally a reasonable assessment, though there are many pieces of evidence that suggest it should be looked on with some nuance.
-
that Egypt was actually planning for war, just not as early as Israel struck.
But every country tends to plan for wars. It does not neccisarely mean that they are actually going to war. Otherwise the Cold War would have turned pretty bloody quite quickly.
-
ok, try replacing the word 'planning' with 'preparing'.
-
Maybe you should re-read all the quotes on that link I gave you.
-
Maybe you should re-read all the quotes on that link I gave you.
I did before even responding (if you're referring to the notes at the bottom of the page). I do admit there's a fair bit of recently-declassified information that I wasn't originally aware of, but it doesn't change the overall picture that significantly.
-
Seriously? Even despite the fact that the quotes include the admission by the Israelis that they deliberately provoked the Syrians after the cease-fire so that they could claim the Golan Heights? Despite America flat out stating to the Israelis several times that all their intelligence says that they don't believe that Nasser planned a war? Despite several prominent Israelis flat out stating that they didn't believe at the time that Egypt was a threat?
Like I said, there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument. Given that, I find it rather silly to come down on one side or the other.
-
And yet, you seem to be coming down rather solidly on one side or the other yourself. Funny how that works.
-
How am I coming down one one side or the other? I have on numerous occasions said that both sides are so stupid that the best thing to do would be to kick both sides out and give the land to someone more reasonable. :p
Everyone knows that the Palestinian leaders are in general a bunch of wankers. What most people forget is that the Israelis leaders are ALSO a bunch of wankers who have done **** all to improve the situation and instead have done virtually everything in their power to make things worse. So I spend a lot of time pointing that fact out and probably comes across as being pro-Palestinian.
I'm most certainly not.
-
How am I coming down one one side or the other? I have on numerous occasions said that both sides are so stupid that the best thing to do would be to kick both sides out and give the land to someone more reasonable. :p
Everyone knows that the Palestinian leaders are in general a bunch of wankers. What most people forget is that the Israelis leaders are ALSO a bunch of wankers who have done **** all to improve the situation and instead have done virtually everything in their power to make things worse. So I spend a lot of time pointing that fact out and probably comes across as being pro-Palestinian.
I'm most certainly not.
That's fairly evident, to me at least.
While I respect your assessment of the Six Day War in particular, I also disagree with it; having read a fair bit about the events leading up to it and afterward, I still think the case for a legitimate pre-emptive strike on the part of Israel is stronger than the evidence that points to an unprovoked and unjustifiable attack by Israel on its neighbours.
There's still the part that one always has to come back to when looking at Israel - despite the nonsense its politicians, security forces, and military perpetrate in the name of their country, at the end of the day they still were (and largely are) a country populated by fairly ordinary people trying to carve a place for themselves in the world, while many of their neighbours have (and still do) have the declared objective of their complete national destruction. That's the recurring theme from 1948 to present: Israeli's want a peaceful country, and a large number of surrounding Arabs (and as it happens, Persians) want them out of the picture entirely. Their declared and pursued goal from 1948 to basically 1979 was to destroy Israel by force of arms; whether the Six Day War was also Israel capitalizing on that scenario to their own gain is irrelevant given the historical lead-up and follow-up to the events of 1967.
Given all the history involved, there is more than ample evidence to lead to the pre-emptive war conclusion, provided the reasonably objective person making that claim is aware of the controversies and nuance (which I am).
-
While I don't disagree with your assessment that the surrounding countries have been very antagonistic towards Israel, I do tend to feel that they weren't planning an attack. If they were, they must have been planning to lose it cause they were in no way ready for a war. It's especially worth remembering that the Arab nations had all signed mutual defence treaties with each other. As soon as Egypt was attacked it was pretty much a given conclusion that the others would join in.
As for them remaining hostile to Israel after the 6 Day War, wouldn't you? If it was an unprovoked attack followed by an unjustified landgrab, I mean.
-
Israeli's want a peaceful country, and a large number of surrounding Arabs (and as it happens, Persians) want them out of the picture entirely. Their declared and pursued goal from 1948 to basically 1979 was to destroy Israel by force of arms;
The complete destruction of Israel also results in peace... Apperently the Arab and persian leaders consider Israel a constant threat to their sovereignty and peace or the peace of the people they rather like (the palestinians perhaps?). I do not know what happened exactly before 1948, but it must have something to do with it.
-
I do not know what happened exactly before 1948, but it must have something to do with it.
*cackles* How much time do you have? There are entire academic programs that focus on the history of the Holy Lands and the various quasi-religious conflicts that occur there.
Jews, Muslims, and Christians all claim the area. Of those three religions, the Jews have the oldest historical claim (as compared with the other two). Local conflicts, crusades, and a variety of quasi-religious wars were fought for literally thousands of years between those three religions over ownership of the area. Prior to 1948, the most recent "owners" were Arab Muslims who resided in the British mandate of Palestine.
Following World War 2, the powers-that-be decided that Jews needed a nation-state of their own; they decided to create one in Palestine, with a separate state of Palestine alongside. Negotiations broke down in the process, Israel declared itself a country and fought a very bloody conflict to make itself into one, the UN recognized it, and Palestine ceased to exist. The neighboring Arab countries have been pissed off (and reasonably so, since Palestine was also supposed to become a country) ever since, but from 1948 to 1979 they sought a resolution through destruction of Israel rather than negotiation for a two-state solution. Israel had no such counter-aim against its neighbors (in point of fact, they considered returning several of the areas captured during the Six Day War immediately after and only decided against it out of strategic interest - they provided useful buffer zones against impending future attacks).
While I don't disagree with your assessment that the surrounding countries have been very antagonistic towards Israel, I do tend to feel that they weren't planning an attack. If they were, they must have been planning to lose it cause they were in no way ready for a war. It's especially worth remembering that the Arab nations had all signed mutual defence treaties with each other. As soon as Egypt was attacked it was pretty much a given conclusion that the others would join in.
Depends on your context for the planning of the attack. Most of the quibbling on the "pre-emptive war" debate is not IF Egypt was preparing to attack Israel, it's the WHEN. I agree that Egypt was not ready to counter the Israeli thrust, but the main stack of retrospective evidence points not to an immediate (e.g. less than 48 hour strike), but one being planned several weeks/months in advance.
As for them remaining hostile to Israel after the 6 Day War, wouldn't you? If it was an unprovoked attack followed by an unjustified landgrab, I mean.
Sure - if it was an unjustified landgrab. On the other hand, knowing Israel had already displayed an impressive ability to kick the **** out of my military, were I in Nasser's shoes I wouldn't have tried launching yet another offensive war six years later, on a national Israeli religious holiday, no less.
No matter how you look at it, you have to take into the previous and future actions of the combatants. While Israel was without a doubt belligerent, they also maintained a goal of survival. By contrast, its neighbours had no such defensive aims. Taken in a context of a week or two in 1967, perhaps the Six Day War really doesn't look pre-emptive. Taken in context of three decades of conflict, it's pretty difficult to draw any other conclusion. maybe that's where we differ in our assessments.
-
they provided useful buffer zones against impending future attacks
Until you start building settlements in them of course......
Depends on your context for the planning of the attack. Most of the quibbling on the "pre-emptive war" debate is not IF Egypt was preparing to attack Israel, it's the WHEN. I agree that Egypt was not ready to counter the Israeli thrust, but the main stack of retrospective evidence points not to an immediate (e.g. less than 48 hour strike), but one being planned several weeks/months in advance.
Which gives plenty of time for diplomacy to have prevented it. I'm not sure what the terms were of the mutual defence pact were but it seems likely that Syria and Jordan might have sat out a war if Egypt were the ones who started it. Basically once we get past the fact that the war wasn't imminent we get into a historical guessing game about what might have happened if Israel had stayed its hand. Maybe the war would have happened, maybe not.
Sure - if it was an unjustified landgrab. On the other hand, knowing Israel had already displayed an impressive ability to kick the **** out of my military, were I in Nasser's shoes I wouldn't have tried launching yet another offensive war six years later, on a national Israeli religious holiday, no less.
No matter how you look at it, you have to take into the previous and future actions of the combatants. While Israel was without a doubt belligerent, they also maintained a goal of survival. By contrast, its neighbours had no such defensive aims. Taken in a context of a week or two in 1967, perhaps the Six Day War really doesn't look pre-emptive. Taken in context of three decades of conflict, it's pretty difficult to draw any other conclusion. maybe that's where we differ in our assessments.
If you're doing that you have to go back and look at the way Israel's actions would have looked to the states that border them. And that's not going to present the picture of a trustworthy neighbour either. Hell, look at Israel's current rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program and then consider what the surrounding nations are going to have thought of Israel.
-
Until you start building settlements in them of course......
No one is saying that the settlement-building isn't a douchebag move.
Which gives plenty of time for diplomacy to have prevented it. I'm not sure what the terms were of the mutual defence pact were but it seems likely that Syria and Jordan might have sat out a war if Egypt were the ones who started it. Basically once we get past the fact that the war wasn't imminent we get into a historical guessing game about what might have happened if Israel had stayed its hand. Maybe the war would have happened, maybe not.
I'm not entirely sure if you can diplomatically resolve a sentiment that "We want to wipe your country from the face of the planet." But as you said, it's a guessing game.
If you're doing that you have to go back and look at the way Israel's actions would have looked to the states that border them. And that's not going to present the picture of a trustworthy neighbour either. Hell, look at Israel's current rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program and then consider what the surrounding nations are going to have thought of Israel.
Of course, nowhere am I saying that Israel is the unblemished good guy in all this.
-
...aaaaaand, on the subject of douchebag moves that Israel makes, 1100 new houses were just approved in East Jerusalem.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/israel-approves-construction-of-1100-new-houses-in-east-jerusalem/article2181773/
-
Of course, nowhere am I saying that Israel is the unblemished good guy in all this.
I'm not saying you are, but a lot of people seemed to take your original post on the subject that way. I'm merely providing a counter-argument to that.
-
I'll add a counter... counter... counter argument.
Pave Holy Land into the Sea, Get World Peace, Eliminate the Righties' wet dream off kicking off the Apocalypse by restoring the Temple Mount, Profit on new shipping route between the Gulf of Agaba and the Med. :P
-
I have on numerous occasions said that both sides are so stupid that the best thing to do would be to kick both sides out and give the land to someone more reasonable. :p
I've already made this argument. :p Unless you're his teenage mermaid daughter, Poseidon is pretty reasonable.
-
But... who to give it to? The UN?
-
Well that worked really well last time. :p
-
Well that worked really well last time. :p
Well, that made me actually LOL. =)
-
Give it to China, save them the trouble... :nervous: ;)