[Corsair]

Originally posted by Rictor
I don't think there is a single court in the world, including Israeli, that sees the territories as a legitimate part of Israel. The occupation of Gaza is unsustainable, the settlers are a vast minority and generally the place is more trouble than its worth.

And, speaking from experience, I'd say that most Israeli people agree with you. The setterls are a tiny minority and many Israelis would rather that the settlers weren't there so that maybe there'd be a better chance at peace. I have friends and friends' relatives in the IDF right now and their families hate it when they have to go into the territories in order to protect the settlers. Most people just plain don't like the settlements and don't want to see modern Israel's borders be the same as biblical Israel's.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
The occupation of Gaza is unsustainable, the settlers are a vast minority and generally the place is more trouble than its worth.

You know, this brings up an interesting point. If 6,000 Jews amidst a sea of a million Arabs is an unsustainable situation, then it logically follows that 6 million Jews amidst a sea of 250 million Arabs is equally unsustainable. Where does one draw the line?

Don't quote me on the exact numbers, but you get the point.

Originally posted by Rictor
In fact, in the long term it could very well prove to be a setback for the Palestinians, since already the wall has carved out something like an additional 20% of the West Bank.

Actually, despite claims throughout the world that the security fence will be the de facto border, Israel just changed the route the security fence takes. The new route will only seperate 6% of Judea and Samaria.

Also, in case anyone is wondering about the repercussions of the suicide bombing at that Tel-Aviv discotheque the other day, Israel has announced that she will not respond militarily, but will delay the planned handover of the West Bank security control to the Palestinians.

[Rictor]

Israel as a nation is sustainable because
a) its borders (pre 1967) are defended by international law
b) world public opinion strongly favours the continued existance of Israel with its curernt borders
c) it has might on its side

The mistake in viewing Gaza as a microcosm of Israel is that Israel's borders are legally defined and not open to discussion (at least not discussion about pushing them inward) while Gaza is not legally part of Israel. And considering that the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank are a relitively new concept, its hard to view them as anything other then demographic warfare.

Think of it this way:
Israel has immigration policies that prevent non-Jews from becoming a majority. And I'm fine with this, it makes sense, cause otherwise the whole exercise of creating a Jewish state was pointless. But they can back it up with force, while the Palestinians in the territories can't. Imagine the roles reversed; Palestinians start moving into the border regions of Israel and setting up settlements which are protected by a powerful military, then use the fact that they have a presence in the area to justify annexing that land.

As for the wall, answer me honestly: once its up, whichever route it takes, do you think that if/when a Palestinian state is created, the border will not at the wall? Its seems to me to be a pretty permanent measure, so any land grabs are for keeps.

[Rictor]

Oh and, as the retaliation, if it indeed works out that way then Israel gets my sincere kudos. We'll see, I can only hope that cooler heads prevail, on both sides.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
As for the wall, answer me honestly: once its up, whichever route it takes, do you think that if/when a Palestinian state is created, the border will not at the wall? Its seems to me to be a pretty permanent measure, so any land grabs are for keeps.

You misunderstand. The security fence is already erected along a good portion of its length (hence the drastic lowering of terrorist attacks inside Israel in recent months). They're not just changing the planned future route of the fence, they're relocating sections that have already been erected as well.

I was on guard along part of the fence (wall at that location, actually) at the Kalandia checkpoint between Jerusalem and Ramallah. I've attached a picture I took so you can see how easily moved the wall / fence really is - nothing more than concrete blocks sitting on the ground.

[Rictor]

I actually don't care if people call it a fence, wall or barrier, its just semantics. Probably barrier is most accurate.

As for changing the location of the already installed parts, I wasn't aware that that was the case, or that it was even possible. Quite interesting, thanks for brining that up, I'll look into it.

[Black Wolf]

You know, it streikes me that if the Palestineans have all these spare explosives lying about, they'd be better off blowing up that thing than strapping them to themselves and blowing up nightclubs.

[Rictor]

Yeah well, when waging a war against a superior enemy, attrition is the name of the game. The wall can be rebuilt at minimal expense..

[vyper]

In balance I never did understand suicide bombers. Surely after this long they have the logistical ability to plant explosives in a target area and get the hell out before it goes off. I know there is a certain glamarous martyrdom thing going on, but it's still poor tactics.

[Sapphire]

Wha?  You mean you wouldn't blow yourself up for the promise of a roomfull of virgins?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
You know, it streikes me that if the Palestineans have all these spare explosives lying about, they'd be better off blowing up that thing than strapping them to themselves and blowing up nightclubs.

Actually, that's not true - forgetting the whole who's right or wrong for a moment and just focusing on the practicalities of the matter.

{Combat Engineer mode} Human flesh is what's called a "soft" target; damage from suicide bombers is primarily through the shrapnel such as nails, bolts, and other metallic debris that they pack around the explosives, just like in a fragmentation grenade.

To cause significant damage to something as dense as stressed and reinforced concrete, you either need a projectile of significant mass travelling at high velocity (eg. a tank shell), or a fairly big shaped charge to focus a large percentage of the explosive force in one small area (eg. an RPG). Returning to the specific case of Israel and the Palestinians, simply placing explosives against a wall such as the Israeli security barrier is partially composed of would not have much of an effect unless the amount of explosives was inordinately high (I'd hazard a guess in the range of hundreds of kilos). Contrast that to the average suicide bomb attack having anywhere from 3-15 kilos of explosives, and you can see why the suicide bomber method is more "effective".

Besides, from what I recall, all parts of the barrier are either under direct observation or are wired to detect tampering. That pretty much neutralizes any gain the Palestinians would attain in blowing a hole in the wall.

Digging another of their favored tunnels, OTOH...

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Sandwich

{Combat Engineer mode} Human flesh is what's called a "soft" target...

I'll admit to being no expert on the technicalities, but I'm more talking from a symbolic POV. Bombing the wall that's carving god knows how many hectares out of their land is going to be much better accepted in the international community than bombing civillians, which, in the long term, will lead to less international condemnation of the palestinians and more on the Israelis.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Sandwich
I like how you think that the Gaza Strip, Judea, and Samaria were taken from the Palestinians to begin with. Besides, I don't see Syria or Jordan complaining that Israel initiate a war against them and took their lands. They know very well precisely what happened in '67. Do you?

Umm, Syria do complain they want the Golan heights back, the west bank was never part of Jordan to start with. Dont think its me who needs educating on the situation. And not to lecture you on biblical history, but werent the jews only one tribe of twelve which formed the kingdom of Israel? Expelled from same kingdom for worshipping false gods and fought wars with it? Not very good ground to make a claim on the territory. Tell me, should we give spain back to the moors? They ruled it for longer than the kingdom of Israel existed. England ruled a large part of france for a while, should anyone whos church of england be entitled to move there, forcibly expell any frenchmen and set up their own country?

Originally posted by Sandwich
And yes, that was Jesus. What's the point?

Say for a minute the guy came back and looked at Israel, thought about what he'd said you should do and decided to do to the Israelis as they had done to others, how do you think the country would last? your supposed to live your life by the ideals he thought, not some vague prophosies about his return

Originally posted by Sandwich
P.S. Don't get me riled up - I've got a gun and I know how to use it.

As do I, but i dont think either of us have a clear shot at each other

Originally posted by Sandwich
Tell me, do you go around calling every American you meet a settler? Just curious.

Only if said american first told me the were born in another country, had no anscestral links to the place, lived in a settlement in a part of america that had taken from indians by force, served in the army and taken part in raids into indian refugee camps and had made it clear that they thought they had every right to evict the indians and take their homes. Then I would yes.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Without even going back to Biblical times, no. Those territories were part of Egypt and Jordan, repectively. As far as I know (darn Wikipedia is down ATM), "Palestinians" were invented circa 1970-something with the formation of Egyptian-born Arafat's PLO.

This is complete and utter bollox mate, Gaza and the West bank were never part of either, both jordan and egypt came into existance at the breakup of the ottoman empire by the allies after ww1 at the same time as the british mandate of palestine. the name palestine itself comes from the phillistines, who existed there since biblical times.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Gank


This is complete and utter bollox mate, Gaza and the West bank were never part of either, both jordan and egypt came into existance at the breakup of the ottoman empire by the allies after ww1 at the same time as the british mandate of palestine. the name palestine itself comes from the phillistines, who existed there since biblical times.

I think this is what he was reffering to.

http://www.israel.org/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Israel%20in%20Maps/Armistice%20Lines%201949-1967

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Gank
Only if said american first told me the were born in another country, had no anscestral links to the place, lived in a settlement in a part of america that had taken from indians by force, served in the army and taken part in raids into indian refugee camps and had made it clear that they thought they had every right to evict the indians and take their homes. Then I would yes.

I think sandy here is second generation, he doesn't look like he was alive in 48, he has about as much anscestral links as we do, actualy more becase of the who jew thing, one could assume all of America is a 'setlement', "taken from indians by force" as opposed to the parts that we just 'found' unocupied ? , ok I don't serve in the military but we didn't leave any 'refugees' like Israel did, maybe that was there mistake , Israel doesn't seem to be expanding at the moment, they are shrinking a little.

[Gank]

Actually Sandy was born in the US Bobbaou, Washington iirc. And whether he was alive in 48 or not has nothing to do with it, he lives in the west bank, in occupied territory where the very people who owned the land he lives on most likely live in a refugee camp a few miles away. Hes an adult and a US citizen, if he doesnt feel happy with the way things are done theres nothing keeping him there. The difference between him and say you is that you had no say in what was done to the indians, you didnt take part in it.

Btw Israel isn't shrinking, they havent actually given up anything yet and they're continuing to build the wall which cuts off larges areas of the west bank from the palestinians. I dont think the gaza pull out is likely to happen either, or if it does it'll be accompanied by a similar land grab in the west bank, likuds not going to give anything to the palestinians without gaining more first.

 

Originally posted by Splinter
I think this is what he was reffering to.
 

They were under Egyptian and Jordanian rule, not part of those countrys, Egypt and Jordan never made any claims to the territory. he also seemed to be implying that palestinians never existed, which is a popular theory among right wing Israelis, along with the theory that Jordan is Palestine. Both are complete and utter bollocks, and just used as a way of excusing the dispossesion of these people.

[Sandwich]

Gank, I love your method of counter-argument. Unfortunately, I must state that everything you say is complete and utter bollocks, sheer propoganda used by hard-core left wing "World Peace!" tree-huggers who think that fighting for one's rights went the way of the dodo when global television started injecting the ooey-gooey scenes of bloody warfare into the household of every Tom, Dick, and Harry, exposing their children to the brutal realities of what true Humanity is, and imprinting the scenes of gore and spilled guts into their retinas far beyond what Hollywood could ever do.

Personally, I'm finished arguing with people who think they can see the whole picture from the vantage point of their comfy couches in their air-conditioned living rooms, growing ever more bloated on the excesses of the fattened society they exist in. Just keep in mind what stage of a cow's life comes after the fattening up.

So, let this be a Personal Service Announcement by me:

Unless you have been here, seen with your own eyes the wretched living conditions of the Palestinians, seen their suffering at the eternal lines of the checkpoints, read thei school cirriculum, and spoken to the mother of a suicide bomber face-to-face, don't you dare start to argue "their" side with me - you have NO right.

And unless you've been here, visited the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, stopped for a moment at one of the myriad  memorial sites scattered around the streets of the cities, attended the funeral of a mother of four or an only son murdered near one of the abovementioned memorial sites, and seen the way the IDF operates, don't you dare start arguing the Israeli side alongside me either - you equally have NO right.

Keep your "I can see how to solve the world's problems from the comfort of my own home" ideas to yourselves - nobody cares, least of all the people whose problems you think you can solve. They know precisely how disconnected you are from their reality, and they know precisely what kind of world you live in when you're spoon-fed your world view by the media.

Leave them the hell alone.

{/rant from inside a guard tower}

[karajorma]

If we're talking about NO right lets start with the no right you have to settle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip considering that all the problems you've talked about stem from that one.

By your logic no one should argue against Iraq or any other country beyond our own cause we're not there.

Rwandan Massacre? Lets do nothing. We're not Rwandan we have no right to stop it.

[aldo_14]

Hoboy.  I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot clown pole.........