(01-08-2009 01:23 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Anybody that feels sorry for Hamas

Find me one person on here who feels sorry for HAMAS.

Just one.

Good lord, it's like an army of strawmen in here.

You libs answer this one for me, is the West Bank being attacked? If not, why?

The elephant in the room is that Israel isn't big enough to split between Jews and Palestininans in a way that gives either one of them a reasonable shot at success. Pin the Paletinians down in Gaza, and life is unlivable. Give them enough of the West Bank to have a reasonable shot, and Israel is trimmed back to an indefensible sliver. If the Palestinian homeland is split beween Gaza and the West Bank, the options are to restrict passage back and forth (threatening Palestine's national integrity) or allow free passage (threatening Israel's security). There is no way to solve this by giving each side totally contiguous territory. This is only going to be solved by coming up with some more land. That means somebody (we) will have to put enough on the table to get some Arab country to give up some territory.

Gaza is the historic homeland for Palestinians (as opposed to pure-bred Arabs). Look at a map of the Holy Land in Davidic times; there's a big area called Philistia right where the Gaza strip is today. The Palestinians of today are the lineal descendants of those Philistines (who were non-semitic, another wrinkle); the etymology should be obvious. They have intermarried with Arabs enough that there are probably few, if any, pure-bred Palestinians today; the mixed-race thing makes Palestinians the outcasts of the Arab world, similar to the way Jews have been outcasts in much of the West.

With that in mind, it seems to me that the obvious place to go to find living room for the Palestinians is out into the Sinai. Carter had Sadat and Begin in the room with a chance to broker this deal at Camp David, but he blew it. I wonder if some of his pro-Palestinian stance today doesn't arise out of guilt for not figuring this out back then. I think we need to figure out how much of the Sinai the Palestininans would need, and what we'd have to do for Egypt to get the deal done, and then do it. Then somebody (we) will have to do what it takes to turn the Sinai into livable space. I'm guessing go about as far west as Wadi al-Arish, continuing south generally along the 34th meridian to Sharm al-Shayk would do it. To make it habitable, put in some desalinization plants and a dam or two or three, and fill the Wadi al-Arish. Then you've got a source of irrigation for both the Egyptian and Palestinian sides. You've also got some lakes that the Palestinians can fish (their historic means of livelihood). Put solar farms down south to generate electricity. At this point, you can turn the Sinai into at least as livable a place as the West Bank, and you have a reasonable chance of attracting enough Palestinians and other Arabs to leave the West Bank that Israel can take over again in that area, giving them a reasonable shot at national security. If you could get that much land from Egypt, I'd give Israel a little more room in the south, maybe setting the Israel-Palestine border at 34-30 east from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. I think that would keep the Palestinian border far enough away from Dimona for the Israelis to be comfortable.

We're talking a LOT of money here to make this dog hunt, both to appease Egypt and to make what you get habitable for the Palestinians. In the end, I think it's the cheapest solution.

I would try to couple it with getting the Arab world to accept the existence and borders of Israel, with (to borrow an idea from Tom Clancy) Jerusalem under international control.

Everybody gives up something, everybody gets something, maybe it would have a shot.

(01-08-2009 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The elephant in the room is that Israel isn't big enough to split between Jews and Palestininans in a way that gives either one of them a reasonable shot at success. Pin the Paletinians down in Gaza, and life is unlivable. Give them enough of the West Bank to have a reasonable shot, and Israel is trimmed back to an indefensible sliver. If the Palestinian homeland is split beween Gaza and the West Bank, the options are to restrict passage back and forth (threatening Palestine's national integrity) or allow free passage (threatening Israel's security). There is no way to solve this by giving each side totally contiguous territory. This is only going to be solved by coming up with some more land. That means somebody (we) will have to put enough on the table to get some Arab country to give up some territory.

Precisely. This is why Jordan should give back the land it took during the war in 1948, all of which belonged to the allocated Palestinian state.

Great idea, except it won't work. It won't work because it won't allow the Palestinian hatred of Jews to continue, and if there is no hatred of the Jews, the current crop of thug leadership is out of business. This isn't a living proposal to ordinary Palestinians, this is a business proposal to the ruling class. The Jews are a bizarro panacea to the entire Arab world, a convienient boogey man that keeps thugs in power and allows them to blame someone but themselves for their current crop of failures. There is NO impetus for the Arab world to get along with the Jews - too many have a lot hinging on the continuation of the hatred.

Something about this conflict was related to me once , and it has always stuck in my mind; it goes something like this:

Give the Palestinians all they want, and the Jews are mad.
Give the Jews all they want, and the Palestinians are mad.
Split what everyone wants down the middle, and they'll fight against each other for the other portion.
Bulldoze everything into dust, and they'll fight over the dust.
Let the ocean flood the area, and they'll fight over the water.
Blow up the earth, and they'll fight over the empty space.

Never forget Jordan was Palestinians traditional homeland, but were kicked out when Al Fatah (Arafat) attempted a coup d'état to take over the government. Black September 1970.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm

(01-08-2009 01:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Great idea, except it won't work. It won't work because it won't allow the Palestinian hatred of Jews to continue, and if there is no hatred of the Jews, the current crop of thug leadership is out of business.

Sounds like the race hustlers in this country.

I agree with Jugnaut. I even hear commercials on the radio about the Jews, Israel, and basically how they were put upon, blah, blah. All we get is Israel's side of the story. That right there raises a red flag. People that have been in the Palestinian areas see the Palestinians thrown off their land and replaced by Jewish settlers. As time goes by and this continues to happen, the Israelis hold all the cards. They can blockade the territories and make them non-viable - so it doesn't matter whether you have a government, elections, etc. This leads to frustration, anger, and retaliation in the only form that the Palestinians can manage.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, as I don't blame Israel for invading to hopefully stop the rocket attacks, I think that was their only choice. And you are going to have civilian casualties when that occurs. Also, if Hamas really is not willing to ever recognize Israel then there's no hope (but I've also heard that Hamas uses recognition as a negotiating tool - but what do they want in exchange for recognition of the right to exist?) I'm just saying that the Israelis make it worse by some of their own actions, many of them not related to security. And the Israelis can do pretty much whatever they want - time is on their side here, so what reason do they really have to negotiate on fair terms with the Palestinians? I think we need to forget everything we think we know about how the Israelis just want peace and they have halos over their heads, and the Palestinians have no case for redress.

Hmmm, I hear an awful lot from the other side. Wasn't aware our MSM had opened their eyes and seen what was really going on. I hear plenty of Israel is the aggressors, they are terrorists too, they are targeting civilians, blah, blah, blah. Arabs are invited all day long to speak, protests in the streets get covered. It's sickening to hear the BS all day long. I don't know where you are getting your info, but it must be the only pro Israel source out there.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. Israel has worked tirelessly for peace.

(01-10-2009 11:03 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  All we get is Israel's side of the story.

I used to see Arafat's little Scrunched Up Face on TV 20 Times a day or some mention of the "PLO's Horrible Plight" on the MSM/MSP ....

In wonderful stark Technicolor Contrast, I have seen Ben Gurion, Sharett, Eshkol, Golda Meir, Rabin, Begin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, and Olmert, maybe 80% Less Each or as a Collective per their time in Office, as compared to the PLO's Hierarchy.

The MSM has not been kind to Israel …. if you do hear of Israel any at all, it usually has historically been negative and Pro PLO or what ever name they like to call them selves at the moment.

If the MSM is switching gears at this late date, they have a lot of ground to recover.

.

(01-10-2009 11:36 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Hmmm, I hear an awful lot from the other side. Wasn't aware our MSM had opened their eyes and seen what was really going on. I hear plenty of Israel is the aggressors, they are terrorists too, they are targeting civilians, blah, blah, blah. Arabs are invited all day long to speak, protests in the streets get covered. It's sickening to hear the BS all day long. I don't know where you are getting your info, but it must be the only pro Israel source out there.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. Israel has worked tirelessly for peace.

Regarding the latest conflagration, yes. But we don't hear anything about the underlying causes.

(01-10-2009 11:03 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Also, if Hamas really is not willing to ever recognize Israel then there's no hope (but I've also heard that Hamas uses recognition as a negotiating tool - but what do they want in exchange for recognition of the right to exist?) I'm just saying that the Israelis make it worse by some of their own actions, many of them not related to security. And the Israelis can do pretty much whatever they want - time is on their side here, so what reason do they really have to negotiate on fair terms with the Palestinians? I think we need to forget everything we think we know about how the Israelis just want peace and they have halos over their heads, and the Palestinians have no case for redress.

Hamas, to my knowledge, has never indicated the slightest hint that they would recognize Israel as a legitimate country under any circumstance. At best, they have indicated that they would accept a decades-long truce, but the rhetoric generally indicates that they expect to overwhelm Israel in about 40-50 years by means of demographics. As such, it is a serious misstatement to say that time is on the Israeli's side - look at the past 30 years of history and how plane bombings, suicide terrorism, 9/11, etc. have culminated in world sympathy for the Islamists in Gaza. How is it that time is on the Israeli's side?

Hamas was born by organizing youth to throw rocks at tanks and has used asymmetrical warfare as its strategy for its entire existence. Their strategy has been to create levels of violence that are unacceptable to the Israelis and cry to the world about injustice when the Israelis are in a position where they have to take action, and do.

The Israelis are more complicated in why they take certain actions - much of it has to do with domestic politics, and sometimes when looked at as a strategy, things seem harsh or like an overreaction. The progressive sanctions on Gaza since Hamas has taken over is such a case.

(01-07-2009 09:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-07-2009 06:19 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  And you're wrong. 1) Palestinians were there first and had been there for thousands of years. Jews mainly started immigrating in 1917.

Nice to see you took my advice and changed the foundation of your argument. Which was, let us not forget, that the Jews took the land from the Palestinians to make Israel. As I showed, you were wrong.

Second, going back thousands of years, citing people who've been dead for century upon century, as a foundation for your point is, quite frankly, lame to the nth degree. I'm assuming if Native Americans started bombing your city wanting it back you'd be all for it as well? Afterall, what else could they fight with?

Going back thousands of years is convenient to your point because, taking into account modern history, you don't have a basis for one.

Quote:You're actually correct that there was no "State" (do you really need external recognition for it to be your land?), but there was a territory of Palestine where the Palestinians live for centuries. They were ruled by the Ottoman Empire which lost in WWI. Hence, the British Mandate of Palestine was established by victors.

In 721 BC the Assyrians (empire encompassed Syria, Turkey and a part of Iraq) invaded the Northern Kingdom of Israel

Between 598 and 586 BC the Babylonians (modern day Iraq) invaded Israel 3 different times, ultimatley destroyed the temple and took all the Jews into slavery.

In 537 BC the Jews were allowed to return but the entire region was invaded by Alexander the Great in 332 BC. After he died there was war throughout the region and in 320 Egypt conqured the region, then Syria conqured it around 198. In 63 BC the region became part of the Roman Empire.

In 614 AD the Persians conquer the region and kick the Jews out.

These are the Arab/Jew conflicts. You enter the actual Muslim period around 638 AD. The Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem in 638 (6 years after Mohammed's death) and then were kicked out again by the Muslims in 1010.

Around 1100 you enter the time of the crusades. The conflict can go back all the way Issaac and Ishmael if you want. Heck, back to Adam and Eve. It would be just as pointless.

Quote:Your viewpoint only considers half of the facts. It's the Israeli viewpoint. You might want to consider the other side's view and history before you say that Israel is in the right.

No, my point is based in logic and I have considered the other sides views. When you go back centuries to try and validate your point, you leave logic behind.

We're talking today. We're talking modern times. The state of Israel, until 1948, didn't exist. It did not come into existence by taking land from the Palestinians. It didn't come into being by kicking them out of what was theirs. It came into being by the people who ruled it at the time creating two states. On for Israel, the Palestinians were given a state as well at the same time. They chose to throw their lot in with those that wanted to exterminate the Jews. To this day, they throw their lot in with those who want to exterminate the Jews. But you don't care about that. Why? Because Israel has the bigger stick. You're like the person who blames the 6 foot kid for fighting back because the 5 foot kid was stupid enough to walk up and punch him.

Israel offered Arafat the deal of the century back in 2000. [b] He walked away because they don't want a state of their own[b], they want Israel gone. Exterminated. Until, as the article states, the Palestinians decide to rid themselves of Hamas, they will continue to suffer as they have.

Not completely correct. Arafat wanted the right for Pal. to repatriate back to Isreal and the homes they left during the first war. Isreal obviously would not agree to this for anumber of reasons. Arafat had no choice but to reject as the majority of Pal. demanded the right to repatriate. Outside of this issue Isreal offered everything to the Arafat inc. a capital in Jer. Arafat was a fool not to accept. Hell, the Isrealis were even willing to leave the issue of repatriation open to assist Arafat.

(01-11-2009 02:09 PM)West Is the Best Wrote:  Not completely correct. Arafat wanted the right for Pal. to repatriate back to Isreal and the homes they left during the first war. Isreal obviously would not agree to this for anumber of reasons. Arafat had no choice but to reject as the majority of Pal. demanded the right to repatriate. Outside of this issue Isreal offered everything to the Arafat inc. a capital in Jer. Arafat was a fool not to accept. Hell, the Isrealis were even willing to leave the issue of repatriation open to assist Arafat.

This (though disputed) provides some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian...ce_process

I can't recall Israel ever being open to the "Palestian right of return" - they have on the other hand been open to discussing compensation for lost or abandoned land. The primary reason Israel is not open to discussion on this issue is that the demographics are such that it would effectively cede all sovereignty to the Palestinians, and would thus mean the end of the Israeli state.