Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I wish I were Israeli. Imagine being in a country with a moral blank check -- your supporters will never, ever criticize your actions whatever they may be. If anything they'll give you smurf for being too gentle with your neighbors.

Actually, I don't really support Israel.
I support even less the idea of proportional response.

robco wrote:

Some terrorists are too dangerous to try and apprehend.  How many suspected terrorists have been killed by NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Obviously the deaths of militants during armed conflict are inevitable...I'm speaking more of their penchant for assassinations. 

Yes, there was a war, Israel took the land in the war and occupied it.  Kinda like the US did with much of the southwestern US.

...I already pointed out the difference....

Israel tried to give back the West Bank and Jordan didn't want it.  They gave back the Golan Heights and could have taken much more land in Egypt - but didn't.  Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and were preparing to do the same to the West Bank - with great internal difficulty.  And what did that get them?

I'd say it got them the unfortunate consequences of their wrongful behavior towards the refugee population for the past several decades.

Yes...they've attempted to start righting some of those wrongs now.  That doesn't mean that the consequences will immediately dissipate. 

Giving support to terrorists isn't the answer either.  Cutting off funding has led to the desire effect of Hamas compromising a little and that's a start.  The message must be that funding is absolutely conditional based on a government that will recognize Israel and rein in the militants - anything less is simply unacceptable.  If/when aid does resume, the PA needs to allow external oversight to ensure that every Euro is spent to build infrastructure and grow the economy in Gaza and the WB and not used for terrorism.  Backing down now would be a huge mistake.

Imagine the Minutemen down south started launching homemade rockets into Mexico, and/or started kidnapping Mexican citizens to hold hostage.  If the US government took no action to stop them, wouldn't the Mexican government be justified in taking action?

My belief is that, in both the situation with Lebanon as well as the PA, Israel (and probably the U.S.) needs to attempt to work with the moderate voices in those governments.  Would it have been impossible to say to the Lebanese government "this is what has to happen, this mission must be carried out, you have the opportunity to do it yourself with our backing, but you need to act now?"  Of course the Lebanese couldn't have done it themselves, but it could have been accomplished with Israeli/U.S./whoever else's backing.

resedit wrote:

They snatched up resources that were strategically advantageous to those who want to eliminate them. They returned land they took that was not of much benefit to their neighbors in a military strike against them.

Now - they may be holding the land in violation of "applicable international law". However, if applicable international law means they put their own nation at risk of destruction from neighbors bent on their anhialation, then I'm sorry - but there aren't any countries in existance that wouldn't do the same thing.

I notice you don't mention a thing about settlements or refugee camps. 

It's nice for countries that have workable relations with their neighbors to sit down at a table and make rules for other countries - but it also is a little hypocritical, because those same nations would break those same rules if circumstances changed at their borders.

Israel took the land because it was necessary to do so to defend their nation.

They could be "good world citizens" and give the land back so that their neighbors could make war on them again, potentially wiping them out - but no country would do that in their shoes, at least no country that likes existance.

Again, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that the land be given "back to their neighbors."  It should be used for the creation of a Palestinian state as it was originally intended.

With respect to putting settlers in those lands - that may not have been the smartest move, but it is a lot easier to get support of your people defending an area that has your people living in them, and that probably was the reason. I don't think Israel ever intended to give those lands back (except for southern lebanon). They are land that are very valuable in the possession of an enemy.

PARTS of those lands are strategic (and not so much the Gaza Strip), but there was never any suggestion that they be returned to where they came (which in some cases was disputed anyway). 

Those who are now Palestinian refugees fled Israel proper.  By international law, they should have been allowed to return.  Even without that, you'll never convince me that keeping those refugees under occupation, taking resources such as water, importing settlers and carving the area up by settlers-only roads, and failing to offer equal rights was the "right" thing to do...international law or no.

What would you have Israel to do in order to maintain security of their nation? Do you think giving those lands back would satisfy their enemies? Do think they could adequately maintain the security of Israel if they did give them back? Sure, they have nukes, but I think we can all agree that it is preferable that nukes not be used.

Again...are you honestly operating under the illusion that the land would be given to the surrounding countries? 

I think the creation of a Palestinian state would do a great deal to quell the discontent of the Palestinian population.  The two should be dealing and negotiating as sovereign equals, not as occupier and occupied. 

Have you looked at the geographical layout of the middle east?

http://www.elca.org/countrypackets/israel/map.jpg

Look at the west bank. Notice how it almost cuts the north apart from the south? Notice how close it gets to many of the important port cities, including Tel Aviv?

btw - SINCE taking the west bank, Israeli relations with Jordan have actually gotten better, not worse. In fact, Jordan doesn't even want it back. They don't want the palestinians that are living there.

Again...when most talk about the return of the land, they're referring to the creation of the Palestinian state that was envisioned at Israel's creation.  They're not talking about giving the land to an existing country, except maybe in the case of small areas like the Shebaa farms which would go back to Lebanon. 

What is the answer?

In my opinion?  Develop the infrastructure of the territories, stabilize the lives of the Palestinians and give the average civilian hope for some sort of future for themselves and their family, and have both sides at the table as equals.

bratboy wrote:

...and as I've said in other discussions, I find it complete foolish that the U.S. doesn't maintain diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria.

What could they accomplish?
I'm seriously curious.

bratboy wrote:

Obviously the deaths of militants during armed conflict are inevitable...I'm speaking more of their penchant for assassinations.

Assassinations are a messy business.  But sometimes it's the best way to take someone out.

I'd say it got them the unfortunate consequences of their wrongful behavior towards the refugee population for the past several decades.

And the wrongful behavior towards Jews for centuries?  Or against Israel for as long a time?  Starting several wars?  Targeting Israeli citizens.

The Palestinians have some legitimate complaints and if they spent more of their resources trying to help their own people and use non-violent means to achieve their ends, I'd be more sympathetic.  But they continually turn toward violence.  It usually isn't Israel that derails the peace process and screws up yet another roadmap.

Yes...they've attempted to start righting some of those wrongs now.  That doesn't mean that the consequences will immediately dissipate.

No, but given the result, do you want to see a Palestinian state with a military?  I don't.  Until they can demonstrate that they're willing to co-exist peacefully with Israel and their other neighbors, I see no point in pursuing the goal of a Palestinian state.  Israel has made peace with Jordan and Egypt at least.

My belief is that, in both the situation with Lebanon as well as the PA, Israel (and probably the U.S.) needs to attempt to work with the moderate voices in those governments.  Would it have been impossible to say to the Lebanese government "this is what has to happen, this mission must be carried out, you have the opportunity to do it yourself with our backing, but you need to act now?"  Of course the Lebanese couldn't have done it themselves, but it could have been accomplished with Israeli/U.S./whoever else's backing.

Israel is more than willing to work with and was working with the Abbas government and Fatah.  But Hamas isn't very moderate.  So there's no working with the current PA government.

Did the Lebanese government ask for help?  No.  Hezbollah is part of the government (or was) for Zeus' sake.  Their "peace" was more of a simmer waiting to go back to a full boil (which it has).  Their internal affairs are and were a mess.  If they'd asked for help from Israel, the US or EU, then it would be seen as more western imperialism.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  There aren't any moderate Arab states to shoulder the burden.

Muslims, Jews and Christians have never really played nicely together.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

...and as I've said in other discussions, I find it complete foolish that the U.S. doesn't maintain diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria.

What could they accomplish?
I'm seriously curious.

You could refer to any number of my previous posts on the matter, citing former diplomats and officials who believe (rightly, in my opinion) that it is a mistake to only communicate with 'friends.'  It cuts down on available options when crisis occurs.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

...and as I've said in other discussions, I find it complete foolish that the U.S. doesn't maintain diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria.

What could they accomplish?
I'm seriously curious.

You could refer to any number of my previous posts on the matter, citing former diplomats and officials who believe (rightly, in my opinion) that it is a mistake to only communicate with 'friends.'  It cuts down on available options when crisis occurs.

We don't only communicate with friends.
We held diplomatic relations with Russia during the cold war. We still hold diplomatic relations with China.

We do not hold diplomatic relations with such blatant supporters of terrorism.

resedit wrote:

Again, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that the land be given "back to their neighbors."  It should be used for the creation of a Palestinian state as it was originally intended.

A palestinian state that was rejected by the palestinians because they wanted the whole pie.
Jordan is pretty much a palestinian state population wise. That's why Jordan doesn't want the west bank - the ruling family there is not palestinian.

Anyway, using the west bank for the creation of a new country is not part of the international law that you claim Israel is violating by occupying it. What it would create is a land locked country - and a fairly poor one at that.

Instead of terrorist actions against Israel, they would build a military to use against Israel.

Something like that will eventually happen though, and Peace will be proclaimed in the middle east.
That's when it is time to get really scared, because that's when some serious smurf is gonna go down.

Well, the whole thing seems to be a big Catch 22.  Israel limits economic activity, and causes death and destruction because of a minority of violent Palestinians.  Palestinians have no choice but to turn to violence because Israel limits their economic activity and movement.

But in all this I see Israel as holding the whip.  And every day Israel controls land that was Palestinian, being held by Israel's military might;  and implying that its the Palestinians that are holding back peace, is absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus

It's wikipedia - but is probably as decent of a short summary of the exodus as you will get.
It should be read - so that the contributing circumstances of the exodus won't be swept under the carpet.

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-14 6:34 pm)

resedit wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus

It's wikipedia - but is probably as decent of a short summary of the exodus as you will get.
It should be read - so that the contributing circumstances of the exodus won't be swept under the carpet.

And, if one flees their home for any reason, why can they never return ?  It doesn't seem civilized to say "well, you left, I won't let you return."  I think nowadays its called "ethnic cleansing" and is probably widely viewed as a war crime / crime against humanity.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

A palestinian state that was rejected by the palestinians because they wanted the whole pie.
Jordan is pretty much a palestinian state population wise. That's why Jordan doesn't want the west bank - the ruling family there is not palestinian.

When did such negotiation occur, and who was ostensibly bargaining on behalf of the Palestinians?

IIRC, they objected to the division based upon the sizes of the populations at the time.

IIRC, they objected to anything that established a Jewish nation. I believe Jordon is quite a bit larger than Israel, and is populated primarily by Palestinians, thus other than its government, it pretty much is a palestinian state. It's not governed by palestinians though.

resedit wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus

It's wikipedia - but is probably as decent of a short summary of the exodus as you will get.
It should be read - so that the contributing circumstances of the exodus won't be swept under the carpet.

I don't understand what you point is...are you claiming that civilians fled Israel proper somehow due to their own fault?  Are you claiming that a 'right-of-return' was never warranted?