Does the PA have those weapons and trained personnel or does hamas?
And therefore we can’t make peace with the people in the WB?
Well everyone has the right to defend themselves, even the palestinians. And how does Israel (or any other nation) have a right to exist? Doesn’t might make right in the context of international relations? I don’t see how anyone is threatening israel’s abilty to exist. Do you?
Didn’t UN resolution 181 also create a palestinian state? Or did it create the State of Israel and the occupied territories?:smack:
So does this mean we should enforce all the other UN resolutions or do we pick and choose which UN resolutions we like?
Its not actually abundantly clear, it uses the word ordered, WFT was the emperor doing in that room and why was his opinion being asked? Was it in his role as a figurehead? You can make an argument that it wasn’t ordered but its just an argument, its not abundantly clear as you claim. But you aren’t just trying to argue taht it wasn’t ordered, you are trying to maintain the emperor was not a leader of japan during the war.
Find another cite that says he was a figurehead because that is not what the article says. Youa re absically saying that the article is wrong in part and that we should only look at the part that could be interpreted to support your position. I don’t see how you can simoultaneously say it didn’t carry any weight while saying that it was used to convince everyone to surrender. Did you meant o say that it was not dispositive, that people did not feel obligated to do exactly as the emperor commanded? What difference does it make if they do what he commands whether they are under penalty of death to obey or not?
If the King of England was exercising leadership authority, then yes. If the King ordered the surrender and based on his order the country obeyed, then yes.
Well israel can do whatever they think they can get away with and so can hamas. We’ll see how things play out. My fervent hope is that we eliminate our dependence on middle easter fuel and we stop giving a shit about the area and just feel real bad when stuff happens there like we feel when bad stuff happens in Africa or Tibet.
Well, they are welcome to try again but IIRC, it didn’t work to well the last time around.
The PA was given control of Gaza, and subsequently Hamas took over and continued waging terrorism against Israel. I don’t think anyone sane wants that to happen with the West Bank.
Yes, Hamas is founded on threats to Israel’s existence. If you mean that Israel shouldn’t do anything about terrorist attacks on their citizens until after Hamas kills some more Israelis, I disagree.
It split up the territory into Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians and Arab countries almost immediately attacked Israel and tried to destroy her and take her land. They lost, and Israel added to its right to exist the right to hold the territory it had conquered. So Israel has the moral upper hand.
Giving the WB its own country is pretty much the “Two State Solution,” and I think that’s the best course. (I’m also afraid that the two states would exist at the same low-level of constant war that we see today.)
Making them citizens of Israel, with the full right to vote, would certainly change the character of the “Jewish State.” The differential birth-rate issue is already in a position to change Israel’s nature. Adding one and a half million Israeli citizens of Arab descent and identification, in one shot, would be…dramatic.
Though with a dearth of good options, this seems like the least bad. Giving full citizenship to all those within Palestine would be:
The least violent option. Choosing to vote in extremists vs. having extremists fire rockets into population centers should have a moderating effect as politicians have to please their constituents
The most democratic option. Israel doesn’t want to lose its identity. But that identity is rapidly becoming one of unending violence. Rather than hold on to that identity by force, its more democratic to allow the concept to change in order to give actual people real power to attain a more majority-based ideal
The most long-term, safer option. Unless Israel either kills off the Palestinians, the current path seems to point to continuing terrorism or eventual subjugation of one side by the other through a decisive war that wipes one side out. Neither of these are safe options, leading to more ire between Israel and its neighbors. Better to co-op your enemies by turning them into friends, or people with a stake in Israel’s future, rather than permanent antagonists.
The only thing seems to be that Israeli’s fear that Palestinians will outvote them into some kind of 2nd class citizenship and take over like that, but I choose to believe that having a stake in Israel’s survival will moderate them.
There were greenhouses in some of the areas given to the Palestinians. They didn’t use them to grow tomatoes, they ripped out the plumbing and sold it for scrap. I don’t see them having any stake in Israel’s survival.
Even if this worked the way you believe it does, what are you going to do in the interim? Between “extremists firing artillery at civilian centres” and “extremists voting in elections”, you’d have up to four years of “extremists have free access to civilian centres”, and I can guarantee that they would be bloody. If Palestinians are to be given full Israeli citizenship, they must first abandon the terror tactics that are the reason they are kept at arms length today.
Their identity is one of unending violence because the Palestinians are trying to murder them. Do not gloss over that point.
You cannot turn your enemies into friends simply by baring your throat to them. You reject out of hand the possibility that Palestine would simply stop trying to murder civilians, but that is a necessary prerequisite to peace in the region.
Has having a stake in a country’s survival ever stopped Muslim extremists attempting to turn women into second class citizens?
If Mexico and Canada launched hundreds of rocket strikes into American cities, kidnapped and murdered our citizens, and used every opportunity they could to publicly announce that their goal was the utter destruction of the United States, I sincerely hope that our response would be much harsher than air strikes on the launch sites.
The Palestinians want something Israel cannot give; Jerusalem (oh, and also the complete destruction of Israel). As long as this demand continues to be made, Jerusalem can’t negotiate. Even fig-leaf gestures like completely withdrawing from Gaza and giving it to Palestine just make things worse. Palestine will not negotiate in good faith, and until such time as they do, Israel must keep the boot down.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the Gazans getting bombed. If you don’t want to get bombed, don’t attack Israel! Don’t support Hamas! It’s not rocket science, only rocket common sense! Namely, don’t attack people with rockets!
Thanks everyone for the replies to the thread. Trying to refocus a bit on the OP (I’m really not interested in debating Israel’s right to exist, that ship has sailed decades ago)…
What do you all think would be the best way for Israel to try to achieve the goal of peace at this point?
I would have said that a start would be to announce a suspension of airstrikes and ask that Hamas also suspend their attacks, and for the two sides to come to the negotiating table. Which it seems is basically what they did, only to be rejected by Hamas.
I don’t ask what Hamas should do, because I think it’s obvious: They should accept the cease fire.
So you think there was cause and effect there? Palestinians are given full control over gaza, settlers are expelled and then as a consequence of that disengagement and expulsion of settlers, Hamas takes over Gaza and wages war on israel?
Doesn’t Fatah have full control over parts of the WB? Why don’t they get taken over by Hamas and become safe zones from which Hamas can wage war?
how are a bunch of guys mostly armed with some small arms and the occasional RPF 7 who vow to destroy Israel and actual threat to Israel
s ability to exist? Are all the guys chanting “death to America” existential threats to America?
I asked why Israel has more of a right to exist than Palestine. You pointed to a document that created two countries, Israel and Palestine. You see how why your cite doesn’t really support the notion that Israel has more of a right to exist than Palestine? If you are saying that Israel has the right to exist while Palestine doesn’t because of the right of conquest or something then Israel’s right to exist is subject to anyone else’s right of conquest. Right?
And are we giving weight to all UN resolutions or just the ones that you like?
I can make a moral argument for the formation of the state of Israel in Germany/Austria, but if there is a moral argument for Israel’s right to exist in the middle east, then I have not heard it. Israel doesn’t have some moral right to exist in the middle east, they are operating on “might makes right” and might makes right is not a moral basis for anything.
I’m not really as naive as some people here seem to think. I think a two state plan could be a huge failure but I don’t see it as irreversible if it turns out to be a mistake. And there is a chance that if it is handled right and WB sees economic prosperity, then the folks over in Gaza will wonder why their leaders have been fighting to keep that peace prosperity from them for so long. I certainly think that if the WB sees peace and prosperity then there is a good chance that the WB won’t turn into a Hamas stronghold.
As for Israel’s demographic problem, they seem to be trying to balance it out by making themselves attractive to ultra orthodox jews who seem to have high birth rates but seem to be a burden on the state (without contributing much to the defense of the state) and seems to be driving the politics of israel away from peace.
I have heard people say that they fear that a majority Muslim population will turn Israel into a muslim theocracy. I don’t know how you convince people that the palestinians are not religious zealots.
One advantage of a one state solution is that Hamas seems much more open to a one state solution than it is to a two state solution. Largely for the reason that they believe that Israel would no longer be a “Jewish” state at that point (a belief which the zionists seem to share) so you would probably stop the terrorism. Of course others fear payback (in much the same way some southern whites thought Obama would engage in payback for slavery and segregation).
The USA didn’t exist until the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Jun 21, 1788. Most “Americans” in 1776 were born in the 13 colonies, England, or many, many other nations.
Wrong. Palestine is only occupied territory because Palestine and its allies attacked Israel first. In the same way, Germany was only occupied territory because they attacked the Allies first. Instigating a war for the purpose of conquest is immoral, but fighting back against such a war is not.
Not using suicide bombers would probably have helped.
