Israel should absolutely wish for a Palestinian army. And it and the Palestinian state should be held completely accountable for attacks across the border that may originate on its territory. The “international community” should stop all the crap about dispropriate response. A Palestinian state should only be internationally recognised on the condition that rockets, mortars, suicide bombers, etc. across the border into Israel must be accepted as an act of war that can be responded to in any way that the harmed state finds appropriate. And in addition Israel shouldn’t in any way be obliged to open its borders to a Palestinian state or supply it with water or food or building material or whatever.
I don’t really know how to respond here, because, while I strongly disagree with your characterizations, whether you’re right or wrong in your characterization isn’t really relevant. Israel will not do what you suggest. Any government that even proposed that would lose a no confidence vote as soon as they finished the sentence. So what you’re saying, regardless of what you think should happen or what you think is the moral thing to happen, is an impossibility. Israel will not stand by and let anti-Semitic genocide go on. That’s the one thing I can guarantee they won’t do.
To me this is part of the problem. Too many frame the debate based on what Israel will or will not tolerate.
It’s about time the solutions moved past what Israel will “tolerate” to what is considered a just and proper solution to ensure lasting peace and a proper opportunity for both states to survive, economically and socially.
Indeed. Posturing about “toleration” emphasises the current power differential between the two states. Palestinian legitimacy includes the right to a national army, and the right to be held accountable for the actions of that army. I slightly disagree that Israel shouldn’t be “obliged” to have open borders with Palestine - ideally in a few centuries, or hopefully less, all states in the region will have stopped their hissyfits about closed borders and the silly charades required by states that won’t accept entry from people with Israeli-stamped passports. But I agree that is probably a while off.
Oh for fuck sake CitizenPained, five fucking posts in a row!? Cant you learn to use multiquote? Cant you also learn to stop threadshitting in every Israel thread? You never have and just spit out the very same talking points, over and over. We got it the first time, I dont need to scroll/skip your rants every time I read an Israel thread. Especially when your last rant is only a few hours fresh.
And what’s funny out of this is that you still havent actually answered BrainGlutton’s question.
Sounds like a sum up of your posting history.
What agreement was that?
You’re not thinking of UN Resolution 242 are you?
That was specifically drawn up so that Israel did not have to give back all the territory they took when beating back an invading Jordanian army in a defensive war.
Had Jordan not invaded them and tried to destroy them, Jordan wouldn’t have lost the West Bank. The UN recognized that people who invade their neighbors and get beaten back often lose territory.
People will notice how dramatically Europe’s borders have changed during the 20th Century.
That’s why UN Resolution 242 specifically only called for the return of “territory” taken in 1967, not “the territory” or “all the territory” taken in the War.
Technically, the Palestinians have no enemy but Israel. If they had their own state, it’s unlikely Israel is going to invade just for fun. But like I said: If the #1 reason why they don’t have their own state is because they are a threat, then no, they shouldn’t have a military (yet). They do have a police force. It isn’t like they are without weapons. But tanks, airplanes, bombs…? No.
A de-militarized Palestine is something that has been in the known for at least a decade.
But then they could just not claim responsibility…kind of like Hezbollah and Lebanon, or Taliban and Afghanistan.
But this time, if they do such a thing, then Israel has the right to demand they turn over such terrorists, and if they don’t, they will probably invade (just like we did and they did in Lebanon in 06). And I’m sure they’ll be blamed for it.
Well, Israel (and the US) has the power here and doesn’t have a 63 year history of attacking others for the purpose of eradicating other states. Say what you will about settlements and and such, but Israel’s plan for the future is not the whole territory - while Arabs in 48 could’ve had Israeli citizenship, they didn’t want it. They had been content to live under British and Arab rule and local councils for generations.
America doesn’t even have open borders. But it’s fine if you guys think that way - it will never happen. It’s just not…ever going to happen. The entire international community recognizes that (except for Iran or some such) and it’s pretty normal.
[QUOTE]
As if I’m the only person who says the same things over and over and over. I’ve heard these arguments a thousand times now. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because people insist on spewing the same shit?
And what’s funny out of this is that you still havent actually answered BrainGlutton’s question. QUOTE]
I don’t start new threads on Israel. Unfortunately, some people insist on spewing the same myths and mis-characterizations about international relations. You have come into threads you weren’t participating in and bashed me more than once. Boderline, anyone?
I did answer his question - in here and in other threads. I even bolded Captain Amazing’s quote as a summary of my own positions. Maybe you and Brian think that negotiations work when a third party draws up a map and says, “Here, sign”?
You can say all you want about what seems fair to you. Israel is not going to sign anything that poses a threat to security. As far as this military shit is concerned, that’s ridiculous. There is a reason why Japan was de-militarized after WWII. And those poor guys suffered the a-bomb. I’m thinking something akin to a non-aggression pact would be in order.
Does it even matter? The PLO rejected it.
Let’s say illegal settlements on occupied territories do somehow get included in Israel as a starting point for border deal.
What would then prevent Israel from pursuing the same policy by rejecting the deal and continue with the process of acquiring more land by building another illegal settlement? Why would Israel give up on policy that yielded such a great result?
What I’m saying is that allowing for illegal settlements (called “new reality”) for Palestinians side makes zero sense whatsoever. It is just a non-starter.
Me speculating is that it is exactly what the idea is.
Are Han Chinese living in Tibet criminals who should be expelled?
When Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia broke away from the Soviet Union should they have expelled all the ethnic Russians living there on the grounds that they were criminals.
Your analogies are moronic. The settlers are not indigenous to Palestine. They are illegal immigrants.
They’d have to be - the towns near Jerusalem, anyway.
Because Palestine would be a state and it would be an act of war if they tried. They’ve given up land for peace before and Israelis seem willing to do it again.
That’s if you consider them to be illegal. In order for you to convince me of those settlement as being illegal, I’d like to know under whose law and where I can read it.
As it has been pointed out tirelessly, land swaps and border shifts are a common occurrence in wartime. So is population transfer (eg, Pakistan and India).
Palestinians call for the complete removal of Jews from the West Bank. :dubious: They also want some of their people to be citizens of Israel. :dubious: Yeah, that sounds about like it’s not gonna happen.
shrug
Could you give it a rest with the smileys please. This isn’t an iCarly fan site.
Dio, shut the fuck up already.
Diogenes the Cynic and CitizenPained, both of you need to either debate like adults or take this to the Pit. Or both. This is happening in every thread you both post in.
I think I get it now… it’s this idea that 1967 borders (or, originally drawn by UN in 1948) due to wars that happened are no longer legally binding.
So, now, Israel is saying new borders are wherever we want them to be. And not only because there was a war but also because Palestine is not a country.
To which I can only say: b****it!
The same UN document that defined Israel and its borders (in legal terms) at the same time, it ALSO DEFINED the other country. Which means, yes, there is another country on the other side of that border. Border means two COUNTRIES are sharing it. You seem to be suggesting that on one side there is Israel (a country) and on the other some undefined zone that is not owned by anyone that Israel can grab any time they feel like it.
The only course of action for Israel now seems to be FORCING it and I wonder what entity including UN recognized any other border than the one drwan in 1948?
There is no legal standing for any new border. The only border that has a legal document behind it is 1948.
You think that Han Chinese are “indigenous” to Tibet and that Russuans are “indigenous” to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia?
I get the impression you didn’t understand why I asked the question, so I’ll explain.
Tibet is clearly occupied territory and was flooded with Han Chinese settlers.
Similarly, after the Soviets occupied the Baltic Republics they flooded them with Russian immigrants.
So, is your position the Chinese living in Tibet are “criminals” who should be expelled?
Newcomer,
What are you talking about?
The UN has repeated recognized the 1967 borders. They were reached and recognized by the UN following the end of the 1948 War.
If they hadn’t been, then the UNRWA would have classified the Palestians living there as refugees.
Rashid Khalidi has mentioned this and no one would accuse him of being biased in favor of Israel.
The analogies are actually fairly good ones, because in all of those cases, you have territorial changes not generally recognized by the world community (Chinese annexation of Tibet, Soviet incorporation of the Baltic states) followed by settlement by citizens of the occupying power (Russians in the Baltics, Chinese in Tibet).
[quote=newcomer]
The same UN document that defined Israel and its borders (in legal terms) at the same time, it ALSO DEFINED the other country. Which means, yes, there is another country on the other side of that border. Border means two COUNTRIES are sharing it. You seem to be suggesting that on one side there is Israel (a country) and on the other some undefined zone that is not owned by anyone that Israel can grab any time they feel like it.
The only course of action for Israel now seems to be FORCING it and I wonder what entity including UN recognized any other border than the one drwan in 1948?
[quote]
Which resolution are you talking about? Security Council Resolution 73 recognizes the armistice agreement and expresses hopes for a final settlement.
There’s General Assembly Resolution 181, the one that proposed separate Jewish and Arab states and the partition plan, that the Arabs rejected when they started the war, but nobody considers those the borders now. Here’s a map of that, btw, put on top of the Green Line borders:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, adopted on March 22, 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the “Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”.[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.
In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”
United Nations Security Council Resolution 465, adopted unanimously on March 1, 1980, was on the issue of the Israeli settlements and administration in “the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem”. This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.
After noting a report by the Security Council Commission established in Resolution 446 (1979), the Council accepted and commended its work while criticising Israel for not cooperating with it. It expressed concern at Israeli settlement policy in the Arab territories and recalled resolutions 237 (1967), 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969) and 298 (1971). It further called upon the State and people of Israel to dismantle such settlements.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 476, adopted on June 30, 1980, declared that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
Also, from another thread; Israel didn’t freeze settlement construction at all. They froze construction of new settlemrnt building while allowing existing building to continue. And Hamas, peace be upon them, will indeed agree to a temporary truce while a Palestinian state is established. This is a face-saving way of allowing them to agree to two states and leave future generations, who will by then be heavily economically and even culturally linked etc., to make the decision whether to start fighting again or not.
And let’s face it, Hamas, peace be upon them, or subsequent generations aren’t ever likely to field any kind of military power that could trouble Israel. Only the most deluded and chronic bedwetters out there could be scared of any military or other force that Hamas might ever be able to bring and I’m sure you’re not one of them.