For the record, it was Saddam that sang the “I Can Change” song. I know because I’ve memorized it and sing it often in the car
I dunno. I call it an invasion. The only difference is that it was justified. You guys are arguing semantics on the word ‘invasion’, because one of you want to say it was a justified military action and the other seems to want to use it to imply that it was not justified.
If Israel didn’t want the WB, they should not be building anything on it, period. Not settlements nor outposts. You don’t build outposts in another country to defend yourself.
And I find the whole “indefensible border” thing really dishonest. There’s nowhere that Israel can take over where hostile countries couldn’t attack them. It may make a difference in some sporadic rocket attacks, but the good thing about having a 2 state solution is that if the State of Palestine tries that shit, Israel is more than justified to roll tanks into its borders and knock over some buildings.
Why doesn’t Israel just get rid of the settlements and cede all the WB to the Palestinians? They’ve managed to kick all the asses of everyone who’s ever invaded them. I find their constant cries of security to be a bit disingenuous
How am I illogical? The argument was over defensible borders! My point is that map says nothing to suggest israel can defend its borders along the 67 line.
And nowhere have I said that israel should keep them. Stop twisting words.
I was arguing semantics, but not petty semantics. It’s just not how the word is used or understood in history or war. So…I think to say “invasion” is wrong, because it wasn’t.
If Mexico started attacking Texas and we pushed back and overtook Juarez as a buffer zone, that’s not us invading Texas.
If I remember correctly, Jordan invaded the territories in 48, too - that’s how they controlled the West Bank. West Bank is a name that Jordan gave to the area.
You may put up military installations, but like I said, it turned into something it wasn’t supposed to. There are documents - and I’m not sure how to find them online, but I suppose we could try - that show most of the cabinet was very much against taking and annexing the West Bank.
Well, Israel’s wars and territory grabs have been as a result of attacks, so…not so sure that going back to the 48 (cause that’s what Abbas seems to demand) means that Israel is going to in any way be safe. A buffer zone is needed to keep the major population areas separated. (There’s nothing that will help, say, Ariel [assuming that’s a block that will be annexed]) or whatever, but protecting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport is a pretty fair request, no?
I’ve argued that for awhile, but somehow I think that if the future State of Palestine lobbies rockets into Israel, Israel will get the blame, anyway. (: Anti-Israel folks have so far blamed Israel for every war.
Yeah, they kick ass because they don’t always play ‘fair’. I mean, Israel’s policies are realist, just like any other government’s. I think most Israelis are OK with letting most of the West Bank go (like I said, some of those cities have 20k people in them - they aren’t going anywhere) but it’s not the place to start. That’s not where you start negotiations. Something close to the 67 line is where you want to end. At the moment, everything from this point forward potentially detracts from Israel’s wants and needs. That is not even handed and that is not how it usually goes in foreign relations.
I have no idea wtf Obama is thinking.
Saying a two state solution threatens Israel is a valid concern, but Israel has to deal with it. However, pointing out the demographics, infrastructure, airspace, and topography is not disingenuous.
Israel may react with a hard fist, but Israelis don’t aim rockets at Palestinian kids for fun. It’s different. I see nothing that suggests the new state of Palestine has much to worry about.
I would have grudging respect for PLO if they targeted government and attempted diplomacy. That’s the thing. There never has been diplomatic relations. It started off wrong, then in 67 (and especially in 88) it was just completely blown up. There was no one to talk to. You can’t try to negotiate with Jordan, because they don’t want the territory OR the refugee problem. (Half of Jordanians are apparently ‘Palestinians’, btw, but they revoked citizenship of many to please Arafat.) Egypt isn’t in control of Gaza anymore. So who does Israel talk to? PLO circa 1990? F no.
It is a huge mess. But I’m hoping that Abbas is like Netanyahu: two guys on the fringes of their right wing groups that kind of want to meet in the middle if only they could survive it.
That is where the U.S. and Egypt could come in. But now it seems pretty blown to smithereens, and I don’t understand why Obama had to do what he did. He knows that Netanyahu is not the Supreme Ruler of Israel.
Sigh
The major press is reporting on the failure of Netanyahu, but no one cares that Abbas has put further preconditions on Israel (as you can see in the NYT op-ed) or that he wasn’t talking before. Wasn’t that long ago that Netanyahu was complaining he had no one to talk to.
And it really doesn’t help when Palestinians oppose Abbas’ agreement for peace talks. Here’s an example. But really, everytime Abbas mentions peace or meets with a Western leader, that’s what happens.
Obviously Israel has protests as well, but Israel also has political parties. (Of course, when we tried to instill a little bit of democracy in Gaza, Hamas was elected. She-bang! I believe VP Biden said that was going to happen.)
I sincerely hope that he’s not off’ed by an angry Palestinian.
Add: A de-militarized Palestine is going to be a hard thing to accomplish. If the PLO and Hamas can smuggle weapons as is, what happens when they have a sovereign government that controls more cash?
Add 2: The world publishes what Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, etc. have all said to their people and their parties. So you can see that some have been willing to give concessions. But where has Abbas said to his people, hey, give up the right to return business? I haven’t seen that. And since Israel won’t absorb those people, it makes the weak PA leader even weaker. He knows it will never happen - Israel has to cease first. But the Palestinians are expecting it.
I forgot to say: Israel and Abbas have a shaky agreement for the PA to keep the crazy down in the WB. The PA doesn’t have as much police control (and the Palestinians are quick to decry Abbas) as Abbas seems to pretend, but it does help. That’s partially why rockets aren’t fired into Jerusalem. If that disintegrates, then terror attacks will rise and Israel will be all up in that biz again.
There is a lack of trust that a new Palestine will be a peaceful one, or that Abbas can maintain control, or whatever. I mean, look at what happened in Gaza: Hamas is in charge now. The PA-Hamas fight was bloody as hell and Hamas had the cajones there.
I’m sure there’s another Hamas in the WB. Cause this isn’t about 1967. This is about 1948. But looking backward isn’t doing anything. The Palestinians need to look forward and plan for a new state instead of just squatting where they are and wishing for something better on the other side of the fence. And Israel is going to have to brace itself for another war or two or skirmises in the future. But it can’t move forward while thinking that the U.S. or the world will be against it no matter what. I mean, Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israel and Israel retaliates and the whole world is angry. But when AlQueda knocks a couple of our buildings down, it’s like, oh yeah, go get em, tiger!
It’s amazing how every Palestinian interviewed is from within Israel’s borders. We know that can’t be true, but that seems to be the narrative these days…the original mandate plans were drew around population areas for a reason. It just didn’t end up that way, because again, everyone conveniently forgets that Egypt and Jordan were a little grabby grabby happy, too, eh.
An independent Palestine has never existed and it was not a clear goal until 1970 or so. But 40 years later, it needs to be recognized. The collective Palestinian history is just like Israel’s: it begins at 1948. Time to stop the rhetoric of the first war.
Those kids need education. They need health care. Fuck, they need good food and shelter. Those teenagers need something better than street gangs. They need democracy, government, and pride that isn’t soaked in Israeli blood. But democracies don’t happen overnight. Stable democracies happen over the course of decades. America was hardly a democracy at its inception. Israel is still working on it - their domestic shit is a mess. So is South Africa.
Egypt is incredibly unstable right now and Syria may be next.
So it’s not that I’m opposed to a Palestinian state - f no, I believe in self-government and democracy and liberty - but I am opposed to demonizing Israel just because it’s politically expedient, popular, or easy. And I most certainly reject the idea that some official borders equals instant peace.
So right now, no, I don’t think that it is prudent in any way to grant statehood if that means it’s going to trigger war/s with Israel almost immediately, because in two years we’ll just be having the same damned conversation.
Watch. The State of Palestine does something, Israel retaliates, secures some buffer zones (military only) and they’re occupiers again. Round and round she goes. The status quo ain’t workin’, but it will take more than Obama’s wagging finger for shit to get fixed.
//end rant.
I hate to say this, but without an international force in the region, I don’t see how this is going to work.
You initially attacked her for claiming that Israel didn’t invade the West Bank the way Germany invaded Poland.
Also, I’m not sure how relevant operations like Torch or Husky are since Germany and Italy didn’t invade the US.
“Enduring Freedom” is also a horrendous analogy because Afghanistan didn’t invade the US.
A much better instance would be if you could find reputable references to the Soviet invasion of Germany during WWII. I googled the phrase and couldn’t find any reliable reports within the first couple of pages of responsible journalists or academics making references to that.
I also don’t recall any official referring to it as such. If anything it makes no sense because the Soviets were driving back and invading army back into its own territory.
Israel did the same thing when King Hussein rather foolishly invaded Jerusalem.
For better or worse, countries which launch aggressive wars and lose tend to lose territory. It’s happened repeatedly during the 20th Century as the Germans can attest.
That said, this is a rather foolish discussion since Obama was simply reiterating the US’ stated policy and people are ignoring just how precise he was being with his wording. People will notice he referred to a state based on the 1967 borders not going back to the borders.
Similarly, when UN Resolution 242 was first drawn up, it deliberately only called for the return of “territory” taken during the 1967 War not “the territory” or “all the territory” and it was conditional on both sides having “secure, recognized borders” because Israel’s borders at the time where neither secure nor recognized. This is according to Arthur Goldberg one of the drafters of the UN Resolution.
Obviously, Obama knows what he’s doing. He’s appearing to play hardball with Israel to force them and the Palestinians to make concessions they’ll need to make.
For example, every Israeli honestly knows that any settlement that doesn’t give the Palestinians a state in virtually the whole West Bank and some sort of control of the Arab parts of East Jerusalem is doomed to fail. Similarly, while Palestinian leaders will continue to talk about “the Right of Return” they know they’ll have to give it up because it’s a deal breaker as anyone familiar with situation knows, though they’ll almost certainly extract heavy compensation for the refugees.
Obviously Israelis will grumble about Jewish refugees from the Muslim world not receiving similar compensation nor about the Jews who used to live on the West Bank before fleeing following he anti-Jewish slaughters of the 20s but that’s life.
You asked for a 3rd party to clarify what the map said. There are two maps on the map: (1) large map that Sitnam looked at and the (2) small map you were looking at.
I felt it was illogical that you would look at the image and immediately focus on the smaller of the two maps. That is pretty much it. There are probably a thousand good reasons for you focusing in on the smaller map but I just thought it seemed illogical. Who cares otherwise.
I am reading the thread out of curiosity and I thought I could help out because I see you and Sitnam were talking at cross purposes.
I also registered my opinion that if that mess of settlements is currently defensible then Netanyahu’s statement is clearly wrong. I actually have no desire to argue it any further than that. I would appreciate a thanks for taking the time to help out though.
He said something like it in 2009 and on the campaign trail, I believe. I remember Howard Dean (disclaimer: worked for him) being under fire for saying he’d take an ‘even-handed’ approach in 2003.
So yeah, it’s not a shocker. It’s pretty similar to what was said at Camp David. My point of contention was the worldwide humiliation of Israel’s PM and the attempted strong-arm. It isn’t going to work. Netanyahu has a government to answer. You take away all of his political cards and then he goes back to Israel with what? Nothing.
Like I said, ‘like’ 67 is where we want to end up, not where we start.
This I agree with, though the U.N. is hardly the source of peace and justice in the world. But yes - that citation by pro-Palestinians is often taken out of context.
Hope so.
I don’t see how Israel is going to cede East Jerusalem. Not without those Arabs giving up citizenship and…hell freezing over.
And wtf is a refugee anyway? 5 million people didn’t exit Jerusalem and north Israel in 1948!
Yeah, but I guess since America and Israel absorbed and helped those 500-700,000 Jews instead of keeping them in festering shitholes, it’s not as noticeable.
So I agree: What Obama says is something that is going to have to happen. What Netanyahu and Abbas hear is “'67”! Even though Netanyahu hasn’t outright rejected Obama’s plan, this thread (and early media reports) claimed he did.
Since Obama isn’t an idiot, I’m just going to question his motives. C- for diplomacy.
I don’t see how Netanyahu can do this easily now - Obama gave him no room. Obama’s speech seemed a bit reactionary to the rest of ME events.
I don’t know if this eighties tough love shit is gonna work. You can’t put two people in a room who hate each other and just demand they place nice.
Do you think this will work without a ‘peacekeeping’ force? Can’t imagine Israel would agree to a U.N. one, since that has been relatively useless in the past.
I said pretty blatantly that if you look at the small map…etc…and I pointed out that it doesn’t matter what that map says about settlements, because it also shows military force.
as in: red herrring
so what?
netanyahu isn’t talking about those outposts. he’s talking about blocks along the line.
But…that is not the same as pushing back forces and blowing up their bridges.
Jordan invaded Palestine in 1948 and tried to annex the West Bank (actually…they named it themselves). Half of Jordanians are Palestinians. How bout them apples?
The above invasions are relevant to the topic of invasions because they are invasions.
FWIW the second non-wikipedia result for “Soviet invasion of Germany” is a BBC article by documentarian Laurence Rees, who calls the movement of Soviet troops into Germany an invasion.
