The Bedouin wouldn’t like that and the Israelis like recruiting the Bedouin for the IDF.
They’ve already had enough problems with the Bedouin getting pissed off when some their herding ground gets taken so they can set up training grounds on it.
Besides, the Bedouin are Israeli citizens and that does count for something.
Said last year by Fatah leader Abbas Zaki:
Hmmm, I wonder what the “great goal” is that he was referring to?
Anyone?
Examples?
Appeasement has a bad name. As long as there is peace and both sides agree to it, then appease away! Ultimately, both groups wants peace. One has the support of hundreds of nations in the UN, the other has 9. Of course Palestine doesn’t have the power, but they should and their offer should be the starting point
Of course, I forgot that you have mind reading powers. Besides, Israel is doing that plenty well on its own by pissing off everyone around them and continuing to subjugate the Palestinians.
1937 Peel Partition Plan
1947 UN Partition Plan
Camp David (2000)
Olmert Proposal (2008)
With good reason.
You can’t make a lasting peace with an aggressor. The best you can hope for is a temporary cessation of hostilities.
Sure, the Arabs want the peace of the grave for Jewish Israel.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Palestine,” but if the Arabs had the power to enforce their will, there would be no more Jewish Israel.
Of course I do. By paying attention to peoples’ deeds and words, you can often make a pretty good guess what they are thinking.
Let me ask you this: If Joe stabs Bob 100 times with a knife, do you think Joe probably means to hurt Bob? If so, congratulations on your mind-reading ability.
In the case of the Arabs, it’s even easier. Just last year, one of the senior leaders of the Palestinian Arabs said the following (in Arabic):
I realize that this one is a real head-scratcher for you. Too bad you don’t have my psychic powers. ETA: Bolding added
This is classic inversion of cause and effect in which the victim is blamed for taking reasonable steps to defend himself.
The fact is that everyone around Israel was trying to destroy it long before Israel occupied the West Bank; long before the first settlement; long before the security fence was built.
I implied the possibility of the former. And I guess you could say that, as a corollary, I also implied the possibility of the latter - **contingent on a WB withdrawal being executed in a much more orderly and properly negotiated manner.
**
So, lemme see what I can do to support the original assertion…
Ah, gotta love Wikipedia:
And:
And last, but not least:
Further related reading, along those lines. (Warning: Frenchies!) 
I love it when people suggest that Israel should “negotiate X” as if they can unilaterally get their enemies to behave without force or threats of force.
Anyway, can you please show me where you made the above implication? Because I missed it and it looks to me like you are weaseling.
Also, what facts were available at the time of the pullout to indicate that Gaza was the “much less deserving of the two Palestinian areas.”?
And there are examples where appeasement has worked, but probably not in the way you think. We in the west are used to thinking of ourselves as the good guys, but it wasn’t that long ago that the British gave up India and part of that was due to the non-violent resistance of Gandhi. In fact, many times in history you could say that non-violent opposition, such as what Israel should try with the Palestinians, can work. You just might be fire hosed or bit by a dog first.
Of course in those cases, those in power were the aggressors, so the peaceful had little recourse than to resist non-violently. But had they fought back with bombs, bullets, and blood, it would have been much worse off for the Indians or minorities.
In history, we’re familiar with Hitler and Chamberlain as classic examples, but another example springs from WW2. Stalin was a brutal dictator, that legacy is not in question. But it was at Yalta that Churchill and Roosevelt both agreed to some of his demands, among them Poland and the all of the influence the USSR had in Eastern Europe. You cannot tell me that the Stalin would have simply been fine if England and the US determined the maps of Europe after WW2. By definition, that was appeasement, because Stalin was going to (and did) get some of those nations to turn Communist and under USSR influence afterwards, but giving him concessions was necessary to avoid a full on war. Appeasement worked against Stalin, and will work with Palestinians. So that’s one example of appeasement that stopped a war. There are also appeasements that led to a better outcome. Lyndon Johnson felt it was appeasement to give up in Vietnam, but now Vietnam is a grown nation that we just normalized relations with in the past decade. Often times the anti-appeasement side is full of overblown rhetoric but like neocons sounding the alarm on Iraq and then finding out their warnings amounted to nothing, the other side is often not as bad as you believe them to be. Palestinians are probably more tired of fighting than Israelis, they are the ones in poor conditions, bombed out cities, and walls around their farms. For normalcy, I’m willing to bet a lot of them are willing to give up such overt hostility towards Israel (plus its pretty much Hamas and the military wing that have the rockets, stone throwing kids are no reason not to hold negotiations)
Plus, the Peel plan doesn’t support your side. You call negotiations and going to the UN as appeasement, that granting rights to Palestinians is unacceptable. But the Peel plan showed how negotiations are supposed to work. Both sides made their objections and demands known and while ultimately it didn’t amount to anything, appeasement is about placating a hostile force with concessions. This was basically England holding all the cards and floating out a plan to separate Israel into different parts and getting rejected. It doesn’t even touch upon appeasement.
You can if both sides improve their situation to the point where hostilities threaten to roll back progress that’s been made. Using the Stalin example from above, both the US and USSR knew that giving Stalin parts of Europe was a better result than going to war. Now this would obviously be a different story if Stalin was asking for Florida, but in a negotiation both sides have a point they’re unwilling to cross. Good negotiations end up where you don’t reach that line but your opponent has. Palestine is going to be a nation sometime in the future, I think that is pretty obvious. Israel’s playing hardball but they’ve been doing that for 60 years and its only hurting their credibility when they go ahead and announce settlements in the wake of the UN vote. What they should do is figure out what they are willing to give up and then move towards that while forcing the Palestinians to do the same. But by demanding preconditions before negotiating, they know that talks will go nowhere. That is Israel’s mistake
Just as Israel wants the Palestinians to all die too. Now that they’ve both got that out of their systems, they can work towards a compromise in which both sides die just a little
Protip: Pretending like you don’t know what Palestine refers to in order to deny them some kind of message board legitimacy is not going to paint you as the macho, non-appeasing tough guy you think you are coming across as. It shows you are a little boy who is too insecure with his side to use commonly known and agreed-upon standards of referring to the future state of Palestine.
Palestine doesn’t have much power, but what they do have is more legitimacy now that their plight is recognized by the majority in the UN. Israel will do well not to purposefully piss off those 138 nations by pretending that they don’t have to give anything up for that future state
Depends, is Bob knife-proof?
Cite?
Israel doesn’t just take steps to defend itself. It actively subjugates Palestinians in order to keep hold of its power in the country. It has the power, obviously, so it doesn’t want to play fair. Too bad you don’t see that
Ah, so because it was attacked in the past, it gets free reign to be a dick forever? Gotcha
I’m not sure I understand your point. What was the value in offering the Arabs a Palestinian State which they rejected?
Who exactly was the aggressors in those situations and what is your evidence to support it?
Who were the peaceful ones who resisted non-violently in 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2008? I’m trying to understand your position here.
Was Stalin’s goal to occupy all of Europe?
Sure it does. You were skeptical that the Palestinian Arabs repeatedly rejected offers of statehood. The Peel Plan shows that I am right and your skepticism is misplaced.
Why is it significant that the Palestinian Arabs repeatedly rejected offers of statehood? Earlier, you offered this ridiculous strawman:
The fact is that the Palestinian Arabs repeatedly had chances to (peacefully) have their own state. So at a minimum, “peaceful” would include accepting one of these offers.
Lol, the Arabs are the ones who are demanding preconditions before negotiating. Israel has recently and repeatedly offered to negotiate without preconditions. Are you aware of that?
Lol, if Israel wanted all the Palestinian Arabs to die, they would be dead within a few months.
For that to work, the Arabs need to give up their dream of putting an end to Jewish Israel. How do you propose to make that happen?
I’m not pretending at all. Please enlighten me:
(1) Is “Palestine” a state? a geographic region? something else?
(2) If it is a state, when did it come into existence?
(3) What are the borders of “Palestine”?
(4) Who are the leaders of “Palestine” and does it include the Fatah central committee?
Spare me the personal insults, ok?
I take it you concede that one can often make pretty good guesses about peoples motives and intentions based on their words and actions?
First please represent to me that you are seriously skeptical that the quote is legitimate. Then I will provide a cite.
Yes, I don’t see it. Please give me 3 specific examples of things that Israel does which are not self-defense but instead are “active subjugation”.
Lol, nice strawman. And nice way to miss the point too.
Let me ask you this:
What has Israel done to “piss off” various countries around the world?
Is it your position that those countries were less hostile to Israel before it engaged in those activities?
I’ve actually done the exact opposite of weaseling. The only reason I even brought up the *possibility *of the Gaza pullout being done in bad faith, and not in the interest or expectation of peace, was because your comments prompted me to bring up the *possibility *that the Palestinians could potentially just pay lip-service to Israel’s right to exist, only to bide their time to sufficiently build up their military capabilities. It’s only because I said something questioning one side’s potential motivations and lack of good-faith that I wanted to attempt to balance it with an example of something extremely cynical from the other side of the coin. Once you even questioned it, far from weaseling, I researched and provided some pretty decent support for the possible veracity of that assertion from the “extremely cynical” viewpoint. Alas, it’s not something that’s possible to factually verify, but I think reasonable people can reach their own conclusions. (For example, **Alessan **at least nominally agreed.)
But that was probably all a mistake on my part, since I was/am really not interested in talking about the past. At all. The conversation I was hoping to spark here was about what kind of arrangement would be mutually-agreeable regarding the status of a Palestinian state’s military capabilities. The reason I’m interested in that is because I’m pretty pessimistic about that issue being resolved, and I’m wondering what kind of solutions to it are even possible. ISTM that the reason that this issue is seldom addressed is precisely because of how much a deal-breaker it is from both perspectives. Because of that, I think it would be the most interesting and productive thing to discuss here.
I’ll try not to get side-tracked again, and would appreciate any efforts towards the same.
That’s not so. You claimed that you had earlier “implied the possibility” of something when in fact you had not. i.e. you changed your position while pretending that you had not. That’s weaseling.
Anyway, I really would like an answer to my question: What facts were available at the time of the pullout to indicate that Gaza was the “much less deserving of the two Palestinian areas.”?
It’s a simple enough question.
Well it’s telling that your scenario of bad motivations on the part of Israel is baseless. While on the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the Arab side wants to put an end to Jewish Israel.
Anyway, why the need for balance? The reality of the situation is that the situation is assymetrical. It’s not a situation where both sides want to have their own state and be left alone. Nor is it a situation where each side wants to vanquish the other. The Jewish side wants to have a state and to be left alone. The Arab side wants to put an end to the Jewish state.
The problem I foresee wouldn’t be the Palestinian military, per se, but the independent idiots who think that flinging rockets across the border is a good way to send a protest message. If it were my call, I’d say, sure, let Palestine have a military. It seems extremely unlikely that it would ever grow large enough to pose a threat to Israel. It would more likely serve as a “tripwire” force – just enough to do a “Lexington and Concord” if Israel invades. It’s a “self respect” thing; other nations have militaries, so why not Palestine? It compels Israel to treat them with a bit more respect. It’s a tool they can use to prevent further Israeli settlement building.
It doesn’t work 100% to anyone’s benefit…but it also doesn’t work 100% to anyone’s detriment. And (heavy sigh) it provides a legitimate target for Israeli bombardment if some idiot does start flinging rockets.
Look man, you’ve ceased to beat around the bush, and have now directly accused me of weaseling. I did my best to guess WTF you were talking about, but since it’s still not clear to me exactly how you think it is I weaseled, it’s now *you *who will have to point specifically to where and how. Where exactly did I change my position? And for the sake of your argument, I’ll even let you treat my original statement re: the Gaza pullout as “my position” instead of an “extremely cynical” position.
The greater influence of Hamas and general militancy there at the time. (Am I wrong about that? I think I’ve stated enough times that I’m no expert, but is that even controversial?)
That, along with the supporting quotes I’ve already cited.
Hardly… as I’ve already demonstrated by providing a basis. (see reference to cited quotes, above)
In the interest of progress in most good-faith discussions/negotiations, it is often necessary to concede that neither side is without some amount of blame for the current situation. If one side does nothing but blame the other while accepting absolutely no blame themselves, progress is quite understandably nearly impossible. If Israel is 100% happy with the way things are, and think the situation is tenable in perpetuity, all they have to do is deny any measure of blame and the responsibility to make up for it - that’ll do the trick. Good luck with that!
And ya know, just because you’re practically forcing me to come out and say it, I don’t personally think that both sides are equally to blame. If you must force me to play the blame-game like two children arguing about who started the schoolyard fight, you might be happy to know that I would put much more blame for the current sorry state of affairs on the side of the Palestinians. Not that it matters what I think, and not that assigning (instead of admitting) blame for past deeds is in any way productive. But there it is. That’s as much as you’re going to get me to talk about the past until you show me how you mistakenly thought I weaseled, so we can put that to bed and hopefully have a more interesting discussion.
I already pointed it out but I will do it one more time. In post number 405 you stated the following:
Now please quote yourself where you previously mentioned this contingency of a withdrawal “being executed in a much more orderly and properly negotiated manner.” Failing that, please admit that you mentioned no such thing and apologize for weaseling.
Your choice.
I’m skeptical of this claim. Please provide evidence that in the time leading up to the Gaza pullout, there was greater militancy in Gaza and greater influence of Hamas.
Not yet. Let’s see your evidence that there was greater militancy and influence by Hamas in the time leading up to the pullout.
Assuming that’s true, so what? These are not the Arab/Israeli peace negotiations.
Besides which, given that the Arab side is acting in bad faith, how is it productive to speculate that Israel too might be acting in bad faith?
Progress towards what?
It’s not a question of assigning blame so much as understanding each side’s motivations.
You suggested that the “biggest elephant in the room” was that the Arab side was not going to get a fully independent state. But as you should be able to see now, that’s not the “biggest elephant in the room” The biggest impediment to a deal is that the Arabs’ goal is the destruction of Jewish Israel.
Post #390:
Now, please admit that you were wrong and apologize for accusing me of weaseling. Your choice.
Regarding your further questions: No. Please “ban” me. Thanks!
Hamas has always been far more popular and influential in the Gaza Strip and the Gaza Strip has always been known as being more militant than the West Bank.
Around 70% of the population of the Gaza Strip are refugees and roughly half still live in refugee camps. On the West Bank, the portions are considerably smaller. Also, both under Jordanian and Israeli control the West Bank always had a higher standard of living, lower unemployment rates, and less poverty than in the Gaza Strip.
For this reason, one can certainly understand why that would be so.
Hamas was formed in the Gaza Strip, most, if not all of it’s leaders lived in Gaza, virtually all their leaders that Israel killed both before and after Ariel Sharon’s evacuating of Gaza were killed in Gaza.
Similarly, the Islamic Jihad had vastly more influence in Gaza than in the West Bank.
Ummm, that point was addressed to the Gaza withdrawal, not a hypothetical withdrawal from the West Bank. But I do apologize for missing that point. I did not read it as you seemed to be responding to another poster’s comment besides mine. And I do concede that one can tease your implication out of it if you really stretch.
Lol, I guess that means you are unable to provide even a shred of evidence for your claim that before the Gaza pullout there was greater militancy and influence for Hamas in Gaza.
You don’t consider the fact Gaza was prompty taken over by Hamas (while Fatah continued to be the preeminent group in the West Bank) as being rather obvious evidence Gaza was more influenced by Hamas than the West Bank was?
If that’s not true… then why did Hamas quickly gain control in Gaza?
No I don’t.
My first guess guess they did it by forming armed gangs and shooting, defenestrating, and knee-capping all of the Fatah loyalists. Why doesn’t Hamas have armed gangs running around the West Bank? I think it’s because Israel is still there and would put them down, either directly or indirectly.
My second guess is that Gaza actually had some kind of democratic election. Probably if they had an election in the West Bank, Hamas would take over there too.
Let me ask you this: Do you have any evidence that there was greater militancy and support for Hamas in Gaza in the time leading up to the pull out?
Also, would you mind providing a cite, quote, and link for your earlier claim that Abbas supports Israel as a Jewish state?
Er…it’s already been pointed out that Hamas has long had vastly more influence in Gaza than in the West Bank.
In fact Hamas was founded in the Gaza Strip and has always been based there. The same with the Qassam brigades.
You might as well ask us to produce evidence that water is wet.
Then you don’t know very much about the region. You might as well insist that Likud wasn’t popular prior to the election of Netanyahu.
Er…no. Hamas has always been stronger in Gaza than in the West Bank. That’s why most of the Fatah loyalists killed by Hamas both before and after Ariel Sharon reign as PM occurred in Gaza.
That said, they still have a presence and the fact that you think Israel could easily “put them down” is quite silly.
Israel tried repeatedly during both Intifadas and failed miserably.
Why should he? Evidence has already been presented.