Well, to be fair, they aren’t taking any of Gaza. In fact, they voluntarily gave back what they had taken previously.
Some of the takings on the WB make a certain amount of sense - assuming that they are going to keep Jerusalem, it makes sense that they would in effect take the rest of the city.
Others, though, are just straight greed.
In any event, I think they are heading for a three-state solution: Israel, WB, and Gaza. It makes little sense to insist on Gaza and the WB being a unitary state at this point, as they are governed by entities with wholly different aims. Every once in a while they aim for a unitary government, but neither Hamas nor the PA trusts the other an inch.
Isn’t that what we are really talking about here?
After all, there already was a 2-state solution – British Palestine was divided into 2 states, Israel & Trans-Jordan. What people are talking about now is a 3rd state from that same area.
Even if they did, most Israelis are simply not going to accept a solution that places Israel’s demographics in a position where there is a foreseeable future wherein Jews are not a majority in Israel. That’s totally impossible, no matter how peaceful Palestinians decide to be.
Maybe technically, but I was picturing Israel supporting the relatively reasonable Fatah toward setting up the West Bank as an independent state, play them off against Hamas and such.
I don’t believe its moot. One can vote for the lesser evil and not be evil himself. For how many of us do the political parties we vote for represent us completely? Or do some of you just vote for one party because its not the other? Do you agree with everything that your party does, even by the most extreme members?
Not everyone who votes for war is willing to fight in it himself, and if push comes to shove, I believe the Palestinians voted Hamas in to send a message about the corruption in Fatah. If Hamas could fix a hospital or give food to people shelled out of their homes and Fatah can’t, I’d vote for them too, even if they turn around and shoot rockets into Israel.
Why doesn’t anyone see the clear option here (the only route routinely taken)? Inaction. Hold status quo until one side folds/compromises.
I simply don’t see any outside imposed/mediated resolution. So, as outsiders, it’s our job to keep everyone calm/fed/educated/safe. All countries should just focus on playing a stable, peaceful, and constructive role until a generation shows up that can deal with some of the troubles. Harm reduction and hope.
I know the Palestinian conflict has acquired an iconic status, but outsiders can’t “fix” everything (we can only influence things for the better). My guess is that Israel will eventually pull settlers from the West Bank like it did with Gaza (all due to demographics, but not anytime soon and not from Jerusalem). The rest I just can’t predict.
Why do you keep saying “Zionists” when you never refer to “Palestinian nationalists”?
Just say “Jews” or “Israelis”.
It makes a lot more sense to contrast “the Palestinians” to “the Israelis” or “the Jews” since “Palestinians”, “Israelis” and “Jews” are ethnic terms.
Also while it’s clearly unintentional, when you make such statements you’re imitating the bigots who like to hide behind the “I’m not an anti-Semite, I’m an anti-Zionist”.
I think the other connotation is that Zionism was a movement to go to Israel. By calling the Israelis Zionists, people are pushing the idea that they came from some place else (and should go back there). The flip side of this is speaking about the Right of Return issue. When people use this term, they’re pushing the idea that the Palestinians are seeking to go back to the place they came from.
Both terms are archaic. Israel has existed as a state since 1947 and the first wave of Palestinian refugees left in 1948. It’s now 2014. Israel is full of people who were born in Israel and have lived there all their life and most Palestinians were born and grew up outside that country.
Israeli is a Nationality like American, Canadian, or Australian.
Everyone would look askance if we referred to this as a conflict between “the Israelis” and “the Palestinian Nationalists” and they should certainly look askance if I were to refer to this as “the Palestinians” versus “the Zionists”.
Now if Damuri wishes to refer to this as “the Palestinian Nationalists” vs. “the Zionists” that makes sense but otherwise he seems to be deciding to use different standards when referring to the Israelis or the Jews than when he’s referring to the Palestinians or Arabs.
Personally I have vastly more respect for people who classify it as a conflict between “the Jews” and “the Palestinians” if for no other reason than that is how it’s viewed by both sides of the conflict and trying to classify it as “the Zionists” versus “the Palestinians” is moronic, displays ignorance of the history of the conflict, is extremely insulting to both sides and seems to be trying to tar one side.
One State - Israel
One Territory - United States Territory of Palestine
It’s getting expenses moving these damn M1A2 battle tanks across the Atlantic every ten years. Makes sense just to build a giant and permanent US military base in the West Bank.
Ibn, you just gotta stop with the “ummmm” and “errrrr” lead ins. It’s so damn obnoxious even if you have an utterly perfect point. Try to control your disdain. And in this particular case you don’t have a point, merely the insinuation of superiority.
It was meant as a joke post, or at least I assumed it was meant as such and I was merely responding in kind. I was distracted and forgot to add “why would we want it, we can get hummus without doing so.”
If BTW I’m wrong and it was meant to be serious I apologize to Watchwolf and you want a serious response I’ll be happy to give you one.
I guess i was a little touchy there. I do enjoy your insight on many subjects but that “err…” thing, which you’ve often done in non joke form, has become a peeve of mine. Sorry.