If You Build It, the (Palestinian) State Will Come

digme

The recognition of a Palestinian state will be voted on at the United Nations in September.
In the summer of 2009, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (at right) released a lengthy document which described plans and a program to build a future Palestinian state alongside Israel, with borders along the 1967 Green Line.

What has happened since Egyptian democratic protests;

Leaders of the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah signed a reconciliation pact in the Egyptian capital. Egypt’s secret role in brokering the agreement last week caught both Israel and the United States by surprise.
As expected here's what the current isreali pm said

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the deal “a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism”.

Ya that's right the magic word "terrorism"......

Anyway several other developments have added to Israeli concerns about its relations with Egypt, including signs that Cairo hopes to renew ties with Iran and renegotiate a long-standing contract to supply Israel with natural gas.


More worrying still to Israeli officials are reported plans by Egyptian authorities to open the Rafah crossing into Gaza, closed for the past four years as part of a Western-backed blockade of the enclave designed to weaken Hamas, the ruling Islamist group there.


Egypt is working out details to permanently open the border, an Egyptian foreign ministry official told the Reuters news agency on Sunday. The blockade would effectively come to an end as a result.
So is this it?Will they finally get a Palestinian state or will something tragic happen to stop it?



hopefully this time they have no more excuses.....

cozar

the map tells it all. it is hard to look at how much land has been taken from them, you would really have to say "how could this have happened"?

Wolfe Tone

I know very little about this whole situation and how it came about, can anyone recommend a good book or documentary to get me up to speed?

Sorry for being OT!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hamas being involved complicates things tremendously. Though they'll continue to have support because of the attrocities Israel has committed. I know the use of the word attrocity there is controversial and I am well aware it is not a one sided issue. Though from the point of view of a Gazan, Hamas activities don't matter when Israeli white phosphorus is raining down on your neighborhood

Another major problem is the West Bank has been over-colonised. The future line is going to be that Palestinian independence would be unfair on the Jewish minority in that region. Probably end up a powersharing executive there with Israel continuing to exist as is.

PatsytheNazi

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I know very little about this whole situation and how it came about, can anyone recommend a good book or documentary to get me up to speed?

Sorry for being OT!

Israel: The Hijack State is an excellent account of the history of Israel and the rascist ideology of zionism.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Israel-Hijack-Americas-Watchdog-Middle/dp/0906224314

Iwasfrozen

Good to see a possible Palestinian state. Not that it would be necessary if the Israeli government would stop being fuckwits and treat all their citizens with respect.

Jim236

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Good to see a possible Palestinian state. Not that it would be necessary if the Israeli government would stop being ****wits and treat all their citizens with respect.

Palestinians were never Israeli subjects/citizens. You make it sound like the Palestinians wanted to break away from Israel. Palestinian's land was illegally taken from them and given to the Jews in order to create their Zionist state, that has since committed countless acts of terrorism, crimes against humanity, and displaced millions by their continuous illegal seizures of land.

Iwasfrozen

Jim236 wrote: »

Palestinians were never Israeli subjects/citizens. You make it sound like the Palestinians wanted to break away from Israel. Palestinian's land was illegally taken from them and given to the Jews in order to create their Zionist state, that has since committed countless acts of terrorism, crimes against humanity, and displaced millions by their continuous illegal seizures of land.

I agree with you, that's why I called the israelis fuckwits. But I am in favour of a one state solution to the problem rather then two state. This new proposed Palestinian statelet will be tiny, over crowded and more importantly split in two. A major reform of the Israeli government to represent both traditions would be a much better long term solution.

Wolfe Tone

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Israel: The Hijack State is an excellent account of the history of Israel and the rascist ideology of zionism.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Israel-Hijack-Americas-Watchdog-Middle/dp/0906224314

Thanks Patsy, I will see if I can get my hands on that

Jim236

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I agree with you, that's why I called the israelis fuckwits. But I am in favour of a one state solution to the problem rather then two state. This new proposed Palestinian statelet will be tiny, over crowded and more importantly split in two. A major reform of the Israeli government to represent both traditions would be a much better long term solution.

The only way you could have a workable one-state solution would be for Israel to cease existence in it's current form, and be replaced by a totally new state. Otherwise any constitutional reforms of Israel to accommodate Palestinians would be merely tokenist at best.

Iwasfrozen

Jim236 wrote: »

The only way you could have a workable one-state solution would be for Israel to cease existence in it's current form, and be replaced by a totally new state. Otherwise any constitutional reforms of Israel to accommodate Palestinians would be merely tokenist at best.

But if it's workable at all isn't it better to pursue it?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I agree with you, that's why I called the israelis fuckwits. But I am in favour of a one state solution to the problem rather then two state. This new proposed Palestinian statelet will be tiny, over crowded and more importantly split in two. A major reform of the Israeli government to represent both traditions would be a much better long term solution.

In an ideal world this would be the best solution but it would appear the majority of the Israeli public will not accept any watering down of the Jewish status of Israel and there is no way the Arab communities will accept a Jewish identity.

Unfortunately it would appear the 2-state solution is the only viable one.

Jim236

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But if it's workable at all isn't it better to pursue it?

But its not workable, thats my point. The level of concessions required by either side to make it work would never be accepted.

Iwasfrozen

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

In an ideal world this would be the best solution but it would appear the majority of the Israeli public will not accept any watering down of the Jewish status of Israel and there is no way the Arab communities will accept a Jewish identity.

Unfortunately it would appear the 2-state solution is the only viable one.

But even forgetting the issues of overcrowding what about Israeli Arabs caught on the "wrong" side of the border, they will be split off from the communities or will more likely face pressure from local Jews to relocate to the new Palestinian state.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But even forgetting the issues of overcrowding what about Israeli Arabs caught on the "wrong" side of the border, they will be split off from the communities or will more likely face pressure from local Jews to relocate to the new Palestinian state.

Its a horrible situation with no easy answer. Either way leads to a bloodbath really.

Jim236

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But even forgetting the issues of overcrowding what about Israeli Arabs caught on the "wrong" side of the border, they will be split off from the communities or will more likely face pressure from local Jews to relocate to the new Palestinian state.

Well many of those Jewish settlements are illegal to begin with, so they should be relocated.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

In an ideal world this would be the best solution but it would appear the majority of the Israeli public will not accept any watering down of the Jewish status of Israel and there is no way the Arab communities will accept a Jewish identity.

Unfortunately it would appear the 2-state solution is the only viable one.

Given Muammar Gaddafi is the foremose proponent of the one state solution, Isratin, we can forget about it

Iwasfrozen

Jim236 wrote: »

But its not workable, thats my point. The level of concessions required by either side to make it work would never be accepted.

But is a two state solution workable either? The territory designated as "Palestinian" has zero natural resources and even less ability to support it's population. It will also be dependent on Israel's good will to allow them to allow passage between both sections.

JustinDee

cozar wrote: »

the map tells it all. it is hard to look at how much land has been taken from them, you would really have to say "how could this have happened"?

A little disingenuous, that image.

Picture 1, if even accurate, doesn't show the previous occupying states in the region ie. Jordan, Egypt and Syria.

Picture 2 happened because the UN decreed so.

Picture 3 simplistically covers almost twenty years of tit-for-tat war right up to Nasser's pan-Arabic stirring against Israel and Jordan, Syria and Egypt losing their grip over the region following a war they ensured would happen.

Picture 4 is, incredibly, even more subjectively simplistic.

Unfortunately because of Hamas' and Likud's involvement, there is likely to be more further war in the area. Neither Netan's kooks or Hamas' loolahs are going to back down. I don't see Hamas and Fatah's current hypocritical love-in lasting either (and no, its most definitely NOT the same as McGuinness and Paisley).

What needs to follow is Likud's coalition failing and Hamas being correctly excluded. The day that Hamas allows an opposition politician to run and operate in Gaza, I'll believe that they want peace. Likewise with an Israeli govt one day not having to rely on Galicianers for vote swings.

irishh_bob

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I agree with you, that's why I called the israelis fuckwits. But I am in favour of a one state solution to the problem rather then two state. This new proposed Palestinian statelet will be tiny, over crowded and more importantly split in two. A major reform of the Israeli government to represent both traditions would be a much better long term solution.

any palestinian state which is created will only be on israels terms , without a broker to counter america , thier can be no fair result , people talk about how biased the usa is when it comes to this issue , at least it takes sides , the EU merley sits on the fence

cozar

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Israel: The Hijack State is an excellent account of the history of Israel and the rascist ideology of zionism.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Israel-Hijack-Americas-Watchdog-Middle/dp/0906224314

There was a tv programme on a while ago called "the promise", it took place around 1946 in Israel and then in the present. The story it told was all about Israel's history since 1945/46 when the British were there and how the jews came to be there and then the up to date situation with the suicide bombers etc it was really informative. Documentaries always pop up on this conflict. The Lemon Tree was a very good film showing how life is from both sides living in Israel. Robert Fisk has written extensively on this as well.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I know very little about this whole situation and how it came about, can anyone recommend a good book or documentary to get me up to speed?

Sorry for being OT!

The Gun and the Olive Branch is a classic, and was extremely controversial when first published in the 1970s. It has been updated several times, however, so if you pick it up, be sure to look for the most recent edition.

Brussels Sprout

Israel are throwing a hissy fit over the new Fatah-Hamas agreement and withholding money owed to the Palestinian Authority.

Nodin

Read this earlier...

ISRAELI PRIME minister Binyamin Netanyahu has completed a diplomatic tour of European capitals aimed at stalling moves towards recognition of a Palestinian state, but clear divisions have emerged between France and Germany on the issue.
President Nicolas Sarkozy told Mr Netanyahu during talks in Paris that he would support a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence if peace talks with Israel did not restart by September, dealing a setback to Israel’s campaign to isolate the incoming Palestinian unity government.
British prime minister David Cameron is understood to have delivered a similar message earlier this week, raising the possibility major European states could give their support to a Palestinian state before a peace deal is secured.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0509/1224296491499.html

Yet apparently Frau Merkel is against this, for some reason. Overall though, theres a great number of states granting or seriously considering granting recognition. Brazil has, and Spain is considering. If enough in Western Europe grant the same status, it will be a rather striking coup.

Brussels Sprout

Nodin wrote: »

Read this earlier...



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0509/1224296491499.html

Yet apparently Frau Merkel is against this, for some reason. Overall though, theres a great number of states granting or seriously considering granting recognition. Brazil has, and Spain is considering. If enough in Western Europe grant the same status, it will be a rather striking coup.

Is this something that the US can veto?

Nodin

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Is this something that the US can veto?

Well, they can stop a motion being passed by the UNSC recognising a palestinian state, but they can't stop individual countries recognising it, which is the nice bit.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Picture 1, if even accurate, doesn't show the previous occupying states in the region ie. Jordan, Egypt and Syria.

Perfectly accurate, as the Palestinians were still living in those area's, which they were later driven out by Zionists, to create a Jewish majority. The map shows land lost by the Palestinians, and not who was doing the occupying. Egypt, Syria and Jordan, for there many faults did not ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

Remember the Palestinians driven out can't go back to those area's.

JustinDee wrote: »

Picture 2 happened because the UN decreed so.

No, they didn't, the UN partition plan was non-binding. General assembly resolutions are normally non-binding. Also, the partition plan (even if it was binding), did not allow Zionists to engage in ethnic cleansing, which is again how Palestinians lost there land.

Binding General Assembly resolutions are rare, and the first one happened to authorize UN troops in Korea (if I remember correctly), as the Soviet Union would block any Security council resolution, so the US came up with a work around.

JustinDee wrote: »

Picture 3 simplistically covers almost twenty years of tit-for-tat war right up to Nasser's pan-Arabic stirring against Israel and Jordan, Syria and Egypt losing their grip over the region following a war they ensured would happen.

A group of European colonists stealing other peoples land, was always going to result in prolonged conflict. I find it very difficult to not see any other outcome.

JustinDee wrote: »

Picture 4 is, incredibly, even more subjectively simplistic.

Hardly, Jewish settlers have been violating International law, taking land that doesn't belong to them, and are protected by the IDF the whole while. All we are seeing is just the continuation of Zionists policies that back to start of there movement.

As for the Fatah plan, I certainly hope it works,but the problem is that, even with recognition, I don't think the US or Israel will care. Israel will continue to steal Palestinian land, and they will put the nails in the coffin of the 2 state solution (if they have not done so already).

The problem with the 2 state solution is that if there are too many settlers, it becomes a non-starter, and hopefully what Fatah are trying to do works, and does result in a fair deal for the Palestinians. Also, its good to see that they have copped to the fact that the US is not here friend in this.

**EDIT**
Now, the only way I see this working, if there are consequences for Israel, who if the Palestinians pull this off, will be UN member state, and this should result in legal problems for Israel, and if that happens and there is follow through, this may work, and the Palestinians, may actually get a proper state, and end this mess once and for all.

If it doesn't work, then the only game in town becomes the 1 state solution, which has its own problems, but if it is the only choice, it will become inevitable.
**EDIT**

JustinDee

So you're saying its the fault of the Jews who went there, Nasserism and its string pulling perfectly justified, the previous occupying countries all fair to Palestinians already there? A little one-eyed for me. All been said before though by the same 'experts'.

I don't think any solution is possible with current Israeli govt or Hamas involved. Another escalation in conflict is inevitable with these two regimes involved.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

So you're saying its the fault of the Jews who went there,

A group of people going to a foreign land with the express intention of creating there own country at the expense of the indigenous population via ethnic cleansing, is a colonial invasion. Now, you see the indigenous population, tend to have issues with that sort of thing, and tend to resist. This has happened time and again all over the world, and as a general rule, we tend to see the colonial invader, as the aggressor, and the group at fault.

JustinDee wrote: »

Nasserism and its string pulling perfectly justified, the previous occupying countries all fair to Palestinians already there? A little one-eyed for me. All been said before though by the same 'experts'.

Again, the difference between Syria, Egypt and Jordan, and the Zionists, was that the Zionists wanted rid of the Palestinians, and they actually did implement that, and were pretty successful.

Those other occupiers for there many faults, did not want rid of the Palestinians. To pretend that the Zionists are the same as the other occupiers is disingenuous in the extreme. There is clear difference between the 2, stop pretending otherwise.

A colonial occupation that exists to drive out the indigenous population is a hell of a lot worse to the indigenous population, as the indigenous population will be ethnically cleansed. What Zionists are doing is no different than what was done to the Native Americans.

JustinDee

Like I said, one-eyed (from your posts anyway) and far too one-dimensional a view of the background of the entire crisis. Almost Pilger-esque.
Remove the hardliners from equation and change could come about. Until that happens, status quo will remain.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Like I said, one-eyed (from your posts anyway) and far too one-dimensional a view of the background of the entire crisis. Almost Pilger-esque.

It interesting that you make claims about a one eyed view, and don't actually address a single thing i have mentioned in any reply, and that is rather telling imo. Saying, I am Pilger-esque is all well and good, but seeing you can't be bothered to address what is being said, your claims are meaningless. Sure, I could just call your posts Likud-esque, or something equally meaningless as well, but that would be pointless.

The sad truth is that the maps posted by the OP, is essentially correct, and regardless of your view of my posts, i did point out factual inaccuracies, with your claims in regards to the maps.

JustinDee

Calling me Likud-esque would be pointless as I've never supported anything they do or pontificate upon. I do know however that not all settlers in the region were land-hungry zealots who wanted shod of Arabs in the region. Maybe if Europeans didn't treat Jews like sh*t on a shoe for centuries all this might have turned out differently and they wouldn't have sought a better place. I don't agree with what has happened but I can stand back and see how it has come about and it is most definitely not all one-sided.
With Hamas involved and Israel relying on coalitions requiring a right-wing partner, nothing will change. Yes, the two-state proposal would be nice and dandy but its currently eons away and not just down to one side of a coin.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Calling me Likud-esque would be pointless as I've never supported anything they do or pontificate upon.

Well, yes, that was the point I was making.

JustinDee wrote: »

I do know however that not all settlers in the region were land-hungry zealots who wanted shod of Arabs in the region.

Sure, not all were zealots, but they all knew what they were doing, seeing as the point of Zionism was a Jewish state. So Zionists can't claim innocence in what they did.

JustinDee wrote: »

Maybe if Europeans didn't treat Jews like sh*t on a shoe for centuries all this might have turned out differently and they wouldn't have sought a better place.

2 wrongs don't make a right. What European did to Jews is no excuse for what was done, and is still being done to Palestinians.

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't agree with what has happened but I can stand back and see how it has come about and it is most definitely not all one-sided.

Sure, the Palestinians have retaliated, but they can hardly be held responsible for the conflict. Ultimately Zionist came to there, to steal there land. Saying that is just stating a fact, and not as you claims being one sided.

One side was the aggressor, and the other the victim. Do you think the Palestinians should have just rolled over and let people drive them from there homes? What exactly were they supposed to do? Zionists forced this conflict on the Palestinians, by there desire to steal there land.

JustinDee wrote: »

With Hamas involved and Israel relying on coalitions requiring a right-wing partner, nothing will change. Yes, the two-state proposal would be nice and dandy but its currently eons away and not just down to one side of a coin.

Except that the people doing the occupying, as much as they may like think otherwise, share a far greater responsibility to ending the conflict, as both sides violence is a result of the occupation, in Israels case enforcing it, and in the Palestinians case resisting it.

JustinDee

No, it is not a simple case of the 'nasty Zionist occupier' vs the 'noble and justified freedom fighter' as you keep alluding it to be.
There are many strands to the issue. You just focus on one with the hope of what is now a pretty unrealistic goal. Every time.

Iwasfrozen

Jim236 wrote: »

Well many of those Jewish settlements are illegal to begin with, so they should be relocated.

Well I was talking about Israeli Arabs but now that you mention it I don't think relocating illegal Jewish settlements is feasible.

irish_bob wrote:

any palestinian state which is created will only be on israels terms , without a broker to counter america , thier can be no fair result , people talk about how biased the usa is when it comes to this issue , at least it takes sides , the EU merley sits on the fence

There is the Arab league anyone know what their position is on all of this?

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

No, it is not a simple case of the 'nasty Zionist occupier' vs the 'noble and justified freedom fighter' as you keep alluding it to be.

The Zionists are nasty occupiers, and there is nothing wrong with stating that fact.

However, I made no claim to Palestinians being noble and justified freedom figthers. The Palestinians have done plenty of horrible things in retaliation to what Zionists did to them. Some of there actions are justified, but when they attack civilians for example, they are most certainly not justified. Now Palestinians terrorism, still doesn't change what the Zionists did to them, and pointing out the power disparity between occupier and occupied is again just addressing the reality.

JustinDee wrote: »

There are many strands to the issue. You just focus on one with the hope of what is now a pretty unrealistic goal. Every time.

The 2 state solution is not unrealistic, and is supported by much of the world. Now, if Zionists keep stealing Palestinian land, it will become impossible, and hence why there is urgency for that solution.

wes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is the Arab league anyone know what their position is on all of this?

Well, the Arab leagues peace plan shows there position:

Text: Arab peace plan of 2002

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

The Zionists are nasty occupiers, and there is nothing wrong with stating that fact.

However, I made no claim to Palestinians being noble and justified freedom figthers. The Palestinians have done plenty of horrible things in retaliation to what Zionists did to them. Some of there actions are justified, but when they attack civilians for example, they are most certainly not justified. Now Palestinians terrorism, still doesn't change what the Zionists did to them, and pointing out the power disparity between occupier and occupied is again just addressing the reality

It is not addressing "the reality". It is ignoring one half of it...conveniently.

wes wrote: »

The 2 state solution is not unrealistic, and is supported by much of the world. Now, if Zionists keep stealing Palestinian land, it will become impossible, and hence why there is urgency for that solution.

Again with the one-sided blame game. Israelis won't deal with Hamas. They are at war with them and the settlements are an excuse not just for so-called 'Zionists' but for Hamas to justify themselves despite all options available to both. Neither side of hardliners are to be trusted eg current Israeli govt on deal and Hamas on accepting Israel's existance.
Don't bother sending me any links telling me Hamas are changing their charter etc, by the way. I'm not debating with some cherry-picked links on the internet. They've made promises before and welched on them. See? Not only the hardline elements of Israeli govts chop and change to suit their proxy allies.
Just my opinion based on my own experiences. Some of the comments made on these forum beggar belief and I interject from time to time. Nothing personal though, of course.

gigino

wes wrote: »

The Zionists are nasty occupiers,.

Would you say Irish people who moved to America and dispossessed the Native Americans are nasty occupiers ? If the Native Americans were more populous + of the same attitude as the arads you would have a very different America...
I was in Israel as part of a summer holiday not long ago and I have respect for the state of Israel. They do not occupy much land, less than the size of Connaught, yet the Arabs around them want to drive them in to the sea. Go to a relatively tolerant country like Saudi Arabia and see how many time large it is, ( land area wise ) but yet do they allow a square inch for a Christian church to be built there ?

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

It is not addressing "the reality". It is ignoring one half of it...conveniently.

I fail to see how that is being done. One side came and kicked the other off there land, and hence the conflict. You can try and spin it as much as you like, but thats the root of the whole mess.

JustinDee wrote: »

Again with the one-sided blame game. Israelis won't deal with Hamas. They are at war with them and the settlements are an excuse not just for so-called 'Zionists' but for Hamas to justify themselves despite all options available to both.

Again, you fail to address what I am actually saying. You are very clearly just reading what you want to read.

Look, if there are too many settlers in the West Bank, then a 2 state solution becomes impossible. Israel increasing settlements in the West Bank has nothing to do with Hamas (why you choose to ignore that fact is mystifying), as Fatah are running the show there, and have bent over backwards to cooperate with Israel (as per the leaked Palestine papers) have just gotten more settlements for there trouble. Your inability to address what I am actualy saying is nothing short of stunning.

JustinDee wrote: »

Neither side of hardliners are to be trusted eg current Israeli govt on deal and Hamas on accepting Israel's existance.

Well, last time I checked you make peace with your enemies. Both sides need to get on with things, and start taking steps for peace, on the Palestinian side they need to stop any violence (which Hamas have shown there capable of in the past), and for Israel to freeze settlement expansion, and for people to talk to each other.

JustinDee wrote: »

Don't bother sending me any links telling me Hamas are changing their charter etc, by the way. I'm not debating with some cherry-picked links on the internet. They've made promises before and welched on them. See? Not only the hardline elements of Israeli govts chop and change to suit their proxy allies.

So, you want to ignore anything that doesn't reflect your view, well thats good to know.

JustinDee wrote: »

Just my opinion based on my own experiences. Some of the comments made on these forum beggar belief and I interject from time to time. Nothing personal though, of course.

I would say that some of your comments beggar belief, and you in ability to discuss what is being said doubly so.

wes

gigino wrote: »

Would you say Irish people who moved to America and dispossessed the Native Americans are nasty occupiers ? If the Native Americans were more populous + of the same attitude as the arads you would have a very different America...

All European colonists who went to the US, were nasty occupiers. Are you saying that the genocide of the Native American's was ok? That murdering them in there 1000s to steal there land was some how not nasty? Really, some of the defences for colonialism, are truly breath taking.

gigino wrote: »

I was in Israel as part of a summer holiday not long ago and I have respect for the state of Israel. They do not occupy much land, less than the size of Connaught, yet the Arabs around them want to drive them in to the sea.

Zionists literally drove Palestinians into the sea during 1948...... but as usual its perfectly fine when Zionists engage in ethnic cleansing.

BTW, Israel has peace deals with Egypt and Jordan, and the Arab league have made a offer of peace to Israel:
Text: Arab peace plan of 2002

So your claim of Arabs wanting to push Israel into the sea is demostrable false, but we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a nice rant.

gigino wrote: »

Go to a relatively tolerant country like Saudi Arabia and see how many time large it is, ( land area wise ) but yet do they allow a square inch for a Christian church to be built there ?

Ah, yes the predictable whatboutery. If you want to discuss Saudia Arabia, no one is stopping you from starting a thread, and the Palestinians are not responsible for Saudi Arabia.

Nodin

gigino wrote: »

Would you say Irish people who moved to America and dispossessed the Native Americans are nasty occupiers ? If the Native Americans were more populous + of the same attitude as the arads you would have a very different America...
I was in Israel as part of a summer holiday not long ago and I have respect for the state of Israel. They do not occupy much land, less than the size of Connaught, ............

They have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Secondly its not the land they are on, but the land they are on outside their internationally recognised borders thats the problem.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

I fail to see how that is being done. One side came and kicked the other off there land, and hence the conflict. You can try and spin it as much as you like, but thats the root of the whole mess

Nothing is "spin" that I post. Its opinion and my own. I don't repeat what I selectively read. If you think the whole conflict is down to "one side" kicked another off 'there' (sic) land, then you are the one who is ignoring the actual background of that region today.

wes wrote: »

Again, you fail to address what I am actually saying. You are very clearly just reading what you want to read.

Look, if there are too many settlers in the West Bank, then a 2 state solution becomes impossible. Israel increasing settlements in the West Bank has nothing to do with Hamas (why you choose to ignore that fact is mystifying), as Fatah are running the show there, and have bent over backwards to cooperate with Israel (as per the leaked Palestine papers) have just gotten more settlements for there trouble. Your inability to address what I am actualy saying is nothing short of stunning

Hamas' involvement with Fatah now guarantees no deals of any kind. In fact, Fatah have just bolstered Netanyahu's coalition government with any Israelis on the fence politically on what to do regarding Hamas.
Hamas have everything to do with any future solution in Israel/Palestine. Their presence until they drop arms will hinder any progress.

wes wrote: »

Well, last time I checked you make peace with your enemies. Both sides need to get on with things, and start taking steps for peace, on the Palestinian side they need to stop any violence (which Hamas have shown there capable of in the past), and for Israel to freeze settlement expansion, and for people to talk to each other

Hamas have never shown anything of a kind. There's a difference between rhetoric and putting a promise into practice. Hamas have a mission and it is never been a peaceful one nor have any of the breakaways that they lie about in saying they have no control over them.
I know what the bleedin' obvious decrees. Stop settlements, which I've never supported myself, and Hamas must stand down arms permanently.

wes wrote: »

So, you want to ignore anything that doesn't reflect your view, well thats good to know

This is what you are in fact doing, which is why you think of only one side of the conflict as you do.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

Nothing is "spin" that I post. Its opinion and my own. I don't repeat what I selectively read. If you think the whole conflict is down to "one side" kicked another off 'there' (sic) land, then you are the one who is ignoring the actual background of that region today.

Its most certainly is spin.

You see one side kicked the other off the land, and then things predictably kicked off and gotten more complicated from there, but the root of the whole mess, is the same thing we have seen again and again the world over. To try and say otherwise is to put it simply spin.

Also, I am not ignoring the back ground at all. just stating the why and nothing more.

JustinDee wrote: »

Hamas' involvement with Fatah now guarantees no deals of any kind. In fact, Fatah have just bolstered Netanyahu's coalition government with any Israelis on the fence politically on what to do regarding Hamas.

There was no chance of an agreement before hand. Again, see the Palestine papers that were leaked recently. Fatah bent over backwards, and got nothing.

Secondly, a unified Palestinian front, actually mean that peace can be achieved, as any agreement will have the major factions behind it. The pervious arrangement ensured the failure of any agreement. In the real world, you need to get the major factions on side, to achieve any kind of agreement.

JustinDee wrote: »

Hamas have everything to do with any future solution in Israel/Palestine. Their presence until they drop arms will hinder any progress.

Hamas just need to stop any violence, and they have done that in the past, for any kind of negotiations to move forward. Also, asking one side in a conflcit to dis-arm and not the other is rather nonsensical.

JustinDee wrote: »

Hamas have never shown anything of a kind. There's a difference between rhetoric and putting a promise into practice. Hamas have a mission and it is never been a peaceful one nor have any of the breakaways that they lie about in saying they have no control over them.

Hamas have stuck to cease fires in the past, so yes they have put promise into practice. Have Hamas broken ceasefires as well, yes they have, but then so have Israel.

Have Hamas broken agreements, yes they have, but then so has Israel.

Both sides, need to get there act together, and both have failed miserably in the past, but if there is to be peace, everyone needs to get there act together.

Also, I am sure you can prove that Hamas actually have control over "break away" groups. Otherwise, your just making stuff up, to suit your view.

JustinDee wrote: »

I know what the bleedin' obvious decrees. Stop settlements, which I've never supported myself, and Hamas must stand down arms permanently.

The demands on Hamas have been to renounce violence as a method to achieve there aims, not to disarm as such. Having one side armed to the teeth (Israel) and asking the other to disarm (Hamas) is just a recipe for a masscre.

JustinDee wrote: »

This is what you are in fact doing, which is why you think of only one side of the conflict as you do.

You clearly stated, you don't want any links that show an opposing view. Thats what you said, not me.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Its most certainly is spin.

You see one side kicked the other off the land, and then things predictably kicked off and gotten more complicated from there, but the root of the whole mess, is the same thing we have seen again and again the world over. To try and say otherwise is to put it simply spin.

Also, I am not ignoring the back ground at all. just stating the why and nothing more

This is like a christmas panto now. Closing your eyes, sticking digits in your ears and repeating 'la-la-la'.
It is not "spin". My opinion isn't spin nor is what I post.

wes wrote: »

There was no chance of an agreement before hand. Again, see the Palestine papers that were leaked recently. Fatah bent over backwards, and got nothing

wes wrote: »

Secondly, a unified Palestinian front, actually mean that peace can be achieved, as any agreement will have the major factions behind it. The pervious arrangement ensured the failure of any agreement. In the real world, you need to get the major factions on side, to achieve any kind of agreement

One of those factions is ensuring that no agreement takes place. Not even a moderate Israel would form an agreement with them.

wes wrote: »

Hamas just need to stop any violence, and they have done that in the past, for any kind of negotiations to move forward. Also, asking one side in a conflcit to dis-arm and not the other is rather nonsensical

They have not desisted. They've been foiled but as you would hopefully know, that is an entirely different prospect.

wes wrote: »

Hamas have stuck to cease fires in the past, so yes they have put promise into practice. Have Hamas broken ceasefires as well, yes they have, but then so have Israel

They have not stuck to them. Delusional to claim they have.

wes wrote: »

Both sides, need to get there act together, and both have failed miserably in the past, but if there is to be peace, everyone needs to get there act together

I'll agree with this, for sure.

wes wrote: »

Also, I am sure you can prove that Hamas actually have control over "break away" groups. Otherwise, your just making stuff up, to suit your view

Thats easy. How many opposition politicians are permitted in Gaza? What opposition factions are allowed?

wes wrote: »

The demands on Hamas have been to renounce violence as a method to achieve there aims, not to disarm as such. Having one side armed to the teeth (Israel) and asking the other to disarm (Hamas) is just a recipe for a masscre

As if Hamas would disarm. These hypotheticals involving Hamas are as far-fetched as peace between Israel and themselves is.
They're fully aware as to what is required for them to be involved in any peace deals, as are the current Israeli government. Pipe-dreams at the moment, I'm afraid.

wes wrote: »

You clearly stated, you don't want any links that show an opposing view. Thats what you said, not me.

I said I don't need your cherry-picked links. There's a difference.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

This is like a christmas panto now. Closing your eyes, sticking digits in your ears and repeating 'la-la-la'.
It is not "spin". My opinion isn't spin nor is what I post.

I disagree, it is spin, and nothing more. As you haven't actually addressed anything, I brough up regarding the histroy of the conflict. Just the same old diverionary stuff, about how both sides are at fault. [sarcasm]Sure, the Palestinians are totally equally to blame for Europeans coming to there land, and kicking them out.[/sarcasm]

JustinDee wrote: »

One of those factions is ensuring that no agreement takes place. Not even a moderate Israel would form an agreement with them.

Considering that Israel was unwilling beforehand to make any kind of deal beforehand, I think if fair to say your wrong in your claim.

JustinDee wrote: »

They have not stuck to them. Delusional to claim they have.

Yes, they have actually stuck to cease fires in the past. Your claim is simply false.

**EDIT**
Here is a link regarding ceasefires:
Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?

Which shows that Hamas have actually stuck to ceasefires in the past, but we shouldn't let facts get in the way of things.
**END EDIT**

JustinDee wrote: »

Thats easy. How many opposition politicians are permitted in Gaza? What opposition factions are allowed?

I asked for proof, not a question. Can you actually prove they control other factions, otherwise as far as I am concerned you are making stuff up.

JustinDee wrote: »

As if Hamas would disarm. These hypotheticals involving Hamas are as far-fetched as peace between Israel and themselves is.

People use the say the same of Fatah.

JustinDee wrote: »

They're fully aware as to what is required for them to be involved in any peace deals, as are the current Israeli government. Pipe-dreams at the moment, I'm afraid.

Things can change very quickly, and recognition as a state, may be the catalyst for that.

JustinDee wrote: »

I said I don't need your cherry-picked links. There's a difference.

Claiming there cherry picked, due to them saying something you don't like.....

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

................
Hamas' involvement with Fatah now guarantees no deals of any kind. In fact, Fatah have just bolstered Netanyahu's coalition government with any Israelis on the fence politically on what to do regarding Hamas.
Hamas have everything to do with any future solution in Israel/Palestine. Their presence until they drop arms will hinder any progress.


.........

Rather unfortunately, the absence of Hamas has not guaranteed a deal of any kind either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palestine-papers
Given that attitude that was show in the documents above I'd suggest that its not on the Palestinian side where concessions now need to be made or pressure put.

JustinDee

Nodin wrote: »

Rather unfortunately, the absence of Hamas has not guaranteed a deal of any kind either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palestine-papers
Given that attitude that was show in the documents above I'd suggest that its not on the Palestinian side where concessions now need to be made or pressure put.

I did say that the Israeli side would have to change too, as well as Hamas.

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

I did say that the Israeli side would have to change too, as well as Hamas.

You stated, and I was responding to

Hamas have everything to do with any future solution in Israel/Palestine. Their presence until they drop arms will hinder any progress.

There was no progress in the absence of Hamas. Furthermore, there was no progress when Hamas wasn't in control of Gaza, or indeed much progress before Hamas existed. Their "presence" will doubtless become the new excuse, but as shown in the documents linked above, thats all it is. Meanwhile, the building goes on.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

The Zionists are nasty occupiers, and there is nothing wrong with stating that fact.

However, I made no claim to Palestinians being noble and justified freedom figthers. The Palestinians have done plenty of horrible things in retaliation to what Zionists did to them. Some of there actions are justified, but when they attack civilians for example, they are most certainly not justified. Now Palestinians terrorism, still doesn't change what the Zionists did to them, and pointing out the power disparity between occupier and occupied is again just addressing the reality.

You paint things with a very broad brush. Not all Israelis are zionists, thats like calling all irish people hardcore republicans. Theres a massive difference between the west bank settler types and yer typical secular types from Tel Aviv.

I'd like to see a time when all the west bank settlements are removed and the palestinians left to their own devices. However that would require a lot of will and a lot of money and probably physical force as a lot of the settlers will refuse to move. Its still wrong to blame all of the Israeli people though, many of them hate the settlers too.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

All European colonists who went to the US, were nasty occupiers. Are you saying that the genocide of the Native American's was ok? That murdering them in there 1000s to steal there land was some how not nasty? Really, some of the defences for colonialism, are truly breath taking.

It wasn't nice thats for sure but I'd rather have the USA of today that not have it. The same for Australia where the indiginous people people did nothing with the country for thousands of years whereas under the colonists it has become one of the greatest countries in the world in barely 200 years.

Population movement is a fact of life, even a small Island like Ireland has had the original population displaced or added to by nemedians, celts, vikings, normans, english and others.