Israel - Palestine Conflict. **Mod note in OP - updated 1st August**

user2011

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well if you will recall, I actually do favour a two state solution and Israel out of Palestine, but the problem is how exactly do you enforce it? I mean how do you envisage Israel being compelled to accept the borders you would propose for example?

I didn't propose the boarders the UN did and Israel accepted them. If Israel wants to go it alone let sanctions hit them hard let them become a pariah state if they so wish they'll get to weak to support it's terrorist defense army let them come back to the table ready to accept the boarders set out by the UN and not what the zionists think the boarders should be.

Getting way off point with my OP here good going Irish

Irish Praetorian

user2011 wrote: »

I didn't propose the boarders the UN did and Israel accepted them. If Israel wants to go it alone let sanctions hit them hard let them become a pariah state if they so wish they'll get to weak to support it's terrorist defense army let them come back to the table ready to accept the boarders set out by the UN and not what the zionists think the boarders should be.

Getting way off point with my OP here good going Irish

Most people call me Praetorian, or just Prae, I dare say I'm not the only Irishman here

Now in terms of practical implications, if you believe sanctions are capable of dissuading a regime from ethnic actions I fear you might be disappointed. Firstly, the use of sanctions in response to these kinds of actions typically involve sanctions on arms trades and weapons purchases; naturally this isn't terribly effective on one of the worlds leading weapons exporters. Secondly, we are faced with the reality that even in the case of wider sanctions, the EU and the US combined make up a little over half of Israel's trade - sounds impressive, but its less so when you consider Asia makes up about a quarter, and growing. A dramatic trade sanction program on Israel will most likely trigger a greater shift from the European and American to Asian and 'Other' markets, namely those countries who don't care so much about sanctions. Russia is actually a good example of this, with recent Western sanctions and the Russian response leading Russia to switch to Israeli produce. Thirdly, and perhaps most problematically, we do have to confront the potential actions of an Israel that sheared of the pretence of being just another Western democracy. A full programme of economic and cultural sanctions may well do away with the last pretences of Israeli restraint and lead them to simply ethnically cleanse the occupied territories outright. I would hazard that it is the spectre of trade sanctions from the West, which has the greater ability to do good than actual sanctions.

Dan_Solo

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Most people call me Praetorian, or just Prae, I dare say I'm not the only Irishman here

Now in terms of practical implications, if you believe sanctions are capable of dissuading a regime from ethnic actions I fear you might be disappointed. Firstly, the use of sanctions in response to these kinds of actions typically involve sanctions on arms trades and weapons purchases; naturally this isn't terribly effective on one of the worlds leading weapons exporters. Secondly, we are faced with the reality that even in the case of wider sanctions, the EU and the US combined make up a little over half of Israel's trade - sounds impressive, but its less so when you consider Asia makes up about a quarter, and growing. A dramatic trade sanction program on Israel will most likely trigger a greater shift from the European and American to Asian and 'Other' markets, namely those countries who don't care so much about sanctions. Russia is actually a good example of this, with recent Western sanctions and the Russian response leading Russia to switch to Israeli produce. Thirdly, and perhaps most problematically, we do have to confront the potential actions of an Israel that sheared of the pretence of being just another Western democracy. A full programme of economic and cultural sanctions may well do away with the last pretences of Israeli restraint and lead them to simply ethnically cleanse the occupied territories outright. I would hazard that it is the spectre of trade sanctions from the West, which has the greater ability to do good than actual sanctions.

Well worn scare tactics from the Zionist fanclub. If you try to do anything to stop us things will just get worse.

everlast75

Absolutely nothing on Sky News about this!?!

Bizarre!

Dan_Solo

everlast75 wrote: »

Absolutely nothing on Sky News about this!?!

Bizarre!

Answered yourself there!

SeaBreezes

Israel has announced plans to expropriate 400 hectares of land in the occupied West Bank in a move Palestinian officials claim will cause more friction after the Gaza conflict.


The notice published by the military gave no reason for the decision, but Israel Radio said the step was taken in response to the kidnapping and killing of three Jewish teenagers in the area in June. -


In Israel’s view, building in the area would not constitute a new settlement because the site is officially designated a neighbourhood of an existing one, Alon Shvut. -

See more at: http://m.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/israel-lays-claim-to-400-hectares-in-west-bank-in-largest-appropriation-of-land-in-30-years-30551945.html#sthash.3Qs98kFd.dpuf

Israel are out of control and they and the US are the biggest threat to world peace.

What happens when all the palestinians have been slaughtered? Does anyone believe they will stop there?

Syria, Lebanon and Egypt are neighbourhoods of existing settlements..

Expansionism and Nazism is alive and well in Israel. Hitler did much the same to a jewish population not so long ago. That the survivors of that genocide perpetrate exactly the same treatment on another ethnicity beggars belief. For shame!

Irish Praetorian

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well worn scare tactics from the Zionist fanclub. If you try to do anything to stop us things will just get worse.

Your damn right I'm scared. You don't exactly need to go far from Israel's borders to see the impact of sectarian and ethnic tensions run riot; Syria - 200,000 dead, 10 times that number made refugees, Iraq - Religious Fundamentalists running riot across half the country extirpating minority communities thousands of years old and more than a million refugees made, Sudan - a genocide that never was with half a million dead and a president running free. So forgive me for being unenthusiastic about pursuing Israel and going 'yeah you guys won't do NOTHING', experience has led me to believe the contrary.

suicide_circus

Isreal stealing more land I see, how novel.

RustyNut

suicide_circus wrote: »

Isreal stealing more land I see, how novel.

Zionists, baby killers and thieves.

Son Of A Vidic

Last time I checked two weeks ago, estimates were at 17,000. But the latest UNRWA report estimates put the total number of destroyed or uninhabitable homes @ 20,000 :eek:.

The scale of damage is unprecedented. Whilst shelter assessment is far from completed, an estimated 20,000 housing units are uninhabitable, either destroyed or severely damaged.

A strong mobilization of resources to continue providing assistance to civilians in need is absolutely necessary but not a solution for Gaza. Lifting the blockade and the collective punishment of the population is imperative to move forward.

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/emergency-reports/gaza-situation-report-5354

And then we have the Zionist regime stealing another 988 acres of Palestinian land. Cat got your tongue Obama? And there's that collective punishment = war crime & Geneva Conventions breach popping up again. Yes try as they might, the apologists can't make these crimes disappear.

user2011

Skunk (no not the smoke stuff) the stinky one being used as an "anti protest" tool.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/video-palestinians-cheer-israeli-skunk-truck-crashes-ravine

Anyone hear of this stuff being used before?

R P McMurphy

This was posted in another thread

http://www.kolor.com/virtual-tours/20140818-kolor-lewis-whyld/#s=pano117

wes

Its amazing that Israel basically announcing that here going to kill off the 2 state solution isn't seen as a big deal by the US or EU. If the Palestinians don't have a enough land for a state, then the 2 state solution is done, and then the situation faces a fundamental and difficult change, that could result in things descending into further violence and chaos for decades to come.

Its Only Ray Parlour

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Israel are out of control and they and the US are the biggest threat to world peace.

With this planet running on limited resources, world peace was never an option. Just imagine what this planet would be like without oil for cars and gas for heating - countries will be fighting each other the last bit.

Dan_Solo

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Your damn right I'm scared. You don't exactly need to go far from Israel's borders to see the impact of sectarian and ethnic tensions run riot; Syria - 200,000 dead, 10 times that number made refugees, Iraq - Religious Fundamentalists running riot across half the country extirpating minority communities thousands of years old and more than a million refugees made, Sudan - a genocide that never was with half a million dead and a president running free. So forgive me for being unenthusiastic about pursuing Israel and going 'yeah you guys won't do NOTHING', experience has led me to believe the contrary.

So, bad stuff happens, now let Israel get on with the land grabbing?
Puh-lease.
Whoever is funding Zionist land grabs, be it our buying Israeli products or the US sending free babybusters, they need to stop. Now.

Irish Praetorian

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, bad stuff happens, now let Israel get on with the land grabbing?
Puh-lease.
Whoever is funding Zionist land grabs, be it our buying Israeli products or the US sending free babybusters, they need to stop. Now.

No its a very simple case of bad stuff happens, but can you do anything to make it better or will you just make it worse? I take the Iraq War as an example of this, launched for a myriad of reasons that included liberating an oppressed population from a brutal dictator - Nowadays you cannot have a discussion about Iraq without someone lamenting how much better it would have been had Saddam remained in power. Syria - effectively a copy of the above except now it appears Assad will be maintained in power, one way or another. And here we stand again, with people saying 'lets roll the dice - rock the boat - what could go wrong?' I didn't buy it when Bush and Blair said it, I'm not buying it now.

shedweller

I hope some people are documenting what israel did so that future generations can see it. Rest assured the then websites will have been whitewashed to hell. They may even paint israel in a good light!!!!
They are good at whitewashing a story with endless repetition and pulling out the antisemitism card so it'll be nice to have a box load of printed media from when it actually happened.
Just in case people forget!

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Hardly an accurate description. The 1948 conflict was started by Israel, as the Arab states didn't attack until Zionists started expelling Palestinians.

One doesn't set about invading a nation on a couple of hours' notice. The Arab forces invaded as they realised that the Palestinian forces were not going to win the Palestine/Jewish conflict and that if they wanted to see the Arab League's unanimous rejection of the partition plan and of the creation of the state of Israel, they would have to do it themselves.

In 1956 Israel, France and UK, attacked Egypt due to Egypt nationalizing the Suez canal,

No, in 1956 the British invaded due to Egypt nationalising the canal. The French invaded as they wanted to end support for Algerian separatists, and the Israelis were the only country to invade for the reason they announced at the time: They were fed up with the attacks coming across the border, concerned about apparent Egyptian planning for an invasion (arguably evidenced by the forward capture of supply points after the fact), and most importantly due to the two Egyptian shipping blockades, particularly the blocking of the Israeli Red Sea port of Eilat. So yes, the Israelis attacked, but it wasn't entirely without cause.

and in 1967 Israel again attacked first claiming it was a pre-emptive strike, and the only time the Arabs states attacked Israel first was the Yom Kippur war.

Arguably with some justification given Egyptian acts and statements, but as someone else has pointed out on this thread, a naval blockade is an act of war, and so the Egyptians were the first country to make such an act by closing the Straits of Tiran, again blocking Eilat. And it's not as if the Israelis hadn't warned them "blockading us will be considered an act of war."

Things are, like everything else in the Middle East, not so black and white.

SeaBreezes

Another interesting article I came accross:

http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2

user2011

The settlement expansion that was going to be carried out in response to the three Israeli's killed has been cancelled after the US gives Bibi a clip around the ear.

Israeli officials told Walla! Netanyahu stopped the construction of new settlement homes primarily due to fear of an “international crisis”, after the US had urged him not to follow through with the plan.

A US State Department official described the Israeli announcement as "counterproductive to Israel's stated goal of a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians," urging "the government of Israel to reverse this decision." - See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-cancels-settlement-plans-due-international-pressure-1015162706#sthash.iLBtc8zS.dpuf

Sounds like a state that would go buck mad when the powers that be stand up against the zionists.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-cancels-settlement-plans-due-international-pressure-1015162706

eeepaulo

user2011 wrote: »

The settlement expansion that was going to be carried out in response to the three Israeli's killed has been cancelled after the US gives Bibi a clip around the ear.

It will probably be considered a concession to the palestinians.

Nodin

user2011 wrote: »

The settlement expansion that was going to be carried out in response to the three Israeli's killed has been cancelled after the US gives Bibi a clip around the ear.



Sounds like a state that would go buck mad when the powers that be stand up against the zionists.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-cancels-settlement-plans-due-international-pressure-1015162706

But the land grab just announced is still going ahead. The other ear needs a clip.

user2011

Nodin wrote: »

But the land grab just announced is still going ahead. The other ear needs a clip.

I thought this was the same :mad:

Give with one hand take with the other.

user2011

A US State Department official described the Israeli announcement as "counterproductive to Israel's stated goal of a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians," urging "the government of Israel to reverse this decision."

middleeast piece ^ cancelling the land grab

"We urge the government of Israel to reverse this decision," a State Department official said in Washington, calling the move "counterproductive" to efforts to achieve a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.

Huffingtonpost ^ about the new land grab http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/31/israel-west-bank_n_5745498.html

MEE Attributing the recent quotes about different bit of land robbed

:rolleyes:

Nodin

user2011 wrote: »

middleeast piece ^ cancelling the land grab



Huffingtonpost ^ about the new land grab http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/31/israel-west-bank_n_5745498.html

MEE Attributing the recent quotes about different bit of land robbed

:rolleyes:

It gets confusing allright.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably with some justification given Egyptian acts and statements, but as someone else has pointed out on this thread, a naval blockade is an act of war

Interesting. So you agree that Israel effectively declared war on Gaza in 2007.

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Interesting. So you agree that Israel effectively declared war on Gaza in 2007.

If you are asking if the Israeli blockade was an act of war, then yes. If you're asking if Israel effectively declared war with it, no. I have never stated that military operations require some formal declaration before laws of warfare apply, only that a state of conflict exist. Why should this apparently be a surprise to you? The blockade wasn't the start of it, only a continuation of earlier military exchanges. That state of conflict dated to before Sep 2007, it only escalated.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are asking if the Israeli blockade was an act of war, then yes. If you're asking if Israel effectively declared war with it, no. I have never stated that military operations require some formal declaration before laws of warfare apply, only that a state of conflict exist. Why should this apparently be a surprise to you? The blockade wasn't the start of it, only a continuation of earlier military exchanges. That state of conflict dated to before Sep 2007, it only escalated.

Hard luck, but I quite specifically used the word "effectively" so it was abundantly clear I was not surprised.

Dan_Solo

eeepaulo wrote: »

It will probably be considered a concession to the palestinians.

Weren't we through this before when Kerry said Palestine should engage in peace talks (the usual ones where Israel offer nothing) as if they didn't Israel would be encouraged to steal even more land?

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

One doesn't set about invading a nation on a couple of hours' notice. The Arab forces invaded as they realised that the Palestinian forces were not going to win the Palestine/Jewish conflict and that if they wanted to see the Arab League's unanimous rejection of the partition plan and of the creation of the state of Israel, they would have to do it themselves.

The partition plan was never binding, and Zionist force immediately started expelling Palestinians and grabbing land outside the planned partition area.

Manic Moran wrote: »

and the Israelis were the only country to invade for the reason they announced at the time: They were fed up with the attacks coming across the border,

You will find that both side were doing that at the time.....

Manic Moran wrote: »

concerned about apparent Egyptian planning for an invasion (arguably evidenced by the forward capture of supply points after the fact), and most importantly due to the two Egyptian shipping blockades, particularly the blocking of the Israeli Red Sea port of Eilat. So yes, the Israelis attacked, but it wasn't entirely without cause.

Wait, so a blockade is a reason for war now? Interesting considering the whole siege of Gaza......

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably with some justification given Egyptian acts and statements, but as someone else has pointed out on this thread, a naval blockade is an act of war, and so the Egyptians were the first country to make such an act by closing the Straits of Tiran, again blocking Eilat. And it's not as if the Israelis hadn't warned them "blockading us will be considered an act of war."

Yeah, and yet we see very clearly that Israel, when they do it, consider it to be not the case, as do there allies.

BTW, at this point in history, the 2 sides were attacking each other in a regular basis, and various acts and statements made against one another.