Israel

[Sawbonz 28223]

They specifically left recognition of the Israeli state out of their Declaration of Independence. Something Arafat said in a speech is not an official recognition 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I stopped reading at "1947." 

I can't say that is a surprise, given your other posts on this.  Covering your eyes and ears is easier than giving some thought to an opposing viewpoint. 

[hpslugga 4097]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

They specifically left recognition of the Israeli state out of their Declaration of Independence. Something Arafat said in a speech is not an official recognition 

It says ""The need to convene an effective international conference on the subject of the Middle East problem and its essence, the question of Palestine, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of the permanent members of the Security Council and all parties to the conflict in the region, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, on an equal footing, with the provision that the said international conference shall be convened on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242"

SC242's article 2 section C clearly states "For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area"

If you're making a claim based on 242 with no additional qualification (i.e. he never said "except for this or that part"), you're by definition recognizing the "territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area," not just Palestine. That should have been a logical corollary. I guess I expect too much when people have an apparent compulsion to make excuses.

Edited May 16, 2018 by hpslugga

[Sawbonz 28223]

If the PLO has never accepted Israel by name as a state, why would that clause apply to Israel?

[hpslugga 4097]

Who else is a party to the conflict as it pertains to 242, and with whom else do the Palestinians need to insistence on being put "on equal footing?" Bangladesh? Again, you're just making excuses.

Edited May 16, 2018 by hpslugga

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

I'm against a Palestinian state because I'm not at all confident they want to run an actual country.  It's not nearly as sexy as it sounds.  How are they going to build roads?  Pick up the trash?  What will their economy be like?  What currency will they use?

If I were Israel, though, I'd be all for this.  Let them have their own country, get them off the voting rolls, wall it off, and let the rest of the Arab world deal with them.  If they starve, they starve.

[hpslugga 4097]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I'm against a Palestinian state because I'm not at all confident they want to run an actual country. 

That's not up to anyone but them to decide. That's the issue.

[Sawbonz 28223]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

Who else is a party to the conflict as it pertains to 242? Again, you're just making excuses.

Israel says it will not negotiate with Palestine until they recognize it. If I were head of the Palestinian Authority I would get on TV and announce “we recognize Israel’s right to exist, and have for 30 years”. Or tweet it. I wonder why Abbas has not done that

[DixonHur 11959]

18 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I can't say that is a surprise, given your other posts on this.  Covering your eyes and ears is easier than giving some thought to an opposing viewpoint. 

I think his point is that Balfour Declaration to create the state of Israel in the Jordan Mandate was made in 1917, so the fact that European Jews started arriving before 1947 doesn't change the equation.  Think of them as sooners...

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

If we had a third world group that bordered us that ran suicide squads into our cities and was hellbent on our destruction, we wouldn't be giving them a country.  We'd fuck them up.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

If I were Israel, though, I'd be all for this.  Let them have their own country, get them off the voting rolls, wall it off, and let the rest of the Arab world deal with them.  If they starve, they starve.

Agreed, but the reason Israel won't do this is that attacks from the West Bank would step up and they'd go back in to stop them.   The Palestinians won't accept peace on any terms that Israel could give.   I'd still do it, take the hits with pinpoint counterattacks, and just wait them out.  But human nature is what it is, and it is unrealistic to expect Israelis to accept that for the foreseeable future. 

We're past the point of no return. The Palestinians and the useful idiots supporting them got played by their regional "friends," who are going to end up accepting Israel anyway.   The Palestinians are going to end up with  Gaza and a small sliver of the West Bank.   I don't think anything can stop that now. 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I can't say that is a surprise, given your other posts on this.  Covering your eyes and ears is easier than giving some thought to an opposing viewpoint. 

It doesn't matter what the Jewish population in Palestine was in 1947. How is that relevant?

I'm not sure you know your history. You know about the Balfour Declaration of 1917, right? What was the Jewish population in Palestine then? What about in 1817? What about in 1717? What about in 717?

[Newdoc 3511]

Is there some sort of chart that I can pick a date in this conflict so I can support my preconceived views about what side is righteous in this mess?  From the looks of this thread, there's gotta be one or should I just Google "Israeli Jews suck, I need biased talking points" or "Brown people bad, the state of Palestine should never exist"?

[hpslugga 4097]

18 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Israel says it will not negotiate with Palestine until they recognize it. If I were head of the Palestinian Authority I would get on TV and announce “we recognize Israel’s right to exist, and have for 30 years”. Or tweet it. I wonder why Abbas has not done that

Israel does not want to negotiate with them at all and they've made their intentions on that known since their response to the Jarring Mission in 1971, and that was made very clear again in their response to the Algiers Declaration. They acknowledged Arafat's willingness to acknowledge Israel's existence, but then the demand turned into "they have to recognize our creation as legitimate," since they knew no self-respecting Palestinian would ever do such a thing. What you pointed out as some sort of principled pre-condition is, in reality, goalpost moving. Even if they were willing to put that in paper literally, since apparently the Algiers Declaration doesn't satisfy you, some other excuse will crop up as it always does. I'm sorry, but there's ample evidence to support that. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it's "just Israel" or "Jewish" or whatever; it has to do with the fact that the US gives it massive aid and ideological cover in the international arena, and they're behaving like any other beneficiary would. If our support was for the Palestinians, I've not doubt the roles would completely reverse and for the same reason that has nothing to do with race nor religion or anything like that.

As to Abbas, again, he's a retched collaborator that does what the US wants him to do, namely act as a lazy and corrupt despot who couldn't be moved to shed a single tear for even the most extreme instance of plight by "his people." You seem to think that he's some sort of charismatic leader that has the support of the Palestinians. He isn't. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by hpslugga

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

If the Palestinians really wanted to protest the Israeli "occupation," they'd have public suicides every day at noon and be televised the world over.  They would go on until Israel gave in their demands.  The pressure on Israel would be unreal.

Instead, they run suicide squads into Jewish daycares because we all know this really isn't about having their own state.

[Sawbonz 28223]

4 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Israel does not want to negotiate with them at all and they've made their intentions on that known since their response to the Jarring Mission in 1971, and that was made very clear again in their response to the Algiers Declaration. They acknowledged Arafat's willingness to acknowledge Israel's existence, but then the demand turned into "they have to recognize our creation as legitimate," since they knew no self-respecting Palestinian would ever do such a thing. What you pointed out as some sort of principled pre-condition is, in reality, goalpost moving. Even if they were willing to put that in paper literally, since apparently the Algiers Declaration doesn't satisfy you, some other excuse will crop up as it always does. I'm sorry, but there's ample evidence to support that. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it's "just Israel" or "Jewish" or whatever; it has to do with the fact that the US gives it massive aid and ideological cover in the international arena, and they're behaving like any other beneficiary would. If our support was for the Palestinians, I've not doubt the roles would completely reverse and for the same reason that has nothing to do with race nor religion or anything like that.

Palestine isn’t in a position to negotiate from strength. They could easily put the lie to the statement in the article I linked if Abbas came out publically stating Israel has the right to exist. He never will though, and it’s because neither he nor the average Palestinian believes it to be true, which means no matter what Israel cedes it will never be enough, which means Israel will not do more than they are forced to do, and no one is going to force them to do anything 

[hpslugga 4097]

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Abbas. 

[Sawbonz 28223]

Just now, hpslugga said:

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Abbas. 

Is he not still the titular leader of Palestine?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It doesn't matter what the Jewish population in Palestine was in 1947. How is that relevant?

I'm not sure you know your history. You know about the Balfour Declaration of 1917, right? What was the Jewish population in Palestine then? What about in 1817? What about in 1717? What about in 717?

The relevance is explained in the rest of my post, which you didn't read. 

Look, I know that you really want to argue about ancient history, because you sincerely believe that Jews shouldn't have been allowed to immigrate to the land a hundred years ago or start a nation there.  I've been through those arguments a dozen times on hornfans and the Shag, and I'm seeing the same bogus pro-Palestinian arguments as always on this thread. But the reality is that it doesn't matter now.   Arguing as if it does only legitimizes your premise that Israel's right to exist today is somehow dependent on a relitigation of the UN vote. 

But it isn't.  Israel exists.  The native population in Israel proper is Jewish.  Whatever it was in 1917, or 1817, or the year 17, it's not Arab land now.  The Palestinian diaspora is largely native to other countries, along with Gaza and the West Bank.

The only issues that matter now are the settlements, skirmishes, and possible peace compromises.   And there are reasonable arguments against a number of things that the Israelis are doing there.   But "The Jews claim to the land is based on bullshit from the Bible" hasn't been one of them for many, many years. 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

33 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Is there some sort of chart that I can pick a date in this conflict so I can support my preconceived views about what side is righteous in this mess?  From the looks of this thread, there's gotta be one or should I just Google "Israeli Jews suck, I need biased talking points" or "Brown people bad, the state of Palestine should never exist"?

Here's a date: March 4, 1789.

What would Israel look like if they were operating under the U.S. Constitution?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Here's a date: March 4, 1789.

What would Israel look like if they were operating under the U.S. Constitution?

I'll stipulate that it would be nice if every country in the world adopted and followed the US Constitution.  But if I were criticizing countries for not doing so, Israel would not be anywhere near the top of the list for complaint.  What does this argument have to do with Israel in particular? 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

19 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The relevance is explained in the rest of my post, which you didn't read. 

Look, I know that you really want to argue about ancient history, because you sincerely believe that Jews shouldn't have been allowed to immigrate to the land a hundred years ago or start a nation there.  I've been through those arguments a dozen times on hornfans and the Shag, and I'm seeing the same bogus pro-Palestinian arguments as always on this thread. But the reality is that it doesn't matter now.   Arguing as if it does only legitimizes your premise that Israel's right to exist today is somehow dependent on a relitigation of the UN vote. 

But it isn't.  Israel exists.  The native population in Israel proper is Jewish.  Whatever it was in 1917, or 1817, or the year 17, it's not Arab land now.  The Palestinian diaspora is largely native to other countries, along with Gaza and the West Bank.

The only issues that matter now are the settlements, skirmishes, and possible peace compromises.   And there are reasonable arguments against a number of things that the Israelis are doing there.   But "The Jews claim to the land is based on bullshit from the Bible" hasn't been one of them for many, many years. 

The issues that matter to you aren't the issues that matter to the Palestinians. You fail to see it from their perspective. If you could see it from their perspective through the impartial lens of history then you would understand why the conflict exists and why it will never end so long as Johnny-come-lately has all the power.

Yes, Israel exists. Shitloads of Jews have moved there from all over the world since 1917 in order to outnumber the local residents and dominate "elections" so they could create the pre-ordained Jewish state. It's no more practical or feasible to send them back to where they came from than it would be for us to send our African-American friends back to where they came from like the white supremacists are fond of demanding.

The only solution, imo, is to get along. I don't know about you but I'm dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. A great American president once espoused that as a virtue. That can't happen in Israel because it would mean the end of Jewish sovereignty, Jewish supremacy. As an American I oppose that political structure regardless of the religion. You should too. 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

19 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'll stipulate that it would be nice if every country in the world adopted and followed the US Constitution.  But if I were criticizing countries for not doing so, Israel would not be anywhere near the top of the list for complaint.  What does this argument have to do with Israel in particular? 

First Amendment, dude. 

Is it safe to assume you believe the God of Abraham is real?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The issues that matter to you aren't the issues that matter to the Palestinians. You fail to see it from their perspective. If you could see it from their perspective through the impartial lens of history then you would understand why the conflict exists and why it will never end so long as Johnny-come-lately has all the power.

Yes, Israel exists. Shitloads of Jews have moved there from all over the world since 1917 in order to outnumber the local residents and dominate "elections" so they could create the pre-ordained Jewish state. It's no more practical or feasible to send them back to where they came from than it would be for us to send our African-American friends back to where they came from like the white supremacists are fond of demanding.

The only solution, imo, is to get along. I don't know about you but I'm dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. A great American president once espoused that as a virtue. That can't happen in Israel because it would mean the end of Jewish sovereignty, Jewish supremacy. As an American I oppose that political structure regardless of the religion. You should too. 

No, I understand the Palestinians' perspective and the reasons there is conflict.  They have every right to be upset at their plight, and I understand why they blame Israel for it.  The problem is that you are letting your emotions cloud your reason.  That's why you keep applying ridiculous double standards to Israel.   Not even England has the protections of the First Amendment, let alone any Arab country, but it's a reason to specifically ding Israel?  Come on now. 

"Get along" isn't a solution to the conflict for anyone over the age of 5.   How exactly do you propose to implement that plan? 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The issues that matter to you aren't the issues that matter to the Palestinians. You fail to see it from their perspective. If you could see it from their perspective through the impartial lens of history then you would understand why the conflict exists and why it will never end so long as Johnny-come-lately has all the power.

Yes, Israel exists. Shitloads of Jews have moved there from all over the world since 1917 in order to outnumber the local residents and dominate "elections" so they could create the pre-ordained Jewish state. It's no more practical or feasible to send them back to where they came from than it would be for us to send our African-American friends back to where they came from like the white supremacists are fond of demanding.

The only solution, imo, is to get along. I don't know about you but I'm dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. A great American president once espoused that as a virtue. That can't happen in Israel because it would mean the end of Jewish sovereignty, Jewish supremacy. As an American I oppose that political structure regardless of the religion. You should too. 

Equality is a false God. That's just not how the world works. 

The Jewish state has a right to exist, and that isn't "Jewish supremacy" at all. Arabs have better outcomes in Israel. You are watching a proxy war where Iran is attempting to throw up human shields in front of their attacks on Israel (the only ally to the West in the ME) to gain sympathy. 

 

[EMAWesome 101]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30721/stunning-report-egyptian-officials-berate-hamas-hank-berrien

On Monday, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah was summoned to Cairo by Egyptian officials, who reportedly gave him a tongue-lashing over Hamas’ “riot policy.”

As Israel HaYom reports, a senior Egyptian official reported that Haniyah was summoned to Egyptian intelligence service headquarters early Monday afternoon; General Intelligence Service head Maj. Gen. Abbas Kamal hotly criticized Haniyah for the violence caused by Hamas. Israel HaYom states, “The official said Egyptian officials were stunned by the high number of casualties and angered by information provided by Israel that proved Hamas was paying civilians, including children, to place ‎themselves in harm's way by approaching the fence ‎and clashing with IDF soldiers so as to allow Hamas ‎operatives to blend into the crowd and try to ‎carry out terrorist attacks.”

Egyptian intelligence officers discovered that other terrorist groups in Gaza agreed with them about Hamas's provocations on the border and were concerned that the internal differences inside Gaza were pushing it to the brink of chaos. The official quoted by Israel HaYom stated:

Ismail Haniyah and two bodyguards arrived in Cairo by helicopter within an hour of being summoned. But anyone who says Egyptian intelligence was honoring him by sending a helicopter to get him is wrong -- they were furious with him. Kamal ‎then kept Haniyah waiting outside his office. It was humiliating. When Haniyeh was finally called in, you could hear him [Kamal] yelling. Haniyah didn't dare answer back. Haniyeh was told, in no uncertain terms, that the blood of the dead was on his and [Hamas military leader Yahya] Sinwar's hands. They even showed him images of Hamas operatives paying teenagers to go die near the fence.

The official said "Haniyah was stunned" by the Egyptians admonishing him and that Egyptian intelligence officers "made it clear to Haniyah that the Hamas leadership will be held responsible for any more deaths in border riots. They told him history won't forgive the Hamas leadership for such senseless deaths."

The report attests that the officials warned Haniyah that if Hamas continues its actions, Israel might return to targeted assassinations, which would only elicit verbal condemnations from Egypt and other Arab nations. The official said, "Kamal demanded that Haniyah order his people to cease the border riot campaign immediately. It was a very stern message.”

It may not be a coincidence that Hamas called some of its operatives back from the clash on Monday night.

Another senior Egyptian official said, "Kamal's decision to step in and defuse the situation in Gaza followed messages from both Hamas and Israel. Hamas had offered a hudna [temporary truce] but rejected any possibility of relinquishing its weapons, while Israel sent a stronger message, saying it will not allow Hamas to instigate violence and trigger an escalation that could destabilize the entire region, including Egypt."

[ChickenSandwich 9959]

Hamas official: 50 of the 62 Gazans killed in border violence were our members

Salah Bardawil's confirmation means number of acknowledged members of terror groups who died on Monday and Tuesday is now 53

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-50-of-the-people-killed-in-gaza-riots-were-members/

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

21 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No, I understand the Palestinians' perspective and the reasons there is conflict.  They have every right to be upset at their plight, and I understand why they blame Israel for it.  The problem is that you are letting your emotions cloud your reason.  That's why you keep applying ridiculous double standards to Israel.   Not even England has the protections of the First Amendment, let alone any Arab country, but it's a reason to specifically ding Israel?  Come on now. 

"Get along" isn't a solution to the conflict for anyone over the age of 5.   How exactly do you propose to implement that plan? 

Like I said, it's not going to happen. We're going to choose the stupid option and you're a fool if you think violence won't be the result or can be avoided. 

I have no emotion regarding this subject. You're reading me wrong. I'm just calling it like I see it. 

Edit: I'm still guessing you believe the God of Abraham is real. Do you deny having that bias?

Edited May 16, 2018 by WhatTheBuck

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Like I said, it's not going to happen. We're going to choose the stupid option and you're a fool if you think violence won't be the result or can be avoided. 

I have no emotion regarding this subject. You're reading me wrong. I'm just calling it like I see it. 

The emotion I mean is sympathy for the Palestinians.  Which is an appropriate emotion, I feel sympathy for them too, specifically those who haven't been accepted into another country.   But your sympathy is being used as part of a regional political battle.  The Palestinians are pawns and their leaders are puppets.  The reason this lasts is because nobody is looking out for the actual interests of the Palestinians.   And your position is part of the problem, not the solution. 

The only solution for the Palestinians is to cut their losses and negotiate the best deal they still can in exchange for peace.  That deal gets worse every year.   I've been saying this for a decade, and the best possible deal for them now is much worse than the best possible deal they could have gotten then.   But it is still significantly better than what they have now and what they will ever otherwise get 

But as long as it serves the other Arab countries to keep them in squalor, and make this about 1948 or 1917 or whatever ancient history you want to cite, Palestinians will continue to suffer. 

[hpslugga 4097]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Is he not still the titular leader of Palestine?

Operative word: titular 

But you keep speaking of him as if he's a respected leader that represents the interests of the whole of Palestine. He isn't. He's a western lapdog that does absolutely nothing for them, and they're well aware of it. You said something about what he "believes." What he believes isn't relevant. He doesn't act on what he believes, he acts on what benefits himself and only himself. He couldn't be bothered to care about Palestine, and even if he did care, he's still not going to do a damned thing about it. So all this "wondering" that you're doing about "why hasn't he come out with a statement" is a waste of time and energy. He's going to do exactly as Washington instructs, and that would definitely not be anywhere near a priority.

Edited May 16, 2018 by hpslugga

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

The emotion I mean is sympathy for the Palestinians.  Which is an appropriate emotion, I feel sympathy for them too, specifically those who haven't been accepted into another country.   But your sympathy is being used as part of a regional political battle.  The Palestinians are pawns and their leaders are puppets.  The reason this lasts is because nobody is looking out for the actual interests of the Palestinians.   And your position is part of the problem, not the solution. 

The only solution for the Palestinians is to cut their losses and negotiate the best deal they still can in exchange for peace.  That deal gets worse every year.   I've been saying this for a decade, and the best possible deal for them now is much worse than the best possible deal they could have gotten then.   But it is still significantly better than what they have now and what they will ever otherwise get 

But as long as it serves the other Arab countries to keep them in squalor, and make this about 1948 or 1917 or whatever ancient history you want to cite, Palestinians will continue to suffer. 

ironically the Israeli impetus is even more ancient history than 1917 or 1948, but more like 70AD. 

the Pals are pawns of whom? Their leaders are puppets of whom?

your position is part of the problem, as if the victims are so because of themselves and the Israelis have absolutely nothing to do with anything. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[Mojo Hand 4580]

29 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

ironically the Israeli impetus is even more ancient history than 1917 or 1948, but more like 70AD. 

the Pals are pawns of whom? Their leaders are puppets of whom?

your position is part of the problem, as if the victims are so because of themselves and the Israelis have absolutely nothing to do with anything. 

Other regional powers — various Arab nations, Iran.   Recognizing that they've been using the Palestinians in a 70-year proxy war isn't part of the problem.  It's  a necessary step for any kind of future for the Palestinians.  I don't blame the Palestinians for their lot.  Like I said, they're pawns. 

[Sawbonz 28223]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Operative word: titular 

But you keep speaking of him as if he's a respected leader that represents the interests of the whole of Palestine. He isn't. He's a western lapdog that does absolutely nothing for them, and they're well aware of it. You said something about what he "believes." What he believes isn't relevant. He doesn't act on what he believes, he acts on what benefits himself and only himself. He couldn't be bothered to care about Palestine, and even if he did care, he's still not going to do a damned thing about it. So all this "wondering" that you're doing about "why hasn't he come out with a statement" is a waste of time and energy. He's going to do exactly as Washington instructs, and that would definitely not be anywhere near a priority.

Ok. So the president of the Palestinian authority doesn’t run Palestine. Orca says the head of Hamas doesn’t run Palestine. Sounds like a failed state. How does one get assurances of peace and border security from a failed state?

Or if not a failed state, why don’t you give me a name of the person with whom Israel should negotiate? Oh wait, they should just evacuate to the 67 borders with no assurances of anything. That’s a perfectly reasonable stance

 

 

 

[Orca of Peace 109]

24 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Other regional powers — various Arab nations, Iran.   Recognizing that they've been using the Palestinians in a 70-year proxy war isn't part of the problem.  It's  a necessary step for any kind of future for the Palestinians.  I don't blame the Palestinians for their lot.  Like I said, they're pawns. 

how have they been used as pawns? I don't think anyone has much real leverage on the Palestinians anymore since Israel controls everything and the PA money comes from the US and international aid agencies. Qatar gives money to Gaza but doesn't control them. The Pals have been quite independent from the other Arab nations for a very long time. So this whole " pawn thing" is last relevant from the late 70s/ early 80s , the days of Arafat's power. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Start war of aggression trying to wipe out your neighbor with 5 of your buddies. Get ass kicked and lose land. Refuse to make peace. Bitch about losing land. 

[hpslugga 4097]

27 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Ok. So the president of the Palestinian authority doesn’t run Palestine. Orca says the head of Hamas doesn’t run Palestine. Sounds like a failed state. How does one get assurances of peace and border security from a failed state?

Or if not a failed state, why don’t you give me a name of the person with whom Israel should negotiate? Oh wait, they should just evacuate to the 67 borders with no assurances of anything. That’s a perfectly reasonable stance

 

 

 

I didn’t say Abbas doesn’t run it. I said he does not speak for the vast majority of them. Huge difference.

As for who Israel should negotiate with, that’s for the Palestinian people to decide. The US doesn’t want that because they know that Palestinians will not legitimately vote for brain-dead puppets like Mahmoud Abbas. That’s why when you skim through the so-called Palestine Papers, you’ll notice there’s a lamentation in there by Hillary Clinton where she bemoaned the fact that they didn’t just outright rig the 2006 Gaza election. 

[David Dennison 19542]

32 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Start war of aggression trying to wipe out your neighbor with 5 of your buddies. Get ass kicked and lose land. Refuse to make peace. Bitch about losing land. 

Then Israel should claim the land.

[Sawbonz 28223]

So Israel’s stated reason not to negotiate with Palestine is their refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. According to you, the Palestinian people haven’t decided on anyone to speak for them. I don’t see this going well for Palestinians. You can root for a unilateral withdrawal by Israel though. Let me know how that works out

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Then Israel should claim the land.

Israel should keep doing what it’s doing. Their wall is very effective at keeping terrorists out. 

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Israel should keep doing what it’s doing. Their wall is very effective at keeping terrorists out. 

They'll never have peace. They don't want it.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

13 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

how have they been used as pawns? I don't think anyone has much real leverage on the Palestinians anymore since Israel controls everything and the PA money comes from the US and international aid agencies. Qatar gives money to Gaza but doesn't control them. The Pals have been quite independent from the other Arab nations for a very long time. So this whole " pawn thing" is last relevant from the late 70s/ early 80s , the days of Arafat's power. 

The PA is a joke that only exists to provide the appearance of benign self-representation.  Hamas is the monkey wrench, and they are funded by Iran and Arab interests.  More broadly, various iterations of those powers have been fucking the Palestinians over for years.  Instead of absorbing them, they keep them in miserable refugee camps.  After 1948, the Palestinians should have held Gaza and the West Bank.  Israel didn't take it from them.    Egypt greedily took Gaza and Jordan took the West Bank.  With absolutely no right to do so.   For twenty years.  Until Israel kicked them out.

The Palestinians have long been used as a tool to weaken Israel, and they remain a tool today. Eventually they will be negotiated away and everyone in the region will make them accept the tiny fraction of whatever is left by then.   Nobody is speaking for them, and a lot of well-meaning people are helping them stay martyrs for bad people. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They'll never have peace. They don't want it.

They'll have peace eventually.  The Palestinians will just be an afterthought by the time that comes about. 

[hpslugga 4097]

42 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Start war of aggression trying to wipe out your neighbor with 5 of your buddies. Get ass kicked and lose land. Refuse to make peace. Bitch about losing land. 

^make shit up about the whole affair 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

They'll have peace eventually.  The Palestinians will just be an afterthought by the time that comes about. 

See. I'm pretty sure it's Israel that won't survive. I think they know it.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

See. I'm pretty sure it's Israel that won't survive. I think they know it.

How exactly do you see that playing out? 

[Fozzz 152]

Israel has nuclear weapons, why would they not survive?  No one actually believes the Palestinians or even the dreaded "Shia crescent" are an existential threat to Israel.  

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

How exactly do you see that playing out? 

No idea, but I do know Israelis are outnumbered and surrounded. Long-term is not looking good at the moment.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

No idea, but I do know Israelis are outnumbered and surrounded. Long-term is not looking good at the moment.

Those Jews aren’t going anywhere. Smart. Tough. Determined. Organized.  Pretty much the opposite of their enemies. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Those Jews aren’t going anywhere. Smart. Tough. Determined. Organized.  Pretty much the opposite of their enemies. 

No one said anything about the Jews going anywhere. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

No idea, but I do know Israelis are outnumbered and surrounded. Long-term is not looking good at the moment.

That's not very persuasive.   We're all outnumbered and surrounded.  It's just that we make nice with our neighbors.  Israel will eventually secure good relations with its neighbors, as it did with Egypt and is now working on with Saudi Arabia.  The reasons to do so are much stronger than the reasons for fighting, once you recognize that the regional powers don't actually give two fucks about the Palestinians.