The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Israel Prepared to move ground forces into Gaza
Posts
To put things back on track, we've got new reports from the BBC in the second day of bombing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801662.stm
Limiting a thread on the Israel/Palestine conflict only to the present is a sure-fire way to have a few people "golly how terrible" and then a big flamewar because someone said "had it coming" or "those Muslim terr'rist". It is far more interesting to talk about how this conflict came to be and why the two factions fail at basic human decency.
That's probably just winter break talking. Having a lack of students in my major around to talk about this with is getting frustrating.
They did exactly what you suggested until now.
(As to the deathcount- its massive on both sides if you count all the wars up to today: but the numbers are skewed toward's Israel's favor because Hamas mainly targets civilians while the IDF mainly ((though it claims 'only', lack of discipline does occur)) targets military and para-military organizations)
Reckless: Good point- sorry for going off-topic.
This report is basically a translation of the one from ynet.co.il, released last night. The only difference is the omission of Sderot.
EDIT: As I read it, Reckless only intended for us to focus on the reality of the situation rather then philosophy , not 'fuck history this is NOW!'.
I'm all for a pragmatic talk about how we can fix this problem. First step: convince everyone to stop throwing explosives over the fence. How do we ever convince them of that? It seems to be ingrained in their culture (and hell, in every culture) to take revenge.
My solution? Palestine needs to be given a legitimate state with sovereign borders and all that good stuff that International Law calls for. Second step? Jerusalem needs to become an International City or a sovereign area similar to Vatican City. How to get Israel to ever agree to that, though, is beyond my imagination.
So...it's all about Palestinians wanting their own country then? I read about PLO submitting a plan of West Bank/Gaza becoming a Palestinian state in 1978...any reason why Israel didn't accept this?
I think Jerusalem should stay with Israel. Majority of the citizens are Jewish, and making them give up their capital city would be too far in my opinion. And it is also the holiest city in Judaism, in addition to being their spiritual center as well. Muslims have a bunch of ancient religious centers (ie. Mecca, Medina), Jews...don't really have that many. Certainly not anything as important as Jerusalem.
The worst thing Israel could do is create a humanitarian crisis.
Edit: Darkcrawler, likely because Israel didn't want to be further surrounded by states that don't like all that existing Israel does.
It -was-.
Then all the surrounding countries tried to take over Israel, and they lost what the UN had given to them on a silver platter because the Israelis took land after winning wars.
Here was the proposal before that one, by the way. Jerusalem was also an international zone under this plan:
Although extremely idealistic, the above is possible.
Getting any side to give up Jerusalem is like asking a Christian and an Atheist to compromise on 'God exists and is awesome but jesus doesn't.'
The problem with Israel purchasing the Palestinian land was that the Palestinians didn't own it. The Israeli's bought it from Ottoman landlords who didn't give a shit about the inhabitants and then pushed the Palestinians out. It isn't as bad as showing up with guns, but a bunch of guys showing up with a deed that you didn't know about and telling you to get out in five minutes isn't all that great.
Honestly...looks like to me that the U.N. wasn't "giving" them anything. Both of those plans were still taking away parts of Palestine from Palestinians. Imagine that U.S. would have to give, I don't know, Georgia to form a Kurdish state, and Arab countries would be making that decision. I really don't think that Arabs really had much choice in this decision, despite the land being in Middle East. Which is why I think that the formation of Israel in the Middle East was a huge error.
Secondly, Israel was formed in the middle east *because* the West wanted a foothold there, else Russia would have a monopoly over the area.
We could make a Kurdish state out of Iraq, but Turkey made a big hubbub about it so it never happened.
That....doesn't really make it right, does it?
The British ultimately owned the land, therefore they were the ones that had the legal international right to do with it as they saw fit.
If we're going to get into the Briton's skill or lack thereof at country border drawings (including Africa), feel free to start another thread..
They already had a foothold in the area. If the US truly wanted to just have a base there, we could have just outright bought the land from Britain, instead of giving it to anybody.
There's going to be a ground invasion, no doubt about it. I'm not happy about it, but Israel is going to pound Hamas until it becomes politically unfeasable (as in Lebanon) or the Gaza strip is pounded into rubble (more so than it already is).
And just so you guys know, Israel threads around here turn to complete shit very quickly, so whatever caution you have about limiting straight up rhetoric and anger are good ideas, seeing as the worst case scenario that comes about is indeed complete shit flinging that has little to do with the situation at hand.
I believe, but am not sure, that this was the US' idea until Nasser decided to do some stupid things and then get cozy with the Soviets.
EDIT: Israel was the only country without loyalty to Russia. A part of the Zionist movement has indeed already moved in, but by far and large most arrived after the official declaration.
For the record, the main competitor for a spot to settle was Uganda. the West just pushed the whole thing in the 'right' direction.
Complicated history lesson.
Jewish settlers were indeed interested in establishing a state, and plans to create one have existed since 1920. During the 1920's the plans for a jewish state gave the Jews essentially the fiefdom of Tel-Aviv, meaning that they received Tel-Aviv and a small amount of the surrounding area, maybe 2% of Israel's current land holdings.
During the 1930's, as Israel and Palestinians began the ethnic war that would eventually drive the British to the UN, which creates a partition plan that would split the land more or less evenly between the two groups.
In the independance war of 1948 the Israeli state took control over most of the Palestinian land, leading to an Israeli state that encompasses more or less the lower central picture.
Who backed the Jews in this endeavor? Primarily the USSR. Early Israeli settlements, known as kibbutzim, were extremely socialistic (shared everything, children living in their own unit while the parents worked, nobody had any personal spending money, people ate together, and a bunch more stuff that I forget) and the Russians thought that Israel would become a socialist state.
So why did Israel become a US puppet? Up until the war of 1967 Israel's primary foreign backer was France (Russia was turned off by the whole democracy thing), but when France ignored Israel in the six day war America became Israel's primary backer, and the language defending Israel on the basis that they are a democracy began. It was at this point that Russia began sending increased supplies to Israel's neighbors and the war between Israel and its neighbors became one of the surrogates for the cold war.
Oh, and the British did not create Israel, the UN did, which is unique amongst the former British colonies.
during 24-36, when the primary Aliyah and development was taking place, Russia was performing the Collectivization within its own borders- refusing to admit the Jewish are a people at all while supporting their nationalist ambitions seems a bit over the top.
I mean in comparison to the constant "civilized warfare" horseshit they've been engaged in? I'd have to think the body count would ultimately be lower with a real war effort and a more permanent solution to the problem.
*edit: which is to say, there is no strategic downside at all.
Because you could never fully get rid of all the Palestinians in the area, and those that you didn't get rid of would only become more belligerent. It's the difference between having a minority (Hamas + a few others) pissed off and working against you, and having a majority (most of the Palestinians) feeling that way.
You don't really need to get rid of all them though. You just need to let them know that they, as an organization, fail-state, or whatever else they want to call themselves are not welcome. They must leave. No services will be available to them, no job qualification, etc.
Israel then occupies all the remaining territory with what they consider proper defenses and go about their merry way. Provide a path to citizenship for refugees of the war with key no-compromise concessions (such as, they must agree to self identify as "Israelis" and have no connection to the former Palestinian militants.)
Yes, it'd be rough times for a long time. Assimilation and such could well take decades. However, it is something and what is being done is precisely nothing but random killing.
War is an ugly, awful thing. Best to be done quickly and decisively when both sides deem it necessary, and obviously they do so let them have at it.
Israel has illegitimately taken control of extensive sovereign territory of Palestine, which only doesn't exist because Israel has destroyed it. Palestine associates with terrorist organizations and uses terrorist tactics. The US should say fuck em both and focus on areas where more human lives are at stake and a resolution is feasible.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If you wanna go whole hog and attempt to remove the Palestinians, you best be prepared to kill every single one of them. The ones you don't kill may be forced to leave the land, but they will make life a living hell in Israel and then breed a bunch of kids who are even more pissed off.
That is more or less what I'm saying. Force them to leave. Kill if you have to, and if they rise up (which they well might) then fight them as you would a military enemy. The worst mistake anyone ever makes is half-assing a war. It's an evil affair, and the cleaner done the better.
So far as the last part, they already are making life a living hell and breeding a bunch of kids pissed off at Israel.
So again, strategically, how is this not their best option?
It's not strategically viable, because Israel would lose all support from the West.
EDIT: It's also a reprehensible way to deal with the situation, as they would in effect be causing an escalation of the conflict in order to justify eliminating a people.
I really don't think so. Especially if we're calling "the West" America.
Imagine if Mexico started launching missiles into Texas because we unfairly stole that land from them. I think in short order you'd have the 51st state of the union and a little more beach front property to retire to. I don't think it'd be any big challenge for a gifted Israeli politician to cast the war into that light and appeal to such sentiments.
But according to Derrick, that would be OK. See, Israel would go all out to expel the Palestinians, the Palestinians would obviously react with violent resistance, and then Israel could justify going to the next extreme. *facepalm*
If they rise up against Israel and begin to fight militarily, then responding in kind is also not genocide.
As has been said, Palestinians have been kicked out of just about every country in the region and made unwelcome. Therefore, it must be possible to do without killing them all.
I realize the temptation to compare forcing them to leave to the Holocaust is a tempting one for excited minds to make. I think there's far too much hyperbole involved to really compare the two, however.
Consider: What is the lesser evil-
Perpetual, organized and well funded conflict that will never end and kills, terrorizes and destroys infrastructure forever, or
One bloody, awful, but albeit short war and a gradual return to the only solution that actually seems viable in the region- a ONE state solution.