View on the recent Gaza/Israel stikes

[Undertoad]

Palestine would collapse in a two state solution

define collapse

[piercehawkeye45]

Fall apart both politically and economically. Hamas runs Gaza, Fatah runs West Bank. They both want to a unified Palestine but only if they are the ones running it. A peace with Israel cannot be obtained without a unified Palestine and Israel knows that, hence why it has been using divide and conquer techniques since the PLO.

An independent Palestine would not be able to survive economically on its own either, especially without political stability and any resources. What resources do Palestinians have?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What resources do Palestinians have?

The west has poured billions into Palistine... they bought guns with it. If they would knock this shit off, there are plenty of countries, including Israel, that would take care of them.

[piercehawkeye45]

I was referring to the idea of a state in general? Notice how no one had political boundaries until European colonization?

But anyways, the British and Jews were first to attack. The Arab riots were reactionary to those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion

Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the British conquered it so a Jewish state could be formed.

The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi split off.

n 1922, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom a mandate over Palestine for the express purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home".[45] The population of the area at this time was predominantly Muslim Arab, while the largest urban area in the region, Jerusalem, was predominantly Jewish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

As I've said many times, both sides contributed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I was referring to the idea of a state in general? Notice how no one had political boundaries until European colonization?

Right, before the idea of political boundaries was established, it was always military boundries... world wide, what ever you could capture and hold. That's why the residents of that area never owned it.

Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the British conquered it so a Jewish state could be formed.

No, the Brits grabbed it to secure the Suez Canal so the tea supply was assured. The Jews took advantage of the opportunity to go home.

As I've said many times, both sides contributed.

Absolutely, there have transgressions by all, but the Palestinians have to face up to the fact that Israel is a reality and isn't going away. The rest of the world has accepted that, even if they are not happy about it. Even the Persians know that, but keep stirring up shit anyway.

[Undertoad]

Before Hamas' election, and after the removal of settlements, 750 trucks went from Israel to Gaza every day, carrying food and goods and supplies.

A peace with Israel cannot be obtained without a unified Palestine and Israel knows that, hence why it has been using divide and conquer techniques since the PLO.

Oh this is the new excuse? Do keep us up to date. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for terrorist violence. Before this one it was the settlements. Those sneaky Joos always find some way to trick various Palestinian groups into being violently unstable.

and the British conquered it so a Jewish state could be formed

And then the terrible UN was tricked by the Zionist British into the partition plan, huh? With unstable, un-unified borders in wildly varied areas, so that the Arabs would go to war on the first day afterwards?

[piercehawkeye45]

When did I say that Israel was the sole factor behind it? I said what I've been emphasizing this entire time, BOTH SIDES HAVE FAULTS BEHIND IT.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/d...ne_divided.pdf

This, a very legitimate sources, clearly states that Israel is working with Fatah. Why wouldn't they? They view Hamas as a group that needs to be destroyed. But before that, it was Fatah that needs to be destroyed? How do you think they did that? How about when the PLO was in control?

You are a smart man UT, think about it for a second. Israel would prefer as much land as possible, why wouldn't they do this?

[Undertoad]

The 1947 UN Partition Plan. Who divided the borders again?

Israel would prefer as much land as possible to properly defend itself

FTFY.

Because land grab is the OLD excuse. It's last decade's criticism of Israel, and some people are still using it in knee-jerk fashion.

But it's very very very obviously not true at this time in history. Because Israel LEFT Gaza. It uprooted the homes and lives of Israelis who had lived there for twenty years to do so.

And suddenly, once that was no longer an excuse, new excuses arrive.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And suddenly, once that was no longer an excuse, new excuses arrive.

Either way, that doesn't prove that Israel is working towards a solution. A disunified Palestine cannot make peace with Israel and neither Israel, Hamas, or Fatah are working towards a unified Palestine. In fact, most outside sources are not supporting a unified Palestine either. Which backs up my original point that all parties are at fault. Actually fault is a bad word because most actions by every side are defensive in nature.

Note, I am not saying Israel is solely at fault.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Right, before the idea of political boundaries was established, it was always military boundries... world wide, what ever you could capture and hold. That's why the residents of that area never owned it.

Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.

This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.

Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Jews took advantage of the opportunity to go home.

I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone elses? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old. The area became Christian under 2,000 years ago and then Islamic about 1,200 years ago. It wasn't as if the Jews living there were kicked out either by the Christians, many converted and then converted to Islam. So technically, the Palestinians living there have been living there the entire time. The Jews living there now immigrated from other areas and do not have genetic origin to that land.

Or another view, why do Europeans have a right over the United States and Canada and not the natives? The natives were living there for over 10,000 years but we kicked and moved them around. Would the descendants of an Iroquois tribe be legitimate in "going home" and taking over New York?

The only way to make it much easier for everyone and not be hypocritical is to not give any group a right to any land. Jews do not get Israel and neither do Arabs. Nothing can be done to change the situation we are in so we have to deal with it.

If you disagree, show how Jews have a right to that land over any other group.

Absolutely, there have transgressions by all, but the Palestinians have to face up to the fact that Israel is a reality and isn't going away. The rest of the world has accepted that, even if they are not happy about it. Even the Persians know that, but keep stirring up shit anyway.

No, I agree as well. Hell, most Arab states accept it as well even though they may not show it. A small group of Palestinians are the only ones that do not, but they have got power through other means. Reread the original article I posted, it clearly says that the citizens of Gaza support Hamas not necessarily because of their views but because of the siege against them.

Now, I am not arguing that the siege is an ugly oppressive move. Israel is doing it to get rid of Hamas. And Hamas was elected because of Israeli actions. Those Israeli actions were reactionary to Palestinian actions which were reactions to Israeli which were reaction to...

Both sides are on the defensive and all three internal forces are doing what every other country in this world is doing, working to further their self interests. As I said, a peace cannot come without a unified Palestine and neither of the three sides, plus external forces, are working towards that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.

This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundaries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.

Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...

When William Penn bought the land for Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, who lived way the hell up in New York state, the tribes that lived here were not happy they had to move. Ownership was not a European invention.
The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land.
Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.
Individual ownership and property rights was one of the basic tenets of the United States, and highly unusual.

I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone else's? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old.

The Jews were the only ones that didn't have a place to be sent back to when they became a pain in the ass somewhere else. So the rest of the world decided the Jews needed a homeland and established one where it all started, which was a desert sparsely populated by people that didn't own the land. The Arab and Persian states really didn't give a shit about the Jews until they became successful and an embarrassment.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When William Penn bought the land for Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, who lived way the hell up in New York state, the tribes that lived here were not happy they had to move. Ownership was not a European invention.

When did I say ownership was a European invention? I said the state was a European invention.

The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land.
Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.

I don't see how that gives anyone the right to kick people that have been living there since preshistoric times. It happened, just like it happened to almost every culture in human history, but I don't buy the justification at all.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Jews were the only ones that didn't have a place to be sent back to when they became a pain in the ass somewhere else. So the rest of the world decided the Jews needed a homeland and established one where it all started

As I said in my last post, the self-determination part I don't care about it is that area would not have worked out. The more I look into it the more I find that this plan was destined to fail but there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. The Jews weren't going to go anywhere else and the Arabs didn't want to live in a Jewish homeland.

Also, what gives the Jews anymore right to land than lets say the Aboriginals in Australia or the natives in the United States, or the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Kosovo, Ossetians, and the millions of other ethnic groups that don't have a homeland? As I said, I disagree with the justifications behind it.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

which was a desert sparsely populated by people that didn't own the land.

Studies have shown that the DNA of the Palestinians represent people that have lived in that area since Prehistoric times. Other cultures have invaded and mixed in with the gene pool, but most can trace ancestors back to prehistoric ancestors that lived in the same area.

Define didn't own the land.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

the Arab and Persian states really didn't give a shit about the Jews until they became successful and an embarrassment.

The Arab states or the local Arabs? Three of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 weren't even around for five years.

Years gained independence from British
Syria - 1946
Jordan - 1946
Lebanon - 1943
Egypt - 1922
Iraq - 1932

Even then, they didn't really see the Jews as a threat because they denied the early two-state solution.

If you are talking about the local Arabs, you are dead wrong. Tensions started right when the talk of a Jewish state began.

The promise of liberation from the Ottomans led many Jews and Arabs to support the allied powers during World War I, leading to the emergence of widespread Arab nationalism.[12] During this time tensions between the native Arab population of Palestine and the small, but growing, Jewish population in the area had begun to increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict

In 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others (1922 census[8]). However, this area gradually saw a large influx of Jewish immigrants (most of whom were fleeing the increasing persecution in Europe). This immigration and accompanying call for a Jewish state in Palestine drew violent opposition from local Arabs, in part because of Zionism's stated goal of a Jewish state, which many Arabs believed would require the subjugation or removal of the existing non-Jewish population

Under the leadership of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local Arabs rebelled against the British, and attacked the growing Jewish population repeatedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

When did I say ownership was a European invention? I said the state was a European invention.

Right here.

Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.

Which is why I said;

The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land. Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.

I don't see how that gives anyone the right to kick people that have been living there since preshistoric times. It happened, just like it happened to almost every culture in human history, but I don't buy the justification at all.

You don't accept the history of man since prehistoric times... Hmm.

Also, what gives the Jews anymore right to land than lets say the Aboriginals in Australia or the natives in the United States, or the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Kosovo, Ossetians, and the millions of other ethnic groups that don't have a homeland? As I said, I disagree with the justifications behind it.

The Aboriginals still live in Australia, the Indians still live in the US and the Kurds still can and do live in Turkey. Most of the others still live in the same areas unless they chose to migrate or were forcibly removed by people like Stalin. But even most of those people can now go back to the same area if they choose.
Maybe you don't approve, maybe you don't accept, or maybe you don't understand, but whichever, that's your problem because I don't think there's one nation in the whole world that gives a shit.

Define didn't own the land.

OWN : noun, pronoun : that which belongs to oneself
There are two ways you can own the land;
1- Legal title under the rule of law
2- Have possession and the power to retain it
Most of the world uses #2

The Arab states or the local Arabs? Three of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 weren't even around for five years.

States, because individuals don't have armies so they don't count. See #2 above.
The fact remains that the people living in and around Palestine have always been ruled by others... that owned the land.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Either way, that doesn't prove that Israel is working towards a solution. A disunified Palestine cannot make peace with Israel and neither Israel, Hamas, or Fatah are working towards a unified Palestine. In fact, most outside sources are not supporting a unified Palestine either. Which backs up my original point that all parties are at fault. Actually fault is a bad word because most actions by every side are defensive in nature.

Note, I am not saying Israel is solely at fault.


Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.

This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.

Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k


I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone elses? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old. The area became Christian under 2,000 years ago and then Islamic about 1,200 years ago. It wasn't as if the Jews living there were kicked out either by the Christians, many converted and then converted to Islam. So technically, the Palestinians living there have been living there the entire time. The Jews living there now immigrated from other areas and do not have genetic origin to that land.

Or another view, why do Europeans have a right over the United States and Canada and not the natives? The natives were living there for over 10,000 years but we kicked and moved them around. Would the descendants of an Iroquois tribe be legitimate in "going home" and taking over New York?

I love that analogy.

The only way to make it much easier for everyone and not be hypocritical is to not give any group a right to any land. Jews do not get Israel and neither do Arabs. Nothing can be done to change the situation we are in so we have to deal with it.

If you disagree, show how Jews have a right to that land over any other group.


No, I agree as well. Hell, most Arab states accept it as well even though they may not show it. A small group of Palestinians are the only ones that do not, but they have got power through other means. Reread the original article I posted, it clearly says that the citizens of Gaza support Hamas not necessarily because of their views but because of the siege against them.

Now, I am not arguing that the siege is an ugly oppressive move. Israel is doing it to get rid of Hamas. And Hamas was elected because of Israeli actions. Those Israeli actions were reactionary to Palestinian actions which were reactions to Israeli which were reaction to...

Both sides are on the defensive and all three internal forces are doing what every other country in this world is doing, working to further their self interests. As I said, a peace cannot come without a unified Palestine and neither of the three sides, plus external forces, are working towards that.

Israel has been committing human rights violations against Palestinans for decades. Just because they are a "legitimate" government does not mean they are not also terrorists. If we didn't fund Israel to the tune of about $3 billion/year maybe they could actually work out their differences.

When Britain originally made a deal with Zionists for the land (which happened behind the backs of the Arabs, who had agreed to help Britain fight the Germans, and T. E. Lawrence, who was the British liaison officer to the Arabs), it was supposed to protect the people who already lived on the land by limiting the number of Jews who could migrate there. That did not last long. The huge influx of Jews and displacement of Palestinians is probably the main reason why the fighting started to begin with, because before this backroom agreement with Zionists, the Jews who lived there and the Palestianins who lived there got along. It was the Zionists who caused the problem.

Israel had many terrorist organizations well before the PLO and Hamas existed. The reason why Britain decided to leave and wash their hands of the mess they created is because the Zionist organization Irgun, led by Menecham Begin, blew up the King David Hotel in July 1946, killing almost 100 people, including Jews. Funny how Begin later became a respected and validated political leader, after being a terrorist, along with other political leaders in Israeli history. (Funny how we now call it Jewish resistance, and call Palestinian resistance terrorists).

After Israel declared themselves a state, they legitimized their terrorist acts against the people who had been living on that land for hundreds of years, and by default, the Palestinians, who were fighting a resistance against an invader who was put there by a foreign country, became the bad guys.

I am not defending the actions of either people. Personally, I don't understand why they can't just get along with one another and peacefully share the land. But I certainly understand the Palestinians fight more, because they are fighting for their land, for their freedom in their own land, and for their dignity. The Israeli government has systematically driven the Palestinians onto smaller and smaller tracts of land. And the settlements someone mentioned that they gave back, those settlements were created after forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes and putting them in camps, and then bulldozing the houses to make way for homes for Israelis. And if they refuse to leave, they bulldoze right over the people. In fact, an Israeli soldier killed an American student who was there protesting in 2003 with a bulldozer. And that is not the only example of Israeli military brutally killing innocent protesters or peace activists from other countries who are there trying to help Palestinians. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can condone such behavior from a supposed "democratic" country.

[Undertoad]

Either way, that doesn't prove that Israel is working towards a solution.

Really? Uprooting citizens from their lives and homes of 20 years? Patiently waiting to see if the enemy runs out of bombs? You would do less I assure you.

They do what they can. They can't possibly address the real root of the problem that has developed. I think I get it:

The real root of the problem is that Israel is massively successful.

This presents a severe headache not for Palestine, but for all fanatical Islamists.

Israel's remarkable success is evidence, right before their eyes, that their very system of beliefs is faulty. Allah promised all that success to THEM. To see their deepest enemies succeed, economically, culturally, militarily, over and over again, is not just a source of envy. It creates an inner dialogue that is simply impossible for them to resolve in any sort of logical way.

This leads them to fund and support the proxy war so that the question doesn't have to be resolved... the battle is ongoing you see. Question is still in the air. Israel has won? Oh ho, not quite yet! Not in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973... those were silly little struggles that didn't mean anything! The longer battle continues as long as mothers send their children to be suicide bombers.

Other cultures, following wars with their bitter enemies, including those in which they've lost their dear dear homeland, have picked themselves up and gotten on with it. We lost, there's nothing left we can do. Let's just move to the mountains. Why not this culture?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Really? Uprooting citizens from their lives and homes of 20 years? Patiently waiting to see if the enemy runs out of bombs? You would do less I assure you.

They did the same to the Palestinians in 1948. But remember, even if the views of Israelis changed, it still doesn't undo that fact, no matter if they were justified in it or not. Which goes into this...

They can't possibly address the real root of the problem that has developed.

This is true. Israel cannot solve the problem. No single party can solve this problem. And saying the Palestinians can is not an answer. Very informed sources say that this problem cannot be solved without outside help. I already gave the link.

The real root of the problem is that Israel is massively successful.

Oh c'mon UT. You don't actually believe there is a single root to this problem. I mean, displacement, occupation, and a mutual hatred that has been around for over 1,000 years could not have any impact on this at all....

Honestly, I actually agree with you on what you said but that isn't the entirety of the movement. There are many other people with many other reasons. To say that everyone that is anti-Israel is doing it because of the reasons you gave is the same as saying anyone pro-Israel believes that God gave Israel to the Jews and the Jews have the right to take back that land by any means necessary, which does have a following as well.