Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

Kaos said:
You're clutching on to hyperbole. No one is suggesting the US strip Israel to its barebones and watch it get overrun, that's not even remotely necessary. Something as simple as threatening to withdraw Israel's annual funding would be very convincing I'm sure. And besides Israel can take care of itself perfectly well (it did so if previous Arab-Israeli wars are anything to go by), the US refusing to veto resolutions in its favour for example isn't going to lead to Israel's demise.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wish they did. Israel do not need that cash and some sense will be better off without it.

RK, do you believe that Palestinians statehood should be granted while Israel isn't recognized as a Jewish state? Do you beleive that the Palestinians should give up their "Right of Return"? Do you beleive that Israel is likely to enjoy peace when it's back to "pre-1967 borders"?
 
africanspur said:
His bullish approach....has consisted of making about as much progress on this particular issue as just about every other US president, while sprinkling in a few 'our military relationship with Israel is unshakeable', and making incredible diplomatic manoeuvres to prevent the Palestinians doing anything at the UN.

As well as his 'revolutionary' move to declare that Israel needs to move back within the 1967 borders, give up East Jerusalem and stop making a future 2 state solution impossible by building settlements in strategic locations that makes a viable Palestinian state almost impossible to envision. A view shared by the majority of the planet.

Ultimately, his policy in the past 4 years was pretty much the same as the US policy has always been and his policy in the next 4 years will be pretty much the same.

And, as Bibi himself articulates so well here (and effectively what Raoul has just been saying), the US can be moved and silenced and we find ourselves in the strange situation where a superpower can have its policies affected by one of its many recipients of aid. Bibi can do whatever he likes and whether it is Obama, Romney or Joe plumber in the white house, it doesn't make a great deal of difference to him.

Click to expand...


Obama pushed Abbas to a corner on the settlement freezing issue.

Bibi should do whatever he likes (within the interests of the Israeli people) no matter who lives in the White House. Having said that, Israeli-US ties are fundamental to Israeli security of course.

Israel will not "give up" East Jerusalem no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
 
holyland red said:
The Palestinians were allowed access to Israeli ports according to the Paris agreement, a luxury young israel didn't enjoy. Unfortunately, the agreement didn't include the import of weapons, but that's what the tunnel industry is for.
Click to expand...

Access to which Israel regularly deny on a whim, you can't do business when you have no idea when your goods will reach market
 
Neutral said:
Short of plastering front pages with Israeli flags, I'm not sure what the press need to do to be not called anti-Israel.

Israel has the better and more effectively weaponry, so they're wrecking more havoc, the media is obviously going to cover that, because it results in more stories. I've seen plenty of footage of the Israeli side, and the aftermath of attacks on their residents...

Do people want Hamas to be more effective, cause more casualties? Have the press cover that and then claim neutrality?

Plenty of Israeli govt spokespeople on tv giving their side of things, explaining why they've gone down the path they have, and what they stated goals are(reports saying up to 90% of mid range rockets and rocket sites have been destroyed - but hundreds of short range rockets remain).

All the media are actually quite often referencing that IDF twitter feed - and I think the video of the female Israeli soldier having a meltdown has been shown close to a 100 times now.

Do people want the media to be like Fox News and actually endorse the operation? Not their job...they do the reporting, and ppl can decide, what is legitimate/illegal/overkill
Click to expand...

I don't think they're overly anti-Israel. However, they do often prefer to favour the Palestinian side more. For example, after this kicked off, the media often said things like (paraphrasing) "Israel have killed a Hamas leader, in retaliation Hamas have fired rockets into Israel". There was hardly ever a mention that Israel killed this leader after hundreds of missiles were fired into Southern Israel.

As you mentioned, the news channels do give Israeli representatives the opportunity to give their side of the situation. However, from what I've seen the questions to Israelis are a lot more probing than those to their Palestinian counterparts. Often the Palestinian representatives can say what they like with no follow-up questions whilst the Israeli representatives are asked question after question.

Mozza said:
Access to which Israel regularly deny on a whim, you can't do business when you have no idea when your goods will reach market
Click to expand...

Especially weapons to be used to kill Israeli civilians. Do you expect Israel to give Hamas full unrestricted access to ports when Hamas have shown that they'd rather use their funds to purchase weapons to murder Israeli civilians than to help their own people. No country in the world would allow it so why should Israel?
 
ha_rooney said:
Apparently buildings where journalists are working have been targeted by Israeli drones and there have been casualties. I'm sure Israel will tweet their apology and blame Hamas for that.
Click to expand...

How do you know that the buildings were targeted, apparently?
 
Red Dreams said:
when there is an Isreali leader who actually cares about the plight of the Palestinian people, there will be hope.

He will risk his life. But only then can the peace be reached. It must come from both sides. The American President can only facilitate it.
Click to expand...

He will risk the lives of 6 million Jews if he ignores the threat of granting independence to a nation that haven't given up replacing the State of Israel.
 
Neutral said:
Some Numbers

-Israel's army says it has targeted more than 900 sites
-500 rockets fired from Gaza have hit Israel.
-257 missiles had been intercepted by its Iron Dome defence system
-40 Palestinians killed(half are militants half are civilians), 150-200 injured
-3 Israeli deaths(all civilian) 25-40 injured

Interior Minister Eli Yishai to Israel's Haaretz newspaper: the goal of the Pillar of Defence operation was "to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for 40 years".
Click to expand...

That wasn't the "goal of the operation", Scoreboard End, but Ishay's personal thoughts. Sending the Gaza Strip back to middle ages would take 15 minutes and much cheaper ammunition.
 
holyland red said:
That wasn't the "goal of the operation", Scoreboard End, but Ishay's personal thoughts. Sending the Gaza Strip back to middle ages would take 15 minutes and much cheaper ammunition.
Click to expand...

Scoreboard End :D

I did expand on that point in the next post

Plenty of Israeli govt spokespeople on tv giving their side of things, explaining why they've gone down the path they have, and what the stated goals are(reports saying up to 90% of mid range rockets and rocket sites have been destroyed - but hundreds of short range rockets remain).
Click to expand...

Try to destroy as much as possible the capacity and capability of Hamas to produce and fire rockets into Israel.
 
Traub said:
Especially weapons to be used to kill Israeli civilians. Do you expect Israel to give Hamas full unrestricted access to ports when Hamas have shown that they'd rather use their funds to purchase weapons to murder Israeli civilians than to help their own people. No country in the world would allow it so why should Israel?
Click to expand...

I expect the Palestinians to have the same rights as any other nation to import and export what they will.
 
Traub said:
For example, after this kicked off, the media often said things like (paraphrasing) "Israel have killed a Hamas leader, in retaliation Hamas have fired rockets into Israel". There was hardly ever a mention that Israel killed this leader after hundreds of missiles were fired into Southern Israel.
Click to expand...

Was there any mention that the latter is actually a double war crime?
 
Mozza said:
I expect the Palestinians to have the same rights as any other nation to import and export what they will.
Click to expand...

So you condone them importing weapons whose primary purpose is to kill innocent civilans?
 
Mozza said:
What kicked things of was this - http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/08/world/meast/gaza-violence/index.html
Click to expand...

Not these?:

November 10
Palestinians fired 25 rockets at Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gan Yavne and other communities. The Iron Dome anti-rocket system intercepted at least one rocket aimed at Ashdod.[295]
November 11
Gazan groups fired over 100 rockets and mortars at Israeli cities and towns. A barrage against Sderot, timed to coincide with the morning commute to work, injured 3 people. One victim, physical education teacher Moshik Levy, was moderately wounded by shrapnel and glass from his car windshield which exploded in his face. A fourth person was injured while fleeing for cover, and five more people were treated for acute stress reaction. Two homes, one in Sderot and one in the Eshkol Regional Council, were damaged by direct rocket hits. United States Ambassador Dan Shapiro declared that his country "supports Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens from these attacks."[295]
Click to expand...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012#November
 
holyland red said:
Obama pushed Abbas to a corner on the settlement freezing issue.

Bibi should do whatever he likes (within the interests of the Israeli people) no matter who lives in the White House. Having said that, Israeli-US ties are fundamental to Israeli security of course.

Israel will not "give up" East Jerusalem no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
Click to expand...

Obama 'pushed' Abbas into the position that is perhaps Israel's and Palestine's only real chance of a solution to their conflict. The settlements are designed to pre-empt the possibility of a real two state solution. I'm not sure if your previous statement that Abbas should give up the right of return for a promise by Netanyahu to stop settlement building ( a promise that he and subsequent leaders can very easily go back on) is a view held by the Likud leadership but if it is, we're getting nowhere in that region.


Of course he should, that is his role as an elected official (though I would argue that this isn't in their long term interests). But all of us under the US ally umbrella cannot actually just do what we want.

You know exactly what I meant by 'give up' East Jerusalem.
 
africanspur said:
Obama 'pushed' Abbas into the position that is perhaps Israel's and Palestine's only real chance of a solution to their conflict. The settlements are designed to pre-empt the possibility of a real two state solution. I'm not sure if your previous statement that Abbas should give up the right of return for a promise by Netanyahu to stop settlement building ( a promise that he and subsequent leaders can very easily go back on) is a view held by the Likud leadership but if it is, we're getting nowhere in that region.


Of course he should, that is his role as an elected official (though I would argue that this isn't in their long term interests). But all of us under the US ally umbrella cannot actually just do what we want.

You know exactly what I meant by 'give up' East Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Abbas negotiated with Olmert without any settlement freezing. He got the best deal the Palestinans ever had on the table. Needless to say he turned it down, before Bibi took office.

And no, I don't know what you mean by "giving up"
 
Obama: A "serious" effort to work toward Middle East peace "starts with no more missiles being fired" into Israel.

Putting the onus on Hamas to act first.
 
Obama and America are dickheads. Israel has the right to defend itself, but its response as always is over the top and could get worse if there is a ground invasion.

The Israeli deputy-PM's memo/comment that "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years" is a disgrace. How the feck can such a comment be ignored by the Western world whose aim is to ensure 'peace' in the region. There's nothing peaceful about that comment, it suggests Israel's true intentions are to destroy Gaza. If that comment was made by the nutter in Iran, I wonder if the reaction would be different.

It's clear Israel's response to this disproportionate, they don't see anything wrong in killing civilians and their aim has less to do with protecting Israel and more about demolishing Gaza.
 
Bbc and sky just interview the same Israeli sources. There is a clear lack of interviewing the other side.

Its very one sided.
 
So why don't the arab brothers in the region do something concrete about helping about Palestine?

Why is it on the US to always solve the problems. If the majority of ppl/arabs/muslims don't see the US as a fair arbitrator stop asking it to intercede on your behalf.

The US is going to do what is in the best interest of US Foreign Policy - not Palestinian/Arab/Muslim.

Arab league/GCC/OIC - billions of $$$$, tens of millions of citizens, why don't they do something other than hold 'emergency meetings' and release 'statements'
 
Neutral said:
So why don't the arab brothers in the region do something concrete about helping about Palestine?

Why is it on the US to always solve the problems. If the majority of ppl/arabs/muslims don't see the US as a fair arbitrator stop asking it to intercede on your behalf.

The US is going to do what is in the best interest of US Foreign Policy - not Palestinian/Arab/Muslim.

Arab league/GCC/OIC - billions of $$$$, tens of millions of citizens, why don't they do something other than hold 'emergency meetings' and release 'statements'
Click to expand...

Probably because the Arab nations have no influence over Israel. America can tell Israel to stop and most likely Israel will stop. Egypt and other Arab nations cannot do that and no matter how many different truces they come up with, until Israel wants to stop the attacks themselves, there will be no truce.

Notwithstanding the above, the Arab states are useless when protecting Palestinians. Although they don't have direct influence over Israel, they could use their indirect influence (oil) to put pressure on America and other western countries to make a more concerted effort to get Israel to stop.

But the Arab states will not do that, so it all depends on America to use its influence to stop Israel from blowing Gaza into smithereens, something the Americans have not really shown an interest in at the moment.
 
The pathetic collective of Arab dictators that call themselves the Arab League are too fixed on bringing down big, bad Shia Iran. They don't have time to deal with those pesky pests that call themselves Palestinian. They would be somewhat of a force if they used control of oil exports/prices as a bargaining tool, but most of them would just end up compromising each other such is the circus there.
 
holyland red said:
Actually, I wish they did. Israel do not need that cash and some sense will be better off without it.

RK, do you believe that Palestinians statehood should be granted while Israel isn't recognized as a Jewish state? Do you beleive that the Palestinians should give up their "Right of Return"? Do you beleive that Israel is likely to enjoy peace when it's back to "pre-1967 borders"?
Click to expand...

Yes, Jordan and Egypt had to make no such concession in their respective peace processes, why should the Palestinians? And furthermore, being a secularist I fail to see how the notion of a 'Jewish state" is going to treat the considerable non-Jewish demographic within Israel equally.

As for whether its likely to enjoy peace back in its pre-67 borders, its hard to say but I suspect you'll have a considerably smaller number of pissed off, desperate Palestinians, and you'll also find that the international consensus will tend to side with you should problems escalate.
 
holyland red said:
Diplomacy is futile when a peace process that is based on bilateral agreements turns out to a contest where one side pulls out to unilaterally force measures on the other through the UN general assembly.

The annual UN debacles and the constant rocket launching to residential areas confirm that the phase plan has never died.
Click to expand...

The biliteral agreement is clearly never going to work, not when silly and unrealistic demands are thrown towards the Palestinians, so unjust that even a stooge like Abbas would outright reject them. The UN was the best way this deadlock was going to be broken but it was quashed by the US veto.
 
My perception is that Arab nation interest in this conflict us due to their opposition to a Jewish state rather than support for Palestinians. Suffering of the latter serves their agenda to vilify Israel.
 
crappycraperson said:
My perception is that Arab nation interest in this conflict us due to their opposition to a Jewish state rather than support for Palestinians. Suffering of the latter serves their agenda to vilify Israel.
Click to expand...

Most Arab leaders don't care, to them Iran is a bigger nemesis than Israel or the US will ever be. The people living within those Arab nations do however side with the Palestinians because they're probably outraged as to what's happening to their 'own' kind.
 
Raoul said:
Its also one sided on the Arab side.
Click to expand...

So if the Arab news is biased we should be also? The Arabs wrongly or rightly feel they have a kinship with the Palestinans and justify their bias. What justufies our bias? I have no kinship with anyone in the region be it religion or ethnicity or anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.