Angry Israel/Palestine Ranting Thread.

It would be so easy if Israel would just give the Palestinians everything. After all, they should give up all their water rights, allow people from another country to freely cross their lands with no limits, give up control of immigration, abscond every decent defensive position in the country, fork over billions of dollars to people whose stated goal is to kill you, wreck your economy by abandoning billions in investments and not be concerned about the spoken aim of the Palestinian State to entirely eliminate Israel. What could go wrong with giving up all of that for nothing in return?

Biggest one in the whole damn GIS.

I'm sorry, did you have a point or are you just happy spouting bullshit? Because this is sufficiently similar to one of those Republican GIANT LISTS OF EVIL THINGS OBAMA HAS DONE that I'd like it clarified if you actually want to discuss the issues or if I can just go straight to mocking you for being an idiot.

Giving up the settlements is pretty much the opposite of giving up everything. It's asking them to give back things they took by force. If Canada invaded Maine and took a few cities, part of the peace negotiations would include "and give us back those cities" as a starting point. Hell, if you want to keep it all in the family: if Mass invaded Rhode Island and took over Providence, the first part of the settlement would be "no, Providence is part of Rhode Island, you don't get to redraw the map"

I cannot see any path to peace that includes the settlements staying. Because they're simply stark physical reminders of what was taken, and will always breed resentment. A fair declaration of borders would be step one to any form of peace, in which both parties have access to water/growing land, and access to some way out of the country (ports/airspace/borders with other countries) so they can grow and maintain independence.

That or you go one state and grant full citizenship and outlaw racist policies to force integration, and deal with the bumpy as shit road for a few decades. As I understand it Israel is 100% against that road simply due to demographic trends.

The points I listed are the Palestinian demands for having their own State.

They want control of the Jordanian River, the primary fresh water source of Israel.
They want free and unrestricted access from Gaza to the West Bank, which would cross Israeli territory.
They want Israel to allow any/all Palestinian "refugees" - even those who have never lived in Israel - to live in Israel. This makes Israelis a minority in their own country and therefore they lose self-determination. It would be like us demanding the UK reallow all American citizens of English heritage the right to immigrate back to England without question.
They want Israel to leave the most defensible land they have.
They want Israel to pay reparations.
They want Israel to abandon not just settlements, but industrial, commercial and defensive investments that have been put in place over the last 45 years. Someone has to pay for those.
And they want it without doing a damn thing about Hamas - you know, the group that still runs the West Bank, whose aim is eliminate Israel and who is firing rockets into Israel right fucking now.

Yeah, that sounds like such a good deal for Israel. Give all that shit up and hope. What a plan!

As a practical and pragmatic matter most settlements will stay in the event of a two-state solution. The official PA position has been ok with it for a long time now, as long as they can maintain territorial cohesion and get some kind of land-swap deal in return. Settlements close to the border would be integrated into Israel, it's the settlements 50 km inside the West Bank accessible by a jews-only highway that Palestinians can't cross that have to be closed.

What's your source? It sounds like you have a list of starting positions from various different negotiations and you've interpreted them as inflexible statements of dogma.

Israeli opposition to in-principle freedom of movement of Palestinians between a theoretical West Bank state and a Gaza Strip state is ludicrous.

The points you listed are bullshit, but I'll indulge you because I'm bored. But right away I'll say you're an idiot for not distinguishing between what Hamas wants, what the PA wants, and what the average dude living in a Palestinian refugee camp might want.

You know what the West Bank refers to, right? It's the west bank of that same river and the river Jordan is the border of their territory. Can you think of any nations in the world that wouldn't want to control their own borders? No?

Is water rights an issue? Sure. But how in the fuck do you have the nerve to spin it into the Palestinians not having the right to the water that flows across their border I have no idea.

Since the people who would negotiate a treaty are not idiots and are not arguing from bulletpoints they'd inlude provisions about Israel getting a share of the water from the river. Such treaties are quite common around the world where major rivers act as water sources for several countries. The Nile, for instance, is subject to treaties between Egypt and Sudan.

Well, right this fucking second Israeli settlers already have free and unrestricted access to cross the west bank on their own jews-only roads that cross Palestinian territory. I can assure you that the Palestinians are well aware of the outrage you're trying to engender as they have first hand knowledge of what it means. Ultimately it's a minor point though. No deal is going to flounder over the issue.

The right to return is a big fucking deal because hundreds of thousands of people fled their homes and businesses and were then forbidden from returning and claiming title on them. It's mass expropriation and a pretty emotional issue among people who lost everything they owned. Those who never lived in Israel that you speak of would be the children and grandchildren of these dispossessed people.

I've heard PA spokespeople say they're open to giving up the right of return but they won't ever be able to do so unless Israel grants them something in return. Reparations, concessions, something to make up for the injustice done to these people.

If you're talking about the Golan Heights that's Syrian land and we're a hundred years past the time when nations could just take territory from another nation because it's defensible. Israel has no inherant right to territory, defensive or otherwise, on territory that doesn't belong to them.

Because Israel dispossessed hundreds of thousands of people. Also, fuck you for thinking dispossessed refugees don't deserve reparations

Call it reparations, kill two birds with one stone?

And this is where you provide conclusive proof that you are an idiot when you can't even recognize the difference between the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The former is run by the PA, the latter by Hamas.

Tell me, did you get that list forwarded to you by your uncle who also raves about the gold standard and how Obama is a secret muslim? Because that's how it reads.

I assume we're all well aware of the narrative involved in the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza. Hamas fires rockets, Israel retaliates, and then there's a lot of violence all around.

Except when it's the other way around. Israel kills Hamas members knowing it will provoke rocket attacks. Hamas retaliates, and if Israel wants they can spin that into justification for air strikes whenever they like.

I'm well aware of how hard it is to untangle the tits from the tats in a tense border confrontation with a long history of violence and warfare but it's remarkable how I've never heard of any major foreign press outlet even considering that the escalation could be the fault of the IDF when it's stated here quite openly in an article in an Israeli newspaper that the IDF doesn't mind the risk of rocket fire if they can take out a few militants.

What your and Lum's bullshit comes right down to is EXACTLY what I just said. So in response to your "GIANT LISTS OF EVIL THINGS OBAMA HAS DONE" post, you just agreed with everything. Fuck you very much. For your reading pleasure and so I can gloat just a little bit more, here it is again.

When you break down all of your bullshit, that's what you get - the utter destruction of the State of Israel. While you may feel that way, I'm sure that they're not going to go willingly into that good night. I'm rather certain Israel would rather nuke the fucking hell out of the Palestinians before agreeing to the destruction of their country. Thanks for your contribution, but don't book your trip to Camp David just yet. Israel may not want to sign off on your proposals.

I can guarantee you a bunch of things. In any deal for a Palestinian state:

1. Israel isn't going to agree to give away all of their water rights.
2. Israel isn't going to pay billions in reparations.
3. Israel isn't going to allow millions of Palestinian refugees into their country.
4. Israel isn't going to allow Hamas (as it exists today) to be part of the government of a Palestinian state.

If your proposal includes any of those 4 above, it's a nonstarter. FYI, I didn't say I was for or against any of your "proposals". Just that they're not going to happen.

Now on to a couple of things Lum posted that are a bit different:

Yes, with the right to close those travel routes as Israeli security demands. The Palestinians want free and unfettered access guaranteed by the UN or other foreign troops. That's not happening.

That quote was progress. Then he semi-retracted it (the interview was "edited and skewed") when his image was burned in effigy. However, I agree this was potentially a step forward and one that Israel should have reciprocated.

You seem to be confusing "Israel will never agree with this" with "Israel is morally doing the right thing" or "Israel's policy is sustainable for the long term."

Doesn't the US have the exact same policy regarding terrorists?

How is demanding their land back "the utter destruction of the state of Israel" unless Israel's entire social identity is tied up in owning the West Bank?

They want their land back, and water rights. Explain to me how that's an unreasonable request, exactly. The request isn't "we get control over the only water supply", it's "we get free fucking access to it that can't be randomly rescinded because someone felt like being a dick today"

The reason they want these things is simple: because both sides don't believe the other is being honest about their intentions. Realistically any border or water rights agreed upon will need UN troops enforcing it for a decade or so. Israel is worried about terrorism. Palestine is worried about punitive or arbitrary access restrictions, like every Wednesday their WB/Gaza road is closed "for security concerns" by a bunch of people who have a history of arbitrary restrictions on movement.

But I'm seriously not seeing how "dude, we'd like our land back, and unrestricted access to our water supply." is somehow an unreasonable starting point for a negotiation. What do YOU think the Palestinians should be asking for?

No, I'm most assuredly not. Making 5.5m Jews refugees isn't the right thing and that's exactly what would happen if Kalle's "the right thing" was done today. I don't think the right thing is to fuck over one group at the expense of another. The right thing to do is something that is workable for everyone - and Kalle's "the right thing" is nothing more than a Swiftian Modest Proposal when it comes to the state of Israel.

Isn't Israel doing things at the expense of another group? Part of fixing that is to revert some of the things that fucked over the Palestinians as a starting point. Yeah, peace is going to look somewhat lopsided against Israel. Because they've been benefiting and taking shit for a while, and to balance it out for peace they're going to need to lose some of the shit they took.

Seriously, how do you see peace working that doesn't involve the utter destruction of the Palestinians? To use the same balance here: uttter destruction means lack of sole water rights and not retaining all their land.

So apparently not requiring that the PA unilaterally give up Right to Return without anything in return as a precondition for negotiation is a Swiftian Modest Proposal? Israel not randomly fucking over Palestinians with regards to water rights, and instead coming to an actual agreement with regards to water rights is "The utter destruction of the State of Israel"?

That's, uh, fucking retarded, though perfectly in keeping with the Republican / Teahaddist / Israel Beitenu frame of mind.

Figuring out what needs to be horse-traded away for what is what negotiations are for.

It probably wouldn't be if that's all they were asking for.

You're right about one thing - neither side believes the other is being honest about their intentions. Neither side is being honest.

---

And since it's time to go...answer me this, Kalle:

In 1948 the Israelis agreed to the UN distribution of territory. The Palestinians and Arabs didn't. They attacked. They lost. They massed for an attack in 1967. They lost. They attacked in 1973. They lost. These aren't disputed facts. Tell me exactly why a country that was attacked on 3 separate occasions in 25 years has to give back everything they won? Where are the reparations for Israel against both the Palestinians and the other Arab countries? If we were attacked by Mexico 3 times in the next 25 years and finally took Baja, do you think we would be obligated to give it back?

Oh, and Lum:

Please note I responded to Kalle, not you. on't try taking my response to him and twisting it in a response to you. So I never said YOU were advocating the destruction of Israel - I'm saying his path certainly does. As such, suggest you take your entire first paragraph of your last post and edit it because it makes you look foolish. Or don't and be intellectually dishonest. Either way.

It's all they actually want. That's the whole point of negotiating. Palestine would be happy with unrestricted access out of it's territory (so they could have trade), water rights that could not be suspended for security reasons, and the majority of it's land back or traded for equally viable land (no trading farmland for shit land, for example). And yeah, there would still be a bunch of violence from random third party groups because that shit takes decades after peace to calm the fuck down.

As an analyst who can't even keep the difference between the west bank and gaza straight I'd say you're somewhat lacking in credibility.

I'm arguing for an Israel that can live in peaceful coexistance with it's neighbours. Yes, it will involve sacrifices on Israel's part but your problem is that you don't seem to grasp the cost of running a low-level war of occupation or the dangers involved in trampling an occupied majority population under your bootheel. Or being on constant belligerant terms with all your neighbours. Peace has a price, but it's not like war comes for free.

Right, you weren't really against treating Palestinians as actual people, you just acted like you were.

Of your points, #1 is ludicrous. A Palestinian state needs water too and Israel is going to have to give if they want peace. How much is up for negotiation.

#2 is also up for negotiation, but your lack of concern for the dispossessed has been duly noted.

#3 is the only point where your talk of national suicide actually has some merit. But Lum already covered this. Details matter, and you don't seem to give a shit about them.

#4 is a sticky situation but Israel should have enough leverage to pull it off.

For #2: if this all came down to money as the stopping point for peace, we'd all chip the fuck in to get this shit sorted out. "Some money would need to be repaid" is pretty much the least of the problems in the peace process.

As for Hamas being in government: they're going to be in government as long as anger against Israel exists, and as long as Hamas can be seen as the provider for the people. Their power is entirely granted by Israel's behavior. "Hey guys, I need cement but Israel is banning it's import" *Hamas rolls up with smuggled cement* "Oh hey, look at these nice helpful motherfuckers!"

edit: also, for "who has to give back territory taken during a war": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Everyone. It's a pretty agreed upon rule because failing to do so causes further wars and conflict. It's basically cleaner for everyone if we all agree that annexing land in war is Bad for everyone involved.

Israel is a signatory to that convention if you want to argue that it only applies to members. Their argument is that it doesn't apply to them in this case, and every legal body disagrees.

The Palestinians were part of the war in 1948. Not the wars of 1967 or 1973. That would be Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. You know, speaking of undisputed facts. It's good to have your undisputed facts straight when asserting something.

I know, and it's a fucking tragedy.

We took California and other states by force of war from Mexico, should Mexico be able to launch rockets at us and sponsor terrorist acts throughout our nation without consequences? Same thing with lands we took from native americans.

Yeah well you also enslaved thousands of Africans. Therefore other countries would be justified in enslaving thousands of Americans? The colonial period was basically a series of atrocities; the historical fact of colonialism doesn't justify modern colonialism. If anything it makes modern colonialism worse because the consequences are so awful, obvious, and stark.

Part of me - a very large part of me - thinks that the correct thing to do is just pull all military support out of the settlements and let them be massacred. Fuck those guys.

The rest of me - the majority view - thinks that instead they should be arrested and put on trial (what they're doing actually fits some legal definitions of genocide and treason, for hilarity points).

Go back two pages, read every post again.

I know. But permit me my fantasies. :(

People are saying its wrong for Israel to retaliate, which is pretty much the same thing.

Go back two pages, read every post again.

I saw this thread get bumped, and I totally expected BillD to be in here.

That's a really enlightening look into why you post the things that you do.