1. The official Sherdog Store is back! Check it out! » Discuss it here! »
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

Arab-Israeli Conflict: Part 1

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Arkain2K, Dec 23, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 1) Yeah pretty much we can give them so money and all but who cares. They don't have to accept it we force it on them just like has been done for thousands of years and still is to this day.

    2) Could happen again. No Soviet Union exists that is going to side with Jordan or anything.

    3) Yes

    4) There are ways to steer and guide social media, you simply ban/shut down criticism much like Facebook is doing in Germany with so called 'fascist' speech' being banned. And you can also have search engines filter to your liking. Of course this would require the compliance of facebook and google which cannot be assured. In any case, social media is a major factor in the west but less so the rest of the world (imo) people might see something via youtube/liveleak/ or other video or tweet showing videos or articles. However, unless the mass internet based and TV based media focuses on a topic most people will be unaware of its existence or the true nature of the issue.

    This isn't even mentioning that so long as their is little political will or organization then the masses typically shut down and shut up.
     
  2. Rod1 Titanium Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    48,556
    Likes Received:
    897
    Location:
    Sonora, Mexico.
    Done by who? do you honestly believe the US would invade a sovereign nation, commit ethnic cleansing and outright alienate the entire world over Israel?
     
  3. With the UK and other allies yes I do.

    I can honestly (in my head at least) see a scenario which justifies exactly that. In the meantime though what is likely to happen until that point is full Israeli annexation of Area C and expulsion of Palestinians who reside in Area C to Areas (A) and (B).

    The biggest mistake (or maybe its not a mistake and was planned deliberately) is that the Israelis did not push Palestinians eastward after the 1967 6-day war and again after the Yom Kippur war.

    [​IMG]


    The dark green is Area C as I am sure you know.



    A much smarter plan I think would of been to push Palestinians into the Jordan valley and let the Palestinian state be in the Jordan valley and much of what is


    [​IMG]


    Basically give the pink and red areas to the Palestinians. It would be A LOT easier to fence off/wall off and would give Israel even more of a buffer zone/area to prevent Palestinian incursions into Israel proper. The Jordan valley is also resourceful in its own ways and pretty.

    [​IMG]


    The rest of their state if they want it (or if it should be larger) can exist in Jordan. A contiguous Palestinian state is the only logical option in my opinion. And maybe, just MAYBE include a road/highway corridor from Jericho to East Jerusalem.



    But collectively speaking I feel Palestinians have lost their chance and right to having all of the West Bank.
     
  4. Michaelangelo That doesn't work for me, brother Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    26,872
    Likes Received:
    852
    Just give Florida to the Jews

    cut it off and ship it to the Mediterranean Sea
     
  5. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Netanyahu pledges to promote 'responsible policies' at Trump meeting
    By Jeffrey Heller | JERUSALEM
    Feb 12, 2017
    [​IMG]


     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  6. Fawlty Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    45,276
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    Location:
    War Room Lounge
    Both Trump and Israel talking out of both sides of their mouths here. The use of the word "responsible" is almost completely meaningless, except that it signals they will brand their next moves as "responsible" ones because the US will bless them. The obvious expectation here is more Israeli creep, more conflict. We've heard all of this before, time and again, and it's bullshit.
     
  7. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Germany's Merkel cancels high-level meeting with Israel
    13.02.2017

    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  8. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Israel's Right demands Netanyahu, Trump discuss West Bank annexation
    By Gil Hoffman
    February 13, 2017

    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  9. weed ベルセルク

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    37,725
    Likes Received:
    12,545
    Location:
    ʞɹo⅄ ʍǝN
    [​IMG]
     
  10. jeffk Brown Belt

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    4,321
    Likes Received:
    187
    This could stir some more shit up.

    AS CONDITIONS in Gaza grow more and more dire, Hamas seems to be intent on proving that Israel's blockade of the area is wise and necessary. Yahya Sanwar, whose election reflects the ascendancy of Hamas' military wing, is considered a strongman "who speaks in apocalyptic terms about perpetual war with Israel" and who's ordered the detention, torture and murder of fellow Palestinians, Haaretz reports. You can be sure that any money entering Gaza will now go to building tunnels, developing rockets and kidnapping Israelis.

    http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/.premium-1.771390
     
  11. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Israel PM Netanyahu meets with President Trump in Washington today:

     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  12. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    President Trump backs away from commitment to Palestinian state
    By Luke Baker and Matt Spetalnick | WASHINGTON
    Feb 15, 2017​

    [​IMG]

     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  13. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Beyond the Failed "Two-State Solution"
    by Guy Millière
    February 14, 2017

    [​IMG]
    In his June 4, 2009, speech in Cairo, Barack Obama compared Israel, the only open and truly pluralistic county in the Middle East, to South Africa in the apartheid years.


     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  14. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Why Netanyahu must stand up to Israel's right
    By Alan Johnson
    February 15, 2017​

     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  15. brothir Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2014
    Messages:
    1,657
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Norway
    This Bennett guy comes across as a real charmer. No form of reasonable deal is going to be made if someone like that has any significant power in Israel, but by the looks of it he has a foot and an arm inside already. Sigh.
     
  16. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Cause and effect. When the Center refuses to get things done, it give rise to those far out on the fringe and normalize their existence.

    Had this shitty mess been sorted out in any of those golden opportunities in the last hundred years, we wouldn't have Jewish Home's settlements nor Hamas' terror attacks.

    The real question that no one at the U.N want to confront is "why do everyone involved kept rejecting our peaceful-coexistence Two-State idea?"
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  17. JDragon Lawn and Order!

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    20,613
    Likes Received:
    7,405
    Location:
    Germany
    Settlements, water, control over areas etc. are one thing.

    But the other thing is the geographical proximity in Jerusalem of everything that is key to the religious dimension of the conflict.

    [​IMG]

    I really recommend a trip to Jerusalem to everybody who gets the chance. Go to the Mount of Olives. The picture above doesn't do reality justice, it's really very very close together. Standing on the Mount of Olives, you will recognize the complete impossibility of compromise there.
     
  18. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Is 2-State Solution Dead? In Israel, a Debate Over What’s Next
    By ISABEL KERSHNER
    FEB. 16, 2017

    [​IMG]
    An Israeli soldier last month on a street that separates an Israeli settlement and a Palestinian neighborhood inside the West Bank city of Hebron.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-two-state-solution.html
     
  19. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Israel and the Palestinians: What are alternatives to a two-state solution?
    By Colin Shindler Emeritus professor, SOAS
    Feb 17, 2017

    [​IMG]

    When President Donald Trump commented "two states and one state - I like the one that both parties like" about an eventual Israeli-Palestinian settlement, it suggested a rethink, and perhaps a downgrading, of the time-honoured "two-state solution" of past US administrations.

    But what are the other options?

    [​IMG]

    Origin of partition

    To understand where the concept of sharing or dividing this piece of land comes from, it is important to look at its recent past.

    Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism arose during the same period of history with claims to the same territory. This rationale was the underlying basis for an equitable solution, based on partition and a two-state solution.

    In 1921, TransJordan (now the state of Jordan) was formally separated from Palestine (now Israel and the West Bank/Gaza). A UN resolution in 1947 proposed a second partition, this time of the territory west of the river Jordan.

    One part would be a state where Zionist Jews constituted a majority, the other where the Palestinian Arabs would be a majority of the population, but the latter rejected the idea.

    Competing claims

    Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Jordan occupied the West Bank. Egypt in turn controlled Gaza.

    During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel defeated Jordanian forces and conquered the West Bank. Similarly Egypt was forced to leave the Gaza Strip.

    While the Israeli Left was willing to return territory to Jordan for regional peace, the rise of Palestinian nationalism under Yasser Arafat and the ascendency of the Israeli Right under Menahem Begin initially proposed polarised solutions - either a Greater Israel or a Greater Palestine, but not a two-state solution.

    The Israeli Right argued that there were nationalist and religious reasons for retaining the West Bank. Some on the Israeli Left wanted to build socialism on the West Bank through the construction of a network of kibbutzim.

    Israeli security experts, meanwhile, believed that the West Bank provided strategic depth to slow down an invading army. All this led to a burgeoning settler movement.

    Two states

    Yasser Arafat started to move towards a two-state solution after 1974 (though some saw this as a ploy) and established a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, following the Oslo Accords with Israel in 1993.

    Successive Israeli prime ministers - Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu - have all accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, but have differed in terms of what it should actually comprise.

    Recent advocates of the two-state solution have suggested an Israeli border near the West Bank barrier, which would encompass a majority of Israeli settlers. This may well be the basis for a plan eventually put forward by the Trump administration.

    Despite proclamations of a State of Palestine by Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, it has never materialised as a de facto entity, and despite Mr Netanyahu's declaration of support for a Palestinian state in 2009, it is unlikely that any right-wing government would permit its emergence for both ideological and security reasons.

    The takeover of Gaza in 2007 by Hamas produced a divided Palestinian Authority. The nationalists controlled the West Bank while the Islamists ruled Gaza.

    [​IMG]
    Yasser Arafat achieved self-rule for Palestinians but no state

    In the past decade any reconciliation has been based more on public relations than on public reality. This has led to the idea of two Palestinian states or autonomous areas for the Palestinians.

    One fundamental difference between the two sides has been support for a two-state solution by Palestinian nationalists, but no unambiguous statement to this effect from Palestinian Islamists.

    Their objection is essentially theological in that the entire territory from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan should be under Islamic rule with no land being ceded.

    One state

    A one-state solution is based on the premise that it is highly unlikely that today's 400,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank will leave voluntarily or be evacuated forcibly.

    Those on the Israeli far-left regard such a unitary state as being a state of all its citizens.

    However critics on the Israeli side point out that within a few years the number of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza and the number of Arab citizens of Israel itself will have reached parity with the number of Jews in Israel and in the West Bank.

    Given that the Arab birth-rate is higher than the Jewish one, if voters vote according to their ethnic origin, then this means the end of Jewish self-determination in their own nation state.

    Some on the Israeli far-right favour either a full or partial annexation of the West Bank while restricting democratic rights for the Palestinians.

    Meanwhile, an interim solution of a bi-national state would see both national groups working constructively within the same state, but one which offers protection for their political and legal rights and preserves their national identity.

    Nationalism however has proved to be a powerful force in recent times with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia into individual nation-states - and some have argued that while a one-state solution is logical in a theoretical sense, the national enmity between Israelis and Palestinians would produce an unworkable entity.

    Three-state confederation

    The idea of a confederation between Israel, Palestine (West Bank/Gaza) and Jordan has been debated ever since 1948.

    A former Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, vigorously promoted a Benelux-style economic union solution. The Israeli Labour government after the Six Day War adopted variations of a solution known as the Allon Plan, which effectively partitioned the West Bank between Israel and Jordan with remaining territory under local Palestinian autonomy.

    However, it was the rise of a Palestinian national identity in the 1970s which scuppered this idea in favour of a Palestinian state. Ever since, both Jordan and Egypt have shown little enthusiasm for reassuming responsibility for the West Bank and Gaza.

    Autonomy

    Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin proposed the idea of administrative autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza shortly after coming to power in 1977.

    Self-rule for the Palestinians meant that Israel would be responsible for security and foreign policy while ideologically retaining a claim to Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

    While limited autonomy was granted under the Oslo peace accords, it was probably viewed by both sides as an interim solution. The demise of the peace process has frozen any further progress.

    The eventual shape of a final settlement has therefore yet to be determined.


    Colin Shindler is emeritus professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. The author of numerous books on Israel, his The Rise of the Israel Right (Cambridge University Press) was awarded the gold medal in The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's 2016 Book Prize competition.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39002001
     
  20. Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    31,757
    Likes Received:
    3,319
    Israel, the Two-State Solution, and Humanity’s Flaws
    By Ronald A. Lindsay, Center for Inquiry
    02/17/2017

    [​IMG]


    People are still scratching their heads over what President Trump meant to signal the other day when he indicated he was open to a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Did this remark signal a departure from long-standing American policy or was Trump merely mentioning the one-state solution to give Israel some leverage in future negotiations? Or did Trump mean anything at all? With our stream-of-consciousness executive, it’s difficult to reach a firm conclusion.

    But we should take this opportunity to consider the merits of the two-state versus the one-state solution.

    Let’s forget history for a moment, or at least as much history as is not absolutely necessary for understanding the present situation of Israel and the Palestinian people. Let’s also pretend for a moment that we are all rational, forward-looking beings, who are committed to universal human rights, including the right to a democratic government.

    Under these parameters, it’s obvious that a lasting and acceptable solution to the continuing, simmering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians must include the establishment of an economically viable, independent Palestinian state comprising most of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with some means of reliable access between these two areas. Of course, Israel is entitled to guarantees of its security and to the means of preserving its character as a homeland for the Jews. No state can be expected to enter into a peace agreement that results in its annihilation.

    One implication of maintaining the Jewish character of Israel is that Palestinians would have to give up the “right of return.” An estimated 700,000 Palestinian Arabs left (fled or were expelled from) their homes in what is now Israel during the 1948 war that immediately followed the creation of Israel. Some of these individuals are still alive and they and their descendants now number about four million. Even if only a substantial fraction of these individuals take up residence in Israel, they would in a very short time alter the Jewish character of Israel. In exchange for giving up the “right of return,” these individuals should receive generous economic compensation.

    Can anyone doubt that, in broad strokes, the foregoing provisions are what should be contained in a Middle East peace agreement? What is the alternative? The one-state solution? If this meant that Palestinians were given the full complement of rights enjoyed by Israeli citizens, including the right to vote, and if the Palestinians expressly consented to such a unitary state from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea, then such an arrangement would be morally acceptable. But that clearly is not what the Israelis have in mind. Precisely because Israel wants to maintain its Jewish character, it will never give full citizenship rights to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. So denying an independent state to the Palestinians would achieve peace only at the point of a gun and at the cost of sacrificing Israel’s commitment to human rights and democracy. As former Secretary of State Kerry stated, “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic—it cannot be both.”

    2017 marks the fiftieth year that Israel has occupied the West Bank. Is this occupation to continue for another fifty years? Indefinitely? Americans, and a number of other Western countries, have long supported Israel in large part because it is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. That reason for supporting Israel will evaporate if the Israelis restrict democracy to its citizens while treating the Palestinians like serfs.

    Permanent occupation of the West Bank will also drive the Palestinians into the arms of Hamas and other militant groups. If the only alternatives are to submit to a foreign occupier or fight, many will choose the latter alternative.

    Nothing in the foregoing should be interpreted as placing sole blame on Israel for the failure to achieve a lasting peace that would recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. If we feel the need to blame anyone, there’s plenty of blame to go around. In particular, the Palestinians have been ill-served by their leaders. The working plan for a peace agreement during the 2000 negotiations, which took place during the waning days of the Clinton administration, contained the broad strokes outlined above. Arafat balked at the proposed deal. Although accounts of those negotiations differ, apparently sticking points included giving up the right of return and most of East Jerusalem. If that’s true, then Arafat was unrealistic or imprudent (or perhaps just not interested in a deal).

    I have deliberately refrained from going back beyond 2000 in providing historical analysis. Even more than other long-lasting ethno-religious conflicts (think Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Sudan), the conflict in the Middle East has been burdened by the weight of history and the hatreds and mutual recriminations that history has engendered. Each side has some alleged grievance caused by the villains on the other side, which is then rebutted by the other side’s understanding of events and by their own corresponding grievance. Israel has the West Bank because it launched a preemptive attack in 1967! Israel was surrounded by Arab armies on all sides and did launch a preemptive attack on Egypt; however, it only invaded Jordan (which then controlled the West Bank) in response to a Jordanian attack. The Israelis drove the Palestinians from their homes in 1948! There would have been no war, and no refugees, had the Arab states agreed to accept the United Nations resolutions creating both an Israeli and a Palestinian state. Ultimately, Israel is the result of Great Britain’s 1917 Balfour declaration, and Great Britain had no right to carve out a territory for the Jews in land Great Britain did not even possess. (The Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire, with which Great Britain was at war at the time.) Partially true, but there would be no Palestine either had the British not defeated the Ottoman Empire and then received a League of Nation’s mandate for the territory now encompassing Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.

    Exacerbating the tendency of both sides to nurse decades-long grievances is the overlay of religious conflict. Although control over the holy sites, in particular the Temple Mount area, in East Jerusalem was not the only stumbling block in the 2000 negotiations, it was a significant point of contention, with the parties squabbling over who would have sovereignty or mere custody over this or that portion of this area. This is perhaps the saddest part of this seemingly intractable conflict. If there is a deity worth worshiping, that deity can’t give a damn about who has sovereignty over land where some temple, mosque, or church is located.

    No, the Israelis are not to blame; the Palestinians are not to blame. The Middle East conflict is a microcosm of humanity’s flaws, including the difficulty of putting aside past grievances, resentments, and short-term political gains to pursue what both reason and compassion unmistakably mark as the only path forward. Can a just two-state solution still be achieved? I hope so, but I’m not optimistic.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...d-humanitys-flaws_us_58a6f523e4b0b0e1e0e20972
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.