Terrorist Netanyahu Re-elected

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

For example, "the people there should be treated poorly". What sort of statement is that?

It is a statement you were implying .. or were you? Don't dance around the subject, just say if you agree or disagree with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. If you think it is justified, just say so.

The bottom line is that the re-election of Netanyahu is fundamental obstacle to a peaceful resolution of this conflict. He will increase the polarisation of the Israeli and Palestinian position: the illegal land grabs on one side and the pathetic Hamas missile responses on the other will just cement the divide.

The longer this goes on as it is, the more difficult/impossible a peaceful resolution will become. The Palestinian children, growing up in Gaza will become tomorrows suicide bombers attacking Israeli civilians ... sow and ye shall reap .. a saying that seems very apt for this part of the world.

Originally Posted by ianch99

It is a statement you were implying .. or were you? Don't dance around the subject, just say if you agree or disagree with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. If you think it is justified, just say so.

The bottom line is that the re-election of Netanyahu is fundamental obstacle to a peaceful resolution of this conflict. He will increase the polarisation of the Israeli and Palestinian position: the illegal land grabs on one side and the pathetic Hamas missile responses on the other will just cement the divide.

The longer this goes on as it is, the more difficult/impossible a peaceful resolution will become. The Palestinian children, growing up in Gaza will become tomorrows suicide bombers attacking Israeli civilians ... sow and ye shall reap .. a saying that seems very apt for this part of the world.

You are looking for binary answers where none exist. Agree/disagree. Justified/not justified. Sorry, but it isn't that simple, and it is quite naive to expect any meaningful position on an issue to be developed in a few short sentences when the issue has defied the keenest politicians in the world for many decades.

I both understand the Palestinians' demands to right-of-return, and the reasons why Israel will never agree to it.

I understand Israel's need to hold the West Bank as part of a strategy to make its home territory defensible, given the invasions it suffered in 1967 and 1973 and the continuing aspiration of some in the Arab world to "drive Israel into the sea".

I understand the Palestinians demands to have territory under their total and exclusive control, given that that was what was in principle envisaged by the UN prior to the creation of Israel in 1948.

There are pragmatic aims on both sides, and both sides have used highly dubious tactics in pursuit of them. There is no black and white, there is no agree or disagree, and any negotiated settlement to this dispute will have to deal with things as they are. Any attempt to satisfy some perceived moral outrage on one side or the other is doomed to fail.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

You are looking for binary answers where none exist. Agree/disagree. Justified/not justified. Sorry, but it isn't that simple, and it is quite naive to expect any meaningful position on an issue to be developed in a few short sentences when the issue has defied the keenest politicians in the world for many decades.

I both understand the Palestinians' demands to right-of-return, and the reasons why Israel will never agree to it.

I understand Israel's need to hold the West Bank as part of a strategy to make its home territory defensible, given the invasions it suffered in 1967 and 1973 and the continuing aspiration of some in the Arab world to "drive Israel into the sea".

I understand the Palestinians demands to have territory under their total and exclusive control, given that that was what was in principle envisaged by the UN prior to the creation of Israel in 1948.

There are pragmatic aims on both sides, and both sides have used highly dubious tactics in pursuit of them. There is no black and white, there is no agree or disagree, and any negotiated settlement to this dispute will have to deal with things as they are. Any attempt to satisfy some perceived moral outrage on one side or the other is doomed to fail.

It is the failure of the world to clearly articulate (and take action on) what is patently wrong (on both sides) that has contributed to the situation we see today. Some actions (on both sides) are clearly wrong and should be called out as such.

The world's "understanding" doesn't stop the Israeli land grab or the Hamas missiles

[tweetiepooh]

The Palestinian people are caught in the middle and have been for centuries. They are not Arab so the surrounding countries don't really care about them and they especially don't care for the Christian Palestinians.

Most people in the area (as with most people around the world) want to get on and live happily and, like most people around the world, probably would if the war mongers would do everyone a favour and shoot themselves. But there are those war mongers who seek the destruction of "the other side" or at best a forceful response to threats.

And the world/situation is so polarised that you can't leave it to institutions like the UN. Even if the UN were "fair" and made a "fair" judgement it would be very hard to implement. The Jewish people especially are very wary of any such judgement as history has shown that in the long run it really isn't that "fair" at all and nearly always leaves them at a disadvantage. The 1948 vote left Israel as an almost indefensible nation that was immediately attacked and nearly cut in half. But any attempt to divide the land "fairly" will never work. Someone will always be disadvantaged in some way they feel unjust and unacceptable. And that doesn't even start to look at Jerusalem.

Arab/Jewish animosity dates back to Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. It's not going to be solved easily.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

What I'm saying here is that neither side has covered itself in glory over the past 67 years, and the synthetic moral outrage that characterises both sides of the debate over Israel and Palestine is both pointless and hypocritical.

For example, "the people there should be treated poorly". What sort of statement is that? To give people who consider themselves occupied a vote on the composition of the occupying state's government? That's fantasy politics by people who prefer to use moral certainty as a comfort blanket rather than dealing with the world as it really is.

---------- Post added at 08:23 ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 ----------



Ah yes, the "right of return".

You do know, don't you, that this most ludicrous of all Palestinian demands has been the one thing that has allowed Israel to avoid reaching terms with them all these years?

If all the Palestinians who had that "right" were able to exercise it, they would immediately become the ethnic majority in Israel, and able to vote the state out of existence at the first opportunity. For that reason, Israel will never, under any circumstances, agree to it.

Incidentally a great many "Palestinians" who claim that right were not born in Israel and have never been there. Go figure.

Never been there, why's that? It's not ludicrous it's a legitimate concern that should be addressed and not simply dismissed, even the Americans agree with them

[roughbeast]

Disastrous result for world peace.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Never been there, why's that? It's not ludicrous it's a legitimate concern that should be addressed and not simply dismissed, even the Americans agree with them

It's ludicrous because it *can't* be addressed. If it were, Israelis would become a minority in Israel overnight, and their homeland could be voted out of existence at the first opportunity.

For Israel, this is an existential issue. It's doubly stupid of the Palestinians to continue to insist on it, not only because Israel quite clearly can't yield on it, but also because that stumbling block allows Israel to continue with things as they are, to occupy the West Bank and to build settlements.

Not having a final settlement suits Israel perfectly well. The Palestinians should try removing Israel's excuses for sticking with the status quo.

[ianch99]

Someone is calling it as it is: israel-must-end-its-50year-occupation-of-palestine-the-white-house-says

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

The Palestinian people are caught in the middle and have been for centuries. They are not Arab so the surrounding countries don't really care about them and they especially don't care for the Christian Palestinians.

Most people in the area (as with most people around the world) want to get on and live happily and, like most people around the world, probably would if the war mongers would do everyone a favour and shoot themselves. But there are those war mongers who seek the destruction of "the other side" or at best a forceful response to threats.

And the world/situation is so polarised that you can't leave it to institutions like the UN. Even if the UN were "fair" and made a "fair" judgement it would be very hard to implement. The Jewish people especially are very wary of any such judgement as history has shown that in the long run it really isn't that "fair" at all and nearly always leaves them at a disadvantage. The 1948 vote left Israel as an almost indefensible nation that was immediately attacked and nearly cut in half. But any attempt to divide the land "fairly" will never work. Someone will always be disadvantaged in some way they feel unjust and unacceptable. And that doesn't even start to look at Jerusalem.

Arab/Jewish animosity dates back to Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. It's not going to be solved easily.

Very good comments. The solution as we all agree is incredibly difficult but .. unless the polarising is stopped (stop the missiles, stop the land grabs, etc.) the situation will become so incendiary that all bets are off.

There is an historical irony here: removing rights from certain sections of society based on ethic or religious rules, dictating where these citizens are allowed to live, controlling & restricting the resources that this area is allowed to receive, etc.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's ludicrous because it *can't* be addressed. If it were, Israelis would become a minority in Israel overnight, and their homeland could be voted out of existence at the first opportunity.

For Israel, this is an existential issue. It's doubly stupid of the Palestinians to continue to insist on it, not only because Israel quite clearly can't yield on it, but also because that stumbling block allows Israel to continue with things as they are, to occupy the West Bank and to build settlements.

Not having a final settlement suits Israel perfectly well. The Palestinians should try removing Israel's excuses for sticking with the status quo.

It doesn't have to be addressed in that way, it can be negotiated and the injured party compensated for instance, you know how civilised people and nations come to an agreement