Effort to declare Palestinian State as close as two weeks

[EagleKeeper]

The weak did not want what was theirs when it was handed to them multiple times.

Then they again wanted to duplicate the Arab states - they want it all. Terror was an easy way to do this instead of asking for their recognition of a state.

The Palestinians had no interest in being a state from 1948 through 1967.
From 1967 through the 1980s they were only interested in spreading terror against Israel.

Only when they were driven from their terror bases, did they try to play on sympathy. And it worked. Arafat was recognized even while he was inciting attacks against Israel.
He was willing to go to peace talks to improve his reputation; yet still had the overall goal of the destruction of Israel.

While Israel can not justify the destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank due to political issues of being handed over the baton of responsibility of irresponsible children; once a Palestinian state occurs; Israel no longer has any of those responsibilities.

Should that state then allow terror attacks against Israel, again that state will have to accept the responsibilities of the reaction. Unlike Hamas did in '08, they can no longer disavow responsibility of actions from their land.

So while it may be nice to be a state, are they mature enough to handle the responsibilities of being a Palestinian state.

 

[jonks]

that would also include american soldiers murdering civilians too. all sides are guilty of terrorism. all sides

And the police officer who fires at a fleeing felon who just killed three people but the bullet ricochets and kills a bystander? Terrorist?

And the woman being raped who pulls a gun out of her purse and fires 3 times into her attacker, the 3rd bullet going through him and a window across the street killing a mother washing dishes? Terrorist?

Your "intent free" morality scale leaves much to be desired.

 

[Lemon law]

Common Courtesy, You can claim the Palestinians don't want a state until you are blue in the face but it does not make your statement true, but the Palestinians really want the land that was stolen from them by Israel in 1948 which is right and just, but Arifat balked at signing away the right of return. But the Pals are close to inking a that Olmert Abbas deal that does partly address the right of return, and now Netanyuhu wants far more.

As for the bulk of the rest of your post its nothing but oft repeated Israeli talking point propaganda.

But you ask a good question in " So while it may be nice to be a state, are they mature enough to handle the responsibilities of being a Palestinian state."

We can ask the same about Israeli leaders in 1948, and I can only conclude they were totally immature and not ready. And 63 years later, Israel has done nothing positive for anyone in the neighborhood. And for that very reason alone, Israel is not long term tenable as it gives all its neighbors every growing reasons to hate Israel. So maybe we should instead ask, did or has Israel ever had a single wise mature leader.
Because Israel have many wise and mature people, they never get elected into leadership positions.

As persons like Abbas have already proved to be more wise and mature, so yes, I think the Palestinians are far more ready than Israel ever has been.

 

[jonks]

^^^stop, hee, stop, hoo, oh, my god. please. no don't, keep going, ahh, oh, my stomach, sheesh, man. Oh.


Oh, wow. Man. Ahh. Phew. Thank you. That was great.

 

[kylebisme]

The Palestinians had no interest in being a state from 1948 through 1967.

Were do you get such absurd misrepresentations of history from? Just a quick trip to Wikipedia debunks your claim here:

With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, The common experience of the Palestinian refugees and the loss of the homeland in the Nakba was mirrored in a fading of Palestinian identity. The institutions of a Palestinian nationality emerged slowly in the Palestinian refugee diaspora. In 1950 Yasser Arafat founded Ittihad Talabat Filastin.

After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, most of the Husseini clan relocated to Jordan and the Gulf States. Many family heads that remained in the Old City and the northern neighborhoods of East Jerusalem fled due to hostilities with the Jordanian government—which controlled that part of the city; King Abdullah's assassin was a member of an underground Palestinian organization led by Daoud al-Husayni.

The Fatah movement, which espoused a Palestinian nationalist ideology in which Palestinians would be liberated by the actions of Palestinian Arabs, was founded in 1954 by members of the Palestinian diaspora — principally professionals working in the Gulf States who had been refugees in Gaza and had gone on to study in Cairo or Beirut. The founders included Yasser Arafat who was head of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) (1952–56) in Cairo University, Salah Khalaf, Khalil al-Wazir, Khaled Yashruti was head of the GUPS in Beirut (1958–62).

The Palestine Liberation Organisation was founded by a meeting of 422 Palestinian national figures in Jerusalem in May 1964 following an earlier decision of the Arab League, its goal was the liberation of Palestine through armed struggle. The original PLO Charter (issued on 28 May 1964) stated that "Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British mandate is an integral regional unit" and sought to "prohibit... the existence and activity" of Zionism. The charter also called for a right of return and self-determination for Palestinians.

Any chance you can muster up the courtesy to admit that the facts contradict your argument, Common Courtesy?

Your "intent free" morality scale leaves much to be desired.

Your reading comprehension is what's lacking here, as you aren't addressing Tommo's argument:

IMO there's no diff between soldiers killing civilians on purpose to a bomb going off and killing civilians.

 

[tommo123]

And the police officer who fires at a fleeing felon who just killed three people but the bullet ricochets and kills a bystander? Terrorist?

And the woman being raped who pulls a gun out of her purse and fires 3 times into her attacker, the 3rd bullet going through him and a window across the street killing a mother washing dishes? Terrorist?

Your "intent free" morality scale leaves much to be desired.

hmm, yea you're right. i mean a soldier dragging a civilian out of the street and executing him, or aiming deliberately at a child is the same thing as an accident. seriously, was that the best you could come up with?

btw, blowing up a building to get a handful of terrorists all the while knowing that it's full of civilians is also terrorism. difference is only that in that scenario, the terrorists say it's collateral damage. bush jn said that those countries that aid, or allow aid to terrorists are terrorist states or some such. america allowed it's people to help the IRA against it's own ally. of course, the UK is no better unfortunately which is why i've pretty much given up giving a crap what happens and accept that i'll probably see WW3 start in the next 20 years - probably the next decade.

 

[jonks]

btw, blowing up a building to get a handful of terrorists all the while knowing that it's full of civilians is also terrorism. difference is only that in that scenario, the terrorists say it's collateral damage.

Again you have a super simplistic view of warfare.

Terrorists hole up in a building and fire rockets at a civilian target. They keep civilians in the building to prevent aerial strike. So a spec-ops ground team is sent in for close quarters combat to minimize casualties. In the room-to-room fighting half the ops team is killed though they eventually kill all the terrorists. Or maybe the terrorists boobytrap the building and it kills everyone.

Next week, terrorists hole up in a building and fire rockets at a civilian target...

Does the opposing power have to keep sacrificing the lives of it's military b/c the terrorists use civilian cover, and the civilian population is often complicit in the attacks when an aerial strike will risk none of it's own citizen's lives? Maybe the collateral damage will convince the civilians in the building they'd better try to fight back. For ex, I don't think the next terrorist to attempt a takeover of an airplane in US airspace will be very successful due to 9/11. The passengers will rush the fucker b/c they know the alternative.

Argue whatever you want, even Geneva recognizes collateral damage. Warfare cannot be conducted at all without collateral damage, it's not possible...yet. Believe it, if we could target only the bad guys we would do so, as opposed to the real terrorists. Technology is improving and civilian casualties are astronomically low in recent decades. Remember Shock and Awe? The ridiculous barrage of firepower unleashed on Baghdad? Minimal civilian casualties. If it were WWII we'd have leveled the fucking city without a thought. Civilian casualties are a tragedy and we do what we can to minimize them. Your false equivolency and abdication of intent as relevant renders your opinions as useful as a fictional character.

 

[werepossum]

Again you have a super simplistic view of warfare.

Terrorists hole up in a building and fire rockets at a civilian target. They keep civilians in the building to prevent aerial strike. So a spec-ops ground team is sent in for close quarters combat to minimize casualties. In the room-to-room fighting half the ops team is killed though they eventually kill all the terrorists. Or maybe the terrorists boobytrap the building and it kills everyone.

Next week, terrorists hole up in a building and fire rockets at a civilian target...

Does the opposing power have to keep sacrificing the lives of it's military b/c the terrorists use civilian cover, and the civilian population is often complicit in the attacks when an aerial strike will risk none of it's own citizen's lives? Maybe the collateral damage will convince the civilians in the building they'd better try to fight back. For ex, I don't think the next terrorist to attempt a takeover of an airplane in US airspace will be very successful due to 9/11. The passengers will rush the fucker b/c they know the alternative.

Argue whatever you want, even Geneva recognizes collateral damage. Warfare cannot be conducted at all without collateral damage, it's not possible...yet. Believe it, if we could target only the bad guys we would do so, as opposed to the real terrorists. Technology is improving and civilian casualties are astronomically low in recent decades. Remember Shock and Awe? The ridiculous barrage of firepower unleashed on Baghdad? Minimal civilian casualties. If it were WWII we'd have leveled the fucking city without a thought. Civilian casualties are a tragedy and we do what we can to minimize them. Your false equivolency and abdication of intent as relevant renders your opinions as useful as a fictional character.

Very well said.

 

[QuantumPion]

hmm, yea you're right. i mean a soldier dragging a civilian out of the street and executing him, or aiming deliberately at a child is the same thing as an accident. seriously, was that the best you could come up with?

Your simple moral rules break down because all of the fighters and terrorists are civilians. When you have to shoot a 12 year old kid because he is about to suicide bomb your column, that is not terrorism. It was terrorism by Hamas to put the bomb vest on the kid in the first place.

btw, blowing up a building to get a handful of terrorists all the while knowing that it's full of civilians is also terrorism.

No, it's not. Running your terrorist base out of a hospital or school, with the intention of goading the IDF into retaliating with the specific goal to get civilians killed so that you can parade them in front of the media to fool the useful idiots, that is terrorism. They are civilian fighters using willing women and children as human shields.

There is a clear aggressor in this conflict. There is no moral equivalency.

 

[jonks]

Very well said.

No, I wrote "it's" instead of "its". Damnit.

 

[tommo123]

i still stand by my stance of "i don't care". i am interested in reading about it of course which is why i read this thread and the million others like it in this forum. both sides are guilty of "sins" (forgive the term)and both sides have innocents. i just don't see a peaceful resolution to this. hence my earlier ww3 comment

anyhoo, night all

 

[kylebisme]

Terrorists hole up in a building and fire rockets at a civilian target. They keep civilians in the building to prevent aerial strike. So a spec-ops ground team is sent in for close quarters combat to minimize casualties. In the room-to-room fighting half the ops team is killed though they eventually kill all the terrorists. Or maybe the terrorists boobytrap the building and it kills everyone.

How about the case of Tommo's example, where the militants aren't currently engaging in any attacks but a bomb is dropped on an apartment building to assassinate them along with killing their families and others who happen to live there; would you not call that terrorism?

 

[irishScott]

How about the case of Tommo's example, where the militants aren't currently engaging in any attacks but a bomb is dropped on an apartment building to assassinate them along with killing their families and others who happen to live there; would you not call that terrorism?

If they represent an imminent threat, no I would not.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Even though what much of what Common Courtesy is mostly true, its the added slant that is not.

The only question is where do we start the history of the State of Israel clock. On one hand we can say 3/1948 when the UN ratified it, but of course there was a long pre-history
before that, in which rivals groups grappled for post British Palestinian Mandate Hegemony.

But still, I think its fair to say, that all those post WW2 Jewish refugees Europe basically caused, were sitting in squalid refugees camps because the guilty Europeans who allowed their displacement then did not want them back. So label the European, US, And Russian history despicable.

Then an old idea that had been sitting around for at least 50 years was dusted off, as lets just solve the Jewish refugee problem by dumping them all into Israel. Instantly it gets the Europeans off the hook, the Brits wanted to get out of the thankless business of running the Palestinian mandate, and as long as the Surrounding Arabs states dealt with British hegemony they had long ago been forced to accept, they were content. But as soon as the surrounding Arab states learned they would be dealing with a State of Israel, at least partly run by Jews, they screamed NIMBY. Meanwhile, everyone realized the existing land of Israel was about 2/3 Palestinian owned so the question of what to do about the Palestinian people needed to be addressed. But enter stage center, pre 1948, moderate Jewish leaders like David Ben Gurion and others promising the larger world Israel would fairly govern and grant equal rights to Jews and Palestinians. Which was, IMHO, the goal we search for now, and had that happened, we would have peace in the mid-east with Israel being an accepted part of the mid-east.

But still, in terms of terrorism, even before Israels 1948 ratification, certain radical Jews were the #1 British mandate terrorist groups, although a few Palestinian groups were active too.

But after months and years of talking in far off NYC, the UN finally ratified the State of Israel in 1948. And then what we got was basically nothing but violence among the three major groups of Arab Nation States with standing Armies, Israeli Jews fighting for their very survival, and the Palestinian people caught between the two. In terms of arms and weapons, The Arab States with standing armies had the most arms by a wide margin, The Israeli Jews and mainly its worst terrorists were well armed in terms of light arms, but were woefully out gunned in terms of heavy weapons like artillery batteries, tanks, and planes. As for the Palestinians they were almost all unarmed and untrained.

In terms of the violence in the pre and post 1948 formation of Israel, we can maybe say small but well organized Jewish terrorist were murdering Palestinians in 1947, but the most of the blame lies, IMHO, with the Surrounding Arab state all attacked Israel immediately after the UN ratified the State of Israel. With the stated intent do drive the Jews into the sea. There is no legitimizing that act by the Arab States, and we are still are paying for that stupidity. ( But as side note, we can see Israeli fan clubbers advocating that Israel do the same thing to a UN approved possible Palestinian State should it be declared in the near future. )

But the long and the short of the 1948 Arab v Israeli war, is that almost everyone expected the Arab Goliath to win, and instead the Israeli David prevailed instead. But its not as much as saying Israel won, its more a case that the Arabs were totally disorganized and way too over confident. As the Arabs managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory. As for the Jews, in terms of organization, its something Israel has as its long suit.

Now lets look at the Palestinians and their role in the 1948 war. And they can only be likened to somewhat children on the eve of war. Both Arab States and Israel were saying, run away while we fight the war, as the Arabs did promise it would soon be time for the Palestinians to come home. But as the group the ran away because they were unarmed and thus unable to fight, the Palestinians have to be classed as innocent by standers.

But after the dust settled and the Arabs limped home, Israeli leaders breathed a giant sigh of relief. Because they knew they had barely won, and were far to weak to attack the retreating Arab armies or ask for Arab land.

up to here, you were going strong. Asside from the fact that the UN did not ratify the state of israel. They merely seperated the land in 1947 leaving both sides to declare independence.


so after a few months, the jews obviously declared independence while the palestinians did not.

there is land with no leader sitting. Obviously you wont point the finger at Jordan for grabbing the west bank, nor egypt for grabbing gaza.

plenty of land there, but you want to attack the country who was attacked by seven nations and was defending itself. You want to attack the country that changed its borders by a few square miles, instead of those that added thousands.

So instead they decided, why not blame it all on the Palestinians, because we get to steal their land, expel them from Israel, which works great for Israel. And it even works with Arab States too, they get to keep their own land, then Arab leaders can make a few bellicose anti-Israel Statements, and then see how lucky you are to live under my corrupt government, because you would be as bad off as the Palestinians without my leadership.

But in 1967& 1973 it gets even better than that for Arab States and Israel. Because we may debate the causes of the 1967 war, but there is no debate on the fact the Palestinian people didn't cause it. And ditto in 1973.

its true. the palestinians didnt start the war. But unfortunately, they were the whole reason the arab nations went to war.

its all to protect the palestinians right?

its a problem. the palestinians. They are used as a scape goat by the arab world.

Yet now the Palestinians exist as this wonderful whipping boy. If an Iran, Turkey, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, or insert any country does something to worry Israel, its time to whip on the hapless Palestinians, and Israeli honor thus satisfied, they can talk more rationally to the offending nation.

well lets see here, israel doesnt killed palestinians every time a nut case from an arab nation talks. Those arab nations may use the palestinians as the reason for their hatred.

in the case of Iran, they fund and supply hamas and hezbollah for their clear hatred of israel.

But that is the base reason we are in a mess in the mid-east, we transfer the blame from those that strong and guilty, and instead transform the blame over to the weak simply because its easier to steal from the weak.

and while the jews accepted the blue, and the palestinians could of had pink, their so called helping neighbors, their brethren came to "save the day"

and instead failed horribly.



but look at this.

green.

who did that belong to?

well according to the mandate, the palestinians.

but after the 1949, where was the UN condemnation, the resolutions, the international outcry?


it was in the hands of Jordan and Egypt!


but who complained?

 

[Lemon law]

Actually, FGD, there were UN resolutions and complaints against Israel, but the USA used its veto in the security council to block them. And then the world somewhat put the Israeli complaints on the back burner as Nassar was threatening the Suez canal. Then when LBJ and Nixon, hardly the sharpest set of US Presidents, decided to base much of US foreign policy in the mid-east on Israel. Which has greatly emboldened Israel to think it can hang onto disputed land forever.

But as Israel and the larger world enters the 2i'st century, Palestinian issues have moved right back to the front burner as world public opinion is rapidly building against Israel at a greatly accelerating rate.

At such time wise National leaders look to retain their allies and add new ones, but Netanyuhu is instead alienating all its existing allies and doing nothing to attract new allies.

Israel may be the biggest dog regional power, but it can't withstand a coming economic embargo. As the USA also faces being rejected by close to 300 million Arabs
unless it takes a stand against appeasing 5.6 million Israel Jews. And the points is and remains, the Arabs don't demand the USA side with them, they just expect US fairness to all sides.

The coming world demand is going to focus on Israel getting out of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, very soon, because its 44 years too long already.

We can all agree that Netabyuhu had chutzpah in abundance, but very soon I expect to see everyone getting in Netanyuhu's face and saying get out or else.

I don't expect Israeli fan clubbers to agree or see why their Israeli jig is up, but the Israeli international position has taken a giant beating this decade, an even a bigger beating in the last year, and by May Israel will face more even more tangible international pressure. I certainly predict that we should get a Palestinian state in a year or two years.

 

[Matt1970]

Lemon, just stop, Really.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Here's my prediction - This thread will die soon when absolutely nothing comes of this. However, but LL will incessantly continue making moronic remarks about "World opinion" concerning Israel and continue to confuse his biased, personal opinion with that of the rest of the world.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Actually, FGD, there were UN resolutions and complaints against Israel, but the USA used its veto in the security council to block them. And then the world somewhat put the Israeli complaints on the back burner as Nassar was threatening the Suez canal. Then when LBJ and Nixon, hardly the sharpest set of US Presidents, decided to base much of US foreign policy in the mid-east on Israel. Which has greatly emboldened Israel to think it can hang onto disputed land forever.

But as Israel and the larger world enters the 2i'st century, Palestinian issues have moved right back to the front burner as world public opinion is rapidly building against Israel at a greatly accelerating rate.

At such time wise National leaders look to retain their allies and add new ones, but Netanyuhu is instead alienating all its existing allies and doing nothing to attract new allies.

Israel may be the biggest dog regional power, but it can't withstand a coming economic embargo. As the USA also faces being rejected by close to 300 million Arabs
unless it takes a stand against appeasing 5.6 million Israel Jews. And the points is and remains, the Arabs don't demand the USA side with them, they just expect US fairness to all sides.

The coming world demand is going to focus on Israel getting out of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, very soon, because its 44 years too long already.

We can all agree that Netabyuhu had chutzpah in abundance, but very soon I expect to see everyone getting in Netanyuhu's face and saying get out or else.

I don't expect Israeli fan clubbers to agree or see why their Israeli jig is up, but the Israeli international position has taken a giant beating this decade, an even a bigger beating in the last year, and by May Israel will face more even more tangible international pressure. I certainly predict that we should get a Palestinian state in a year or two years.

you are dumb.


I was talking specifically at 1949.


you know the answer is clearly that there were no complaints or UN resolutions towards Egypt or Jordan for the land they annexed from the palestinians.

you know.

but rather admit it, you'd rather go into a spinoff of an endless repeat of what you always say.



and let me ask you one thing.

How come, according to the UN, palestinian refugees include the children, grandchildren, etc, even IF they resettle into a new homeland and live regularly, while a refugee by ANY other standard, be it africa, eastern europe, all of the jewish refugees from arab countries, all fall under a different definition of refugee: they are a refugee until they resettle.


also, what has the UNRWA done to help the palestinians resettle, while the UNHCR has helped everyone else resettle.

all the UNRWA has done is feed the people and clothe them. and keep them there to be a problem


http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&sig=AHIEtbTWDxYC31nORQ4vvpwNr2okVNbHVg&pli=1

go through that. tell me with a straight face that the UNRWA is somehow needed.

 

[kylebisme]

If they represent an imminent threat, no I would not.

On what grounds would you deem militants not currently engaging in any attacks along with their families and others who happen to live there as representing an imminent threat?

...

Hey FGD, your arguments in this thread are based on misconceptions I addressed in my responses to you here. I don't suppose you'd be willing to acknowledge the facts I presented there?