• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Israel, Palestinians to try for peace by end of '08

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,094
3,628
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yep, much like if you were asking to keep your body, and I demanded your heart along with a few other organs and appendages while claiming I was making a generious offer by being willing to give you 90% of what you asked for. Surely you would consider that a rather scumbag-ish thing for me to do, wouldn't you?
If my choice was to get my body minus my hands or no body at all, I'd go with the body. But that's me. Some people wouldn't cut off their hands to spite their lives. Ok the body analogy sucks either way.

But you get peace, a sovereign country to build your homes, world recognition of your statehood, and the possibility of future negotiations among unarmed delegates for disputed lands. Or not...
In three to five years, you get the command to cut the next piece off.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,206
2
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Why not just declare Olmert the leader of the Palestinian people and cut out the middle man.
Then after months of tough negotiation Olmert can cede two squares inches of waterless desert
for a Palestinian state.
If you want to talk squirrely, we could follow Iran?s vision and ensure peace through the removal of one of the two sides.
... uh...

how is that NOT what we've done?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And anyway, in wild west morality, the good guy is still supposed to wait for the bad guy to draw first. And does not a get pass for bushwacking the bad guys before they actually attack.
Especially when Egypt never threatened to attack, but rather only threatened to finish the fight if Yitzhak Rabin carried though with his threat of invading Syria. And as history clearly shows; the Arabs weren't in any position to even reasonably defend themeselves, let alone conquer Israel.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The problem is that the B grade wild west morality exhibited here may justify a few bad guys being punished, but does not explain why many thousands of arabs that were doing nothing now have get punished. But that is the Israeli rationale here dating back to the right of return.

And anyway, in wild west morality, the good guy is still supposed to wait for the bad guy to draw first. And does not a get pass for bushwacking the bad guys before they actually attack.
Israel, a sovereign country for less than 20 years, populated by one of the world's smallest minorities, embodying a geographic area the size of New Jersey, should have waited for the enemy massed on its borders to attack first so they could have the moral high ground...and then responded how? If Israel had allowed it's air force to be destroyed, Israel would not exist now. The 6 day war is the epitome of when pre-emptive strike is justified. An imminent threat, which if exectuted, eviscerates any response you could make. 20 years earlier these people had lived through WWII and the Holocaust, during which 30% of the world's population of Jews was eradicated (equivalent to about 300 million Muslims). It wasn't something in the history books to them, they remembered living it. Faced with the possibility of a pre-emptive strike within their own territory they took appropriate action. In every war in history, someone has to throw the first punch. If you determine you will not be able to survive to throw a counterpunch, then you had better strike first, especially if the threat is obvious and real.

If you were a president and your neighbors housed 100,000 troops on your border and spouted rhetoric callling for your destruction, you'd be a fucking idiot to sit there and wait for it so you could, 50 years later through the lens of history and hindsight, IF YOU SURVIVED, claimed that you hadn't struck first and were therefore morally superior. Please.
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Your history is a bit off there, the Six Day War started with Israel attacking Egypt.
Yeah, because its neighbors were openly preparing to attack. Only an idiot would standby and wait for everyone to attack him.

Stop acting like an idiot and deal with reality. If you gather up your armies against Israel, they're not going to sit back. You're asking for trouble.

At what point did the pro-Arab and Pro-Palestinian people decide that history and reality weren't admissible? It's ridiculous, the arguments they use, if applied to ANYONE ELSE in the world, would be blown off as ridiculous and illegal, and would be globally condemned. But when a poor, helpless Palestinian blows up an Israeli school bus, it's okay because he's just "expressing his rage." Give me a break.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Your history is a bit off there, the Six Day War started with Israel attacking Egypt.
Yeah, because its neighbors were openly preparing to attack. Only an idiot would standby and wait for everyone to attack him.

Stop acting like an idiot and deal with reality. If you gather up your armies against Israel, they're not going to sit back. You're asking for trouble.

At what point did the pro-Arab and Pro-Palestinian people decide that history and reality weren't admissible? It's ridiculous, the arguments they use, if applied to ANYONE ELSE in the world, would be blown off as ridiculous and illegal, and would be globally condemned. But when a poor, helpless Palestinian blows up an Israeli school bus, it's okay because he's just "expressing his rage." Give me a break.
Again, Israel had threatened to invade Syria and the Arab countries were preparing to respond to that attack. Then Israel started the war by bombing Egypt instead, and Israel was obviously well prepared to launch that attack as is evedinced by the results.

And what is with the belligerent ranting and stawman argument, surely you don't think you are strengthening your position with that?

 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Perry404
Bush is a neo-con and the neo-cons have hijacked the Zionist cause. Zionism is no more. Israel is a nation and it's staying that way. Bush, as all others, will attempt to force Israel to give up land.
Land for peace always fails. We need to get the hell out of the area and let Israel, the Palestinians, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia & Jordan deal with the issue. Western leaders tromping into the middle-east so they can gain the title "great peacemaker" always ends in disaster.
I think Israel should either annex the land they rightfully won or give it all back to the Palestinians. Anything else is just wasting everybody's time.
Israel should have kept all the land they gained in the six day war and used it as a bargaining chip. Think of it, they were attacked by multiple nations, defended themselves and gained a huge swath of land and then they gave it all back!(except the Syrian Heights)

What were they thinking?
I will answer this question. They were thinking they didn't want to cause any trouble and thought that if they gave the land back they'd be left alone.
Your history is a bit off there, the Six Day War started with Israel attacking Egypt.
Showing a little bias are we? Why did they attack Egypt? Egypt, Jordan & Syria were massing for an attack. There isn't a historian in the world that will refute that.
If Israel were to annex those parts claimed by Syria and Jordon it would only bring about another war.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And anyway, in wild west morality, the good guy is still supposed to wait for the bad guy to draw first. And does not a get pass for bushwacking the bad guys before they actually attack.
Especially when Egypt never threatened to attack, but rather only threatened to finish the fight if Yitzhak Rabin carried though with his threat of invading Syria. And as history clearly shows; the Arabs weren't in any position to even reasonably defend themselves, let alone conquer Israel.
Egypt shut down the Suez canal - which amounted to a declaration of war. They were advised to not do so in advance by multiple countries.

Notice that everyone wants to go back to the '67 borders. That is the only one where people actually say that Israel started the ruckus.

Of course what is wrong with the '73 borders after the Arabs attacked.

Israel was concerned about Syria massing their forces in preparation for an attack.
Israel was alerting the Arab countries that Israel would not standby and wait for attacks based on the timing that benefited the Arab's schedule. That had happened twice before - whey does no one condem those conflicts and who initiated them? And what about the one afterwards, attack on a religious holiday - coincidence?

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Narmer
Does anybody honestly buy this crap? Does anybody remember WHY Bush set up this meeting in the first place? It was to strengthen Mahmud Abbas stature in the eyes of Palestinians after his weaklings got routed out of Gaza. This, like all of Bush's goodwill gestures, is all an empty ruse to fool the gullible. MARK MY WORDS, Nothing will come of this. Abbas is in a much weaker position than before. Furthermore, Olmert is under investigation in Israel. All this is a sideshow of the weak.
You are in dire need of a shot of optimism... Even if this effort fails, like all others before today, at least they're trying - and, in doing so, they are contributing more to the greater good than you ever will!

On another note...

Does anyone believe that Hillary, a woman, would succeed at bringing peace to the [/i]the Arabs[/i] in the ME? Will her gender prevent her from being taken seriously by the majority of the ME's chauvinistic leaders? Just curious...
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Does anyone believe that Hillary, a woman, would succeed at bringing peace to the [/i]the Arabs[/i] in the ME? Will her gender prevent her from being taken seriously by the majority of the ME's chauvinistic leaders? Just curious...
I would hope that she would be smart enough to select a Secretary of State who was actually respected in the ME. I know that's asking alot . . . . :)

Powell could have been 'that man'.

I would like to think something would come of this but it's highly unlikely. I long for the 'good ol' days' when a summit was held and agreements actually made ...

This "We will work toward an accord by the end of 2008" could have made by email, yah know?

Bush is tryting to prop up his legacy. When Olmert and Abbas agree on the table setting and number of chairs in Dec 2008, Dubs can hang his hat on that ....

:D
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Narmer
Does anybody honestly buy this crap? Does anybody remember WHY Bush set up this meeting in the first place? It was to strengthen Mahmud Abbas stature in the eyes of Palestinians after his weaklings got routed out of Gaza. This, like all of Bush's goodwill gestures, is all an empty ruse to fool the gullible. MARK MY WORDS, Nothing will come of this. Abbas is in a much weaker position than before. Furthermore, Olmert is under investigation in Israel. All this is a sideshow of the weak.
You are in dire need of a shot of optimism... Even if this effort fails, like all others before today, at least they're trying - and, in doing so, they are contributing more to the greater good than you ever will!

On another note...

Does anyone believe that Hillary, a woman, would succeed at bringing peace to the [/i]the Arabs[/i] in the ME? Will her gender prevent her from being taken seriously by the majority of the ME's chauvinistic leaders? Just curious...
Maybe ask Golda Meier? But seriously, men haven't been able to make much ground in 60 years, I don't think Hillary's sex is going to be the major stumbling block here. Romney's Mormonism would probably irk both sides more :)
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And anyway, in wild west morality, the good guy is still supposed to wait for the bad guy to draw first. And does not a get pass for bushwacking the bad guys before they actually attack.
Especially when Egypt never threatened to attack, but rather only threatened to finish the fight if Yitzhak Rabin carried though with his threat of invading Syria. And as history clearly shows; the Arabs weren't in any position to even reasonably defend themselves, let alone conquer Israel.
Egypt shut down the Suez canal - which amounted to a declaration of war. They were advised to not do so in advance by multiple countries.
Egypt was exerting control of their territorial waters in response to Israel's threat to invade Syria, and calling on the UN as well as the US to help defuse the situation diplomatically. That hardly constitutes a declaration of war.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Notice that everyone wants to go back to the '67 borders. That is the only one where people actually say that Israel started the ruckus.

Of course what is wrong with the '73 borders after the Arabs attacked.
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palistine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palestine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
I do condemn those who initiate such conflicts, and '73 was most certainly a case of Arab aggression. But again it was Israel that bombed Egypt to start the war in '67, and Israel who invaded Egypt to start the war in '56, and Israel who unilaterally declared statehood in '47 while taking Palestine by force. Why do you give Israel a pass on all of those?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And anyway, in wild west morality, the good guy is still supposed to wait for the bad guy to draw first. And does not a get pass for bushwacking the bad guys before they actually attack.
Especially when Egypt never threatened to attack, but rather only threatened to finish the fight if Yitzhak Rabin carried though with his threat of invading Syria. And as history clearly shows; the Arabs weren't in any position to even reasonably defend themselves, let alone conquer Israel.
Egypt shut down the Suez canal - which amounted to a declaration of war. They were advised to not do so in advance by multiple countries.
Egypt was exerting control of their territorial waters in response to Israel's threat to invade Syria, and calling on the UN as well as the US to help defuse the situation diplomatically. That hardly constitutes a declaration of war.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Notice that everyone wants to go back to the '67 borders. That is the only one where people actually say that Israel started the ruckus.

Of course what is wrong with the '73 borders after the Arabs attacked.
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palistine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palestine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
I do condemn those who initiate such conflicts, and '73 was most certainly a case of Arab aggression. But again it was Israel that bombed Egypt to start the war in '67, and Israel who invaded Egypt to start the war in '56, and Israel who unilaterally declared statehood in '47 while taking Palestine by force. Why do you give Israel a pass on all of those?
Israel was attacked collectively by her Arab neighbors when she declared statehood.
The UN seperated Palestine into two sections. The Jews stated they would create the state of Israel.

The Arabs did not want a state of Palestine and agreed to care for the Palestinians within Palestine that was outside of Israel control.

And then they attack Israel as soon as statehood was declared and the British released their control over the territory. - I do not know what history books you have reviewed that show your understanding of the events. in '47

In '56, the Arabs attacked Israel and drove within spitting distance to Tel Aviv.
Again, I do not where you get your version of events.

In '67, Egypt was advised to NOT close the Suez by many nations. It was considered to be an international waterway, ADMINISTERED by Egypt, but vital to the world.
This was equivalent to closing the Panama Canal or the Straights of Gilbralter.

With Syria building up forces on her border and Egypt mobilizing her forces, Israel had every right to be worried, given the Arab track record. Egypt closing the canal was the straw that broke the camel's back.

People are complaining about Irael not releasing territory that was taken in '67; ignoring that the territory was taken to act as a buffer zone against hostile acts by those that were supposed to be administering the area.

Now, Jordan and Egypt have layed down the gloves against Israel; however, the Palestinians and their sponsors have not. Israel gave control of Gaza back to the Palestinians and that has not stopped any violence from them, only created more problems for both sides.

And now, the one major component of the Palestinian issue is now stating that they do not want any resolution. Link

Given that stance, what should Israel do? Hamas and sponsors do not want peace or even discuss any progress to resolving the situation.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And anyway, in wild west morality, the good guy is still supposed to wait for the bad guy to draw first. And does not a get pass for bushwacking the bad guys before they actually attack.
Especially when Egypt never threatened to attack, but rather only threatened to finish the fight if Yitzhak Rabin carried though with his threat of invading Syria. And as history clearly shows; the Arabs weren't in any position to even reasonably defend themselves, let alone conquer Israel.
Egypt shut down the Suez canal - which amounted to a declaration of war. They were advised to not do so in advance by multiple countries.
Egypt was exerting control of their territorial waters in response to Israel's threat to invade Syria, and calling on the UN as well as the US to help defuse the situation diplomatically. That hardly constitutes a declaration of war.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Notice that everyone wants to go back to the '67 borders. That is the only one where people actually say that Israel started the ruckus.

Of course what is wrong with the '73 borders after the Arabs attacked.
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palistine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
You've made this argument before and I've yet to see an answer from you yet as to what you even mean? We are talking about Palestine here and there was no change of boarders for Palestine in '73, rather they fell under Israeli occupation in '67. and hence it is the pre-'67 boarders which many of us argue should be those of the Palestinian State.
I do condemn those who initiate such conflicts, and '73 was most certainly a case of Arab aggression. But again it was Israel that bombed Egypt to start the war in '67, and Israel who invaded Egypt to start the war in '56, and Israel who unilaterally declared statehood in '47 while taking Palestine by force. Why do you give Israel a pass on all of those?
Israel was attacked collectively by her Arab neighbors when she declared statehood.
The UN seperated Palestine into two sections. The Jews stated they would create the state of Israel.

The Arabs did not want a state of Palestine and agreed to care for the Palestinians within Palestine that was outside of Israel control.

And then they attack Israel as soon as statehood was declared and the British released their control over the territory. - I do not know what history books you have reviewed that show your understanding of the events. in '47
Israel decaled statehood the day before the British madate expired, and they had been chasing out the Palestinians along with the Britsh for well before, you can find that in just about any book on the subject. As for Arab support for Palestinian soverenty, you can find examples of that in UN records. Here is one notable excript from Egypt's repersentitive:

Whereas the decisions reached by the First Committee are not in line with the legal and political remedies believed necessary by us to a just and lasting solution of the Palestine problem,

Whereas by the stroke of a pen the reference to the independence of Palestine has been in effect removed, the Committee failing even to conform to the spirit of the request of the British Government as embodied in its letter of appeal to the United Nations for a settlement of this problem, we feel indeed that the First Committee has exceeded its powers and was not within 'its rights when it decided to delete the sentence referring to "the future government of Palestine" and replaced it by a vague and broad ; preference to "the question of Palestine",

Whereas these actions are not in keeping with the mandate which our delegation holds from my Government, we will have to vote against the Committee's report. I hereby, moreover, reserve the right of my Government as to its future attitude towards this question.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
In '56, the Arabs attacked Israel and drove within spitting distance to Tel Aviv.
Again, I do not where you get your version of events.
Yes, Arab forces attacked Israel, but only after Israel's invasion of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on October 29th. Again you can find that in pretty much any history book on the subject.

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
In '67, Egypt was advised to NOT close the Suez by many nations. It was considered to be an international waterway, ADMINISTERED by Egypt, but vital to the world.
This was equivalent to closing the Panama Canal or the Straights of Gilbralter.

With Syria building up forces on her border and Egypt mobilizing her forces, Israel had every right to be worried, given the Arab track record. Egypt closing the canal was the straw that broke the camel's back.
So then, what is your postion Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in response blockade on their shipping? Justified? Surely not?

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
People are complaining about Irael not releasing territory that was taken in '67; ignoring that the territory was taken to act as a buffer zone against hostile acts by those that were supposed to be administering the area.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the vast majorty of that territory was never anexed by Israel, rather it continues to be Palestinian land under Israeli occupation.

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Now, Jordan and Egypt have layed down the gloves against Israel; however, the Palestinians and their sponsors have not. Israel gave control of Gaza back to the Palestinians and that has not stopped any violence from them, only created more problems for both sides.
Israel withdrew to controling Gaza's boarders while expanding their control over the West Bank. Of couse that lead to many problems for both sides.

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And now, the one major component of the Palestinian issue is now stating that they do not want any resolution. Link

Given that stance, what should Israel do? Hamas and sponsors do not want peace or even discuss any progress to resolving the situation.
Hamas's position only has power as long as Palestinians expect Israel keep pushing ridiculous "compromises" like the one at Camp David II. All it takes is for Israel to show a reasonable amount of respect for Palestinian sovereignty, and Hamas will be forced change their position to retain even a semblance of popular support. Unfortunatly, Israel has never been willing to do that and I've yet to see any signs of changing now.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Israel should negotiate with an organization whose charter lists the destruction of Israel among its chief goals...hmm, seems like repeal of that declaration would be a necessary precondition to any sort of negotiation for peace. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't sign a contract with someone who announced their reason for living was to see me destroyed. But maybe that's just me.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY