Looks like the gloves will be coming off in Gaza soon

[Czar]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052
Without looking up the specifics again I recall the main sticking points were the return to 67 borders, the disposition of the temple mount and surrounding area, the specific lands to be held by Israel past the 67 borders, and the right of return issue.

I contend that the Palestinian expectation to gain all or even a majority of those in negotiation was simply unreallistic and Arafat's inability to put forward very specefic counter offers doomed the process. He didn't put the ball back in Israel's court .

jahh I suggest you go back and read more about it

few points

Israel were to control water supplies in the west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the borders for west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the airspace for west bank and gaza
Israel were to keep 27% of the west bank
Israel were to control the whole of Jerusalem

And lets assume that's the best the Palestinians could get from the infinitely stronger Israel, and that the aforementioned solution was accepted by the host (that would be the USA). Shouldn't they have accepted it and prevented their people many more years of blood shed?

Yes yes it is best for those palestinian animals to live as beasts beneath their superior Israeli overloards:roll:

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052
Without looking up the specifics again I recall the main sticking points were the return to 67 borders, the disposition of the temple mount and surrounding area, the specific lands to be held by Israel past the 67 borders, and the right of return issue.

I contend that the Palestinian expectation to gain all or even a majority of those in negotiation was simply unreallistic and Arafat's inability to put forward very specefic counter offers doomed the process. He didn't put the ball back in Israel's court .

jahh I suggest you go back and read more about it

few points

Israel were to control water supplies in the west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the borders for west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the airspace for west bank and gaza
Israel were to keep 27% of the west bank
Israel were to control the whole of Jerusalem

And lets assume that's the best the Palestinians could get from the infinitely stronger Israel, and that the aforementioned solution was accepted by the host (that would be the USA). Shouldn't they have accepted it and prevented their people many more years of blood shed?

Yes yes it is best for those palestinian animals to live as beasts beneath their superior Israeli overloards:roll:

Isn't that a classic matter of being smart rather than right? I mean, do America's native Indians go and blow up in buses across the US or have they accepted what was given to them by the superior power? What about other minorities around the globe?
Face it, Israel and the Palestinians are not on the same level of power and are likely to never be. The Palestinians should have accepted the best they could obtain without question and to proceed to build their nation. They failed to do so.
Do you think the current path will yield them better results?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052
Without looking up the specifics again I recall the main sticking points were the return to 67 borders, the disposition of the temple mount and surrounding area, the specific lands to be held by Israel past the 67 borders, and the right of return issue.

I contend that the Palestinian expectation to gain all or even a majority of those in negotiation was simply unreallistic and Arafat's inability to put forward very specefic counter offers doomed the process. He didn't put the ball back in Israel's court .

jahh I suggest you go back and read more about it

few points

Israel were to control water supplies in the west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the borders for west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the airspace for west bank and gaza
Israel were to keep 27% of the west bank
Israel were to control the whole of Jerusalem

My recollection dffers on the amount of land to be retained by Israel (much less, though some of it containing important Islamic sites).

The Palistinians were primarily angling for control of the temple mount including the western wall (wailing wall). The Israelis might as well have tabled Israeli control of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca for all the progress the PLA was going to make on that front.

Since the West bank is basically surrounded by Israel anyway there hardly is anything to argue over the border issue.

Airspace and water control could habe been bargained back pretty easily. Unless Israel is disbanding the IAF there wouldn't be much to worry about.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052
Without looking up the specifics again I recall the main sticking points were the return to 67 borders, the disposition of the temple mount and surrounding area, the specific lands to be held by Israel past the 67 borders, and the right of return issue.

I contend that the Palestinian expectation to gain all or even a majority of those in negotiation was simply unreallistic and Arafat's inability to put forward very specefic counter offers doomed the process. He didn't put the ball back in Israel's court .

jahh I suggest you go back and read more about it

few points

Israel were to control water supplies in the west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the borders for west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the airspace for west bank and gaza
Israel were to keep 27% of the west bank
Israel were to control the whole of Jerusalem

And lets assume that's the best the Palestinians could get from the infinitely stronger Israel, and that the aforementioned solution was accepted by the host (that would be the USA). Shouldn't they have accepted it and prevented their people many more years of blood shed?

Yes yes it is best for those palestinian animals to live as beasts beneath their superior Israeli overloards:roll:

Isn't that a classic matter of being smart rather than right? I mean, do America's native Indians go and blow up in buses across the US or have they accepted what was given to them by the superior power? What about other minorities around the globe?
Face it, Israel and the Palestinians are not on the same level of power and are likely to never be. The Palestinians should have accepted the best they could obtain without question and to proceed to build their nation. They failed to do so.
Do you think the current path will yield them better results?

so you think that every country on this planet who fought a bloody battle to gain its independance was not worth it?

and in regard to the palestinians, what sortof a country would it be if they did not have control over their water supplies, their borders, their airspace and in many cases their own homes (as they would be annexed to israel)?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052
Without looking up the specifics again I recall the main sticking points were the return to 67 borders, the disposition of the temple mount and surrounding area, the specific lands to be held by Israel past the 67 borders, and the right of return issue.

I contend that the Palestinian expectation to gain all or even a majority of those in negotiation was simply unreallistic and Arafat's inability to put forward very specefic counter offers doomed the process. He didn't put the ball back in Israel's court .

jahh I suggest you go back and read more about it

few points

Israel were to control water supplies in the west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the borders for west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the airspace for west bank and gaza
Israel were to keep 27% of the west bank
Israel were to control the whole of Jerusalem

My recollection dffers on the amount of land to be retained by Israel (much less, though some of it containing important Islamic sites).

The Palistinians were primarily angling for control of the temple mount including the western wall (wailing wall). The Israelis might as well have tabled Israeli control of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca for all the progress the PLA was going to make on that front.

Since the West bank is basically surrounded by Israel anyway there hardly is anything to argue over the border issue.

Airspace and water control could habe been bargained back pretty easily. Unless Israel is disbanding the IAF there wouldn't be much to worry about.

The initial offer was 27%, that included stright annexations and then leases (Israel would pay the Palestinians some sum for land and then trade. Israel offered a part of some desert to the palestinians in return for settlement land.

Thats true if I remember correctly that the palstinians went for something trivial as their focus point.

Take a look at a map.

Airspace is hard to say. Water rights on the other hand Israel would never drop so easily. Currently most of the water resources in the west bank go either to the settlements or to Israel, only a fraction to the palestinians.

 

[Czar]

and on the importance of water
http://www.biu.ac.il/soc/besa/water/zaslavsky.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2949768.stm

Ariel Sharon went on record saying that the Six Day War started because Syrian engineers were working on diverting part of the water flow away from Israel.

"People generally regard 5 June 1967 as the day the Six-day war began,'' he said.

"That is the official date. But, in reality, it started two-and-a-half years earlier, on the day Israel decided to act against the diversion of the Jordan.''

a big big part of why Israel is so set on holding whatever land it has is because of water resources

 

[ThePresence]

Ahhh, here we go again. Those with intimate knowledge of the reality on the ground from thousands of miles away in front of their computer screens will pass judgement. I can't even get into these threads anymore. It's pointless.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052
Without looking up the specifics again I recall the main sticking points were the return to 67 borders, the disposition of the temple mount and surrounding area, the specific lands to be held by Israel past the 67 borders, and the right of return issue.

I contend that the Palestinian expectation to gain all or even a majority of those in negotiation was simply unreallistic and Arafat's inability to put forward very specefic counter offers doomed the process. He didn't put the ball back in Israel's court .

jahh I suggest you go back and read more about it

few points

Israel were to control water supplies in the west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the borders for west bank and gaza
Israel were to control the airspace for west bank and gaza
Israel were to keep 27% of the west bank
Israel were to control the whole of Jerusalem

My recollection dffers on the amount of land to be retained by Israel (much less, though some of it containing important Islamic sites).

The Palistinians were primarily angling for control of the temple mount including the western wall (wailing wall). The Israelis might as well have tabled Israeli control of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca for all the progress the PLA was going to make on that front.

Since the West bank is basically surrounded by Israel anyway there hardly is anything to argue over the border issue.

Airspace and water control could habe been bargained back pretty easily. Unless Israel is disbanding the IAF there wouldn't be much to worry about.

The initial offer was 27%, that included stright annexations and then leases (Israel would pay the Palestinians some sum for land and then trade. Israel offered a part of some desert to the palestinians in return for settlement land.

Thats true if I remember correctly that the palstinians went for something trivial as their focus point.

Take a look at a map.

Airspace is hard to say. Water rights on the other hand Israel would never drop so easily. Currently most of the water resources in the west bank go either to the settlements or to Israel, only a fraction to the palestinians.

That percentage came down somewhat and would eventually end up at a low single diget percentage IIRC.

The border with Jordan (who isn't going to go out of its way to piss Israel off) makes up 20% or less. The rest is Israel.

The water rights question should be shelved until a political and teritorial solution is reached. Once the Palisine had established a firm state they would be in a better negotiating position anyway.

 

[Lenine]

I just wish the gloves would come off so we can stop hearing about this conflict.

I don't have any connection to Israel or Palestein. Honestly, provided what they're doing doesn't affect me, I guess they can do what they want

However, in my opinion, both should just take the gloves off and fight a war to decide once and for all who is the winner. Its obvious that both sides are so clouded by hate, they will not reach a political solution without much more time or bloodshed.

If the gloves were to come, provided no other country assisted either side, Israel will probably win. They will take alot of palestine and this is fair since they won the war. This is also why Palestine should have accepted Camp David. They are inferior to Israel in terms of military, the only way to decide such things.

One side has to unconditionally surrender to the other. That's the only way human nature works I think. This is what happened in WWII and WWI and most other wars where a productive resolution was formed. Look at Japan and Germany now, they're fine.

BTW, I'm also saying that Israel should be lenient on Palestein and provide them with alot of investment and economic growth oportunities just like what happened in Germany and Japan.

 

[1prophet]

Looks like this could get ugly, Hamas wants to turn this into a Muslim versus America war.

Hamas calls on Muslims to attack U.S. targets

Hamas threatens U.S. targets
Threat comes after Israeli strike in Gaza Strip kills at least 18
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:52 a.m. ET Nov 8, 2006
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Signaling a change in tactics, Hamas' military wing on Wednesday called on Muslims around the world to attack American targets after a deadly Israeli tank strike in the Gaza Strip.

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

While critical of the U.S., Hamas has always focused its violent campaign of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israeli targets.

Wednesday's threat signaled that the group is identifying with global Islamic extremist movements, such as al-Qaida.

Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian government, said the group had no intention of attacking American targets.

"Our battle is against the occupation on the Palestinian land. We have no interest to transfer the battle," he said, though he said America was indirectly responsible for Wednesday's bloodshed because of its support for Israel.


"We urge the Arab nation and the governments of the Arab countries to protest the world's silence and the American bias," he said.

Hamas' political wing, led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, claims it is independent of the military wing. But the two entities both report to the group's secretive leadership, headquartered in Syria, and frequently coordinate with each other.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Link

Hamas poked Israel to much in the previous months and the repercusions seem to have started.

The Israeli guy says Hamas poked Israel too much in previous months

The Palestinian guy says Israel has been poking them too much

Nothing changed the cycle continues same odl story

Here's a solution: Let Israel hammer the Palestinians until they gain the collective wisdom to unconditionally surrender.

So then I ask:

Surrender from what? "Okay we give up Israel take all our land and evict us" ?

The problems with unconventional wars are simply that...the goals are never really defined. Does surrender mean just accepting that Israel exists? Does surrender mean that they will all get kicked out because isreal "won the land"? For you, while you probably wouldn't be opposed to the latter, surrender means "accepting Israel....and any of their actions otherwise " as you've suggested throughout this thread.

Attacking them generation on end won't yield anything...

and attacking them in a "total war" situation as you describe ("Hammer the Palestinians") would clearly be a massacre if you had the describe the situation with the softest words. There is no main organized Palestinian army, there isn't even a unified Palestinian government. Hammering the Palestinians wouldn't result in crippling them militarily - it would result in the absolute destruction of ALL their homes and businesses, the complete unbiased killing of all men, women, and children....all for some unspecified goal that isn't clear

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Looks like this could get ugly, Hamas wants to turn this into a Muslim versus America war.

Hamas calls on Muslims to attack U.S. targets

Hamas threatens U.S. targets
Threat comes after Israeli strike in Gaza Strip kills at least 18
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:52 a.m. ET Nov 8, 2006
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Signaling a change in tactics, Hamas' military wing on Wednesday called on Muslims around the world to attack American targets after a deadly Israeli tank strike in the Gaza Strip.

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

While critical of the U.S., Hamas has always focused its violent campaign of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israeli targets.

Wednesday's threat signaled that the group is identifying with global Islamic extremist movements, such as al-Qaida.

Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian government, said the group had no intention of attacking American targets.

"Our battle is against the occupation on the Palestinian land. We have no interest to transfer the battle," he said, though he said America was indirectly responsible for Wednesday's bloodshed because of its support for Israel.


"We urge the Arab nation and the governments of the Arab countries to protest the world's silence and the American bias," he said.

Hamas' political wing, led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, claims it is independent of the military wing. But the two entities both report to the group's secretive leadership, headquartered in Syria, and frequently coordinate with each other.

Oh B**** Hamas. Wake up and realize that "government of Arab Countries" don't give a sh|t about you or your causes, and are more corrupt than even the Palestinian Authority. Other corrupt Arab countries will only give lip service so as long as their personal coffers are filled

Btw how is it that a quote by him contradicts the title of the article? It seems they want to PROTEST....poorly chosen title?

 

[piasabird]

Apparently Isreal has not killed enough people if they are still attacking Isreali's. Yet Isreal does not have enough guts to attack Iran who is supplying the Hesbola Terrorists.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Looks like this could get ugly, Hamas wants to turn this into a Muslim versus America war.

Hamas calls on Muslims to attack U.S. targets

Hamas threatens U.S. targets
Threat comes after Israeli strike in Gaza Strip kills at least 18
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:52 a.m. ET Nov 8, 2006
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Signaling a change in tactics, Hamas' military wing on Wednesday called on Muslims around the world to attack American targets after a deadly Israeli tank strike in the Gaza Strip.

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

While critical of the U.S., Hamas has always focused its violent campaign of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israeli targets.

Wednesday's threat signaled that the group is identifying with global Islamic extremist movements, such as al-Qaida.

Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian government, said the group had no intention of attacking American targets.

"Our battle is against the occupation on the Palestinian land. We have no interest to transfer the battle," he said, though he said America was indirectly responsible for Wednesday's bloodshed because of its support for Israel.


"We urge the Arab nation and the governments of the Arab countries to protest the world's silence and the American bias," he said.

Hamas' political wing, led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, claims it is independent of the military wing. But the two entities both report to the group's secretive leadership, headquartered in Syria, and frequently coordinate with each other.

Oh B**** Hamas. Wake up and realize that "government of Arab Countries" don't give a sh|t about you or your causes, and are more corrupt than even the Palestinian Authority. Other corrupt Arab countries will only give lip service so as long as their personal coffers are filled

Btw how is it that a quote by him contradicts the title of the article? It seems they want to PROTEST....poorly chosen title?

Then the person they report to as highlighted below should fix that contradiction, unless they are trying to play both sides of the fence.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Apparently Isreal has not killed enough people if they are still attacking Isreali's. Yet Isreal does not have enough guts to attack Iran who is supplying the Hesbola Terrorists.

Possibly because it is presently the Hamas/Hezbollah militants that are the immediate threat.

Remove/reduce their impact and then Iran/Syria become partially neutered.

Isreal can do serious damage to Syria if they desire

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Link

Hamas poked Israel to much in the previous months and the repercusions seem to have started.

The Israeli guy says Hamas poked Israel too much in previous months

The Palestinian guy says Israel has been poking them too much

Nothing changed the cycle continues same odl story

Here's a solution: Let Israel hammer the Palestinians until they gain the collective wisdom to unconditionally surrender.

So then I ask:

Surrender from what? "Okay we give up Israel take all our land and evict us" ?

The problems with unconventional wars are simply that...the goals are never really defined. Does surrender mean just accepting that Israel exists? Does surrender mean that they will all get kicked out because isreal "won the land"? For you, while you probably wouldn't be opposed to the latter, surrender means "accepting Israel....and any of their actions otherwise " as you've suggested throughout this thread.

Attacking them generation on end won't yield anything...

and attacking them in a "total war" situation as you describe ("Hammer the Palestinians") would clearly be a massacre if you had the describe the situation with the softest words. There is no main organized Palestinian army, there isn't even a unified Palestinian government. Hammering the Palestinians wouldn't result in crippling them militarily - it would result in the absolute destruction of ALL their homes and businesses, the complete unbiased killing of all men, women, and children....all for some unspecified goal that isn't clear

I appreciate your approach.

Israel will not evict the Palestinians, here are two reasons:

1. Once fighting completely stops, the International community will start a race for the first country to claim it resolved the issues. I'm sure many countries would love to host the peace talks and an agreement could be enforced internationally.

2. Again, once fighting stops, Israelis are likely to choose - again - leftist governments. That's what they did for most of Israel's existence.

There is no solution currently. It couldn't be solved with the current approach of Hamas and the likes who deny Israel's right to exist. They are just provoking a much stronger force, what good does that serve?

That's why I started a thread not too long ago about what would happen were the Palestinians surrendering unconditionally. I strongly believe the issues would be quickly resolved in such a scenario. Of course, the Palestinians will never get some of what they want, like the right of return, but they could form a safe national home. Not that I have any reason to believe it will look very different than Syria, for example, but that's an entirely different matter.

 

[magomago]

I think to encourage each side to move towards dove-style governments there must exist just that...encouragement. Destroying Palestinian infrastructure, whether it be powerplants or setting up road blocks that cause people to be consistently jammed overnight does not enourage the Palestinians to cooperate. It just drives them to those who are extreme, because they don't see why they should come to the middle road.
On the same note - we wanted elections in Gaza and West Bank and elections we got...but instead of trying to encourage them to move towards recognition of Israel and adopting softer policies, we decided to cut off all funding and support? We did not allow time for the Hamas government, who was interestingly moving towards softer words, to entrench itself politically as it already has done socially and militarily. So because of that, the extremeists gained a stronger voice by essentially calling out : "I TOLD YOU SO".

I see your POV of being "As tough as possible...and then easing as they become more moderate"...but the point is it simply won't work. Again you'd have to have them "surrender uconditionally", but we've already established that there is no single unified voice that represents all Palestinians and in this situation and at this point All out war would essentially be the IDF force running through all Palestinian towns and destroying everything wantonly and murdering innocents just to get a few low ranked people in a couple of militas. I just can't see it working effectively.

IMO there was a real chance for something good to happen when Hamas got elected - especially with the rampant corruption in Fatah. But considering we essentially never let them get off the ground, it isn't a suprise that the situation has gone nowhere and we've forced them to essentially RETREAT to their hardline views rather than encourage more moderate ideas...as its been the last 50 years (well - we have gotten more and more Isreali Settlements, and less and less and less land for the Palestinians...but i'm not sure if I'd consider a few non contigous territories a "country")

 

[Aimster]

Hamas cannot do squat.

& Israel needs to stop beating up Hamas too much. They are killing civilians in the process.

The time is coming when the whole Israel-Palestine mess is going to turn into a much larger conflict that could eventually result in millions of people dead.