• 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."

So we still talk about how Arab countries don't want peace with Israel....

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
If anyone has been paying attention to the news lately, at the slightly successful (or a slight failure depending how we want to this see) Arab League meeting in Syria many of the Arab countries mentioned that they might reconsider the Peace Plan that was floated quite a few years ago by the Saudis.
What peace plan was that? Get back to 1967 lines, East Jerusalem as the Capital of Palestine. In return the right of return can be discussed to find a "just solution", and Israel gets full 100% normalization with all Arab countries. IIRC, It was reaffirmed last year as a valid offer. Even the Palestinians would have taken this.

Some of you may think this is BS and doesn't exist...but it does. You want a link? Go to google.

Yet Israel is amazingly absent in any actions to pursue or discuss this plan further, and words are the rare vague statement that doesn't have any importance.

Why? From my perspective, their government doesn't want peace because it isn't in their interest.

Instead we keep hear them talking about being committed to peace, while they ensure to stall any plans or discussions. Its a good way to keep stealing land, especially when the other side (the Palestinians) can't do anything about it.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,794
3,309
126
It?s not that peace isn?t in their interests. It?s that cutting up the Israeli state isn?t in their interests.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
There are 2 key players on the Arab side that have to be willing to agree.
Syria and the Palestinians.

Also, the others have to be willing to cut off the sponsors or the radicals.

Egypt and Jordan so far have been the only ones that are willing to actually extend their arms in friendship and keep their word.
 

fallenangel99

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2001
1,721
1
81
yes Israel only has diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. Israel doesnt have any relations with Saudi, Dubai (UAE), Kuwait, etc. But the USA does

Funny, how the US doesn't deal with Hamas directly because of terrorism, but we freely deal with Saudi, Dubai, etc, even though those countries dont like Israel - best friend of U.S.
 

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
Its been the other way around for decades. Israel has little to gain from giving Palestinians back their land. Israel can tolerate a few deaths and bombings now and then while it uses Palestine for cheap labour and as a market for its goods.

The whole world regularly votes evey year on resolution 194/242 up till today which would have given Palestinians their state but Israel, US are generally the only ones rejecting it. So its not like Israel is waiting for a Palestinian leader to work with. Israel is constantly rejecting a common sense solution that the whole world including the Palestinians want every year since 1967.

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s not that peace isn?t in their interests. It?s that cutting up the Israeli state isn?t in their interests.
If you mean cutting Israel by withdrawing from the settlements in WB, do you remember that they were illegal in the first place?
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
686
0
0
Yes, if Israel gives up land to the opposition, that will definitely bring peace. Can't see why that wouldn't work. Not like it's ever been done before.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The fact is that Israel has done nothing to improve their greater mid-east neighborhood. They have done much for themselves but nothing for other surrounding countries. I can't think of a single Arab country that would shed a single tear if Israel were totally gone. Meanwhile Israel bitches like hell if the Saudis get any US military aid and asserts a right to make pre-emptive bombing raids into other countries. Meanwhile they delight in keeping Lebanon in a perpetual State of semi anarchy and marginalize even Abbas.

And then Israel wonders why its neighbors don't love them?

In short, you can't force your neighbors to love you, but you can at least do something to reduce the tensions.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,909
2
76
how bout this peace plan:
The past is the past, lets forget about it. Peace now. Everything stays the way it is now. Peace declared.

Simply right?

Let me know if any Arab countries are interested.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Originally posted by: maddogchen
how bout this peace plan:
The past is the past, lets forget about it. Peace now. Everything stays the way it is now. Peace declared.

Simply right?

Let me know if any Arab countries are interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sort of like the bank robbers engaged in a shootout with the cops. And the bank robbers are really holed up in a impregnable fortress. The problem is the bank robbers can't use the loot
to buy anything because they have to leave the Fortress.

So they come up with a brilliant maddogchen plan. We keep the loot and we will let by gones be by gones. And the cops can feed the people who lost their life saving when we robbed the bank. Works great for the bank robbers.

Does not work for anyone else.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The fact is that Israel has done nothing to improve their greater mid-east neighborhood. They have done much for themselves but nothing for other surrounding countries. I can't think of a single Arab country that would shed a single tear if Israel were totally gone. Meanwhile Israel bitches like hell if the Saudis get any US military aid and asserts a right to make pre-emptive bombing raids into other countries. Meanwhile they delight in keeping Lebanon in a perpetual State of semi anarchy and marginalize even Abbas.

And then Israel wonders why its neighbors don't love them?

In short, you can't force your neighbors to love you, but you can at least do something to reduce the tensions.
Yet the Palestinian standarad of living is greater on the West Bank than any other Palestinians areas in other Arab countries. And the improvement percentage have been greater in the past 60 years than most Arab populations with the exception of the oil royalty.

What have the Arabs countries done to improve the Palestinian standard of living?

 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
 

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
.........
Yet the Palestinian standarad of living is greater on the West Bank than any other Palestinians areas in other Arab countries. And the improvement percentage have been greater in the past 60 years than most Arab populations with the exception of the oil royalty.

What have the Arabs countries done to improve the Palestinian standard of living?
Remember that all this happen in spite of not because of Israeli occupation. And don't forget the international community under the UN has done alot to help the Palestinians with social services as well.

If the living standards were as high as Europe, do you think the military occupation of Israel should be condoned?

Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Its a weak argument considering the Arabs (and nearly the rest of the world) have continually voted in UN every year to go back to 1967 borders which is a great improvement over the original 1948 borders for Israel.

Israel has a huge powerful military that can take on all of its neighbours at once. Beating Syria up like rag doll is no problem. The US estimated and told Israel that it would take 10-14 days max to whoop all of its neighbours in 1967 and it took them 6 days.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,235
472
126
One Arab that isn't afraid to speak his mind on why they can't unify together and the basis of their problems.


<<Qadhafi to Leaders at the Arab Summit: We All Hate One Another. The Americans Might Hang You All One Day Like They Hanged Saddam

Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Libyan leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, at the Arab League summit in Syria. The speech aired on Al-Jazeera TV on March 29, 2008.

Mu'ammar Qadhafi: People here talked about the pre-1967 borders. To tell you the truth, this is astonishing. Whatever happened to the [Palestinian] cause we had before 1967? Were we lying to ourselves or to the world? Thousands of martyrs fell before 1967. What for? How can you say that Palestine was occupied only in 1967, and that [Israel] must return to the pre-1967 borders? Does Palestine consist of only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? If so, it means that the Israelis did not occupy it in 1948. They left it to you for twenty years, so why didn't you establish a Palestinian state? Wasn't the Gaza Strip part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan? The Jews left them to you for twenty years ? from 1948 to 1967. If that is Palestine, why didn't you establish a state there? What is the justification for all the wars, the sacrifices, and the economic embargo on Israel before 1967? The Israelis can sue the Arabs now, and demand billions or even trillions in compensation for the damage caused them in 1948-1967. You Arabs admitted that the [Palestinian] cause began after 1967. So the Israelis can ask: "Why did you fight us before that?" They will demand Arab compensation for the so-called embargo on Israel and for the economic damage caused to the Israelis. If the Israelis sue you, they will win. They will say: We suffered an injustice. We are like an innocent lamb surrounded by wolves. We've been saying this since 1948.

Now the Arabs themselves have admitted that Palestine was occupied in 1967. Now they demand that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders, saying this will resolve the problem, and they will recognize Israel. Why didn't you recognize Israel before 1967? All the damage suffered in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, to this day ? what was it all for, if the entire Palestinian cause began after 1967? Why didn't you recognize the so-called Israel before 1967, if Palestine was not occupied before then? This is strange. It is illogical. It doesn't make sense. What is this? There is no God but Allah. By Allah, this is unacceptable. It doesn't make sense. You say that you will recognize Israel within the pre-1967 borders?! Maybe Israel will occupy more Arab land in, say, 2008, and a few years later, you will demand that it return to the pre-2008 borders, in exchange for recognizing Israel. This is exactly what's going on now.

We gave negotiations a serious try. The Jews used to say: "Meet with us only once for direct negotiations, and we will resolve this issue." This is what they used to say in the 1950s and 1060s. They used to say: "Please, Arabs, sit down with us just one time, and our problem will be over." But you saw what happened. We met with them a thousand times ? from the stables of [Camp] David to Annapolis. We've been through all these negotiations ? the stables of [Camp] David, the Oslo negotiations of our brother Abu Mazen... He was, of course, the hero of Oslo ? just like Sadat was the hero of the stable of [Camp] David.

[...]

When Algeria was fighting, donations and volunteers were coming in broad daylight ? from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf. From here, from Syria, Dr. Ibrahim Makhous came with a group of volunteers, and fought alongside the Algerian Liberation Front. They were not considered terrorists, and no measures were taken against Syria. When Libya fought against the Italian occupation, all the Arabs supported the Libyan mujahideen. 'Aziz Al-Masri was among those who fought with the Libyans, yet he was not considered a terrorist. The Libyan mujahideen received donations from the Arab countries. It got to the point that they had to put barbed wire on the Libyan-Egyptian border, in order to prevent this.

[...]

We Arabs never occupied any country. Well, we occupied Andalusia unjustly, and they drove us out, but since then, we Arabs have not occupied any country. It is our countries that are occupied. Palestine is occupied, Iraq is occupied, and for the UAE islands... It is not in the best interest of the Arabs for hostility to develop between them and Iran, Turkey, or any of these nations. By no means is it in our interest to turn Iran against us. If there really is a problem, we should decide here to refer this issue to the International Court of Justice. This is the proper venue for the resolution of such problems. We should decide to refer the issue of the disputed UAE islands to the International Court of Justice, and we should accept whatever it rules. One time you say this is occupied Arab land, and then you say... This is not clear, and it causes confusion. 80% of the people of the Gulf are Iranians. The ruling families are Arab, but the rest are Iranian. The entire people is Iranian. This is a mess. Iran cannot be avoided. Iran is a Muslim neighbor, and it is not in our interest to become enemies.

[...]

What is the reason for the invasion and destruction of Iraq and for the killing of one million Iraqis? Let our American friends answer this question: Why Iraq? What is the reason? Is Bin Laden an Iraqi? No, he is not. Were those who attacked New York Iraqis? No, they were not. Were those who attacked the Pentagon Iraqis? No, they were not. Were there WMDs in Iraq? No, there were not. Even if Iraq did have WMDs ? Pakistan and India have nuclear bombs, and so do China, Russia, Britain, France, and America. Should all these countries be destroyed? Fine, let's destroy all the countries that have WMDs.

Along comes a foreign power, occupies an Arab country, and hangs its president, and we all sit on the sidelines, laughing. Arafat was in captivity for several years, and we sat on the sidelines, and even convened a summit without him. Why didn't we refuse to convene the summit unless Arafat was released? Eventually, they killed him by poison. Why didn't we turn to the Security Council and demand that they investigate the killing of Arafat? Why didn't they investigate the hanging of Saddam Hussein? How can a POW be hanged ? a president of an Arab country and a member of the Arab League no less! I'm not talking about the policies of Saddam Hussein, or the disagreements we had with him. We all had political disagreements with him, and we have such disagreements among ourselves here. We share nothing, beyond this hall.

Why won't there be an investigation into the killing of Saddam Hussein? An entire Arab leadership was executed by hanging, yet we sit on the sidelines. Why? Any one of you might be next. Yes.

America fought alongside Saddam Hussein against Khomeini. He was their friend. Cheney was a friend of Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defense Secretary at the time Iraq was destroyed, was a close friend of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, they sold him out and hanged him. You are friends of America ? let's say that "we" are, not "you" ? but one of these days, America may hang us.

[...]

Brother 'Amr Musa has an idea, about which he is enthusiastic. He mentioned it in his report. He says that the Arabs have the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that there should be an Arab nuclear program. The Arabs have this right. They even have the right to have a nuclear program for other... But Allah prevails... But who are those Arabs whom you say should have a united nuclear program? We are the enemies of one another, I'm sad to say. We all hate one another, we deceive one another, we gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another. Our intelligence agencies conspire against one another, instead of defending us against the enemy. We are the enemies of one another, and an Arab's enemy is another Arab's friend. If only we used such ferocity against the enemy.

[...]

We meet in Syria, which is an Arab country. But the relations Syria has with Russia, Iran, or Turkey are a thousand times better than its relations with its Arab neighbors. The relations that Libya has with Italy are a thousand times better than its relations with its neighbors, Egypt and Tunisia. This is the situation of the Arabs.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,115
3,157
126
The last Israeli Prime Minister to come close to a Peace Plan was assassinated by an Israeli settler.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: orangat
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Its a weak argument considering the Arabs (and nearly the rest of the world) have continually voted to go back to 1967 borders which is a great improvement over the original 1948 borders for Israel.

Israel has a huge powerful military that can take on all of its neighbours at once. Beating Syria up like rag doll is no problem. The US estimated and told Israel that it would take 10-14 days max to whoop ass all of its neighbours in 1967 and it took them 6 days.
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.

As for the claim that Israel holds territory gained though such conflicts, if that were the case then Israel would maintain ano man's land in such regions. Instead Israel continues colonizing such land, moving their civilian population moving closer to the nations which they claim to need the land to secure themselves from. Israels true intent in holding the land is illustrated by their actions, as well as the words of their leaders, some of which I stumbled across quoted in an article I read erlier today:

...

The Israeli version of `Manifest Destiny` is Moshe Dayan`s slogan `We are fated`. Dayan, a typical representative of the second generation, made two important speeches in his life. The first and better known was delivered in 1956 at the grave of Roy Rutenberg of Nahal Oz, a kibbutz facing Gaza: `Before their [the Palestinians in Gaza] very eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived ? This is the fate of our generation, the choice of our life - to be prepared and armed, strong and tough - or otherwise, the sword will slip from our fist, and our life will be snuffed out.`

He did not mean only his own generation. The second, lesser known speech is more important. It was delivered in August 1968, after the occupation of the Golan Heights, before a rally of young Kibbutzniks. When I asked him about it in the Knesset, he inserted the entire speech into the Knesset record, a very unusual procedure in our parliament.

This is what he told the youth: `We are fated to live in a permanent state of fighting against the Arabs ? For the hundred years of the Return to Zion we are working for two things: the building of the land and the building of the people ? That is a process of expansion, of more Jews and more settlements ? That is a process that has not reached the end. We were born here and found our parents, who had come here before us ? It is not your duty to reach the end. Your duty is to add your layer ? to expand the settlement to the best of your ability, during your lifetime ... (and) not to say: this is the end, up to here, we have finished.`

,,,
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Syria can bomb Israel right now without the Golan Heights.

Golan Heights is not kept for security purposes. Natural resources more like it.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Syria can bomb Israel right now without the Golan Heights.

Golan Heights is not kept for security purposes. Natural resources more like it.
Syria has been shown to be currently incompetent without her proxies.

The Golan Heights is a strategic military advantage. Syria has used it in the past against Israel.
Israel has NOT used it against Syria.

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
Israel's expansionism is a reality, denying that reality it is absurd.

http://buntnessel.files.wordpr.../slowmogenocidebmp.jpg
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: orangat
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
.........
Yet the Palestinian standarad of living is greater on the West Bank than any other Palestinians areas in other Arab countries. And the improvement percentage have been greater in the past 60 years than most Arab populations with the exception of the oil royalty.

What have the Arabs countries done to improve the Palestinian standard of living?
Remember that all this happen in spite of not because of Israeli occupation. And don't forget the international community under the UN has done alot to help the Palestinians with social services as well.

If the living standards were as high as Europe, do you think the military occupation of Israel should be condoned?

Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Its a weak argument considering the Arabs (and nearly the rest of the world) have continually voted in UN every year to go back to 1967 borders which is a great improvement over the original 1948 borders for Israel.

Israel has a huge powerful military that can take on all of its neighbours at once. Beating Syria up like rag doll is no problem. The US estimated and told Israel that it would take 10-14 days max to whoop all of its neighbours in 1967 and it took them 6 days.
The only reason why the Arabs want to go back to the '67 borders is that that is the only conflict that they can even claim to be the injured party.

Why do not the Arabs insist on the '48 or '73 borders? Out of concern for Israel - remove the rose colored glasses.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,159
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Syria can bomb Israel right now without the Golan Heights.

Golan Heights is not kept for security purposes. Natural resources more like it.
What natural resources? Seriously, let's some see some data. The security advantages are obvious so there's no need to back up my statement (I can research it if you really want), but this is the first time I've heard anything about natural resources.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.
Ok, seriously, that's your position regarding the Six Day War?

Here's a quote from Wiki: "In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel."

Try again.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The only reason why the Arabs want to go back to the '67 borders is that that is the only conflict that they can even claim to be the injured party.
Hardly.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Why do not the Arabs insist on the '48...
It is called a compromise.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
or '73 borders?
And what changes the Palestinian's boarders do you think happened '73?
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Out of concern for Israel - remove the rose colored glasses.
It seems the glass you are wearing have BS smeared all over them.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Syria can bomb Israel right now without the Golan Heights.

Golan Heights is not kept for security purposes. Natural resources more like it.
What natural resources? Seriously, let's some see some data. The security advantages are obvious so there's no need to back up my statement (I can research it if you really want), but this is the first time I've heard anything about natural resources.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.
Ok, seriously, that's your position regarding the Six Day War?

Here's a quote from Wiki: "In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel."

Try again.
Golan Heights has water.
Israel needs water
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY