Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[Destino]

52 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The UN drew the map to include as many Jews as possible in the Jewish state. 

Seems like a rational approach.

 

52 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Despite being in the minority in the whole region (about 1/3 of the population) and owning even less of the land, the Jews got over 50% of the land into Israel. 

largely undeveloped desert, Palestinians got all of the major cities, and most of the developed farmland.  They easily came out ahead in this between the two groups. It should also be noted that Palestine as a nation has never existed. This would have given them a state as well. This was win win. They chose war instead and lost.
 

 

52 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The Jewish state was also more contigous in nature.  e.g. the city of Jaffa was heavily Arab and considered part of the Arab state was completely surrounded by the Jewish states.  The Jews were also given access to two important water ways.

im not sure I agree it was more contiguous in nature. both had bulbous regions separated by narrow passes.
 

 

 

52 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

So no, that wasn't the case.

I disagree. 

 

 

52 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Also things change in 80 years.  What the Palestinians wouldn't accept 80 years ago many of them appear willing to accept today.

You’re saying that they’d be willing to take the original deal now, after how many conflicts? What an incredibly bold demand to make. Sorry we tried to eliminate your nation for 75 year now please give us all the land back that we lost by trying to do so? That’s not reality. Also Hamas still refuses to acknowledge Israel and has only ever offered a temporary ceasefire, while maintaining their goal is to eliminate Israel entirely.
 

There’s no negotiation possible from that starting point. None. A ceasefire with a stated goal of war at a later date is just asking for time to rearm and reorganize for a more effective strike. It’s not even subtle.

 

 

52 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You can't make Jordan or Egypt do anything.  They aren't wealthy countries and don't want to take on a large population of poor mostly uneducated and unskilled people.  Much less worry about sharing a (larger) border with Israel.

Perhaps not, but incentives and a realistic plan might prove otherwise. Hard to say without It being attempted. 

[Skins24]

5 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

How many Americans speak Arabic? I would put money on more Chinese speaking Arabic that America’s, solely cause there are a lot more Chinese.

 

 

other than that, this isn’t a bridge I wanna die on. Maybe china can’t do it. But America definitely can’t for certain.

We've had a constant active presence in the middle east for over 20 years, I think enough speak it, lol

 

But yes, America won't (it can of course) do it - have what would be seen as yet another occupying force - because we know the rest of the Arab world would absolutely explode.

The Chinese are very much untested. There's no way of knowing if they'd be effective. No way of knowing if they can be trusted. There is just way too many unknowns. You absolutely cannot take that chance in this situation.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

43 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

We've had a constant active presence in the middle east for over 20 years, I think enough speak it, lol

 

yeah, my point wasn’t that America doesn’t have people who can speak Arabic.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

 

The Chinese are very much untested. There's no way of knowing if they'd be effective. No way of knowing if they can be trusted. There is just way too many unknowns.

 

if we both agree that it can’t be the United States, then we have to look at the remaining superpowers. Russia or China. Of the two of them we have to think China would be more effective.

 

43 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

 

You absolutely cannot take that chance in this situation.

 

Really any chance of lasting peace is better this war and future wars between Israelis and Palestinians. The world has taken a lot of chances in the Middle East. This would be just one more. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

Seems like a rational approach.

 

largely undeveloped desert, Palestinians got all of the major cities, and most of the developed farmland.  They easily came out ahead in this between the two groups. It should also be noted that Palestine as a nation has never existed. This would have given them a state as well. This was win win. They chose war instead and lost.
 

 

im not sure I agree it was more contiguous in nature. both had bulbous regions separated by narrow passes.
 

 

 

I disagree. 

 

 

You’re saying that they’d be willing to take the original deal now, after how many conflicts? What an incredibly bold demand to make. Sorry we tried to eliminate your nation for 75 year now please give us all the land back that we lost by trying to do so? That’s not reality. Also Hamas still refuses to acknowledge Israel and has only ever offered a temporary ceasefire, while maintaining their goal was to eliminate Israel entirely.
 

There’s no negotiation possible from that starting point. None. 

 

 

Perhaps not, but incentives and a realistic plan might prove otherwise. Hard to say with this never being attempted. 

 

1.  Why is including as many Jews as possible in the Jewish state more rational than trying to include as many Arabs as possible in the Arab state?

 

2.  Also your map doesn't show Jaffa, which I pointed out specifically being a case of incontiguous.  Jaffa was an Arab enclave and was not connected to any of the rest of the Arab state.  You've also ignored the importance of access to the major waterways.  

 

They got the cities because the cities were essentially completely Arab (except for Jerusalem which was set aside special and not belonging to either)  Is that not reasonable?

 

3.  I'm not sure why you are saying the land was more arable in Israel.  Do you have source for that?  Yes, they got a large chunk of a desert, but the Palestinians got a large chunk the highland (mountains) that aren't exactly useful for growing crops.  And again, even if you are right, wouldn't that be reasonable?  They had most of the people and most of the land before hand.  Shouldn't they get most of the land to grow crops?

 

4.  Punishing people in those areas for things that happened decades ago that most of them had nothing to do with doesn't make sense and really doesn't do anybody any good.  More the point, if we want to take that sort of POV, Israel only exist because of Zionist terrorist and the whole Palestinian-Jewish war was really a plan by the Arabs and Israelis to split the land between them.

 

https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/12/the-partition-of-palestine/

 

Are we falling back to might makes right here?  Israel is excused of bad past deeds because they won, and the Palestinians are being punished because their ancestors lost?

 

(This is where the idea of the Palestinians being pawns of the Arabs comes from..  People base that opinion on something that happened over 70 years ago.)

 

5.  I believe the polls show that the Palestinians currently would take a 2-state solution based on the 1967 borders, so talking about "them" (agreeing to the original agreement after all these wars like most of the people living there today had any say in what happened 50 years ago much less 80 years ago) agreeing to the initial plan is irrelevant.

 

6.  I think you are also misrepresenting Hamas.  Even Hamas says they'd support a Palestinians state based on the 1967 borders.  They've also differentiated being at war with Israel and Zionist trying to take over Palestinian land.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

 

Does Israel recognize the right for a Palestinian state?  Isn't a bit hypocritical to ask Palestinians to recognize the right for a Jewish state when the Jewish state won't do the opposite?

 

Also, I've already pointed out to you in this thread, it isn't uncommon for organizations like Hamas to change as you negotiate.  The IRA's stated position was that North Ireland shouldn't exist and there should be on country of Ireland, but they ended up agreeing to the existence of a North Ireland.

Edited October 30, 2023 by PeterMP

[Destino]

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Why is including as many Jews as possible in the Jewish state more rational than trying to include as many Arabs as possible in the Arab state?

did they not do that giving essentially every major city to the Palestinian side of the partition?

 

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

2.  Also your map doesn't show Jaffa, which I pointed out specifically being a case of incontiguous.  Jaffa was an Arab enclave and was not connected to any of the rest of the Arab state.  You've also ignored the importance of access to the major waterways.  

 

They got the cities because the cities were essentially completely Arab (except for Jerusalem which was set aside special and not belonging to either)  Is that not reasonable?

This again show the lengths the UN was willing to go to keep the Arab areas in Arab control. What you see as a problem looks to me like an unrealistic attempt to avoid displacing as many people as possible. I did ignore the major waterways because there’s no way to divide a map where everyone is even on all things. Israel was going to get some advantages, Palestine other advantages. 
 

 

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

3.  I'm not sure why you are saying the land was more arable in Israel.  Do you have source for that?  Yes, they got a large chunk of a desert, but the Palestinians got a large chunk the highland (mountains) that aren't exactly useful for growing crops.  And again, even if you are right, wouldn't that be reasonable?  They had most of the people and most of the land before hand.  Shouldn't they get most of the land to grow crops?

Yes it is reasonable, but I’m not the one arguing the plan was unreasonable. 

 

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

4.  Punishing people in those areas for things that happened decades ago that most of them had nothing to do with doesn't make sense and really doesn't do anybody any good.  More the point, if we want to take that sort of POV, Israel only exist because of Zionist terrorist and the whole Palestinian-Jewish war was really a plan by the Arabs and Israelis to split the land between them.

 

https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/12/the-partition-of-palestine/

 

Are we falling back to might makes right here?  Israel is excused of bad past deeds because they won, and the Palestinians are being punished because their ancestors lost?

 

(This is where the idea of the Palestinians being pawns of the Arabs comes from..  People base that opinion on something that happened over 70 years ago.)

not giving land back lost in several wars is not a punishment targeting the people today. It’s the cost of starting and losing a major war. This is not a new concept and major defeats have reshaped maps all over the world. 
 

im aware that both nations exist because of conflict, I bring it up because the framing that Palestine was invaded and stolen isn’t accurate. The UN partition was the first time they would be recognized as a state, as a distinct people ruled only by their own will. Framing that as simple colonization is a major mischaracterization. 
 

as for might makes right, I don’t agree that it does. It does however weigh heavily at a negotiation. As it should. States are not equal in truth, there’s no use pretending they are when seeking to make a bargain. 

 

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

5.  I believe the polls show that the Palestinians currently would take a 2-state solution based on the 1967 borders, so talking about "them" (agreeing to the original agreement after all these wars like the people living there had any say in what happened 50 years ago much less 80 years ago is irrelevant).

It doesn’t matter if they had a say. Mexicans living in California today had no say in the borders changing in 1848. That doesn’t give them any standing at all to demand they change back. Personally I’d be on board with anything that would end this conflict in Israel. I also have no say. 
 

I suspect that a major issue here is that Israel simply doesn’t believe there is a willingness or capability in Palestine to provide Israel with an assurances they can trust. No group is capable of ruling a state of Palestine that can guarantee, within reason, the ability to dismantle anti Israeli terrorist operation stop and remain as such.

 

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

6.  I think you are also misrepresenting Hamas.  Even Hamas says they'd support a Palestinians state based on the 1967 borders.  They've also differentiated being at war with Israel and Zionist trying to take over Palestinian land.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders

Am I? ”Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights,”

 

 

 

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Does Israel recognize the right for a Palestinian state?  Isn't a bit hypocritical to ask Palestinians to recognize the right for a Jewish state when the Jewish state won't do the opposite?

Israel has offered a two state solution, so yes at least on paper yes. We’ve yet to see an Israel get serious about stopping or dismantling settlements so in reality, the answer is maybe. 

 

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Also, I've already pointed out to you in this thread, it isn't uncommon for organizations like Hamas to change as you negotiate.  The IRA's stated position was that North Ireland shouldn't exist and there should be on country of Ireland, but they ended up agreeing to the existence of a North Ireland.

It’s possible Hamas will change, but there’s no reason to expect it.

[PeterMP]

45 minutes ago, Destino said:

did they not do that giving essentially every major city to the Palestinian side of the partition?

 

thsi again show the lengths the UN was willing to go to keep the Arab areas in Arab control. What you see as a problem looks to me like an unrealistic attempt to avoid displacing as many people as possible. I did ignore the major waterways because there’s no way to divide a map where everyone is even on all things. Israel was going to get some advantages, Palestine other advantages. 
 

 

Yes it is reasonable, but I’m not the one arguing the plan was unreasonable. 

 

not giving land back lost in several wars is not a punishment targeting the people today. It’s the cost of starting and losing a major war. This is not a new concept and major defeats have reshaped maps all over the world. 
 

im aware that both nations exist because of conflict, I bring it up because the framing that Palestine was invaded and stolen isn’t accurate. The UN partition was the first time they would be recognized as a state, as a distinct people ruled only by their own will. Framing that as simple colonization is a major mischaracterization. 
 

as for might maes right, I don’t agree that it does. It does however weigh heavily at a negotiation. As it should. States are not equal in truth, there’s no use pretending there are when seeking to make a bargain. 

 

It doesn’t matter if they had a say. Mexicans living in California today had no say in the borders changing in 1848. That doesn’t give them any standing at all to demand they change back. Personally I’d be on board with anything that would end this conflict in Israel. I also have no say. 
 

I suspect that a major issue here is that Israel simply doesn’t believe there is a willingness or capability in Palestine to provide Israel with an assurances they can trust. No group is capable of ruling a state of Palestine that can guarantee, within reason, the ability to dismantle anti Israeli terrorist operation stop and remain as such.

 

Am I? ”Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights,”

 

 

 

Israel has offered a two state solution, so yes at least on paper yes. We’ve yet to see an Israel get serious about stopping or dismantling settlements so in reality, the answer is maybe. 

 

It’s possible Hamas will change, but there’s no reason to expect it.

 

So, I want to go back:

 

"I mean at the very beginning. Israel was tiny and Palestine controlled everything that mattered."

"So no, that wasn't the case."

"I disagree."

 

Can we agree that Israel being the bigger country wasn't tiny?  Because if we can't do that, then that's pretty much it for this conversation.

 

No, they didn't try to make as much of the Arab country Arab as possible.  Many areas that were majority Arab were put into the Israel.  Arabs were the majority in the vast majority of the area.  They took areas that had less than 50% Jews and put them Israel.  By definition that's not putting as many Arabs as possible in the Arab country.

 

"I did ignore the major waterways because there’s no way to divide a map where everyone is even on all things. Israel was going to get some advantages, Palestine other advantages. " 

 

Your original claim was the Palestinians got "everything that mattered".   If the Israel got some advantages, almost by definition Palestine didn't get everything that mattered.  And your initial claim was wrong.

 

"Yes it is reasonable, but I’m not the one arguing the plan was unreasonable. "

 

And at least the implication in the claim that Israel was "tiny" and didn't get "anything that matter" that the original partition was unreasonable.

 

Now, if you want to go back and acknowledge that disagreeing with that this statement is false "I mean at the very beginning. Israel was tiny and Palestine controlled everything that mattered." after the information I gave is stupid and illogical, then maybe it will make sense to go forward.  But if you can't admit that you started by making a claim that was wrong, then I think that says everything that needs to be said.

 

The land granted to the Jews wasn't tiny, and the Palestinians weren't given everything that mattered.

 

I've actually not made any claims about the reasonableness of the original partition so to imply that I'm arguing that it was unreasonable is false. I've given facts and said your original statement was wrong.  Which then you said you disagreed with.  My point is your original statement was wrong.

 

Simple yes or no, was Israel tiny and the Palestinians given everything that mattered in the original partition?

 

(It is always interesting to me how people that I generally consider to be good posters completely lose the ability to be logical on certain issues and up trying to defend the oddest positions.)

Edited October 30, 2023 by PeterMP

[tshile]

Gaza is 26 miles long and 6 miles wide

 

israels former prime minister proposing new 2 mile security zone around the border. That would reduce it to 22 miles long and 4 miles wide. That would take 1/3 of Gaza away from the Palestinians. 

[Barry.Randolphe]

39 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

im aware that both nations exist because of conflict, I bring it up because the framing that Palestine was invaded and stolen isn’t accurate. The UN partition was the first time they would be recognized as a state, as a distinct people ruled only by their own will. Framing that as simple colonization is a major mischaracterization. 

 

You're missing some key events here in 1948 that shape much of the Palestinian view point since so many of their grandparents still have keys to their homes in Palestine that they were forced to flee from when the Zionist armies/militias terrorized the area and took their literal homes from them. About half of the pre-1948 agreement Palestinian population (~700k) was forced to flee due to being terrorized, and that started the large Palestinian diaspora we see today without the right to return which is another sticking point for the Palestinians when coming to an agreement with Israel since Israel will never allow that. This event is called al-Nakba (it means 'the catastrophe' in Arabic) if you wanted to read more about it. This event is what brought the other Arab countries in the region into war with Israel.

[Destino]

15 minutes ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

You're missing some key events here in 1948 that shape much of the Palestinian view point since so many of their grandparents still have keys to their homes in Palestine that they were forced to flee from when the Zionist armies/militias terrorized the area and took their literal homes from them. About half of the pre-1948 agreement Palestinian population (~700k) was forced to flee due to being terrorized, and that started the large Palestinian diaspora we see today without the right to return which is another sticking point for the Palestinians when coming to an agreement with Israel since Israel will never allow that. This event is called al-Nakba (it means 'the catastrophe' in Arabic) if you wanted to read more about it. This event is what brought the other Arab countries in the region into war with Israel.

Perhaps my understanding is off, but that was the result of the war. The borders shifted dramatically after the Arab Israeli war was decided. So I ask, is the side advancing in response to an attack the invader? I have no doubt the losing side of the conflict may think so, may even craft an alternative history claiming exactly this. We see the same thing in the American South where families happily pass down stories about “northern aggression” and that the war was not about slavery.  Contrary to popular belief history is not written by the winners, it’s written by everyone. 

[Barry.Randolphe]

2 minutes ago, Destino said:

Perhaps my understanding is off, but that was the result of the war. The borders shifted dramatically after the Arab Israeli war was decided. So I ask, is the side advancing in response to an attack the invader? I have no doubt the losing side of the conflict may think so, may even craft an alternative history claiming exactly this. We see the same thing in the American South where families happily pass down stories about “northern aggression” and that the war was not about slavery.  Contrary to popular belief history is not written by the winners, it’s written by everyone. 

 

I know what you're getting at with the reference to the south, but the Nakba happened before the 1948 war - the introduction of Eastern European Jews to the region introduced a new mindset (e.g. Zionism) that hadn't been there before. The Christians/Jews/Muslims in that region lived in relative harmony before the British mandate and the introduction of Zionism.

 

From the UN:

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

Quote

The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Before the Nakba, Palestine was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. However, the conflict between Arabs and Jews intensified in the 1930s with the increase of Jewish immigration, driven by persecution in Europe, and with the Zionist movement aiming to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

 

In November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a UN administration. The Arab world rejected the plan, arguing that it was unfair and violated the UN Charter. Jewish militias launched attacks against Palestinian villages, forcing thousands to flee. The situation escalated into a full-blown war in 1948, with the end of the British Mandate and the departure of British forces, the declaration of independence of the State of Israel and the entry of neighbouring Arab armies. The newly established Israeli forces launched a major offensive. The result of the war was the permanent displacement of more than half of the Palestinian population.

 

As early as December 1948, the UN General Assembly called for refugee return, property restitution and compensation (resolution 194 (II)).  However, 75 years later, despite countless UN resolutions, the rights of the Palestinians continue to be denied. According to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) more than 5 million Palestine refugees are scattered throughout the Middle East.   Today, Palestinians continue to be dispossessed and displaced by Israeli settlements, evictions, land confiscation and home demolitions.

 

The Nakba anniversary is a reminder not only of those tragic events of 1948, but of the ongoing injustice suffered by the Palestinians. The Nakba had a profound impact on the Palestinian people, who lost their homes, their land, and their way of life. It remains a deeply traumatic event in their collective memory and continues to shape their struggle for justice and for their right to return to their homes. In 2022, the UN General Assembly requested that this anniversary be commemorated on 15 May 2023, for the first time in the history of the UN.

 

This article explains the mindset of people that lived through the Nakba and how they still hold onto their house keys:

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/75-years-after-the-nakba-young-and-old-in-gaza-dream-of-lost-homes-in-israel.html

 

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

I know what you're getting at with the reference to the south, but the Nakba happened before the 1948 war

 

 

I don't think this is true.  From your own link and even in the section you quoted:

 

"The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war."

 

Now, there was violence against Palestinians by Zionist militias prior to the war and many Palestinians that could leave left prior to the war.  That's one reason why Israel was successful during the war.  But I'm pretty certainly the Nakba directly relates to things that happened during/after the war.

 

You could argue that the Nakba was extra to the war (kicking Palestinians out of their homes wasn't required to fighting the Arab armies and the 1948 war didn't have a significant guerilla warfare component to it).  Though many Palestinians fled their homes and so at some level left "willingly" (not explicitly kicked out by the Israelis).

Edited October 30, 2023 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

Throughout human history, exchange of land happened as a result of a bargain between willing parties or by use/threat of force (in whole or in part).  Palestine lost the war against Isreal in the mid 1900s and haven't won a new one, so they are not in a position to annex Isreali land by force.  They could theoretically lean on the force of foreign countries by having other nations force Isreal's hand, but I don't think any country has advocated for restoration of 1960s borders, much less showed any sign of willingness to commit military forces to that cause (and even they did, I don't think it would be meaningful enough to make Isreal capitulate).  So then what exactly could Palestine offer to go back to the 60s?  I can't think of anything that would get Isreal to bite.  

[Barry.Randolphe]

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't think this is true.  From your own link and even in the section you quoted:

 

"The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war."

 

Now, there was violence against Palestinians by Zionist militias prior to the war and many Palestinians that could leave left prior to the war.  That's one reason why Israel was successful during the war.  But I'm pretty certainly the Nakba directly relates to things that happened during/after the war.

 

You could argue that the Nakba was extra to the war (kicking Palestinians out of their homes wasn't required to fighting the Arab armies and the 1948 war didn't have a significant guerilla warfare component to it).  Though many Palestinians fled their homes and so at some level left "willingly" (not explicitly kicked out by the Israelis).

 

I was referring to the lead up to the 1948 war - the displacement didn't happen just one night or during the war, it's also cited as the reason for the war by the Arab League on May 15, 1948. There's also influences going back to the early 1900's when Eastern Europeans started relocating to the area.

 

From section 10:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/arab-league-declarationon-the-invasion-of-palestine-may-1948

Quote

10. Now that the British mandate over Palestine has come to an end, without there being a legitimate constitutional authority in the country, which would safeguard the maintenance of security and respect for law and which would protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants, the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:

 

First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.

 

Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.

The events which have taken place in Palestine have unmasked the aggressive intentions and the imperialistic designs of the Zionists, including the atrocities committed by them against the peace-loving Arab inhabitants, especially in Dayr Yasin, Tiberias and others. Nor have they respected the inviolability of consuls, as they have attacked the consulates of the Arab States in Jerusalem. After the termination of the British mandate over Palestine the British authorities are no longer responsible for security in the country, except to the degree affecting their withdrawing forces, and [only] in the areas in which these forces happen to be at the time of withdrawal as announced by [these authorities]. This state of affairs would render Palestine without any governmental machinery capable of restoring order and the rule of law to the country, and of protecting the lives and properties of the inhabitants.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Barry.Randolphe

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

So then what exactly could Palestine offer to go back to the 60s?  I can't think of anything that would get Isreal to bite.  

 

Not sure there is going to be any negotiation here.  Maybe I'm not supposed to say this, but I think Israel is going to use this terrorist attack by Hamas to seize all of the territory they want from the Palestinians by force of arms. 

[Barry.Randolphe]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure there is going to be any negotiation here.  Maybe I'm not supposed to say this, but I think Israel is going to use this terrorist attack by Hamas to seize all of the territory they want from the Palestinians by force of arms. 

 

that's exactly what's going to happen.....and also this

 

https://unctad.org/news/unrealized-potential-palestinian-oil-and-gas-reserves

Quote

Geologists and resources economists have confirmed that the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) lies above sizeable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth, in Area C of the West Bank and the Mediterranean coast off the Gaza Strip, according to a recent UNCTAD study.

New discoveries of natural gas in the Levant Basin are in the range of 122 trillion cubic foot while recoverable oil is estimated at 1.7 billion barrels, according to the study entitled “The Economic Cost of Occupation for the Palestinian People: The Unrealized Oil and Natural Gas Potential.”

This offers an opportunity to distribute and share about US$524 billion among the different parties in the region and promote peace and cooperation among old belligerents, the study notes.

 

[Renegade7]

52 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure there is going to be any negotiation here.  Maybe I'm not supposed to say this, but I think Israel is going to use this terrorist attack by Hamas to seize all of the territory they want from the Palestinians by force of arms. 

 

It was bound to happen eventually, big reason why I mentioned they should just get it over with instead of keeping the situation in limbo for several more generations. 

 

Get the sense a lot of parties in that part of the world are ready for closure, why so many are making deals with Israel as part of moving on.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Renegade7

[bearrock]

23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure there is going to be any negotiation here.  Maybe I'm not supposed to say this, but I think Israel is going to use this terrorist attack by Hamas to seize all of the territory they want from the Palestinians by force of arms. 

 

I think that's the most likely outcome too (not saying right or desired, just saying likely).

[tshile]

36 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure there is going to be any negotiation here.  Maybe I'm not supposed to say this, but I think Israel is going to use this terrorist attack by Hamas to seize all of the territory they want from the Palestinians by force of arms. 

I’ve been saying that from the jump. So… 

 

there’s some harsh realities about this people want to ignore but I don’t see the point in doing that. 
 

I have a hard time thinking Israel will pass on this opportunity to take what the want, to wait for a “better” opportunity later …

[PleaseBlitz]

22 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think that's the most likely outcome too (not saying right or desired, just saying likely).

Yes, I’m not making a value judgement, just a prediction. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

That’s going to be some hard to hold territory….

[Destino]

14 hours ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

I know what you're getting at with the reference to the south, but the Nakba happened before the 1948 war - the introduction of Eastern European Jews to the region introduced a new mindset (e.g. Zionism) that hadn't been there before. The Christians/Jews/Muslims in that region lived in relative harmony before the British mandate and the introduction of Zionism.

 

From the UN:

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

 

This article explains the mindset of people that lived through the Nakba and how they still hold onto their house keys:

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/75-years-after-the-nakba-young-and-old-in-gaza-dream-of-lost-homes-in-israel.html

 

First line of what you quoted reads “The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.” Who started that war? What did they aim to accomplish? These details shouldn’t be left out when arguing that essentially Jews sprang out of the bushes one day for no reason and stole all our ****. (Not saying this is your argument). 
 

 

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not sure there is going to be any negotiation here.  Maybe I'm not supposed to say this, but I think Israel is going to use this terrorist attack by Hamas to seize all of the territory they want from the Palestinians by force of arms. 

This war feels more punitive than geared toward any conquest to me. Israel seems to like it’s big expensive wall so they may retreat back behind it when they’re done with whatever the hell it is they’re doing. While the stated goals are to kill any member of Hamas they happen upon while annihilating Gaza city, I can’t help but feel the destruction is the real message here. They don’t seem to have any interest at all in discussing what comes next.

 

this feels like a “if you kill 10 of ours, we’ll kill 1000 of yours” sort of reprisal. 

[PleaseBlitz]

11 minutes ago, Destino said:

This war feels more punitive than geared toward any conquest to me. Israel seems to like it’s big expensive wall so they may retreat back behind it when they’re done with whatever the hell it is they’re doing. While the stated goals are to kill any member of Hamas they happen upon while annihilating Gaza city, I can’t help but feel the destruction is the real message here. They don’t seem to have any interest at all in discussing what comes next.

 

this feels like a “if you kill 10 of ours, we’ll kill 1000 of yours” sort of reprisal. 

That’s fair. I was trying to think of a concise way to state that making Palestinian areas entirely unlivable accomplishes Israel’s goals just the same, but gave up. Kill them, occupy land, make the land incapable of sustaining habitation, it’s all the same. 

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, bearrock said:

Throughout human history, exchange of land happened as a result of a bargain between willing parties or by use/threat of force (in whole or in part).  Palestine lost the war against Isreal in the mid 1900s and haven't won a new one, so they are not in a position to annex Isreali land by force.  They could theoretically lean on the force of foreign countries by having other nations force Isreal's hand, but I don't think any country has advocated for restoration of 1960s borders, much less showed any sign of willingness to commit military forces to that cause (and even they did, I don't think it would be meaningful enough to make Isreal capitulate).  So then what exactly could Palestine offer to go back to the 60s?  I can't think of anything that would get Isreal to bite.  

 

Essentially, the same thing every other country has offered the country that was ruling over it prior to becoming a country.

 

Angola was a Portugese colony for over 200 years, what did the Angolans offer the Portugese to allow it to become a country?

 

You'll save the lives of your citizens and money by stop fighting us and allowing us to become a country.

 

Especially what Israel is doing is expensive (especially a lot of their economy is based on cheap Palestinian labor).  Currently, Israel isn't paying much of the bill.

 

But the percent of people in US identifying as Jewish or Evangelical Christian are falling and the percent of Muslims increasing.  If that trend continues, we likely will get to the point where the blanket support for Israel disappears and Israel will have to pay for their own defense.  That will make it much harder to keep it up and negotiating more likely.

 

(Though Hamas has to bet/hope the world isn't going to allow the Israelis to carry out wide spread ethnic cleansing and essentially genocide before that.  Also, there is an issue of Israel being a nuclear power and what they will do if the lose US support.)

 

Lastly, it is possible that Hamas/Palestinians would settle for less than the 1969 borders.  That is their current stated positions, but again, it isn't uncommon for organizations like Hamas to settle for less.

Edited October 30, 2023 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

17 hours ago, Destino said:

Israel has offered a two state solution, so yes at least on paper yes. We’ve yet to see an Israel get serious about stopping or dismantling settlements so in reality, the answer is maybe. 

 

I wanted to come back to this one point because I'm pretty sure this isn't true, especially in the last few decades.  And I made this point to the same claim earlier in this thread, asked for a source, but nothing was ever given.

 

I believe the closest Israel has come on paper to offering a two state solution was the Oslo Accords in which they acknowledged the right of Palestinians to self-determination which isn't actually the same as saying you support the formation of a Palestinian state any more than Hamas saying they want a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders is the same saying the recognize the right of Israel to exist.

 

Bush's "road map to peace" did have an explicit statement supporting a Palestinian state but it was never agreed to or signed by Israel.

 

Also, the latest poll out there that people cite (2014) shows less than 40% of Israelis support a two state solution even if they get to keep many of the settlements.  So reasonably recently there hasn't been great support of a 2-state solution in Israel and the support has never been much over 50% to my knowledge.  So there has never been what I'd call widespread support for a two state solution in Israel.

 

(If you go further back in time things might be different, but I know less about what was being said and done and what polls said going back into the '50s, '60s, and '70s.)

[Destino]

28 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I believe the closest Israel has come on paper to offering a two state solution was the Oslo Accords in which they acknowledged the right of Palestinians to self-determination which isn't actually the same as saying you support the formation of a Palestinian state any more than Hamas saying they want a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders is the same saying the recognize the right of Israel to exist.

I don’t agree, self determination reads as state to me. At least close enough to prove a distinction without difference given time. I don’t see it as the equivalent of what Hamas is demanding, which is more territory while offering nothing more than a temporary ceasefire.  
 

and let’s remember that during the Oslo accords, Hamas also promised to stop their attacks. Suffered a change in leadership, and went right back to suicide bombs.