Hamas and Israel

[Joxer_Daly]

The part you dont seem to realize is that many Jews believe that they are always fighting to the death for their right to survive.

 

I dare say the word 'Palestinians' could quite easily be inserted in place of 'Jews' in this sentence. What you say does raise a valid point in the importance of fear in all of this as a driving force in conflict.

 

I think it's too simplistic to just say that it's about the Temple/Mosque. From what I can see there's a hell of a lot got to do with the politics of nation-state and the spin-off abuses, suffering and grievances that have transpired. The conflict in my own country is frequently nicely and neatly packaged in the international media as a religious fight which, whether through journalistic laziness or whatever, spectacularly misses the point. I think to say that the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians is just about the Temple/Mosque fails to grapple with the other issues going on.

 

I also don't think it's right to say there's nothing the US can do. The not-insignificant amount of funds given to Israel annually would be a useful bargaining chip in terms of cooling heads and creating the space where both sides can talk. At the moment it seems as if the US gives Israel carte blanche to be as obnoxious toward the Palestinians as they want, which shuts off the opportunity for dialogue and feeds into the cycle of violence. If the US used their financial relationship to reign in Israel a bit, I think it would create the breathing space for alternatives to violence.

 

 

By the way, don't take it personally that the points I made are addressing points you posted. I'm not trying to have a go at you

[EvilMonkey]

I don't think Muslim-Jew relations need to be this bad. If someone can soften on Jerusalem enough to accept the status quo (nothing getting torn down). Neither religion really calls for this level of intolerance. I actually know more about Islam, but parts of the Qu'Ran even talk about Jews and Christians getting into Heaven and how you shouldn't be bothered by other people living their lives the way they wish. I don't know how some of these things got lost in translation, but every religion does it.

Do you just ignore all the politicians, news media, imams, school texts and so on that call for the destruction of Israel? The daily death threats from Iran? You have nothing like that towards any arab country from Israel. Jews treat Palestinians in their hospitals. What treatment do you think a wounded Jew would get in a Pali hospital?

[Jake]

Do you just ignore all the politicians, news media, imams, school texts and so on that call for the destruction of Israel? The daily death threats from Iran? You have nothing like that towards any arab country from Israel. Jews treat Palestinians in their hospitals. What treatment do you think a wounded Jew would get in a Pali hospital?

 

So the way to fix this is to continue antagonizing them?

[kapkomet]

So the way to fix this is to continue antagonizing them?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

You can recognize that Israel generally treats Palestinians pretty terribly without sympathizing with Hamas.

[NorthSideSox72]

Do you just ignore all the politicians, news media, imams, school texts and so on that call for the destruction of Israel? The daily death threats from Iran? You have nothing like that towards any arab country from Israel. Jews treat Palestinians in their hospitals. What treatment do you think a wounded Jew would get in a Pali hospital?

The only way this will be solved is with a brokered deal involving basically all regional parties and multiple superpowers, then enforced by people other than Israel and Palestine. Suadi Arabia actually has put offers on the table on multiple occasions to give Israel full state recognition across the region, and security, in exchange for giving back all lands taken in the 1967 war and creation of a Palestinian state. Interestingly, both Israel and Palestine rejected it... but I do think if you had the entire block in there pushing it together, it could get done.

 

[Balta1701]

The only way this will be solved is with a brokered deal involving basically all regional parties and multiple superpowers, then enforced by people other than Israel and Palestine. Suadi Arabia actually has put offers on the table on multiple occasions to give Israel full state recognition across the region, and security, in exchange for giving back all lands taken in the 1967 war and creation of a Palestinian state. Interestingly, both Israel and Palestine rejected it... but I do think if you had the entire block in there pushing it together, it could get done.

Buried in that sentence is the first reason why that wouldn't have ever worked...Jerusalem was taken in the 1967 war. Israel will simply never, ever give that back to the palestinians.

 

And buried in there is another reason, which has developed a lot more in recent years: the 1967 West Bank borders enclose a heckuva lot of Israel. They've settled a huge portion of that territory and pushed the Palestinians back into narrow, fence-surrounded enclaves. (Btw, you won't find a version of this map from a source that anyone will like, but this is a good summary of how it has gone, particularly in the last 40 years). You're basically asking Israel to give up 2/3 of the land they've taken. Half a million Israelis currently live in West Bank territory you'd be asking Israel to give up, including 200k in Jerusalem.

 

Don't ask me what the answer is, I can't offer one, but there's your 2 reasons why that is no longer a reasonable starting point.

[NorthSideSox72]

Buried in that sentence is the first reason why that wouldn't have ever worked...Jerusalem was taken in the 1967 war. Israel will simply never, ever give that back to the palestinians.

 

And buried in there is another reason, which has developed a lot more in recent years: the 1967 West Bank borders enclose a heckuva lot of Israel. They've settled a huge portion of that territory and pushed the Palestinians back into narrow, fence-surrounded enclaves. (Btw, you won't find a version of this map from a source that anyone will like, but this is a good summary of how it has gone, particularly in the last 40 years). You're basically asking Israel to give up 2/3 of the land they've taken. Half a million Israelis currently live in West Bank territory you'd be asking Israel to give up, including 200k in Jerusalem.

 

Don't ask me what the answer is, I can't offer one, but there's your 2 reasons why that is no longer a reasonable starting point.

 

Under virtually ANY solution for long term peace, Jerusalem has to be a neutral or divided city. I realize that is asking a lot of course, but it is the only way. So I don't call that unreasonable - I call it the only path to peace.

 

As for the shrinking Palestinian lands, there will have to be land swaps involved, no matter what. So again, I don't think that makes it unreasonable - it is a hurdle no matter the solution.

 

[Balta1701]

Under virtually ANY solution for long term peace, Jerusalem has to be a neutral or divided city. I realize that is asking a lot of course, but it is the only way. So I don't call that unreasonable - I call it the only path to peace.

 

As for the shrinking Palestinian lands, there will have to be land swaps involved, no matter what. So again, I don't think that makes it unreasonable - it is a hurdle no matter the solution.

Worth remembering...both of those are hurdles that are getting worse with time, thanks to aggressive Israeli settlement in those territories. So it's much, much harder for Israel to give up that land now than it was in 2000, because there are hundreds of thousands more Israelis living there that would have to be forcibly evacuated.

 

Basically, I think what's likely to happen is continued Israeli expansion, punctuated by periods of violence, feeding terrorism and extremism throughout the region...for the rest of my life, because Israel will never believe that giving up land will produce peace (correctly), and no one will ever be strong enough to force Israel to give up that land, even to a neutral party.

[Chisoxfn]

Under virtually ANY solution for long term peace, Jerusalem has to be a neutral or divided city. I realize that is asking a lot of course, but it is the only way. So I don't call that unreasonable - I call it the only path to peace.

 

As for the shrinking Palestinian lands, there will have to be land swaps involved, no matter what. So again, I don't think that makes it unreasonable - it is a hurdle no matter the solution.

When you come from a people who have been persecuted their whole life and finally got there own state, and know that there are other neighboring countries who would like nothing more then to take them out, I just don't see how Israel would ever agree (without the US completing bailing on them). And politically, in my opinion, that would be absolutely stupid, especially given everything going on in the middle-east (the push towards new extremist groups, etc, makes things even more volatile then ever before).

 

Israel has blood on their hands, but when push comes to shove, they are defending their lands against a bunch of antisemites.

[NorthSideSox72]

Worth remembering...both of those are hurdles that are getting worse with time, thanks to aggressive Israeli settlement in those territories. So it's much, much harder for Israel to give up that land now than it was in 2000, because there are hundreds of thousands more Israelis living there that would have to be forcibly evacuated.

 

Basically, I think what's likely to happen is continued Israeli expansion, punctuated by periods of violence, feeding terrorism and extremism throughout the region...for the rest of my life, because Israel will never believe that giving up land will produce peace (correctly), and no one will ever be strong enough to force Israel to give up that land, even to a neutral party.

I'd agree there is a good chance a lasting peace is not happening any time soon. I was just saying, if it IS going to happen, the framework under which it would have to work.

 

[Balta1701]

I'd agree there is a good chance a lasting peace is not happening any time soon. I was just saying, if it IS going to happen, the framework under which it would have to work.

IMO, the only way that could possibly happen is if someone could rise up to be able to challenge Israel militarily. If that doesn't happen, they have no reason to give up their land, and no reason to trust a land for peace deal to do anything better than the walls they have built. Hence...the current status quo.

[kapkomet]

IMO, the only way that could possibly happen is if someone could rise up to be able to challenge Israel militarily. If that doesn't happen, they have no reason to give up their land, and no reason to trust a land for peace deal to do anything better than the walls they have built. Hence...the current status quo.

 

 

And Iran is trying to do just that, which is why the balance of power would shift radically at that point.

[Quin]

Israel has blood on their hands, but when push comes to shove, they are defending their lands against a bunch of antisemites.

 

This and the fact that Jerusalem is Judaism's holiest city is why Israel won't give ground.

 

The last time the Jews controlled their chief city? When King Solomon was around, so around 3000 years. There is no way Israel gives any bit of it up after all that time.

 

Best solution I could see is Israel retaining control of Jerusalem, establishing a Palestinian state, and making the Old City similar to the Vatican, but under the control of both Israel and Palestine.