Palestine being recognized as a separate state page 6

195 posts

Flag Post

but as Israel has learned from their bedfriend the USA, negotiation only serves compromises, which leads to giving up getting what you want, which is another word for losing, so i don’t think it’s ever going to happen.

 
Flag Post

I see Hamas in particular as having talked themselves into a corner from which there is no escape other than to continue fighting. The people have been so systematically brutalised that they can see no future other than endless violence. This is to a considerable extent a self-inflicted wound. Israel sees a weak and disorganised enemy, and is going for the kill.

The other big problem there is groups like Islamic Jihad…Hamas is starting to sound less radical, so the more radical groups, the ones that won’t abide by the ceasefire, will start to take a more active role. Hamas can’t afford to tone down their radicalism, because they’ve still got the memory of the PLO at the back of their heads – as soon as the PLO recognized Israel and agreed to a permanent peace, they were politically dead (which is also why, as softest pointed out, it’s absurd to suggest Arafat was just faking peace).

And on the other side of it, Israel’s attitude to the PLO is the other reason Hamas has to stay the course. The PLO/PA were a lot more radical than they are today, not compared to Hamas, but definitely not peaceful, UN-hopping moderates. Israel helped Hamas get where they are today by increasingly marginalizing the PLO from negotiations. They wanted a fractured Palestine – divide and conquer. The problem is that they haven’t conquered, they’ve just ensured that if they don’t get a peace deal with the current group of crazies, they’ll have an endless stream of ever more militant crazies taking the place of their worn-out predecessors.

 
Flag Post

Good points from beau and jan about the political problems within the Palestinian camp.
Infighting, combined with assassinations carried out by the Israelis, ad there’s pretty much a constant power vacuum.
Into which more and more radical people step.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:Gimme a break.

So saying that Israel should be Palestine’s biggest supporter, simply isn’t saying enough? I don’t know what I can do to please you. But then again, I wasn’t trying to.

For people like you, there is never enough. There is no compromise. There is no middle ground. The conversation, with you, is quite distasteful.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by The conversation, with you, is quite distasteful.

Then don’t

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

For people like you, there is never enough. There is no compromise. There is no middle ground. The conversation, with you, is quite distasteful.

You should get along really well then.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by softest_voice:Gimme a break.

So saying that Israel should be Palestine’s biggest supporter, simply isn’t saying enough? I don’t know what I can do to please you. But then again, I wasn’t trying to.

For people like you, there is never enough. There is no compromise. There is no middle ground. The conversation, with you, is quite distasteful.

Sorry. Could you point me to the post in which you said Israel should be supporting Palestine?
I guess I missed that one.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:so what mistakes do you believe Israel has made?

Like I said many times in this thread before, they haven’t worked hard enough at peace. They are making the same mistakes that the allies did after WW1, and USA did with Cuba when Castro came to power. Instead of helping a troubled people, in a difficult time, they are restricting them as much as possible. I’ve said it before, that Israel should be Palestine’s biggest ally, providing them the most support, not necessarily to the government, but to the people themselves. Think of the Marshall Plan after WW2, or Reconstruction after the American Civil War. Israel needs to win the hearts and minds of the people themselves, and turn the tide of violence, in addition to fighting the extremists and curbing the flow of weapons.

 
Flag Post

it’s not the ideology that you profess, MyTie, it’s the pov in your assessments of the situation.

if two people are fighting, and you only condemn the weaker guy for his jabs and justify all the smashes from the bigger guy with the big baseball bat as responses to jabs, while turning a blind eye to the bigger guy’s agression, you don’t just pretend neutrality simply by saying “the big guy should be even better, what do you want from me?”

that’s just not gonna fly mytie. your whole perspective is way off, and that doesn’t change by stating ideals.

 
Flag Post

What a shitty example. It’s completely one sided. Let me clean it up for you:

A little guy with a bag of shit keeps hitting a bigger guy in the face with his bag of shit, presumably because the bigger guy is in the littler guy’s room. Right or not, the bigger guy has no where else to go. The little guy kept hitting the big guy in the face, until finally the bigger guy hit the littler guy in the face so hard that he got knocked out for a while. Then, when the littler guy finally came around, he got up and started hitting the bigger guy in the face with the bag of shit, again. The bigger guy got pissed off, again, and hit the littler guy in the face, again, knocking him out, again. The littler guy finally came around, again, and this process repeated several times, and is still repeating, over and over and over.

Now, for my position: The bigger guy shouldn’t knock out the littler guy. Why not? Because it doesn’t solve anything. The bigger guy should do everything he can to make friends with the littler guy, but also should remove the bag of shit from the scene. And, the little guy is a fucking dumb ass for picking on a bigger guy with no hope of getting rid of him, and no hope of ever winning a fight against him.

So, like I said, they are both wrong. Explain to me how I only condemn the weaker guy. Explain how I say the big guy should fight even better. Because I’ve never said anything like that. Learn a new tune. Making me out to be unquestioningly supportive of Israel isn’t going to work. It isn’t going to scare me into supporting Palestine unquestioningly. You aren’t going to paint me as one sided one way, and get me to be one sided with you the other. Palestine and Israel are both wrong. They both are. Part of that, is that Palestine is wrong. I’m not going to back off of that, as I won’t back off of saying both sides are wrong. They both are. Calling me one sided for not being against Israel and for Palestine is shit. It’s shit. It’s not even worth response, and yet you get one, again. Keep pushing your luck, though. Keep telling me I’m one sided, and I’ll keep giving a two sided position. Remember that I’m not doing it for you, though. I’m doing it for the benefit of everyone else, to see that not everyone caves to this shit.

 
Flag Post

While I hadn’t seen that post of yours, and I pretty much agree with it, your follow up to omega kinda sums up why I find your “neutrality” hard to believe.
It’s, again, pretty one-sided.
You basically say “hey Israel had nowhere to go, so they just did what they had to do!”
But you ignore the idea that the exact same thing is true of Palestine.

It’s mind boggling.

Really, the prior post is in agreement with what I’ve been trying to convey.
But I don’t turn around and play the apologist immediately afterward.
If you’re NOT being an apologist for Israel’s actions, then I guess that’s my misunderstanding of the overall tone of your posts in the topic.

 
Flag Post

My follow up to Omege is one sided? Two people in a room, room belongs to the smaller one, but the bigger one has no where to go. They should both stop fighting.

That’s one sided?

I fucking give up with you guys.

 
Flag Post

But I don’t turn around and play the apologist immediately afterward.

What? Yes you do.

Examples:

Good points from beau and jan about the political problems within the Palestinian camp.
Infighting, combined with assassinations carried out by the Israelis, ad there’s pretty much a constant power vacuum.

Rationalizing Palestinian violence.

More Israeli reaction to UN status

Tell me again about how the Palestinians should just seek a peaceful resolution.

More of that.

I think the first step in accepting MyTie’s posts is to realize that you are biased towards Palestine softest. I don’t know why it bothers all of you so much that MyTie isn’t.

Perhaps you guys should try to have a discussion about his opinions rather than completely ignoring them.

This place is for serious discussion, you are supposed to discuss opinions, not bash people who don’t conform with your view of the world until they leave.

 
Flag Post

Now, for my position: The bigger guy shouldn’t knock out the littler guy. Why not? Because it doesn’t solve anything. The bigger guy should do everything he can to make friends with the littler guy, but also should remove the bag of shit from the scene. And, the little guy is a fucking dumb ass for picking on a bigger guy with no hope of getting rid of him, and no hope of ever winning a fight against him.

Except the bigger guy DID steal the little guy’s room. So that bag of shit the little guy is holding is justified – why should he trust anything the bigger guy says?

That’s sort of the flaw in your approach. You’re trying for political realism, ie. “who cares how the argument got started?”, except that doesn’t actually work, because both sides DEEPLY care about the historical roots of the conflict, because either the palestinians are just misbegotten arabs trying to coax some world sympathy, or the Israelis are landgrabbing colonialists. There is no middle ground in some arguments. Yeah, both sides ARE gulity of plenty of shitty stuff. But your entire criticism of Israel comes down to “They should be nicer occupiers,” while refusing to acknowledge the legitimate complaint that the palestinians: They were there first. And they WERE there first. The whole concept of zionism is that it’s a break with the past. Yes, there have been an unbroken line of Jews living in Palestine, no question. But the Zionists that actually brought settlers over were european immigrants whose ancestors hadn’t lived there for hundreds of years. They were colonizers.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Now, for my position: The bigger guy shouldn’t knock out the littler guy. Why not? Because it doesn’t solve anything. The bigger guy should do everything he can to make friends with the littler guy, but also should remove the bag of shit from the scene. And, the little guy is a fucking dumb ass for picking on a bigger guy with no hope of getting rid of him, and no hope of ever winning a fight against him.

Except the bigger guy DID steal the little guy’s room. So that bag of shit the little guy is holding is justified – why should he trust anything the bigger guy says?

That’s sort of the flaw in your approach. You’re trying for political realism, ie. “who cares how the argument got started?”, except that doesn’t actually work, because both sides DEEPLY care about the historical roots of the conflict, because either the palestinians are just misbegotten arabs trying to coax some world sympathy, or the Israelis are landgrabbing colonialists. There is no middle ground in some arguments. Yeah, both sides ARE gulity of plenty of shitty stuff. But your entire criticism of Israel comes down to “They should be nicer occupiers,” while refusing to acknowledge the legitimate complaint that the palestinians: They were there first. And they WERE there first. The whole concept of zionism is that it’s a break with the past. Yes, there have been an unbroken line of Jews living in Palestine, no question. But the Zionists that actually brought settlers over were european immigrants whose ancestors hadn’t lived there for hundreds of years. They were colonizers.

And if we lived 60 years in the past those arguments may have mattered. But Israel IS a country and DOES have lands and millions of citizens living on them TODAY. The argument for whether or not Israel deserves to exist is null. It exists. So his argument is not flawed, your argument is. The real problem is not whether or not Palestine or Israel deserve to exist. THEY BOTH DO. The problem is: “both sides DEEPLY care about the historical roots of the conflict”.

The people refusing to let the fucking past go. The people who believe that the entire area belongs to the Palestinians or to the Israelis. Those people are the problem, those are the people that inhibit peace in the region, and unfortunately those people are currently the majority in both Israel and Palestine.

 
Flag Post

The people refusing to let the fucking past go. The people who believe that the entire area belongs to the Palestinians or to the Israelis. Those people are the problem, those are the people that inhibit peace in the region, and unfortunately those people are currently the majority in both Israel and Palestine.

Yeah, I don’t think I said the land belongs to either palestine or israel. I said that you need to be able to understand the historical roots rather than whitewash it in the hopes that you can make peace faster. There’s been 60 years of attempts at peace that do exactly that. Meanwhile you’ve got Israeli revisionist historians – Benny Morris for example – who are perfectly willing to point out that Israel, not the palestinians, is the original guilty party here, while at the same time affirming that Israel exists and it’s not going anywhere.

You have to acknowledge these things in order to move forward on peace, not sweep it under the carpet and attack anybody who keeps pointing at it, as was discovered in South Africa. It’s the reason that I can criticize Israel even though I’m Canadian – my family colonized Canada. But my country acknowledged the fact that they were not here first, and they made treaties with the actual natives on that basis, and made them constitutionally binding in perpetuity. They may not have been great treaties, on the whole, but I’d say we’ve done our best to accept our role. The US did something similar (though not as well), and other colonizer countries have done the same. They’ve done SOMETHING for the sake of historical culpability.

It’s easy for an Israeli – unless you live in Sderot or one of the border towns – to ask that everybody should just ‘let the fucking past go’. Israel’s great. Its people have a high standard of living, crime is low, resources – even in the Negev – are abundant. It’s a helluva lot harder for the folks in East Jerusalem and Gaza to accept their fate as the losers, especially when Israel doesn’t even admit their responsibility for making them into losers.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:Benny Morris for example – who are perfectly willing to point out that Israel, not the palestinians, is the original guilty party here, while at the same time affirming that Israel exists and it’s not going anywhere.

Almost exactly what I’ve said, for pages now, as I’ve been accused of being one sided for Israel.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:Benny Morris for example – who are perfectly willing to point out that Israel, not the palestinians, is the original guilty party here, while at the same time affirming that Israel exists and it’s not going anywhere.

Almost exactly what I’ve said, for pages now, as I’ve been accused of being one sided for Israel.

Yes, the bolded part would be the part you didn’t say.

 
Flag Post

From page 4, speaking about Israel:

Originally posted by MyTie:They are there inappropriately.

From page 2:

Originally posted by MyTie:I don’t believe in Jewish control over Jerusalem.

and from THIS page, refering to Israel as “the bigger guy” and Palestine as “the littler guy”
Originally posted by MyTie:because the bigger guy is in the littler guy’s room
Would you like to backtrack on your assertion that I don’t fault Israel for coming to land that wasn’t theirs in the first place?

The bottom line is, I think Israel has made some egregious mistakes. But, talking about what should be done in the future, justification of a Palestinian war on Israel isn’t the answer, like YOU assert:

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:Except the bigger guy DID steal the little guy’s room. So that bag of shit the little guy is holding is justified – why should he trust anything the bigger guy says?
It isn’t justified. Their anger is justified, but war is not. Fighting is not. Even if they did have reason to fight, there is no logic in it, because there is nothing they stand to gain by fighting. Israel isn’t, shouldn’t, and can’t go anywhere.

 
Flag Post

At any rate I think we can all agree that in an ideal situation both the Hamas and the Israeli leaders should be punished for crimes against humanity. And I still don’t see the point why it would be bad if both sides would be recognized as nations and have international courts at their disposal.

 
Flag Post

Would you like to backtrack on your assertion that I don’t fault Israel for coming to land that wasn’t theirs in the first place?

On the whole, no. They’re easily overlooked, soft objections, that seem to disappear completely underneath everything else you say that steamrolls over ‘fair and balanced’. Examples?

First quote you have. Where does it come from? A response you made to vika, who, along with OD, was criticizing you for this post:

I don’t buy the argument “they were there first”. I don’t buy it because they are aggressive, and antagonistic, and more so than Israel, and intentionally use children as soldiers, bombers, target civilians intentionally constantly, and say their desire is to wipe Israel out.

Which, as OD points out, makes no sense. It doesn’t matter how violent they are if they’re right and nobody’s got the guts to admit it. Yeah, I’m rationalizing violence there. Just like Israel rationalizes pre-emptive attacks as self defense.

or, second post, where you’re responding to my accusation that you’re a zionist. And I followed up by pointing out how you don’t need to believe in Jewish control over jerusalem to be a zionist. Just nodding along to everything Israel does, putting up a faint protest here and there to assure everyone you’re on both sides, and making sweeping generalizations of palestinians as a bunch of thugs who would kill your children if they had the chance, sums up American Zionism quite nicely.

or, third post, your big guy/little guy analogy, where you actually say:

Originally posted by MyTie:

What a shitty example. It’s completely one sided. Let me clean it up for you:

A little guy with a bag of shit keeps hitting a bigger guy in the face with his bag of shit, presumably because the bigger guy is in the littler guy’s room. Right or not, the bigger guy has no where else to go.

Which is the post that led to my challenge in the first place. You’re posturing, mytie. You’re pissed that nobody’s backing you up except the lone Israeli. As softest pointed out, you didn’t start parroting this ‘fair and balanced’ nonsense until a couple pages in when it became more expedient to mumble a few scraps that you could later point to and say “hey, I’m not the ideologue here! It’s all you palestinian-lovers!” So yes, I overlooked your faint admissions where you admitted Israeli culpability for how this whole mess started, as did many here, because you had to look pretty hard to find them amidst everything else that wholly contradicted the idea.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

At any rate I think we can all agree that in an ideal situation both the Hamas and the Israeli leaders should be punished for crimes against humanity. And I still don’t see the point why it would be bad if both sides would be recognized as nations and have international courts at their disposal.

The only reason I object to Palestine’s statehood is that it is necessary to blockade them, due to the rockets they are getting their hands on. If they stopped importing weaponry capable of hitting Israel, stopped launching said weapons, and stopped insisting they will continue attacks, there would be no need to blockade them, and then I would be in favor of dropping the blockade and giving them statehood. The reason that the blockade is a deal breaker for statehood is because blockading a state is an act of war. Statehood would escalate this from a conflict to a war, and likely lead allies of both sides into war. As soon as Palestine and Israel reach a peace agreement, then I’ll be in favor of statehood for both.

@Jan – I’ve already explained my beliefs, and provided examples of my assertions. If you still think it is one sided, then fine. That’s up to you. I don’t care anymore, and I’m not going to defend my beliefs to you anymore. In short, fuck off.

 
Flag Post
If they stopped importing weaponry capable of hitting Israel

To do that, you’d have to stop letting food cross the border. It’s rather easy to make incendiary materials from foodstuffs. Propellant is a simple matter of focussed thrust. Petrol for the cars is another one, and cleaning materials are a terrific source of such things.

Starve the people of palestine to death then, as its the only way you’ll cut off the import of the ‘weaponry’.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
If they stopped importing weaponry capable of hitting Israel

To do that, you’d have to stop letting food cross the border. It’s rather easy to make incendiary materials from foodstuffs. Propellant is a simple matter of focussed thrust. Petrol for the cars is another one, and cleaning materials are a terrific source of such things.

Starve the people of palestine to death then, as its the only way you’ll cut off the import of the ‘weaponry’.

No.

 
Flag Post

Then you’ll never stop the import of improvised weaponry. Nor the use by a desperate people.

So we have to consider compromises – by all sides involved.