I don't know to be honest. I think that the entire middle east is really a huge mess. I think that the incident where the british judge signed a warrant for the arrest of an Israeli official was wrong, and actually quite stupid. The whole thing about them taking organs from dead Palestinians is a tougher issue, but in the end, as long as they are dead, I don't think I have a problem with it. (I cam to this conclusion based on whether I personally would care if my organs were taken after I died). Overall though it's really just as messy of a situation as the rest of the middle east, and the fact that the west meddles with it so much doesn't help.

Yes. Israel exists. I understand it's nice to visit and they've done wonderful things with irrigation and military training. They don't get along with their neighbors always... but then who does? Especially when you throw religion and bigotry into the mix. Most recently they have a phenomenal rookie in the NBA. Someday I'd like to visit. Next subject?

Puddle, I'd say - just like in Diplomacy - don't give the land back for nothing... but if it gets you peace and an alliance with your neighbors it could be worth it. Practical considerations must eventually come to the fore over religious and nationalistic absolutes if this is ever to get resolved. Granted - both sides need to get there more or less at the same time.

Okay yes conquest has precedent.

That doesn't make it right man.

You can't sit there and say that what our ancestors did makes us responsible.

You have to look at the status quo. I would say, personally, that the way to go is to approach from how things are now. Namely, a total freeze on the settlements. Don't evict who's there now, but stop settling more. The rest of the land becomes a Palestinian state and we can put conquest behind us a species forever.

Of course a lot of people will say that doesn't go far enough, or goes too far. You've got to get peace somehow. Peace is more important than living in some settlement. Like.... seriously.

Thucy,
Let me ask you a question.
Lets suppose your solution was implemented. Total freeze. A Palestinian state.

Do you think that brings peace?

Let me ask another question.
If Israel removed every settlement and evactuaion eastern Jerusalem, and moved all its citizens within the arbitrary armistace lines (now known as the green line)...

Would that bring peace?

I think the answer to both of those questions is a resounding no. For 2 sides to come to an agreement, there has to be value for both. If the answer to those two questions is no, why would a deal be implemented.

Please note, I am not arguing right and wrong here, but strictly politics and diplomacy.

"evactuaion eastern Jerusalem" should be 'evacuates eastern Jerusalem'

@Puddle:

You got the land, congrats. All you have to do is make the people who live there citizens of Israel, with the same rights and responsibilities of the people in the pre-war borders, and no problem, right?

Oh, wait, you don't want to *do* that. You want to cherry pick the 'fun' parts of conquest, but not treat the captured population as anything but a nuisance to ignore or eliminate.

Remind you of any central European nations in, say, the early 1940s?

As for the US 'not having a leg to stand on', you're correct - we have no right to tell you how to run your country.

Except for those huge aid checks we cut you each year. Easiest thing in the world to do is tell us to keep our money and our opinions to ourselves.

Right?

Israel is a sovereign nation, just like America or any other sovereign nation. It's not fair that other countries boss it around and try to form a Palestinian state, which isn't going to happen. I really don't see any problems. It's their land, and they've successfully defended it time and again. Until someone makes them leave by military force or clever diplomacy, it's theirs to keep indefinitely.

How would us Americans like it if another, much more powerful country came along and said "Okay, we're cutting off Florida and making it its own country. If you've got a problem with that, then that's just too bad." Is that fair, especially if we've successfully occupied the territory for years?

The point is, everything they have is land they got fair and square. They're one of our best allies in the fight against terrorism, and if their neighbors don't like them, then who cares?

That's not what's happening. I don't want to get dragged into this, but people who think a Palestinian state would be analogous to sawing off Florida are part of what's keeping the peace process stalled.

Now, this isn't to say there isn't more than enough antisemitism to go around, especially in Israel's neighborhood, but you asked a specific question - why are we getting crap on the West Band situation - not 'why are our neighbors pricks'

Bank, band, same deal

Look, Israel got the West Bank fair and square. We got Florida fair and square. How is that not analogous?

The argument that might makes right, as far as Israel successfully holding the occupied territories, somehow runs into a snag when you also argue against more mighty countries trying to exert their will. If might is right for the Israelis, then it is is also the case for the Americans and others trying to twist arms to create a Palestinian State. ...not that I'm arguing that might makes right.

@TMW - you're a troll, and hence unworthy of debate, but I already answered this in my second post. They don't want our opinions? That's reasonable, and they pretty much ignore them anyway, but a) allies are allowed to tell allies when they think they're making an error and b) if they really want to cut our influence, they can go cold turkey on the foreign aid.

Stratagos, where exactly does the Florida/West Bank analogy go wrong in your eyes, aside from the fact that the US killed the original inhabitants of Florida? If you want to call TMW a troll, I'd like to understand your objection to that analogy. I know what MY objection is, but I doubt its the same as yours.

I think he has demonstrated his trollness over and over and friggin OVER again, to the extent that I no longer feel any obligation to bother analyzing whatever he says. He could claim water is wet and I'd ignore what he had to say.

As for the Florida analogy - or, for that matter, any areas where a substantial native american presense was eradicated - I'd say our guilt is pretty damn plain - we treated the native americans as vermin and did our best to slaughter them all.

The only relevant difference is we're not trying to do so any longer. Granted, this is because we largely *succeeded* in killing the majority of them, and generally speaking the reservations that remain are on crappy territory, but you don't see people moving into casinos and claiming that Manifest Destiny gives them the right to do so.

In other words, while we certainly did dickly things in the past, and continue to do new and fascinating dickly things, that doesn't automatically say that our criticism of others is baseless. Hypocritical, perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's wrong

@ Puddle: "We took the land via conquest in a defensive war, its our land now, and we want to live there, I don't see the problem."

It wasn't a defensive war, it was an unjustfied war of aggression. You have no right to that land. The arabs had been living there for hundreds of years. It is their land, not yours.


@jman777: " "Overall though it's really just as messy of a situation as the rest of the middle east, and the fact that the west meddles with it so much doesn't help."

The west is doing more than "meddling" with the situation, they're propping up the unjust, absurd Israeli state. The fact is that if the US withdrew - that is, all US support for Israel was withdrawn - Israel would collapse very quickly.


@stratagos: "You got the land, congrats. All you have to do is make the people who live there citizens of Israel, with the same rights and responsibilities of the people in the pre-war borders, and no problem, right?

Oh, wait, you don't want to *do* that. You want to cherry pick the 'fun' parts of conquest, but not treat the captured population as anything but a nuisance to ignore or eliminate"

stratagos +1. Very strong point. If Palestinians had voting rights in Israel, things might be different. But they mostly don't, and this makes the situation particularly unjust.


@ The Master Etc: "The point is, everything they have is land they got fair and square"

WRONG. They stole it. They had no right taking the land whatsoever.

To summarise my view:

1. The Palestinians were living in the territory now called 'Israel' for hundreds of years. It was THEIR land.

2. The Zionists came along and claimed that, due to what was written in the Old Testament, the land belonged to them, and it was their destiny to occupy it.

3. This was bullshit, because the Old Testament, like the rest of the Bible, is an interesting historical text, but contains very little truth - there is clearly no God.

4. Because of the mistreatment of Jews during the Nazi conquest of Europe, no-one in Britain or the wider Western set-up had the guts to say "No, Zionists, that's not your land, it belongs to the Palestinians!"

Quite simply, the establishment of the state of Israel was a load of shit and Israel has no right whatsoever to exist. Is it any wonder the Palestinians attack Israeli settlements?

Israel should be dissolved and its Jewish citizens given the option of either:

(a) being given the chance to apply for citizenship of Palestine.
(b) being re-settled in Europe or wherever their families came from in the last 3 or so generations, as appropriate.

I think that frankly both sides should just try and eliminate most prejudice, and combine into one state, giving everyone citizenship. A two-state solution just won't work.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this, and I largely won't, but I figured I would have to participate if just to tell Jamie how stupid he is. While I have seen plenty of well-reasoned arguments calling for the dismantlement of the state of Israel, that was not one of them.

"1. The Palestinians were living in the territory now called 'Israel' for hundreds of years. It was THEIR land." And before that, it was the other 'their' land. And there was a continuous Jewish presence long before Zionism was born.


"2. The Zionists came along and claimed that, due to what was written in the Old Testament, the land belonged to them, and it was their destiny to occupy it." And, well, thats where the Jewish people came from.

"3. This was bullshit, because the Old Testament, like the rest of the Bible, is an interesting historical text, but contains very little truth - there is clearly no God." Most of the people fighting the battles on both sides on the front line would tend to disagree with you about that. (While Israel is a secular country, much of the problem comes from their religious right, who wants to hang on to the West Bank).I'm not sure your lack of belief in god is relevant, nor do I understand how there 'clearly' is no god can be adequately claimed.

"4. Because of the mistreatment of Jews during the Nazi conquest of Europe, no-one in Britain or the wider Western set-up had the guts to say "No, Zionists, that's not your land, it belongs to the Palestinians!": Britain was doing the exact opposite of telling them no long before WW2. That doesn't make it right, but get your facts straight please.

"Quite simply, the establishment of the state of Israel was a load of shit and Israel has no right whatsoever to exist"

But it exists. Deal with it.

"Israel should be dissolved and its Jewish citizens given the option of either:

(a) being given the chance to apply for citizenship of Palestine.
(b) being re-settled in Europe or wherever their families came from in the last 3 or so generations, as appropriate. "

And how do you think choice (A) will work out? Since non-Israeli Jews have been kicked out of almost every Arab country (with the notable exception of Morocco), how do you think former Israeli Jews will fare in the new Muslim dominated Palestine?


"The fact is that if the US withdrew - that is, all US support for Israel was withdrawn - Israel would collapse very quickly." And get off your soapbox for a second and try to imagine this scenario. When the US withdraws support, and you have an even more isolated regime with ridiculously advanced technological weapons, whose people (whether you believe it or not is irrelevant) assume that without the state of Israel that the Jews will be slaughtered, how do you think that state will react? Do you honestly think that would be good for anyone in the region? Is that really a solution you think is viable?

Dibster,
And I wish I could fly.

I just wish people when discussing this topic, including people at the negotiating table, would just try to be realistic. Israel is there, deal with it. The Palestinians are going to get their own country somewhere in the West Bank and Gaza, deal with it. But just making a new country at the 1948 armistice line isn't going to cut it. I don't have a solution, but anyone who sees this topic as a black or white issue just isn't smart enough to try to debate it in the first place.

Peace would at least be *possible* even if it is akin to the peace that Pakistan has with India.

Anyone who wouldn't have partitioned India please speak up now.

Thucy, peace would be theoretically 'possible'. Do you really think it would be realistically possible? If you don't, why would 2 sides make a deal? (Again, I wish this was a Diplomacy discussion, rather than an historical one).

I'm with DJ, I really hate this subject, because despite my feelings on it - and let me be clear, the only reason I said a damn thing was the combination of 'no one will discuss this' and 'why can't we do whatever the hell we want without people bitching' - there's no simple solution. There are plenty of simple *sounding* solutions, but ideas that both sides will accept are few and far between, and the structure of the Israeli governing process and population mean concessions aren't exactly the easiest thing in the world to justify

The problem is that getting both sides to agree to a solution requires finding a solution both sides are satisfied with, and both sides have some serious differences of opinion. This isn't aided by the whole theology issue - there are people on both sides who basically think the only good X is a dead X, and God told them so. The demographics are also a significant issue that Israel - which is far more interested in being a 'Jewish' nation than a democratic one - simply cannot deal with without disenfranchising huge swaths of population, getting the majority of the Palestinians to go elsewhere, or creating some form of Palestinian state where they can all be segregated.

As for a point Jaime raised, Israel was acting defensively in 1967 when they seized the West Bank. Whether they 'should' have created a state in what was the Palestinian Mandate to begin with is a whole nother issue, and basically irrelevant, as it's a done deal now, and there is more than enough fault to go around with the whole fiasco that the partition of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War turned into.

"We took the land via conquest in a defensive war, its our land now, and we want to live there, I don't see the problem."

Sorry, what? Are you *seriously* trying to put the natives as the aggressors, here?

I think the biggest problem is that there's no real single authority of Palestine to be political with. Terrorists can and have vetoed the peace process (which got pretty close to making progress under Clinton), because whoever Israel talks to ultimately doesn't control the people who Israel wars with

But Israel can be too aggressive and actually be counterproductive, no matter how you look at it morally it's clear that their way of dealing with the Palestinians has failed completely