Middle East Conflict (merged) | Iran launch missile attack after Israel invade Lebanon

[Homar]

I don't believe a two-state solution is achievable or possible, and given the circumstances the state of Palestineshould be absolved into the state of Israel, with all Palestinians being granted equal rights as Israelis, mosques to be recognised and approved, segregation laws abolished and for Palestinians to embrace an Israeli nationality encompassed with their Palestinian identity: A Union.

Whilst I disagree with much of everything else you have said, I do agree with this. The issue here is that Israel would never accept such a solution because, as far as they are concerned, demographics would make it inevitable that Israel in its current form as a “Jewish state” would cease to exist. You also then have to deal with the right of return, which Israel rejects completely. The Palestinians would likely accept this solution. The Israelis would never accept a Jewish minority, present or future.

 

[west didsblue]

Whilst I disagree with much of everything else you have said, I do agree with this. The issue here is that Israel would never accept such a solution because, as far as they are concerned, demographics would make it inevitable that Israel in its current form as a “Jewish state” would cease to exist. You also then have to deal with the right of return, which Israel rejects completely. The Palestinians would likely accept this solution. The Israelis would never accept a Jewish minority, present or future.

Seems your main problem is the concept of a state with a Jewish majority. Why is that?

 

[Metal Biker]

You are applying one logic to two different circumstances. The Palestinian settlement were legitimate because they built on unoccupied land. The Israeli settlement is not as it breaks the Geneva convention and international laws as validated by more than a dozen international bodies from the UN arms, to the Red Cross, to the US Administration. Further, the Palestinians were at that point in time local to the land. The expansion of the Israel settlement is in light of the influx of Israelis from Poland, Russia, Iraq, Morocco, Turkey, US. They are not indigenous to the land nor were they homeless in these other countries. They can build settlementS in lands within the 1967 borders, but not in the occupied lands. Because 1) it's against international law, 2) they were displacing a population indigenous to the area to compensate for a population that decided and excited to move into the new state. You saying that they have the right to build in these occupied lands is saying that you are right and the other organisations are wrong. Even Israel has forcefully moved Israelis out of settlements in Gaza in recent times. Surely you are not saying that they are wrong as well?

I'm avoiding discussing the morality issue and "who is of right and wrong", i'm focussing more on the legitimacy of each sides claims to live in the region and how some appear to be more willing to disregard one side and throw weight behind the others.

Palestinians have a right to live where they do right now, free from persecution or forced relocation, but I don't see any legitimacy, historically or politically, of there being a creation of a Palestinian State. There is nothing to support it based on a lack of a previous state that once existed and was internationally recognised. The closest is the British Mandate of Palestine, but just like with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc, they were all creations of the Allies after WW1 because calling it a "Mandate" sounded better than "Occupied Territory". Even the borders of these nations had a British military advantage in mind.

The Israeli government has no right to force people to move from where they are but by the same token the Palestinian leaders MUST acknowledge the legitimacy of the Israeli State, which Hamas refuses to do. That's the only stance I have, when the Palestinian government recognises Israel's right to exist, all eyes turn on Israel being equally mature and address Palestinian concerns. At present, the Palestinians want the Israelis to all die and some seek ways to achieve this end.

Doesn't exactly garner my support.

 

[The blue phantom]

I'm avoiding discussing the morality issue and "who is of right and wrong", i'm focussing more on the legitimacy of each sides claims to live in the region and how some appear to be more willing to disregard one side and throw weight behind the others.

Palestinians have a right to live where they do right now, free from persecution or forced relocation, but I don't see any legitimacy, historically or politically, of there being a creation of a Palestinian State. There is nothing to support it based on a lack of a previous state that once existed and was internationally recognised. The closest is the British Mandate of Palestine, but just like with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc, they were all creations of the Allies after WW1 because calling it a "Mandate" sounded better than "Occupied Territory". Even the borders of these nations had a British military advantage in mind.

The Israeli government has no right to force people to move from where they are but by the same token the Palestinian leaders MUST acknowledge the legitimacy of the Israeli State, which Hamas refuses to do. That's the only stance I have, when the Palestinian government recognises Israel's right to exist, all eyes turn on Israel being equally mature and address Palestinian concerns. At present, the Palestinians want the Israelis to all die and some seek ways to achieve this end.

I'm fairly sure your last sentence applys to how the the Israeli government feels abt the Palestinians.

 

[Metal Biker]

I'm fairly sure your last sentence applys to how the the Israeli government feels abt the Palestinians.

I'm not surprised given the proclaimation that "Israel will be obliterated" from Hamas is oft repeated. I doubt you'd be wanting to send hugs and kisses to someone actively stating they want you, your family, your people, your nation and referring to you by your religion, to be annihilated.

 

[The blue phantom]

I'm not surprised given the proclaimation that "Israel will be obliterated" from Hamas is oft repeated. I doubt you'd be wanting to send hugs and kisses to someone actively stating they want you, your family, your people, your nation and referring to you by your religion, to be annihilated.

I'm glad you said Hamas this time, instead of in your last post that said PALESTINIANS want all Israelis dead. As the three i know don't, not that I know them well, just brief chats.

 

[Metal Biker]

I'm glad you said Hamas this time, instead of in your last post that said PALESTINIANS want all Israelis dead. As the three i know don't.

Everyone on this thread seems to know a Palestinian. And since Hamas are the elected government of the Palestinians, it's kind of a moot point isn't it, to be arguing Palestinians are/are not synonymous with Hamas and what they believe? Were the ones at the protest/riot/assault Palestinians or Hamas members? Being pedantic doesn't help the debate. You know what I meant.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Me too.
I wonder if they feel the same way about the USA, Australia, Tibet, Pakistan, Crimea etc etc

Of course they don't. You won't find posts from any of these people decrying the situation in any of these countries. I wonder why.

The funny thing is that all these Arab countries surrounding Israel - Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria & Saudi Arabia - were all completely artificial countries that also arose out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire. The British & French drew lines in the sand and gave the countries they'd carved out to their mates, who they wanted to mollify or wanted support from. King Abdullah of Jordan was born in Mecca. His brother Faisal was initially given Syria then expelled by the French & moved to become King of Iraq, which was under British influence. He had no connection with Iraq and was unknown there. This completely random dividing up of the Ottoman empire ignored any religious or tribal issues, which is why the area is in such a state today. People like Saddam Hussein, as unpleasant as he was, kept the lid on things. As did Hafez Assad & King Hussein. Once the lid came off, all sorts of nastiness crawled out.

Syria actually claimed a lot more land as part of its self-proclaimed Greater Syria. This included all of modern Syria, modern-day Israel, the West Bank & Gaza, the western part of Jordan and parts of Lebanon & Turkey. The Arab armies that invaded the newly proclaimed Israeli state in 1948 weren't doing it for the rights of the Palestinians, it was a war of conquest. Whatever they took, they planned to keep (as Jordan did with the West Bank until 1967). The residents would have been rules by Egypt, Syria or Jordan whether they liked it or not. All this modern nonsense about Jerusalem, which was supposed to be an open city, ignores the fact that Jordan sealed off East Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967. Jews couldn't visit their holy sites during that time.

India was also partitioned in 1948, with lines arbitrarily drawn to separate the new country Pakistan from India. Millions of people were uprooted as Muslims moved out of Hindu areas and vice versa. There were thousands upon thousands killed as part of the upheaval. But in 2018 no one is sitting in refugee camps claiming a right of return and mounting violent demonstrations on the border.

The answer is simple. Hamas needs to say to Israel "We recognise your right to exist unconditionally. We're prepared to establish diplomatic relations with you and will guarantee your security. In return, we ask that you open the borders, help us establish basic services to an acceptable level and work with us to build lasting prosperity for the people living there. We still want a Right of Return but accept that there needs to be a pragmatic solution, with maybe some people able to return and compensation paid to others. We also want an agreement from other countries that Palestinian refugees can have rights of citizenship in those countries if they wish." Then the problem goes away. I bet there's quite a lot of people in Gaza would quite happily endorse that if they were asked. Certainly most of the Arab countries would, who mostly couldn't give two shits about the Palestinians.

But they won't do that. Instead they'll continue to build tunnels, fire rockets, try to launch other terror attacks, hold demonstrations and teach their children to hate Jews and seek martyrdom. Because that's the only thing that they feel makes them relevant. And Netanyahu will continue to tell his army to shoot them. Because he thinks that makes him relevant in the eyes of his right-wing support base. And so the killing and misery go on.

 

[cucumberman]

I'm avoiding discussing the morality issue and "who is of right and wrong", i'm focussing more on the legitimacy of each sides claims to live in the region and how some appear to be more willing to disregard one side and throw weight behind the others.

Palestinians have a right to live where they do right now, free from persecution or forced relocation, but I don't see any legitimacy, historically or politically, of there being a creation of a Palestinian State. The Israeli government has no right to force people to move from where they are but by the same token the Palestinian leaders MUST acknowledge the legitimacy of the Israeli State, which Hamas refuses to do. That's the only stance I have, when the Palestinian government recognises Israel's right to exist, all eyes turn on Israel being equally mature and address Palestinian concerns. At present, the Palestinians want the Israelis to all die and some seek ways to achieve this end.

Doesn't exactly garner my support.

We had a thread in the past that went 60+ pages full of discussions on legitimacy. That's the result of discussing firstly the atrocity and heavy handedness of Israel actions, followed by an antipode statement of "yes no one can deny that what they have done is wrong, but..."

That's what this thread is descending into as well, deflecting from the actual issue at hand, the tendency for Israel to be heavy handed in their approach without fear of ramification. Displacing hundreds and thousands of people, demolishing houses, attacking civilians, blockades, restrictions.

And a majority of Palestinians don't want Israelis to all die. They are not savages, though I think based on your quoting of the charters, you view them as such.

 

[Metal Biker]

We had a thread in the past that went 60+ pages full of discussions on legitimacy. That's the result of discussing firstly the atrocity and heavy handedness of Israel actions, followed by an antipode statement of "yes no one can deny that what they have done is wrong, but..."

That's what this thread is descending into as well, deflecting from the actual issue at hand, the tendency for Israel to be heavy handed in their approach without fear of ramification. Displacing hundreds and thousands of people, demolishing houses, attacking civilians, blockades, restrictions.

And a majority of Palestinians don't want Israelis to all die. They are not savages, though I think based on your quoting of the charters, you view them as such.

If any Palestinian or anyONE, for that matter, supports Hamas, they lose mine. It has been made quite clear that most Palestinians, or those who side with Palestinians, do support Hamas, so you're going to have to help me out here... If they support Hamas, but DON'T want Israel to be wiped off the face of the planet, why are they supporting Hamas, whose aim is to do just that? And if most Palestinians support Hamas, wouldn't that mean they want Israelis to die, as per their charter, which Hamas made, thus they support? If they don't then elect a more moderate political entity to power to represent their cause!