Teenage Intifada

[Prestwich_Blue]

The State of Palestine does exist. As I've explained before it was recognised as a "non-member observer state" by the UN in 2012. It appears despite this fact some people still have their reasons not to recognise it. Did you recognise Switzerland in 2001?

Funnily enough, I was in Switzerland in 1971 so it was definitely there before 2001 and was a recognised sovereign state. Statehood wan't invented by the UN in 1945 any more than football was invented by Sky in 1992. You're barking up the wrong tree completely here and making a bit of a fool of yourself in doing so.

Switzerland existed as a functioning state with international recognition long before the UN existed. There are two sorts of recognition, de facto and de jure. De facto recognition means that some sort of institution exists but has no legal basis. Essentially it's a "wait and see" form of recognition. De jure recognition involves a legal basis and has certain parameters that need to be met.

Switzerland has a single, effective government with a head of state, agreed borders, diplomatic missions, a fully functioning federal system and other institutions associated with civilised nations. It deliberately chose not to join the UN previously as it feared it would affect its well-established neutrality. However many UN functions were based there and in fact my late uncle worked in Geneva for the UN in the 1960's. Switzerland has long had de jure recognition by all other nations.

Palestine, on the other hand, has no effective government or head of state, no agreed borders and is not recognised by the G-7 and most of the rest of Western Europe, either de facto or de jure. Where it is recognised, it is de facto recognition rather than de jure. I could set up the People's Republic of Prestwich and get de facto recognition from someone. You can only have full UN membership when there is general de jure recognition of your state and even the UN General Assembly is not prepared to do that with Palestine until minimum standards for legal statehood are met.

So as I said, it's little more than a concept. Hopefully, at some point, there will be a viable Palestinian state with de jure status and at that point I'll happily admit it exists.

 

[cyberblue]

What ever is right or wrong the Palestinian people have been shit on from a great height .I am surprised they not joining everyone else who want to come to Europe oops I forgot the Isralies wont let them

 

[EalingBlue2]

both sides hold responsibility, both sides want the last word, both sides have good reasons to hate the other, both sides have done deeply evil things. Both sides are outnumbered and outgunned by a more powerful enemy around them (only nuclear weapons and the US stop anything happening)

Frankly I reckon the solution is to do what you do with two kids who are both misbehaving over a toy they can't agree who owns you take it away and let them have it back when they can both behave.

International force takes everyone out of the disputed territories and only allows them back in when they agree to share.

I am sick to death of the utter bias towards one side of the other from everybody, both sides are doing unjustifiable and abhorrent things and both sides in my view are equally responsible for the situation and until both sides realise it is compromise or perpetual misery that is where they'll stay

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What ever is right or wrong the Palestinian people have been shit on from a great height .I am surprised they not joining everyone else who want to come to Europe oops I forgot the Isralies wont let them

You're right with the first part of that, assuming you include their own leadership and their fellow Arabs. You're wrong with the second. While there are obviously border controls in place (and those will be tighter than ever at the moment) they can go into Israel proper and Jordan from the West Bank and into Israel/Egypt from Gaza. Plenty come and go.

both sides hold responsibility, both sides want the last word, both sides have good reasons to hate the other, both sides have done deeply evil things. Both sides are outnumbered and outgunned by a more powerful enemy around them (only nuclear weapons and the US stop anything happening)

Frankly I reckon the solution is to do what you do with two kids who are both misbehaving over a toy they can't agree who owns you take it away and let them have it back when they can both behave.

International force takes everyone out of the disputed territories and only allows them back in when they agree to share.

I am sick to death of the utter bias towards one side of the other from everybody, both sides are doing unjustifiable and abhorrent things and both sides in my view are equally responsible for the situation and until both sides realise it is compromise or perpetual misery that is where they'll stay

I couldn't agree more with that, which is why I always say there is no black and white in that situation and people who think there is are deluded. Both sides share responsibility for the situation over many years.

 

[EalingBlue2]

You're right with the first part of that, assuming you include their own leadership and their fellow Arabs. You're wrong with the second. While there are obviously border controls in place (and those will be tighter than ever at the moment) they can go into Israel proper and Jordan from the West Bank and into Israel/Egypt from Gaza. Plenty come and go.


I couldn't agree more with that, which is why I always say there is no black and white in that situation and people who think there is are deluded. Both sides share responsibility for the situation over many years.

It saddens me deeply when you see the utter bias in parts of Europe that is almost Anti Semitic in its nature (as it often is anti Jewish rather even than anti Israeli) but on the flip side when I am in the US my blood boils at some of the pro Israeli propaganda people get fed by the media. Even on bluemoon I hesitate to comment as apportioning blame equally can lead to vociferous attacks from both sides.

To be fair it is just an extreme version of most of the world's situations as there is very rarely ever black and white answers - but simple people always look for them

 

[union city blue]

both sides hold responsibility, both sides want the last word, both sides have good reasons to hate the other, both sides have done deeply evil things. Both sides are outnumbered and outgunned by a more powerful enemy around them (only nuclear weapons and the US stop anything happening)

Frankly I reckon the solution is to do what you do with two kids who are both misbehaving over a toy they can't agree who owns you take it away and let them have it back when they can both behave.

International force takes everyone out of the disputed territories and only allows them back in when they agree to share.

I am sick to death of the utter bias towards one side of the other from everybody, both sides are doing unjustifiable and abhorrent things and both sides in my view are equally responsible for the situation and until both sides realise it is compromise or perpetual misery that is where they'll stay

I couldn't agree less. Attempts to claim some sort of equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians, to attempt to apportion blame equally, is utterly farcical. Israel is a racist state that subjects the Palestinians to brutal occupation. An occupation that the UN has declared illegal. Supporters of Israel - of which there are a number on this forum - can dissemble all they like. The truth will not change: Israel subjects the Palestinians to illegal occupation, denies them basic human rights, restricts their free movement and builds settlements on their land.

The situation will only improve when Israel ends its unlawful occupation.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I couldn't agree less. Attempts to claim some sort of equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians, to attempt to apportion blame equally, is utterly farcical. Israel is a racist state that subjects the Palestinians to brutal occupation. An occupation that the UN has declared illegal. Supporters of Israel - of which there are a number on this forum - can dissemble all they like. The truth will not change: Israel subjects the Palestinians to illegal occupation, denies them basic human rights, restricts their free movement and builds settlements on their land.

The situation will only improve when Israel ends its unlawful occupation.

You sum up why there will never be peace and why people will suffer there forever. until the world realises we don't live in a GWB world of goodies and baddies things aren't going to change.

Much of what you say is spot on and anyone with half a brain could put up an equal argument on the other side and no good would be served , no progress would be made,

One eyed views help justify and build support for the extremists and bigots on both sides it justifies their ideas and power. Which suits them alone

I wouldn't attempt to justify the behaviour of Netanyahu anymore than I would attempt to justify the behaviour of Hamas other than to say I think both are actually trying to keep conflict going and using the extremes of both views as a justification for their own power games

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I couldn't agree less. Attempts to claim some sort of equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians, to attempt to apportion blame equally, is utterly farcical. Israel is a racist state that subjects the Palestinians to brutal occupation. An occupation that the UN has declared illegal. Supporters of Israel - of which there are a number on this forum - can dissemble all they like. The truth will not change: Israel subjects the Palestinians to illegal occupation, denies them basic human rights, restricts their free movement and builds settlements on their land.

The situation will only improve when Israel ends its unlawful occupation.

The usual sloganeering - "racist state", "illegal occupation" blah blah blah. EB2 is spot on and mirrors something I've said on here a number of times, namely that the extremists on both sides have no interest in solutions and only want to maintain conflict. Anyone who doesn't see that is wilfully blind. However, I'll grant that, if you look at the situation in isolation over the last few years then Israel appears to be more to blame than the Palestinians. Certainly the building of settlements plays a huge part in that. They shouldn't be there and to achieve a lasting peace, many (but probably not all) will have to go.

But if you think that firing rockets indiscriminately, sending suicide bombers into shopping malls and restaurants and other random terror attacks have no bearing on the overall situation then you're very stupid indeed. Actions produce reactions and no one but a woolly headed idealist could imagine that Israel would unilaterally withdraw from the Occupied Territories unless they had pretty solid assurances about their own subsequent security. And I accept that Israeli actions also bring reaction, which brings me back to the point about extremism on both sides. How often has an accommodation seemed close only for one side or the other to engineer a provocation, knowing the reaction it will get.

But if you move out of the bubble of the last few years and look at the whole, I'd say the Arabs were far more to blame than Israel. The original intention after the mandate was established was a secular state where both sides shared power and religious freedom was guaranteed. That was rejected by the Arabs,
- The Peel Commission was rejected by the Arabs, which would have given them far more than the subsequent partition plan.
- Partition & the establishment of Israel was rejected by the Arabs and led to the war of 1948. Acceptance would have given them far more than the pre-1967 borders.
- Between 1948 & 1967, there could have easily been a Palestinian state in the West Bank but Jordan instead chose to annex the territory and make it part of the Hashemite Kingdom.
- In 1967, as tension built up, King Hussein was made an offer (via Norway I think) that Jordan would not be attacked if he agreed to stay out. He rejected that offer and lost the West Bank.
- After 1967, the UN passed Resolution 242 but that was rejected by the PLO and only accepted about 20 years later, when it was clear they were going to get fuck all else. Also Jordan and Egypt refused to take part in face-to-face negotiations with Israel, insisting that the issue could only be solved as a whole with international involvement, whereas Israel insisted on bilateral direct negotiations with the relevant parties. Eventually they did this but another opportunity to settle things once and for all was missed. And every time an opportunity was missed, the Palestinians were left with less and less on the table.

So that's why I say both parties are to blame, and not necessarily 50/50 at any given moment.

 

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

Funnily enough, I was in Switzerland in 1971 so it was definitely there before 2001 and was a recognised sovereign state. Statehood wan't invented by the UN in 1945 any more than football was invented by Sky in 1992. You're barking up the wrong tree completely here and making a bit of a fool of yourself in doing so.

Switzerland existed as a functioning state with international recognition long before the UN existed. There are two sorts of recognition, de facto and de jure. De facto recognition means that some sort of institution exists but has no legal basis. Essentially it's a "wait and see" form of recognition. De jure recognition involves a legal basis and has certain parameters that need to be met.

Switzerland has a single, effective government with a head of state, agreed borders, diplomatic missions, a fully functioning federal system and other institutions associated with civilised nations. It deliberately chose not to join the UN previously as it feared it would affect its well-established neutrality. However many UN functions were based there and in fact my late uncle worked in Geneva for the UN in the 1960's. Switzerland has long had de jure recognition by all other nations.

Palestine, on the other hand, has no effective government or head of state, no agreed borders and is not recognised by the G-7 and most of the rest of Western Europe, either de facto or de jure. Where it is recognised, it is de facto recognition rather than de jure. I could set up the People's Republic of Prestwich and get de facto recognition from someone. You can only have full UN membership when there is general de jure recognition of your state and even the UN General Assembly is not prepared to do that with Palestine until minimum standards for legal statehood are met.

So as I said, it's little more than a concept. Hopefully, at some point, there will be a viable Palestinian state with de jure status and at that point I'll happily admit it exists.

Hmmm. I'm afraid it is you who is making a fool of yourself and your refusal to recognise the State of Palestine is frankly quite worrying. You seem to regard the UN's view as without merit, now that they do indeed recognise the state of Palestine. Instead you seem to be now replacing the UN with the G7 as arbiter of a States existence or not. Since 2012 the State of Palestine was recognised as a "non member observer state". This by definition means that the UN recognises the non member as a SOVEREIGN STATE, ie it EXISTS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_status (for your records I couldn't see Prestwich on the list)

I don't want spend my time arguing about the meaning of words, but don't you think for the purposes of this discussion you are offering nothing other than muddying the waters with your argument between de facto and de jure. I broadly agree with your definitions but your application of the terms demonstrates a severe bias. De facto according to the Oxford dictionary means "in Fact, whether by right or not" We can argue it's legal basis all day but what is beyond doubt is that the State of Palestine is in itself an entity that exists, whether people like it or not.

As for Palestine being nothing more than a concept maybe you're on to something here. It will help me sleep much better at night now knowing that Israeli missiles and helicopter gunships are bombing a concept rather than men, women and children.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Hmmm. I'm afraid it is you who is making a fool of yourself and your refusal to recognise the State of Palestine is frankly quite worrying. You seem to regard the UN's view as without merit, now that they do indeed recognise the state of Palestine. Instead you seem to be now replacing the UN with the G7 as arbiter of a States existence or not. Since 2012 the State of Palestine was recognised as a "non member observer state". This by definition means that the UN recognises the non member as a SOVEREIGN STATE, ie it EXISTS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_status (for your records I couldn't see Prestwich on the list)

I don't want spend my time arguing about the meaning of words, but don't you think for the purposes of this discussion you are offering nothing other than muddying the waters with your argument between de facto and de jure. I broadly agree with your definitions but your application of the terms demonstrates a severe bias. De facto according to the Oxford dictionary means "in Fact, whether by right or not" We can argue it's legal basis all day but what is beyond doubt is that the State of Palestine is in itself an entity that exists, whether people like it or not.

As for Palestine being nothing more than a concept maybe you're on to something here. It will help me sleep much better at night now knowing that Israeli missiles and helicopter gunships are bombing a concept rather than men, women and children.

And round and round we go.....

Cue 20 pages calling out Israel for evilly and deliberately bombing schools, hospitals and toddlers.

Cue another 20 pages talking about the evil terrorists sending brainwashed teenagers to blow up Israeli children and women or Stab shoppers etc

Fact is if either side wanted peace they could unilaterally stop and show they were serious but.... Netanyahu depend on this war to win elections and Hamas depend on the war to exist. Meanwhile people around the world jump on one side or the other just to make sure people keep dying. War is after all the most profitable business on the planet so why not keep the $ flowing

 

[urmston]

I'm amused that some think that UN recognition means anything at all.

The UN accepts all sorts of horrific, dreadful states as members.

It even allowed two of the 20th century's three most wicked and murderous regimes on to its main ruling body as permanent members, where they remain.

UN resolutions and other decisions are routinely ignored because everyone realises they are usually politically motivated, and consequently there is rarely ever any UN consensus on enforcing them.

Palestine is not a state, has never been a state and the way things are going in the middle east will probably never be one.

And unfortunately, if Palestine ever is a state, there is an excellent chance it will be typical of other states in the middle east, Israel excepted - totalitarian, religiously intolerant, discriminatory towards women and minorities like gays, and poor.

 

[west didsblue]

And round and round we go.....

Cue 20 pages calling out Israel for evilly and deliberately bombing schools, hospitals and toddlers.

Cue another 20 pages talking about the evil terrorists sending brainwashed teenagers to blow up Israeli children and women or Stab shoppers etc

Fact is if either side wanted peace they could unilaterally stop and show they were serious but.... Netanyahu depend on this war to win elections and Hamas depend on the war to exist. Meanwhile people around the world jump on one side or the other just to make sure people keep dying. War is after all the most profitable business on the planet so why not keep the $ flowing

Good post. Fully agree.

PB was correct in that historically the Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to get a peace deal that would have given them more than they could hope to get today. However I believe the biggest obstacle today is Netanyahu's right wing government. Israel is in a position of strength militarily compared to all its neighbours, something that has not always been the case. From this position of strength, a decent government should be able to make the necessary concessions to give the Palestinians most of what they want whilst retaining security for Israel. If the Palestinians achieved this, Hamas would be marginalised and would eventually become irrelevant. Israel needs to make the first move this time.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Hmmm. I'm afraid it is you who is making a fool of yourself and your refusal to recognise the State of Palestine is frankly quite worrying. You seem to regard the UN's view as without merit, now that they do indeed recognise the state of Palestine. Instead you seem to be now replacing the UN with the G7 as arbiter of a States existence or not. Since 2012 the State of Palestine was recognised as a "non member observer state". This by definition means that the UN recognises the non member as a SOVEREIGN STATE, ie it EXISTS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_status (for your records I couldn't see Prestwich on the list)

I don't want spend my time arguing about the meaning of words, but don't you think for the purposes of this discussion you are offering nothing other than muddying the waters with your argument between de facto and de jure. I broadly agree with your definitions but your application of the terms demonstrates a severe bias. De facto according to the Oxford dictionary means "in Fact, whether by right or not" We can argue it's legal basis all day but what is beyond doubt is that the State of Palestine is in itself an entity that exists, whether people like it or not.

As for Palestine being nothing more than a concept maybe you're on to something here. It will help me sleep much better at night now knowing that Israeli missiles and helicopter gunships are bombing a concept rather than men, women and children.

Your faith in the impartiality of the UN is touching but the distinction between de facto and de jure is very important in international law. The former has no legal basis whatsoever but recognises there is some reality on the ground, albeit without a solid foundation. The latter requires certain conditions to be met and is recognised under international law.

So to settle this, I'll admit using 'concept' was a poor choice of words. I agree there is territory based around the Gaza Strip and the West Bank which, in reality, represents the basis for a possible Palestinian state. But until that state has internationally agreed borders, a single government and wide de jure recognition, there is effectively no Palestinian State. There is a distinct entity that could form the basis of one however and a recognised political body that represents at least a part of that entity.

And as for the People's Republic of Prestwich, I'll be discussing the matter with Ban Ki-moon over a pint in City Square on Saturday so watch this space.

 

[blueonblue]

Simple fact, the arabs had their land stolen off them at the point of a gun, not by Jews, who they never had a problem with, but by Zionists from Russia, Poland,ect.
It was a land grab pure and simple, one which goes on to this day with "Settlements", so you can argue over if Palestine was ever a state, it does not change bare faced theft.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Simple fact, the arabs had their land stolen off them at the point of a gun, not by Jews, who they never had a problem with, but by Zionists from Russia, Poland,ect.
It was a land grab pure and simple, one which goes on to this day with "Settlements", so you can argue over if Palestine was ever a state, it does not change bare faced theft.

What a load of utter and complete shite from another barely disguised anti-semite. Here's what you've said previously:

the zionists were not the local jews but the dregges of easten europe

These were people who'd survived the Holocaust, who you refer to a "the dregs of Eastern Europe" (spelt and punctuated properly this time for your benefit). Take your illiterate, racist filth somewhere else.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Simple fact, the arabs had their land stolen off them at the point of a gun, not by Jews, who they never had a problem with, but by Zionists from Russia, Poland,ect.
It was a land grab pure and simple, one which goes on to this day with "Settlements", so you can argue over if Palestine was ever a state, it does not change bare faced theft.

Who did the Arabs steal it from?

 

[west didsblue]

Simple fact, the arabs had their land stolen off them at the point of a gun, not by Jews, who they never had a problem with, but by Zionists from Russia, Poland,ect.
It was a land grab pure and simple, one which goes on to this day with "Settlements", so you can argue over if Palestine was ever a state, it does not change bare faced theft.

For the benefit of those who aren't ignorant antisemites, the quoted post is utter bollocks.

Here's some real facts:

1) Jews have lived in the area that is currently known as Israel and the Palestinian territories for over 3000 years
2) The majority of the Jewish population were either slaughtered or expelled by the Romans 2000 years ago but some remained. The ones expelled by the Romans ended up in many places in Europe with large numbers in Russia and Poland.
3) Arabs conquered the area about 1400 years ago taking over from the Roman Empire
4) Jews have been moving back to the area in small numbers throughout the last 2000 years
5) When the first big wave of persecuted Jews arrived from Eastern Europe and the Yemen in the 1880s they legally purchased land from the landowners many of whom lived in Constantinople(Istanbul) and Cairo.
6) Subsequent waves of immigrants fleeing persecution over the next 70 years did the same including a large number of holocaust survivors just after WW2.
7) Following the formation of Israel, 800,000+ Jews fled to Israel from Arab lands mostly due to persecution. The land owned by them that they left behind covered an area much larger than the current state of Israel and was in the main confiscated without recompense. This was a larger number than the Palestinians displaced during the war of independence in 1948 which was started by most of Israel's Arab neighbours.
8) The Jewish population of Israel is split about 50/50 between those who came from Europe and those who came from Arab lands or have always been there. Around a quarter of the today's population of Israel (about 2 million)are Arabs who didn't leave and their descendants. They still live in their towns and villages.
9) Whilst it's true that there has been land taken over by Israel following the various wars that have occurred there (which in the main were instigated by the Arabs), a lot of Jewish owned land was legally purchased prior to the foundation of the State of Israel.

I am not making excuses for the illegal settlements in the West Bank many of which were founded following confiscation of land, however it is certainly not true to simply say that "it was a land grab pure and simple"

 

[Sir peace frog]

are we actually in a 3rd world war ?, every fucker seems to be fighting someone

 

[Gelsons Dad]

are we actually in a 3rd world war ?, every fucker seems to be fighting someone

No yet. But if someone takes out a Russian plane over Syria using a US MAPAD then we could get close.

 

[blueonblue]

What a load of utter and complete shite from another barely disguised anti-Semite. Here's what you've said previously:


These were people who'd survived the Holocaust, who you refer to a "the dregs of Eastern Europe" (spelt and punctuated properly this time for your benefit). Take your illiterate, racist filth somewhere else.

.

Oh dear, once again your confused and deluded, for starters that aint a quote from me, and as the Palestinians are the same Semite people but for a belief your squeals of antisemitism are as stupid as your claims of "Racist filth".