I've been having a read up and they are listed as a terrorist organisation/group/entity by the following; Australia, Canada, EU, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Paraguay, UK, US. So what is the difference in supporting Hamas, as it is to supporting any banned right wing group in this country in the scenario I gave you - afterall Hamas want to liberate themselves from Israel and turn it in to an Islamic State.
What's wrong with that? I have no problem with there being an Islamic State in principle, just like I don't with a Jewish State in principle. Tbh mate I don't really care what 8 countries label Hamas as. You may not have seen it but I answered what you've asked me in my reply to C. Kane earlier today. I'll repeat what I said to him. I think if there wasn't a militant organisation then there would be nothing to stop Israel from taking over all remaining territory when you see what they've been doing over the past 60 years. It's Hamas's presence that is at the very least making this difficult, and at most keeping the situation prominent in the world's eyes (or at least reminding everyone every few years) and hopefully it will lead to talks and a peaceful resolution in the long term. There is no other way I'm afraid. Btw what's being labelled at Hamas now, was being labelled at Arafat and the PLO 30 years ago but in the end it still led to the most significant peace talks and potential for a two-state solution. Unfortunately someone assassinated the Israeli PM and from that point on the whole thing went to ****.
Thanks for the measured and insightful response Treble. I don't think there is much to be gained in nitpicking individual points. We've both made our cases and it is doubtful we'll budge much from them. Maybe you're correct in saying that my view of what is 'possible/impossible' is too pessimistic. No doubt my view has been coloured by living and working there from 2006-2014, a period which included some of the regions most trying challenges. No doubt it has been warped further by the fact that I support Spurs and we are utter ****e. @PINKIE asked a while back what my opinion is of what steps are needed to secure a real and lasting peace. Maybe a good next step in this conversation (though not sure how long this thread will last now that a ceasefire has been agreed, let's see) would be to list the 'conditions' as I see them, and see what you think. In no specific order (there are a LOT of them!)... - Hamas rewrites its entire Charter in a way that Israel can truly believe in it. This means none of the clever legalese of the 2017 amendments which in so much ink basically said "we're only committing to the 1967 borders until the time arises when we can liberate the entire land". - Israel ceases the construction and/or expansion of settlements with immediate effect, zero exceptions. - Mahmoud Abbas steps down as head of Fatah and holds the general elections he was meant to hold 12 years ago. These elections must be overseen by an impartial 3rd party, as the 2006 elections were a democratic sham. - Unless it wants Hamas in power in both territories, Israel commutes the sentence of Marwan Barghouti. The PM who does this will fall on this sword, but such are the sacrifices needed to secure peace. - The PLO and all of its various sub-movements accepts that talking about 1967 borders when the world and the region has changed so much since then, is delusional. Some of Israel's larger settlement towns and blocs (Beitar, Modiin Ilit, Ariel etc.) now have populations in excess of 70,000 people. Calling for them to be dismantled is the equivalent of dismantling Scunthorpe or Shrewsbury. Actually hang on...that might not be a bad thing - Israel commits to a proportionate exchange of territory to offset land kept due to the major settlement blocs. - Hamas/whoever controls Gaza commits to a full but temporary disarmament during an interim transition period. Egypt most likely to be asked to provide security/policing in the interim. US and EU to provide substantial compensation to Egypt in return. - Israel then commits to allow a massive wave of investment into the Gaza strip, including multiple ports, an international airport and tourist resorts. - The Palestinians recognise W J'lem as the capital of Israel. - Israel recognise E J'lem as capital of Palestine. - Transition period needed for the Old City and holy sites. UN or other impartial power oversee policing and security during the interim. - Electoral reform in Israel to cripple fringe parties once and for all. Netanyahu dragged from office kicking and screaming if necessary, followed by an amendment to the Basic Laws restricting PM terms to 2 or 3 consecutively. - Contiguous link between Gaza and W Bank established on a trial basis. Israel to reserve the right to close the link if and when its security is threatened. - The international community fully recognises Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. With all the ****e going on in Syria and Lebanon plus Iran entrenching itself in both, it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. Plus the Druze and Arab residents of the Golan have zero interest in becoming Syrians. - Palestinians and UNWRA (yes them, the despot organisation with a staff of 34,000 and a budget of $800 million per year) commit to reforming syllabus in Palestinian schools to remove inflammatory materials regarding Israel and - sad but true - Judaism and Jews. - Israel clamps down massively on hate speech and hate crimes by right-wing extremists. Especially politicians. I believe all of the above is possible. Bloody hard and will take time, but possible. Most of what I've written has featured one way or another in the various peace proposals over the years. Bits that I don't see a way around as things stand. All of them bear direct relevance to the Israel/Palestinian question... - Iran and the Shia/Sunni 'cold war' that looms over the entire region. - Hezbollah's taking the sovereign state of Lebanon hostage and bleeding it dry. - The Assad regime in Syria. - Sovereignty of the Jordan valley. This is an issue that Israel is very reluctant to let go. It has purposefully established a line of settlements the whole way up the Jordanian border, with a population now exceeding 10,000. The unilateral annexation plans - paused by the Abraham Accords - were a worrying twist that didn't meet with the expected resistance from the Israeli public at the time. However, polls show that the 'lack of resistance' was actually linked to a 'lack of knowledge', in the sense that the majority of Israelis have been raised to view Jordan valley security as paramount (after all, that's where Jordanian, Saudi and Iraqi tanks rolled over in bygone wars), but haven't been told of an alternative that could be pursued. If such an alternative were to become clear, I believe the majority of Israelis would embrace it. But for now, there isn't one. I've probably missed a bunch of points out, but it's late and I need to stop Pinkie being readmitted to the Spurs board, which has suddenly become even more urgent given that they're going to finish above us.
I will nitpick this point though Treble. Let's not forget that Hamas only came to power in Gaza as a direct consequence of Israel's disengagement from the region in 2005, dismantling 21 settlements of 8000 people. They did that ostensibly in the name of peace but Hamas entered the vacuum it left behind and the whole thing went to ****.
Regarding illegal Israeli settlements, rather than evicting Jews from them, could they not become Palestinian Territories again and the people in them become Palestinian Jews if they are intent on staying there. A bit like having Israeli Arabs living in Israel. Both ethnic groups are staying in the region, so rather than forcing people out again. Allow Palestine to have back the land that has been forcibly taken since 1967, but make it a condition that you accept Palestinian citizenship which allows Palestine to raise taxes on them etc. Oh and btw Spurs are ****e and if you finish below us this season given how utter ****ing **** we have been, I will laugh my tits off
Youre always **** mate and we have been very **** hence your team closing the gap, apart from that, spot on post mait. good morning.
You’ve always been ****, we were great but fell down to your level. Now it’s a battle to outshit each other. Good ebening btw
It's an idea that has been floated but will never wash with the Israeli public, and certainly not the residents of those blocs. This is where religion and ideology become really, really important to weigh up. It is self-evident that the average 'settler' is likely to be politically right-wing, else why would they want to move there when economically there is far less opportunity and geographically they are far less secure than they would be in Israel proper. The majority of settlers are also right-wing religiously, by which I mean they fully believe that Israel (the entire thing) is the God-given homeland of the Jewish people. There isn't all that much you or I could say to them to convince them otherwise. The residents of Beitar Ilit are largely peaceful folk who keep themselves to themselves, but a huge chunk of them is ultra-orthodox and that chunk is growing exponentially due to traditionally high birth rates among that demographic, so that the town is now home to over 60,000 people. Ideologically, these people live in Israel not because it is a democracy or has a strong economy, but because it is the only country in the world that is culturally Jewish. That means everything to them and to suggest that they simply live as Jews in a country that is culturally Muslim is antithetical to their entire worldview. It is exactly the same as offering Palestinians living in the Hebron region (historically far more religious than the more secular Ramallah region) the chance to live as Muslims in a country that is culturally Jewish. Never happening.
If there's going to be peace, then not everybody is going to get what they want. Personally, I think it's perfectly reasonable in the scenario above to say to illegal settlers, that you either adopt Palestinian citizenship as Jewish Palestinians. Or if that doesn't suit your ideological sensitivities, you move back to Israel. The same principle would apply vice versa obviously. But I don't think the issue is completely comparable as Muslim Palestinians haven't been expanding their territories into Israel and predominantly Jewish areas.
The question is, why would Israel agree to any of this when they can successfully commit a 200-10 kill/death rate, with Hamas celebrating it in the streets like a kid that just got recked on COD. They can just be like "see hamas won and we are victims of their terrorism bruv what else we meant to do"
For sure. That's why I said 'if there's to be peace' Somebody going to have to budge on their principles and when it comes to occupied land, Palestine haven't exactly got a lot they can negotiate with.
Interesting and uncomfortable. There are things on there that are difficult to accept but not impossible. But then, that applies to both sides. There are things there which Israel will find difficult to accept as much as the Palestinians so in the end you have to look beyond the uncomfortable. Just a few points. 1) None of the points you've mentioned will be a pre-condition to negotiating the terms, i.e. none of these are expected on day one of negotiations to be in effect. It's not that I'm against them or support the opposing view, it's just that if you expect Hamas re-writing its charter before negotiations start it aint happening which means no negotiations are happening either. 2) Which leads onto the second point - that I expect the conditions you've listed would come into effect in stages, with the most uncomfortable for BOTH sides coming into effect later and the quick fixes sooner - and those coming sooner will also signal a sign of good faith by both sides. They will also help in the initial stages to build confidence and support within the Palestinian and Israeli populations towards peace. 3) I don't see a problem with much of what you've suggested but in response to what you posted to Pinkie, how the heck are you going to create a viable Palestinian State with borders inside the West Bank to account for Jewish Settlements when they aren't located in one area or on the outskirts but scattered throughout the region? You not only have individual Settlements but you have Settlement Blocks - places like Maale Adoumim and Shilo and Ariel. please log in to view this image Surely you're not proposing keeping all settlements? There will have to be some dismantling of settlements. Many of the settlements are Israeli government approved, but there are at least 100 unapproved settlements. 4) What about the Israeli settlements inside East Jerusalem? I take it they will have to be dismantled if East Jerusalem is to become the capital of a Palestinian State. 5) CK you know what this will come down to - a) Jerusalem and b) the right of return for Palestinian refugees. With regards to both, I'd agree with you suggestion about East and West Jerusalem being capital cities for each. Some international oversight on access to religious sites for an interim period until both sides are able to provide a united approach to supervising access impartially. On the point of Palestinian refugees returning, they can but without any claim to Israeli land. They can only do so on the basis of residency within the borders of the Palestinian State. I have a feeling if that were the case, the Palestinian Authority themselves will take a pragmatic approach and limit numbers as it will be them who will have to bear the financial and social cost of it. 6) One other thing I'd add is water. This is a precious commodity in both the Israel and Palestinian territories. Israel has a set of excellent clean water supply systems encompassing transport of water from north to south and other programmes based on desalination, and fair play to them. Working as an NGO you probably saw the problems encountered first hand - the problems of piping water to the West Bank, and the poor sanitation which makes much of the water in Gaza unfit for consumption. Of course any long-term solution would solve much of this as infrastructure is improved but any future Palestinian State must be allowed to develop its own clean water supply which is neither controlled directly or indirectly by Israel or dependent upon them. 7) Thoughts on the wall?
It's interesting that people can have such long debates on this subject when I always find at the root of all this, is a few people who think very simply. "I hate those ****s, i reckon we should bomb the **** outta them" That permanent thought lingers in a lot of peoples minds and thats the key issue here. All this other stuff can be fixed, imo, that thought will never be until one side is thoroughly beaten down. Not saying either one of you is wrong like, but im bored in work and just typing.
I think that's never going to happen but I'll let @C. Kane answer that one. Edit: And I'm worse, I actually choose to do it when I get home
Both should meet in the middle in other words Palastine should give up 50% of the 10% they have and the thieving basta...I mean Israelis should give up 50% of the 90% they own and send it the other way
