Except these stones are rockets and tge repair men have some very dangerous stuff for me. Ive also figured that if i throw these 'stones' at my own family, i can blame you too, so more of us start chucking stones. It gets so bad that you eventually build a massive fence to protect against these stones so we start building tunnels. We dont intend to use stones in these tunnels. Weve got bigger plans.
Proof you have no clue, this, what Hash described happens daily. 200 children sit in Israeli prisons, thousands of political prisoners, Mandela was one of those, no picnic. I've seen IDF punch a 50 year old woman in the face decking her, stomping on kids. Shooting unarmed kids. Throwing flash bombs at grannies just standing there. Beating women. What world do you live in? The rockets are a direct result of this ongoing brutal oppression, and this is according to informed Israelis. Look at any occupation, there is always resistance and it is ALWAYS called terrorism by the occupier because these poor bastards cannot engage in open combat and get wiped out like nice little savages, and resort to tactics that work, they are terrorists, thing is, Hamas has to be the worst equipped and armed and supported resistance I have ever seen.
This happens all too often UIR, this was before the rockets started firing again, weeks before. [video=youtube;aHZdPe84Wl8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZdPe84Wl8&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
... I made no comment on WHY violence in Ireland ended... merely pointing out that the IRA attacked Britain because it perceived us as persecuting them. They didn't attack France, or Germany, or Japan. They attacked the nation they perceived as persecuting them. Attacks originating in Palestine against Israel- are not random- they are caused by a grievance that they are being occupied and persecuted. These hate groups don't form at random. People don't sit around in a pub and throw darts at a world map to pick a country to form a group to blow bombs up in. Violence is fueled in Israel due to Palestine viewing Israel as a persecutor. Hamas's prominence in Palestine would be a lot less if the Palestinians didn't see Israel as an aggressive nation persecuting them. Hamas is strong because resentment of Israel is strong. If you took away that grievence- Hamas's influence would be weaker. Incidentally... in my ideal world. The initial recreation of Palestine would be with a "no military" clause in their constitution. Another nation would be required to provide protection from invasion- at least initially. Be that nation, Israel, another Islamic nation, the US, or the UN. A recreated Palestine would have to prove itself capable of peace before being allowed to pursue arms.
The weapons flow has to stop, but the US is a bad bad choice seeing as they have been keeping this going, The US has influence over Egypt and yet that border remains closed, th US has huge influence over Israel, if it wanted to and that problem remains, many say the US has been a disastrous participant in this whole thing, mediating peace talks while arming protecting and funding one side, and how US media must look to any Palestinian that sees it. c'mon ffs
But you still didnt answer the question , is it your family's fault for all the suffering because you didnt control the 5 year old? Eg the palestinians fault because they cant control hamas. Or would it make more sense for me to go to the police and report the 5 year old ? Israel could easily have U.N. peacekeepers patrolling a buffer zone but that would mean an end to their land grab.
That is a mere "that's what I'd like" strategy with absolutely no proof that the supposed outcomes would come about. Where are the UN declaring that they are willing to guarantee security? Why the silence from Saudi or Iran? Don't hear any proposals from Russia or the US. Perhaps they like me believe that your strategy won't work.
Mandela tried peace until it became obvious that peaceful protest wouldn't work- that South Africa was going to use violence against him. That's when it turned to violence... and it took violence to free the South African blacks. I believe the Palestinians may feel that violence is the only option today. (not that they gave talking much of a chance 50+ years ago- but that was a different generation). Most Palestinians of today would be satisfied merely with freedom.
I don't think it has ever been asked of anyone in a public setting: "would you help provide security for an independent Palestine." I've never heard Zingy claim he would sleep with Miss Venezuela. That doesn't mean he wouldn't. To say that you don't hear anyone offering to help provide protection is a little meaningless considering no-one has been asked.
The US providing protection to Palestine may have it's problems- but was listed for several reasons. 1) With 50% of the world's military spending- it has the most surplus military of any nation. 2) The US shoulders as much blame for this situation as anybody. 3) It is neither a Jewish nor Islamic nation. There may be other better choices. A Western Nation may not be the ideal peacekeeping force, to be honest- since the Middle East views the West as being aligned with Israel. Perhaps Russia, or even China would make sense... I'm sure either nation would LOOOOVE a legitimate reason to get troops in that region of the world... lol.
No and I put that preface in did I not? But you seemed to have sidestepped my main point as to why you're plan is unworkable...Hamas don't want to negotiate do they? Bit of an essential. So your agreement has one state accepting terrorist attacks with no response and a newly formed or reformed state that doesn't get a military in an area where every man and his dog has a small arms! Security just wouldn't happen. Violence would continue, agreement would break down. Your second point is impractical. The New Palestinian govt could sign all those things and it won't stop armed groups who dint agree with the terms that allow an Israel to exist. They could even mean it when they say "it's not us and we don't support it." All it needs is enough people that do support it which there clearly is in Palestine. Again you weren't specific and didn't answer my question. There are people who believe that while Israel exists all lands have not been returned. Do you honestly believe even if the majority of Palestinians can be convinced to sign an agreement that recognized Israel they would turn in those that do not accept it among them and would stop them or could stop them carrying on a violent campaign?
Sorry you do Mandela a disservice. He flirted with violence, he flirted with communism and he flirted with the West. he finally settled on peaceful protest again, possibly because he got older and older men tend to conservatism. He was a pragmatic man that played all factions in an attempt to keep the movement United. As I said, the warm glow is subsiding and we'll see if the same control is there now he's gone. And violence did not free the blacks, western sanctions real and hard freed the blacks. But that is not going to happen in this case as Hamas hates the West as much as the West hates Hamas so will not appeal for or receive that help in the form of the necessary sanctions on Israel needed. It's back to them accepting Israel as a state which they won't do!
Free Palestine and Hamas loses power. Palestine isn't a land rich in resources... it's not really at threat of invasion from neighbours... but even if it were- whoever was agreeing to protect them, must be sufficiently strong that they CAN protect them. So... you still have SOME terrorism. Less than today, because there is less persecution. Less terrorism. The people of Palestine free. It's not a perfect paradise... there will still be problems- but improving conditions for an entire nation of people- and lowering terrorism is a win-win scenario- even if it doesn't completely eradicate terrorism. Those people already exist today- and are getting more support. They will be weaker- have fewer numbers... fewer will want to fight that fight if Palestine is free. My scenario would not rid them of the world- it would merely lessen their influence and numbers. I don't see how improving the scenario in the middle east is a worse thing than keeping it as it is just because it wouldn't eliminate ALL problems.
You are the one making the claims as to what the outcomes would be yet you provide no proof that such proposals have worked anywhere in the world. So in the absence of any major state offering to provide the security that both sides would require for your ideas to even be considered, they remain a mere pipe-dream. You know that and I know that so why don't you come clean and state publicly that Israel should commit national suicide?
Can't see a solution without the US being involved. Maybe a moderate Moslem country like Turkey too? Yes, I know Turkey has its own political upheavels, but is there another Islamic nation that hasn't got swivel-eyed loons on view as soon as the word Israel is mentioned?
I'm not expecting my "scenario" to work... for one, because Israel would never allow it. Whichever party or coalition gives up Palestine will never again be elected again- even if it ushered in a perfect era of peace. It is political suicide- and politics is very much survival of the fittest. If a party existed that only worked for the good of the people- not to get votes... it wouldn't last long. And no, you will never get everyone to agree to everything. We can't even agree to everything on this forum- and we're outsiders! You have to get most people to agree. You'll never get everyone. Palestine has said they would like an independent state- including all territory prior to the late 1960s. Even Hamas has said that if Israel withdraws from all territory they will ensure peace for 10 years. (I don't trust them to intend to keep that... but as I said- I think peace will weaken them). Hamas wouldn't disappear overnight- and probably not in our lifetime. They certainly won't go as long as Israel holds Palestine though.
Live stream .... Gaza being pounded again tonight http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-live-streaming-video-from-gaza-30446616.html
Sure they have. The US took the role of protecting Japan for a period of time after WWII, as just one example. Philippines for another. Several independent South Pacific states too small to have their own army are provided protection by either Australia, New Zealand, or other nations. I think Iceland is officially protected by the US. Jersey gets military protection from the UK. There are lots of examples of countries over the years not having their own military and having protection agreements from other countries. As for listing a country that has already agreed to provide protection for Palestine- how can I when that question has never been asked publicly to any nations? Israel themselves have stated that an independent Palestine should not be militarized- so they either would see themselves as protectors- or a third party. I'm sure some nations would volunteer a force- they may require compensating in some form- or maybe do it just to provide stability in the region. That's a little irrational. I don't think Israel should. I don't think Israel should have been created- but now that it has- and now that a couple of generations have grown up in that state, Israel should exist- and should get our backing to remain an independent nation- with the people protected... to the degree that they harm no others. Turkey would probably work. They have a very capable military- are Islamic- but more open than most. I think they would be a fair protector if asked for it.
For goodness sake! None of the examples you provide are in any way similar to those that face both Israel and the Palestinians. I suppose that if you could find somebody to guarantee security you would demand that Israel engage in the self-mutilating reparations that you outlined above as the price of that security? You seem to forget the effects of such actions on Germany after WW1.
