Off Topic Israel

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Tel said:
Iran wouldn’t stand a chance, they’d be obliterated in a long weekend. Unfortunately for them wars aren’t fought on the ground these days, aircraft target communication infrastructure first, wipe their ability to communicate off the grid inside 24 hours and it’s game over before they’ve even flinched.

Then I’d imagine Subs and Ships would target their military stations, highways, airports & runways, power stations, water treatment and supply chain (ports etc).

And of course Israel would be happy to stick the boot in as well, given they’ve probably got the best Air Force in the world outside of The US.
Click to expand...

I thought that but hazard to put it down like cos I don't know Irans military off the top of my head.

But I am a big believer in the UK armed forces. The budget is large and well spent on modern methods of warfare, logisitcs are done properly, troop movement and supplying is put as a priority (compare this with France who required British support to send troops to North Africa recently.)

Modern missile technology up there with the US, planes literally taken from the US, a scientifically advanced fleet.

It's all good jerk off material if youre into that stuff.

One of the best bits of British propaganda is telling its citizens that theyre a poor and weak country. While spending gazillions on upgrading Challenger 2 tanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aberdude and brb
Welshie said:
I thought that but hazard to put it down like cos I don't know Irans military off the top of my head.

But I am a big believer in the UK armed forces. The budget is large and well spent on modern methods of warfare, logisitcs are done properly, troop movement and supplying is put as a priority (compare this who France to required British support to send troops to North Africa recently.)

Modern missile technology up there with the US, planes literally taken from the US, a scientifically advanced fleet.

It's all good jerk off material if youre into that stuff.

One of the best bits of British propaganda is telling its citizens that theyre a poor and weak country. While spending gazillions on upgrading Challenger 2 tanks.
Click to expand...

What good are tanks on a little island like ours. :bandit:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Welshie
C. Kane said:
Thanks very much for your response, Treble. You raise a number of really important points which I am happy to give my perspective on. As I stressed earlier, I try as hard as I can to make 'observations' only. I apologise if any indirect bias comes across in those points, it is not my intention. A big part of my training in my years there was to focus on 'possible/impossible' rather than 'right/wrong'. It is really painful to have to do that, but it does help to re-frame the debate and keep it forward-thinking rather than stuck in the same circular, stale arguments we've all heard a thousand times over.

1) The Sheikh Jarrah Case

I think you might have read too much into my comments here, but I've probably done you a disservice by conflating two threads of discussion.
- The first is instances of Israel evicting Palestinian residents of East J'lem with no reason to do so. I fully disagree with and condemn this if and when it happens.
- I was commenting specifically on the Sheikh Jarrah case in isolation, as it is acknowledged as the chief 'trigger' behind the current flare up. The eviction of 6 Palestinian families from their homes in the neighbourhood was done off the back of a law that is without question discriminatory at first glance. The Israeli citizens set to move back in to those homes had clear, court-verified proof that they had owned that land prior to being evicted by Jordan in 1948. Israeli law recognises that proof. Why does it not recognise similar proof when brought by Palestinian residents of Israel 'proper' pre-1948? The answer to this question has two components. Firstly: that the global Palestinian expat population (i.e. people who could potentially file such claims) has grown to appx. the same size as Israel's entire population since 1948. Secondly, that similar legal representation has historically been denied Jewish citizens similarly evicted from Arab countries in 1948. Again - I don't agree with Israel's position on this and would gladly welcome a 'quota' system whereby at least a percentage of Palestinian expats could file claims and have them upheld.

- Agreed, the watchtower is a serious eyesore and totally unnecessary. However, it was built in 2018 iirc, so not necessarily clear that it is directly connected to a flare-up 3 years later.

- The Jerusalem Day march is indeed a provocation but (sadly) totally legal by every western measure of the right to gather and demonstrate (if done peacefully). Unless I am mistaken, the march this year was diverted away from its normal route to prevent further provocation. I know the NGO I worked for was lobbying heavily for this diversion to happen and I hope it did. I also hope the route stays 'diverted' in future years.

- East Jerusalem is a major sticking point. I disagree strongly with Israel's insistence on a 'united capital' when it is clear that the city is totally divided. And there is nothing much wrong with that. A lasting solution would almost certainly require an Israeli capital in West Jerusalem and a Palestinian one in East Jerusalem, so Israel should start adjusting to that reality sooner rather than later.

2) Israeli/Palestinian Leadership

- We seem to be in agreement on most points here. Being that it is that Fatah is totally inept and corrupt, while Hamas in word and deed is committed to the destruction of Israel, it seems unlikely that the executive branches as they exist today would get around a table to negotiate. Netanyahu is personally too right-wing and too far in the pockets of parties even further to the right, anything Fatah promises will carry as much trust as a damp tissue, whilst anything Hamas says will be seen as subterfuge or a deliberate game of smoke and mirrors. There is a real vacuum of strong, reliable leaders across the entire region right now. If and when the Palestinian elections ever take place, Israel may need to do the unthinkable and commute Marwan Barghouti's prison sentence. He is one of the few people alive who both Gazans and West Bankers would rally around. He is also tough enough to stand up to Netanyahu.

- I think your point about Israel changing its constitution is factually incorrect. iirc, in 1988 the Kenesset raised the electoral threshold from 1% to 1.5% precisely to prevent smaller parties holding disproportionate sway. This decision was crucial in paving the way for the Oslo Accords to clear the Israeli legislature as the 1992 election saw numerous small right-wing parties drop out of the Kenesset entirely, allowing Rabin to build a coalition made up of just 3 parties. Israel has since then raised the threshold to 3.25%, as well as removing the clause allowing the PM to be elected directly, all in a bid to return more stable governments and prevent fringe parties from having too much of a say. This clearly isn't working anymore and debate is raging in Israel at the moment as to how much this has to do with Netanyahu personally and how much it has to do with the fact that politics has polarised globally and QED further electoral reform is needed (either increasing the threshold to 5% or introducing elements of FPTP).

3) The Palestinian Position

- I think this is probably the bit we are furthest apart on. I cannot agree with how casually you deal with the Hamas question. Brushing something aside as a 'go-to rhetoric' when every measurable evidence - in word and in deed - points to the fact that it isn't just rhetoric, is not a sensible position to take and certainly not one a single Israeli beyond perhaps the most ardently left-wing will take seriously. You do the same Re the Iranian threat and - forgive me for slipping into a 'judgement' here - it would seem that you cherry pick which threats to take seriously and which to dismiss as mere bluster. As above, I try to focus on 'possible/impossible', and until Hamas fundamentally changes its raison d'etre, negotiation with it as an entity is as close to impossible as you can get. The fact that it is a grassroots organisation (still highly corrupt btw) that cares for welfare and aid is strictly an internal Palestinian issue that cannot and should not bear any relevance to Israel's opinion.

- Hamas did not adopt a 'wait and see' approach to Oslo. It rejected Oslo three times. Most recently in 2017.

- Hamas' 2017 Charter does indeed include a section that looks like it approves of a two-state solution. Here is that clause in full. I ask you to read it and guess what the average Israeli thinks of Hamas' commitment to that solution:
"Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."

- Israeli suspicion of Hamas' motives in their 2017 Charter are buttressed by internal speeches and interviews (its co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar tends to be the most inflammatory in this regard) which suggest that its embrace of the 1967 borders are merely a ruse and a preliminary step toward the eventual liberation of the entire region and Israel's destruction.

4) The Two-State Solution

- A contiguous link between Gaza and the W Bank is the only way a two-state solution doesn't become a three-state solution. It is crucial by every moral and political measure that the Palestinians of Gaza are able to access their kin in the West Bank, and vice-versa. As you can see on the map you've provided, the only way to do this is to construct a road straight across Israel proper. There is a surprising level of support for this among grassroots Israelis despite the fact that it is a logistical nightmare, but categorically not if one end of the road (or both, if Hamas wins the elections in the West Bank) is controlled by a movement sworn to its destruction.

- Yes, Hamas terrifies me more than Israel does. When all is said and done, Israel is a democracy. It is a democracy whose electorate is steadily growing sick of Netanyahu and his generation of politician and is pushing louder with each failed election for real and lasting reform. Hamas masquerades under the illusion of democracy. I was on the ground during the civil war and elections in 2006/7 and it was painfully obvious that Hamas was strong-arming its way into office via forged ballots and voter intimidation. Since then, it has been accountable and answerable to no-one and cannot, unlike Netanyahu, be removed from power internally unless fair and transparent voting is guaranteed.

- The article you've cited Re Hamas' failure to construct bomb shelters made me grimace. It seems to be suggesting that since concrete is a scarce commodity (which it is, due to blockades - agreed), what little they have is best served in creating tunnels from which they can attack Israel? And secondly, that as it is so expensive to protect all 1.5 million people, it is better not to protect any at all? I hope you see how perverse that reasoning is.

- So yes, in conclusion to all of the above, second only to Israel, the greatest enemies of the Palestinian people are their own leaders. Fatah for their impotence and corruption, and Hamas for their total disregard of the peace process at every demonstrable level, using their civilian population in a lethal game of cat and mouse.

- Re the Gaza/Manhattan comparison, I certainly didn't mean it as flippantly or as broadly as you have deduced. I agree, the situation in Gaza from a humanitarian perspective is horrendous and I feel only sympathy for the innocent people trapped in that hell hole. To my mind, the only feasible way forward is a new generation of leaders across the board, the international community (especially the Gulf States who have done feck all to help in 50 years) massively stepping up its overseeing a new peace process with a fresh impetus, as well as massive economic investment in the Palestinian territories (the one thing Trump got right imo, he recognised that increased prosperity and opportunity is key to unlocking a willing young generation pushing for peace).

Thanks again for your comments and ideas <ok>
Click to expand...

Appreciate the reply CK. And also appreciate you wanting to make observations only. The problem (and I think you’re failing to see this) is that it’s impossible to do so without making judgements and I’m afraid your posts have that throughout. I’m not knocking your intent btw, but for someone who doesn’t want to focus on the rights/wrongs you’ve posted a lot of what’s right and what’s wrong, just like anyone else including myself. With regards to the possible/impossible, where we disagree is the extent to which you think so much is impossible. I see a lot of obstacles to peace in your posts but no suggestion of how we move forward? This next bit isn’t aimed at you but my general observation - I’m a little tired of folk making excuses for why the status quo cannot be changed and how nothing can be done, whilst expressing how sorry they feel and how much they care. With the greatest respect, the Palestinians don’t want or need anyone’s pity - that won’t improve their lives. What they want and need is their freedom and to be afforded the justice they deserve based on the established international rule of law which already fully supports their position.

1) The Sheikh Jarrah Case

I understood your point and took on board that you want to consider it in isolation and also your reference to Israeli law. My point was that firstly, you cannot look at it in isolation because it’s part of a wider systematic and cynical approach by Israel to displace the Palestinians. Approximately 300,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem experience discrimination in access to education, health care, employment, residency and building rights. This is all based on Israeli law. They also suffer from expulsions and home demolitions, which serve the Israeli policy of “demographic balance” in favour of Jewish residents. This is also based on Israeli law. East Jerusalem Palestinians are classified as permanent residents. As permanent residents, they have no legal standing to challenge Israeli law. Moreover, openly identifying with Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory politically carries the risk of expulsion to the West Bank and loss of the right even to visit Jerusalem. So, they are caught inside a legal bubble that prevents its inhabitants’ lawful capacity to oppose, in effect, an apartheid regime. So how can you isolate the Sheikh Jarrad case when it’s part of a wider Israeli agenda to displace Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank? And how can you possibly expect the Palestinians to see it in isolation or the wider world for that matter? Or to justify it on the basis of it complying with Israeli law, when the law system in Israel is clearly discriminatory in the first place.

My second point was that if Israel doesn’’t want to allow Palestinians to take back property taken by Israelis (for ALL the reasons you’ve stated to do with numbers etc), I could at least understand that, IF they applied the same condition on those Israelis who suffered the same fate in 1948-1950. So once again, there’s nothing to “understand” about what Israel’s doing here. They could simply say no to both.

With regards to Jerusalem Day, I did state it just so happened to fall within Ramadan this year (and last year iirc) and that this can’t be helped. But what I said after this is correct – the extra security was nothing to do with large numbers of Palestinians due to Ramadan. This year, however, putting up barriers to Palestinians whilst allowing Israeli nationalists to march through East Jerusalem to the Damsacus Gate, to celebrate Jerusalem Day was clearly seen as yet more double standards and a provocation. That provocation then led to Israeli forces storming the Al-Aqsa compound which was fcking nuts in itself. (It’s so nuts that I suspect the whole thing was deliberately orchestrated by Netanyahu to make things kick off for political purposes - but let’s park that). Naturally this resulted in mass clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces. It was only AFTER this had all happened, a day after iirc, that on the morning of the Jerusalem Day march, it was rerouted. By that time the damage was already done.


I share your view that a lasting solution would almost certainly require an Israeli capital in West Jerusalem and a Palestinian one in East Jerusalem. But I think the fact that the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem and recognised it as Israel’s spiritual capital (along with a couple of other countries) is yet another unilateral action which will make that even harder to achieve. And once again goes back to my point about seeing things in isolation (as far as East Jerusalem is concerned) being unrealistic.

2) Israeli/Palestinian Leadership

I’m not factually incorrect about Israel’s electoral reforms - neither of us are, we’re just talking about 2 different things. The electoral reforms I was referring to came into effect in 1996 (after Rabin’s death) whereby the electorate for the first time were able to vote separately – for the Prime Minister and for representatives in the Knesset. The effect of this has been massively counter-productive and this is something highlighted by Israeli Studies and Israeli political commentators themselves, and has led directly to the instability in sustaining Israeli governments.

Under the old law, the small parties could only pressure the big ones during the coalition formation process, and only if they were genuinely pivotal. Under the new rule, the small parties in general and the religious parties in particular, are virtually guaranteed the pivotal status. This change increases considerably the likelihood of small parties, in particular the religious, to having greater bargaining power. Also under the new law, over time voters have become familiar with the system and cast a ballot for the head of the party that leads the parliamentary block they prefer, and then vote for the party of their choice. This has led to added fragmentation in parliament as it steers voters to cast their vote to small parties instead of one of the biggest parties. This added fragmentation compounds the problems inherent in coalition governments in different ways. In answer to your point which is slightly separate, I’m afraid, the 3.25% threshold (or increasing it to 5%) is immaterial to this. This is further borne out by how smaller parties have become astute to this and joined together to form alliances to meet the threshold e.g. Yamina and Religious Zionism. As I said it’s a problem of Israel’s own making, it wasn’t deliberate and has just become an unforeseen fck up tbh. But the indirect consequence is it’s yet another setback in having strong leadership in Israel as far as the peace process is concerned.

3) The Palestinian Position

With regards to Hamas, it’s a resistance movement which reflects a need the Palestinians find themselves in after almost 60 years of illegal occupation and apartheid rule. I’m afraid their approach is needed, as everything Israel has demonstrated – in word and in deed over this period shows that without a militant resistance movement, they would have found it much easier to assimilate the rest of the Palestinian territory as nobody (particularly the West) would’ve paid attention or importance to it.

Regarding the Oslo Accord, if you go back and read my post again I specifically said Hamas was opposed to the Oslo Accords. But despite this it did in fact take a “wait and see” approach. It reduced its militant activities – not down to zero but significantly less so that it didn’t jeopardise the talks. And for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

I’ve read the Hamas Charter already, CK. My point was that their position is never absolute and the fact they have shifted to even include the 1967 borders, shows that if they can shift to here then they can shift further. In short, it’s not as absolute as if often made out. The “go to” reference wasn’t aimed at you btw, probably poorly worded on my part, but it’s often a cheap comment made by politicians to write them off. Btw the idea of it being a ruse makes little sense if they’re still including the rest of their rhetoric about taking over the whole of the territory does it?

The point is that throughout recent history such militant organisations, whether it was the ANC or the IRA/Sinn Fein or the PLO for that matter (and nothing you’ve said could not also be labelled against any of them), were often branded as terrorists, demonised and marginalised – labelled as completely incapable of having any dialogue with by the more powerful player. The things you point to in Hamas charter were not dissimilar to the PLO’s charter and only changed AFTER the Oslo Accords. The way the ANC treated those within the black community they considered traitors or a threat to their power is also well documented. These were all the case right up to and even after negotiations started. And yet in the end they had to be spoken to and included in order for the process towards peace to begin.

And as has been borne out by these organisations, by doing so, the position of these militant groups shifts. I’m sorry if you object to talking to such people, but in the end, as history has shown, you have to talk to people you fundamentally disagree with to move forward. As I said previously, it is the starting point for any negotiation. I could go on and counter the rest of your arguments about Hamas but I’ll leave it there. Suffice to say, it’s easy for people who live under a blanket of freedom they take for granted to seek the moral high ground, I wouldn’t judge Hamas until I’ve walked a mile in their shoes.


4) The Two-State Solution

Regarding the contiguous link, I don’t disagree with how you’ve said a road would link the two Palestinian territories, but a road is not Palestinian territory and certainly cannot be considered as splitting Israel in half as you stated in your first post, and that’s all I was highlighting. Agree the logistics of it will be a nightmare. Perhaps we could get the folk who’ve devised the current EU/UK border somewhere between Ireland, NI and the Irish Sea to get involved? Then again, maybe not eh!

I want to sign off by emphasising one point here. I support the Palestinians, but I whole-heartedly support Israel’s right to exist and for there to be a two-state solution. That’s a damned sight better position to hold than some folk who fully support Israel to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians. I also hope (unlike some of the posts I’ve read foretelling eternal doom) if a peaceful settlement can be negotiated, that given time (it may take 2 or 3 generations afterwards) that the dialogue that will invariably grow between them as neighbouring states will encourage cultural, religious, trade links to be formed and both nations will flourish. Much like we’ve seen with many previous enemy nations in the world.

Anyway good talking with you CK, peace <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen Kane. and Spurlock
Treble said:
Appreciate the reply CK. And also appreciate you wanting to make observations only. The problem (and I think you’re failing to see this) is that it’s impossible to do so without making judgements and I’m afraid your posts have that throughout. I’m not knocking your intent btw, but for someone who doesn’t want to focus on the rights/wrongs you’ve posted a lot of what’s right and what’s wrong, just like anyone else including myself. With regards to the possible/impossible, where we disagree is the extent to which you think so much is impossible. I see a lot of obstacles to peace in your posts but no suggestion of how we move forward? This next bit isn’t aimed at you but my general observation - I’m a little tired of folk making excuses for why the status quo cannot be changed and how nothing can be done, whilst expressing how sorry they feel and how much they care. With the greatest respect, the Palestinians don’t want or need anyone’s pity - that won’t improve their lives. What they want and need is their freedom and to be afforded the justice they deserve based on the established international rule of law which already fully supports their position.

1) The Sheikh Jarrah Case

I understood your point and took on board that you want to consider it in isolation and also your reference to Israeli law. My point was that firstly, you cannot look at it in isolation because it’s part of a wider systematic and cynical approach by Israel to displace the Palestinians. Approximately 300,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem experience discrimination in access to education, health care, employment, residency and building rights. This is all based on Israeli law. They also suffer from expulsions and home demolitions, which serve the Israeli policy of “demographic balance” in favour of Jewish residents. This is also based on Israeli law. East Jerusalem Palestinians are classified as permanent residents. As permanent residents, they have no legal standing to challenge Israeli law. Moreover, openly identifying with Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory politically carries the risk of expulsion to the West Bank and loss of the right even to visit Jerusalem. So, they are caught inside a legal bubble that prevents its inhabitants’ lawful capacity to oppose, in effect, an apartheid regime. So how can you isolate the Sheikh Jarrad case when it’s part of a wider Israeli agenda to displace Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank? And how can you possibly expect the Palestinians to see it in isolation or the wider world for that matter? Or to justify it on the basis of it complying with Israeli law, when the law system in Israel is clearly discriminatory in the first place.

My second point was that if Israel doesn’’t want to allow Palestinians to take back property taken by Israelis (for ALL the reasons you’ve stated to do with numbers etc), I could at least understand that, IF they applied the same condition on those Israelis who suffered the same fate in 1948-1950. So once again, there’s nothing to “understand” about what Israel’s doing here. They could simply say no to both.

With regards to Jerusalem Day, I did state it just so happened to fall within Ramadan this year (and last year iirc) and that this can’t be helped. But what I said after this is correct – the extra security was nothing to do with large numbers of Palestinians due to Ramadan. This year, however, putting up barriers to Palestinians whilst allowing Israeli nationalists to march through East Jerusalem to the Damsacus Gate, to celebrate Jerusalem Day was clearly seen as yet more double standards and a provocation. That provocation then led to Israeli forces storming the Al-Aqsa compound which was fcking nuts in itself. (It’s so nuts that I suspect the whole thing was deliberately orchestrated by Netanyahu to make things kick off for political purposes - but let’s park that). Naturally this resulted in mass clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces. It was only AFTER this had all happened, a day after iirc, that on the morning of the Jerusalem Day march, it was rerouted. By that time the damage was already done.


I share your view that a lasting solution would almost certainly require an Israeli capital in West Jerusalem and a Palestinian one in East Jerusalem. But I think the fact that the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem and recognised it as Israel’s spiritual capital (along with a couple of other countries) is yet another unilateral action which will make that even harder to achieve. And once again goes back to my point about seeing things in isolation (as far as East Jerusalem is concerned) being unrealistic.

2) Israeli/Palestinian Leadership

I’m not factually incorrect about Israel’s electoral reforms - neither of us are, we’re just talking about 2 different things. The electoral reforms I was referring to came into effect in 1996 (after Rabin’s death) whereby the electorate for the first time were able to vote separately – for the Prime Minister and for representatives in the Knesset. The effect of this has been massively counter-productive and this is something highlighted by Israeli Studies and Israeli political commentators themselves, and has led directly to the instability in sustaining Israeli governments.

Under the old law, the small parties could only pressure the big ones during the coalition formation process, and only if they were genuinely pivotal. Under the new rule, the small parties in general and the religious parties in particular, are virtually guaranteed the pivotal status. This change increases considerably the likelihood of small parties, in particular the religious, to having greater bargaining power. Also under the new law, over time voters have become familiar with the system and cast a ballot for the head of the party that leads the parliamentary block they prefer, and then vote for the party of their choice. This has led to added fragmentation in parliament as it steers voters to cast their vote to small parties instead of one of the biggest parties. This added fragmentation compounds the problems inherent in coalition governments in different ways. In answer to your point which is slightly separate, I’m afraid, the 3.25% threshold (or increasing it to 5%) is immaterial to this. This is further borne out by how smaller parties have become astute to this and joined together to form alliances to meet the threshold e.g. Yamina and Religious Zionism. As I said it’s a problem of Israel’s own making, it wasn’t deliberate and has just become an unforeseen fck up tbh. But the indirect consequence is it’s yet another setback in having strong leadership in Israel as far as the peace process is concerned.

3) The Palestinian Position

With regards to Hamas, it’s a resistance movement which reflects a need the Palestinians find themselves in after almost 60 years of illegal occupation and apartheid rule. I’m afraid their approach is needed, as everything Israel has demonstrated – in word and in deed over this period shows that without a militant resistance movement, they would have found it much easier to assimilate the rest of the Palestinian territory as nobody (particularly the West) would’ve paid attention or importance to it.

Regarding the Oslo Accord, if you go back and read my post again I specifically said Hamas was opposed to the Oslo Accords. But despite this it did in fact take a “wait and see” approach. It reduced its militant activities – not down to zero but significantly less so that it didn’t jeopardise the talks. And for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

I’ve read the Hamas Charter already, CK. My point was that their position is never absolute and the fact they have shifted to even include the 1967 borders, shows that if they can shift to here then they can shift further. In short, it’s not as absolute as if often made out. The “go to” reference wasn’t aimed at you btw, probably poorly worded on my part, but it’s often a cheap comment made by politicians to write them off. Btw the idea of it being a ruse makes little sense if they’re still including the rest of their rhetoric about taking over the whole of the territory does it?

The point is that throughout recent history such militant organisations, whether it was the ANC or the IRA/Sinn Fein or the PLO for that matter (and nothing you’ve said could not also be labelled against any of them), were often branded as terrorists, demonised and marginalised – labelled as completely incapable of having any dialogue with by the more powerful player. The things you point to in Hamas charter were not dissimilar to the PLO’s charter and only changed AFTER the Oslo Accords. The way the ANC treated those within the black community they considered traitors or a threat to their power is also well documented. These were all the case right up to and even after negotiations started. And yet in the end they had to be spoken to and included in order for the process towards peace to begin.

And as has been borne out by these organisations, by doing so, the position of these militant groups shifts. I’m sorry if you object to talking to such people, but in the end, as history has shown, you have to talk to people you fundamentally disagree with to move forward. As I said previously, it is the starting point for any negotiation. I could go on and counter the rest of your arguments about Hamas but I’ll leave it there. Suffice to say, it’s easy for people who live under a blanket of freedom they take for granted to seek the moral high ground, I wouldn’t judge Hamas until I’ve walked a mile in their shoes.


4) The Two-State Solution

Regarding the contiguous link, I don’t disagree with how you’ve said a road would link the two Palestinian territories, but a road is not Palestinian territory and certainly cannot be considered as splitting Israel in half as you stated in your first post, and that’s all I was highlighting. Agree the logistics of it will be a nightmare. Perhaps we could get the folk who’ve devised the current EU/UK border somewhere between Ireland, NI and the Irish Sea to get involved? Then again, maybe not eh!

I want to sign off by emphasising one point here. I support the Palestinians, but I whole-heartedly support Israel’s right to exist and for there to be a two-state solution. That’s a damned sight better position to hold than some folk who fully support Israel to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians. I also hope (unlike some of the posts I’ve read foretelling eternal doom) if a peaceful settlement can be negotiated, that given time (it may take 2 or 3 generations afterwards) that the dialogue that will invariably grow between them as neighbouring states will encourage cultural, religious, trade links to be formed and both nations will flourish. Much like we’ve seen with many previous enemy nations in the world.

Anyway good talking with you CK, peace <ok>
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chief, Saf, Big Ern and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back