kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Wasnt it a unilateral disengagement? Its a bit disingenuous to retroactively claim it was part of the peace process as though it was part of a negotiated deal the Palestinians reneged on.
Israel
- Thread starter arya126
- Start date
warpus
In pork I trust
So their answer was to.. build more illegal settlements, all over the place?
"They won't play nice, so we're going to keep stealing their land" is not really going to lead to peace either. Ever.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
In 2005, the Palestine Authority controlled little more than a fortified compound in Ramallah and was in the process of falling apart in the face of widespread discontent (Second Intifada). They barely controlled Ramallah, let alone the West Bank or god help them, Gaza. Expecting the PA at that stage to be able to administer Gaza is like expecting Andorra to be able to bring law and order to Somalia with essentially no outside help and France actively hostile to their goals.
When did I say that? I've been focusing on the Israeli-PA(West Bank) negotiations, not Hamas in Gaza nor Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Not to be pedantic, but I asked for a specific event over the creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank was directly affected by Syria's lack of diplomatic recognition for Israel, not a vague generality about Hezbollah.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
So would removing it.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
If anyone is occupying the land illegally it is the Arabs because the last recognised agreement on the land gave it to the Jews and other lands were given to the Arabs. The last agreement regarding the land that all sides agreed to is the Balfour declaration since the 1948 attempt is dead and buried when the Arabs rejected it. It is only due to the West's intransigence that thy are forcing the Israelis to give up land that was promised to them.
So the UN guy is totally wrong? I think you should apply to the Australian Mission to the UN as a legal advisor. I had to go there a few years ago for work and I'm still nominally in touch with Matt - I'll put in a good word for you 
The Balfour declaration wasn't an agreement. Sort of like it says: Balfour declaration. Let's see. International law recognizes any Jewish settlement on the West Bank as illegal. Because, you know, the West Bank was never 'promised' to them. If you look at the 1948 agreement map you might notice that Israel has occupied by military force much of what it is today. Which kind of nullifies anything you said about 'what was promised to them'. No, I don't think you have an argument. At all.
But no need to get hysterical: nobody is asking the Israelis give back what they took since 1948. Far from it, in fact. You mentioned earlier that Syria is at peace with Israel. It is not. Officially they are still at war, primarily because of the Golan, practically it matters little since, you know, there's a civil war going on in Syria which Israel doesn't want to interfere in.
Perhaps you could at least try to be a bit reasonable and close to the actual facts.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, no.
Aside from the violence needed to remove Israel, imagine magic could be used to create a Palestinian one-state solution: Such a state likely would end up like Iraq today; a hotbed of sectarian conflict. Except that they would have a nuclear arsenal to fight it with.
In the longer run, Israel won't be there anyway. Even now with the main power still being tied to it (Usa), things don't look less than grim, and its gov has to kill a few thousand Palestinians every couple of years. When the main power will be indifferent or hostile to it, it will tend to wither away along with the regional dictatorships set up and maintained in part so as to allow it to keep on existing as well.
As for nukes... Even if it has nukes, i doubt there are many people around insane enough to support Israel if it uses them (even in the crowd which supports its conventional weapons murdering). North Korea also has nukes, and quite a prestige level.
As for nukes... Even if it has nukes, i doubt there are many people around insane enough to support Israel if it uses them (even in the crowd which supports its conventional weapons murdering). North Korea also has nukes, and quite a prestige level.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I don't picture the Israelis leaving their nuclear arsenal behind. Rather than magic consider the US saying 'we will not back you any more'. Without their 'pocket veto' Israel would find themselves on the UN sanction 'no trade' list in short order, and the voluntary evacuation would start in earnest. By the time the government collapsed there'd be hardly anyone for it to land on, and all the heavy weapons would leave with the retreating government heavies.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
I don't think the loss of US support equals the end of Israel. It would just mean that Israel would have to change tactics and try not to get such bad PR. Being more careful about bombing and military campaigns and stopping illegal settlements would be a start.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Maybe. I suspect that if the US were not going to use its veto there would be sanctions imposed pretty much immediately for already past transgressions...unless they agreed to some immediate moves they would find extremely unpalatable.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Wow.....
Pretty sure that up until 1929, Jews did...live all over the place in those areas. Then they and their families were forced out of areas like Gaza and the West bank.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Exactly. As a matter of fact, the US benefits from it by attaching the condition that 75% of aid is being used in American-made weaponry. Remove the aid, and Israel will simply move out of orbit from the US.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
They have another orbit with a UN security council veto to move into? UK has enough problems without taking on the world for Israel.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
See what I mean Peter?
Not a peep. It simply does not register. Some sort of extreme selective observation going on
Not a peep. It simply does not register. Some sort of extreme selective observation going on
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
I was thinking about Russia.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I think Iran is more valuable to Russia and I can't see an orbit fitting both of them.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
I actually can see. The 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was made possible - and arguably inevitable - as Egypt was moving into the US sphere of influence.
Likewise, for any reapproachement between Israel and Iran, a third power is necessary and that won't be the US.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Indeed.See what I mean Peter?
Not a peep. It simply does not register. Some sort of extreme selective observation going on
Come on Mobbie, Classical_Hero: we're waiting to hear your opinion on the illegal land theft in the West Bank. Should the Palestinians tolerate this (surely 'no other state would put up with this') or should they defend themselves against this violation of international law and the UN Charter?
Similar threads
