Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

It did with Egypt and it did with Jordan DECADES ago, and only as a part of the negotiations that gave the land back did Egypt and Jordan recognize Israel (which is the same as recognizing the right to exist). For some bizzare reason it's now OK for Israel to demand recognition before negotiations even happen to give the land back.

Giving land works you say? Now there's a bright idea.

From the moderate palestinian's point of view, this all stops with giving land and their freedoms back.

Straw man sceneario (I know this is not the order of events as it happens, but it is just to clarify what happens overall and why)

1, Ceasefire happens.
2, Palestinians ask for land back, and an end to the occupation,
3, Israel doesn't end the occupation. In fact, increases settlements during lull.
4, What are the moderate Palestinians meant to do?
5, Would peaceful resistance end the occupation?
6, No end to occupation, humanitarian crisis ensues amongst other issues etc etc etc = No state = Calls for resistance.
7. Extremists (resistance fighter/terrorists whatever) fire rockets into Israel.
8. Israel bombs Palestine.
9. Ceasefire happens.

I don't think this situation can go anywhere without a Palestinian state.

Development of the Palestinian territories (green)


1.

2.

3.

1. Historical region of Palestine (as defined by Palestinian Nationalism) showing Israel's 1948 and 1967 borders

2. Official Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) after the First Arab-Israeli War, showing Israel's 1948 and 1967 borders

3. Extant region administered by the Palestinian National Authority (under Oslo 2) after the persistent Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War, shown in the context of Israel's 1948 and 1967 borders

 

[Dash27]

Well, according to Hamas - they no longer follow the charter, so the 'destruction of Israel' is no longer a big deal to them. So What's the difference between them saying they accept it as a nation now or later. I mean... does Israel accept Palestine as a nation? Serious question.

Just going by that article, he's holding on to the fact that they dont recognize Israel as legitimate and will use violence. He's using them as bargaining chips to get what they want. And he's not even making guarantees.

 

[el retorno]

i understand what you're saying. i just don't approve of my money going to this purpose.

Your don't approve of your tax money going towards a defensive thing protecting innocents? Unless you're just talking about the amount of money

 

[Kinitari]

Just going by that article, he's holding on to the fact that they dont recognize Israel as legitimate and will use violence. He's using them as bargaining chips to get what they want. And he's not even making guarantees.

The quote in the article you're referring to talks about the Hamas Charter - which Hamas has come out and said they do not follow anymore, that it's some administrative red tape they have to keep, but doesn't gel with their political aspirations.

Like I asked earlier, is Palestine even considered a legitimate state? Dude Abides says the party that Hamas is supposed to deal with in Israel doesn't think so, why should Hamas do the same - saying "we'll worry about whether or not we declare Israel a real state after we get the sovereignty we desire" doesn't seem like it should hold anyone who is serious about A) a two state solution and B)Peace, back. Because in the end, it's just flowery nonsense, whether or not Hamas declares Israel a state doesn't change a damn thing about the power Israel has over them.

 

[yarden24]

The quote in the article you're referring to talks about the Hamas Charter - which Hamas has come out and said they do not follow anymore, that it's some administrative red tape they have to keep, but doesn't gel with their political aspirations.

Like I asked earlier, is Palestine even considered a legitimate state? Dude Abides says the party that Hamas is supposed to deal with in Israel doesn't think so, why should Hamas do the same - saying "we'll worry about whether or not we declare Israel a real state after we get the sovereignty we desire" doesn't seem like it should hold anyone who is serious about A) a two state solution and B)Peace, back. Because in the end, it's just flowery nonsense, whether or not Hamas declares Israel a state doesn't change a damn thing about the power Israel has over them.

the not recognize Israel is just an excuse, its a meaningless requirement by Israel. though the Palestinians refusal to acknowledge it is just as idiotic it seems to me

Israel has clearly shown that worldwide opinion is low on its list of concerns. What are a few sternly-worded rebukes from the EU compared to control over Judea, Samaria, and the Holy City?

This piece makes the point in more detail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/the-third-intifada-is-inevitable.html



The Likud platform explicitly rejects a Palestinian state, yet Israel partisans constantly say that the PA needs to be talking to Likud. Apparently pieces of paper are of crucial importance and set in stone for one side and one side only.

you wouldn't expect the Likud to make peace with Egypt and return the sinai either, just as I think the PA should negotiate with Likud, I think Likud should talk with Hamas, what it is today is not what it was 10 years ago.

 

[phosphor112]

TimothyS: CNN just reported that US will spend an additional $600 million on Israel's Iron Dome system as part of the Gaza cease-fire agreement.

Fucking hell, we already gave them 700m like 2 months ago.

 

[coldvein]

Your don't approve of your tax money going towards a defensive thing protecting innocents? Unless you're just talking about the amount of money

edit: i'm okay with spending american money to save lives. i'm not okay with giving weapons of any kind to belligerent friends of ours.

 

[Biff]

Fucking hell, we already gave them 700m like 2 months ago.

You and I both know the reason this didn't escalate into a full-blown ground invasion was because of a lessened amount of Israeli casualties due to the effectiveness of Iron Dome.

It's the best move the U.S. can make. If Israel has a 99.9% effective system that can protect their entire borders, Palestinians will eventually realize they are shooting thousands of dollars into the sky for no purpose. Hopefully they will understand that there are far better uses of that money, like clean water, electricity, and education.

 

[KtSlime]

You and I both know the reason this didn't escalate into a full-blown ground invasion was because of a lessened amount of Israeli casualties due to the effectiveness of Iron Dome.

It's the best move the U.S. can make. If Israel has a 99.9% effective system that can protect their entire borders, Palestinians will eventually realize they are shooting thousands of dollars into the sky for no purpose. Hopefully they will understand that there are far better uses of that money, like clean water, electricity, and education.

While the Zionists can continue to move in without any impudence.

I'm down with spending money to save lives, however, I'm not okay with money to save a particular group in exchange for deaths of another group. We should have had strings attached to the Iron Dome money: For every illegal settlement you dismantle and assist in the Palestinians in reclaiming you get X$ for the construction of the defense system - This kind of thing I am definitely in favor of.

 

[Ashes]

You and I both know the reason this didn't escalate into a full-blown ground invasion was because of a lessened amount of Israeli casualties due to the effectiveness of Iron Dome.

It's the best move the U.S. can make. If Israel has a 99.9% effective system that can protect their entire borders, Palestinians will eventually realize they are shooting thousands of dollars into the sky for no purpose. Hopefully they will understand that there are far better uses of that money, like clean water, electricity, and education.

inb4: Only to have them blown up by Israel's bombs?

or the humanitarian aid the US senate threatens Palestine with? Pretty sure Congress blocked aid, and it needed Obama to push it through.

edit: actually... The US Congress froze $200m (£126m) of aid to the Palestinians in response to their bid for full membership of the UN last September. Despite the decision later being overturned, the money has still not been released

 

[el retorno]

edit: i'm okay with spending american money to save lives. i'm not okay with giving weapons of any kind to belligerent friends of ours.

iron dome is defensive.

 

[Dash27]

The quote in the article you're referring to talks about the Hamas Charter - which Hamas has come out and said they do not follow anymore, that it's some administrative red tape they have to keep, but doesn't gel with their political aspirations.

Like I asked earlier, is Palestine even considered a legitimate state? Dude Abides says the party that Hamas is supposed to deal with in Israel doesn't think so, why should Hamas do the same - saying "we'll worry about whether or not we declare Israel a real state after we get the sovereignty we desire" doesn't seem like it should hold anyone who is serious about A) a two state solution and B)Peace, back. Because in the end, it's just flowery nonsense, whether or not Hamas declares Israel a state doesn't change a damn thing about the power Israel has over them.

As to the charter: you keep mentioning they dont follow it anymore, and I'll just concede it since I dont really factor it into this. If you have some support for that though toss it up and I'll read it. On it's face 'administrative red tape" makes my eyes roll though.

Is it considered a legitimate state? I would assume not. Since 1967 the land has been held by Israel, prior to that time it was Egypt and Jordan I think, then before 1948 the British had it then, the Ottomans... I dont even know anymore it's so convoluted.

Should it be a state? Putting aside everything else I know about the situation I'd say yes. It was intended to be one in 48 so far as I know. Factoring in what we know about Iran feeding Hamas and Hamas attacking Israel... Hamas actually being elected... no. But if we dont have a 2 state solution I have no idea what else you'd try so you almost have to.

As to changing "a damn thing about the power Israel has over them", that power has been exerted in direct response to attacks at every point. Look up how the people in the area were treated under Egyptian rule.

 

[Azih]

As to changing "a damn thing about the power Israel has over them", that power has been exerted in direct response to attacks at every point.

Not in the case of Palestine never being in charge of their own borders or in the case of settlement expansion.

 

[Tawpgun]

A one state solution would be the most difficult, but the only way to have peace.

Have arabs and jews living together peacefully like they have been before the british and americans fucked it all up.

They should unify under a secular government with a constitution that bans any laws that favor or oppress either religion and culture.

You know, kind of like what we have here in the U.S.? Kind of like what Europe has?

Europe had been in constant war throughout its history and they're all living together fine now.

US had the entire civil war and became a union after.

It's possible.

 

[Azih]

A one state solution would be the most difficult, but the only way to have peace.

Have arabs and jews living together peacefully like they have been before the british and americans fucked it all up.

They should unify under a secular government with a constitution that bans any laws that favor or oppress either religion and culture.

You know, kind of like what we have here in the U.S.? Kind of like what Europe has?

Europe had been in constant war throughout its history and they're all living together fine now.

US had the entire civil war and became a union after.

It's possible.

But what about Israel being a Jewish state?

 

[Ashes]

But what about Israel being a Jewish state?

A jewish state that believes in due process, and fairly modern(ish) constitution that doesn't have the death penalty...


...unless you are a terrorist... living in Palestine.


It's a war torn state. Contradictions are part and parcel of living there.


nah, there's no getting over the sole reason for Israel's existence.

 

[Kinitari]

As to the charter: you keep mentioning they dont follow it anymore, and I'll just concede it since I dont really factor it into this. If you have some support for that though toss it up and I'll read it. On it's face 'administrative red tape" makes my eyes roll though.

Is it considered a legitimate state? I would assume not. Since 1967 the land has been held by Israel, prior to that time it was Egypt and Jordan I think, then before 1948 the British had it then, the Ottomans... I dont even know anymore it's so convoluted.

Should it be a state? Putting aside everything else I know about the situation I'd say yes. It was intended to be one in 48 so far as I know. Factoring in what we know about Iran feeding Hamas and Hamas attacking Israel... Hamas actually being elected... no. But if we dont have a 2 state solution I have no idea what else you'd try so you almost have to.

As to changing "a damn thing about the power Israel has over them", that power has been exerted in direct response to attacks at every point. Look up how the people in the area were treated under Egyptian rule.

Just check the Wikipedia on the charter for more info, would link but I'm on my phone, and lazy.

Regardless, I think I made my point about the superficial nature of "acknowledging" a state in this situation. Hamas acknowledging Israel right now would have absolutely no effect on the situation, it's not like Israel has their hands tied because of it - further, it's asking something of Hamas that they aren't getting in the first place - it just seems like a shallow complaint.

 

[phosphor112]

You and I both know the reason this didn't escalate into a full-blown ground invasion was because of a lessened amount of Israeli casualties due to the effectiveness of Iron Dome.

It's the best move the U.S. can make. If Israel has a 99.9% effective system that can protect their entire borders, Palestinians will eventually realize they are shooting thousands of dollars into the sky for no purpose. Hopefully they will understand that there are far better uses of that money, like clean water, electricity, and education.

You and I know that the reason why it escalated in the first place is because the US politically, militarily, financially and unconditionally supports Israel even when infringing on the Palestinian people.

I'm all for the Iron Dome, but it's not the US's job to fund it.

iron dome is defensive.

Welcome back.

 

[KimiNewt]

Just got called in to the army. Later folks.

In my rush to leave I seem to have misled people. I'm currently on mandatory service and in the intelligence corps, so I was never in any real danger (other than the few rockets headed our way).

 

[Dash27]

Not in the case of Palestine never being in charge of their own borders or in the case of settlement expansion.

I disagree on the border, I'd probably give you settlement expansion though I dont see that as a huge of a deal as it's made out to be.

The borders need to be strictly controlled because of the entire cycle of attack > negotiate cease fire > rearm > attack. Gaza is basically a huge weapons depot. And they are controlled on all sides not just by Israel. Egypt and Hamas restrict travel too.

 

[el retorno]

Welcome back.

I've been following the thread. I actually think you would have been surprised at my responses had I been here. Soul (is he still here?) was disgusting.

I'm excited about the ceasefire. and that this didn't go too far.

I'm now fully convinced Hamas needs to be talked to. I watched the interview with their leader on CNN. I think he wants to take them down a PLO-type route, though I could be wrong. I still view them as terrorists but so was the Irgun who eventually gave israel prime ministers and the PLO who now are peaceful and the "serious partners."

In my rush to leave I seem to have misled people. I'm currently on mandatory service and in the intelligence corps, so I was never in any real danger (other than the few rockets headed our way).

How do the call ups work? I had a friend who got called up and posted about it on facebook.

 

[Tawpgun]

But what about Israel being a Jewish state?

You can be Jewish and practice your faith to the fullest without living in Israel

See: ANY DEVELOPED NATION

Personally, I think all governments should be secular but hey thats just me and that debate is for another time.

This is for peace between the two people.

 

[Grim1ock]

To israel and their supporters in this thread you have two choices.

Either you go for a two state solution and give back the lands captured in 1967 and recognise a palestinian state on those borders

or

you for a one state solution with jews and muslims, christians living together before the whole 1948 debacle started. One vote per person.


Ofcourse you have to then accept the realities on the ground and if this happens israel will cease to exist as a jewish nation.


What you cant have is a bantustan state with a set of people living under the control of their israel

 

[hym]

You can be Jewish and practice your faith to the fullest without living in Israel

See: ANY DEVELOPED NATION

Personally, I think all governments should be secular but hey thats just me and that debate is for another time.

This is for peace between the two people.

I don't think that's an option for Israel, the identification as a Jewish State is not only the core of their Declaration of Independence but also part of the UN resolution that gave them international recognition.

Long term (I'm talking centuries now) I think this is what will doom Israel, you can't base a nation on the maintenance of a demographic majority of ethnicity or religion. Sooner or later there will come a point in time where that majority will feel threatened to become a minority and attempt to adjust this outcome leading the State to delegitimize itself entirely. There are already those that call interfaith marriage a Silent Holocaust, so what does that make the people responsible for defending those rights?

In that sense Zionism's approach to antisemitism really is antigentile, but I might have made some leaps to complete the circle and get back to condemning superstition, making me principally not much better than them.

or

you for a one state solution with jews and muslims, christians living together before the whole 1948 debacle started. One vote per person.

Well that is simply a very speed up version of what I just outlined, suicide for the Jewish State.

 

[Particle Physicist]

To israel and their supporters in this thread you have two choices.

Either you go for a two state solution and give back the lands captured in 1967 and recognise a palestinian state on those borders

The problem is Jerusalem. Each side is claiming it for their own. The reason why Jerusalem was not inside Israel in the 1967 borders is because it was supposed to be an international city, I believe. So the situation is not as easy as you are making it out to be. Another thing, I may be wrong and need to recheck the numbers, but I believe that ever since 1882 (130 years), Jerusalem has been a majority jewish city, before then it kept flipping back and forth. So that throws another wrench into this.

 

[Zapages]

The problem is Jerusalem. Each side is claiming it for their own. The reason why Jerusalem was not inside Israel in the 1967 borders is because it was supposed to be an international city, I believe. So the situation is not as easy as you are making it out to be. Another thing, I may be wrong and need to recheck the numbers, but I believe that ever since 1882 (130 years), Jerusalem has been a majority jewish city, before then it kept flipping back and forth. So that throws another wrench into this.

Seems to be line more or less according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem

 

[Grim1ock]

The problem is Jerusalem. Each side is claiming it for their own. The reason why Jerusalem was not inside Israel in the 1967 borders is because it was supposed to be an international city, I believe. So the situation is not as easy as you are making it out to be. Another thing, I may be wrong and need to recheck the numbers, but I believe that ever since 1882 (130 years), Jerusalem has been a majority jewish city, before then it kept flipping back and forth. So that throws another wrench into this.

wrong on all counts. You also need to check your history. Jerusalem before 1967 was divided into 2. West jerusalem which is in israel proper and east jerusalem which was under the control of the jordanians.

Israel took the remaining east predominantly arab majority of the old city in 1967. And ever since they have kicked out the Palestinians steadily from it and replaced them with jewish settlers. It is east Jerusalem which the palestinians want as their future capital and yet they see more settlements every year

And you wonder why the palestinians are so mad

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think the main thing that stops Palestinian being, even informally, recognised as a state now is that it doesn't control what goes on in its borders. That's true of a lot of places, though the degree of being complicit (for example, Osama in Pakistan) is questionable. With Palestine, though, there have a number of ceasefires broken by Palestinians who basically don't play by the rules of the PA, Hamas, etc.

 

[Particle Physicist]

wrong on all counts. You also need to check your history. Jerusalem before 1967 was divided into 2. West jerusalem which is in israel proper and east jerusalem which was under the control of the jordanians.

Israel took the remaining east predominantly arab majority of the old city in 1967. And ever since they have kicked out the Palestinians steadily from it and replaced them with jewish settlers. It is east Jerusalem which the palestinians want as their future capital and yet they see more settlements every year

And you wonder why the palestinians are so mad

Well:

Seems to be line more or less according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem

and no need to be so angry about this. I am trying to spur a civilized discussion here. Was Jerusalem not supposed to be an international city according to the original agreement? I could have sworn that was the case.

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_city#Status_of_Jerusalem

this is what i was referring to. Jerusalem was not supposed to be the capital of either nation, but both nations are now claiming it.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

One thing I'm hoping that somebody can explain to me (because I admit it's something I'm hopelessly ignorant about) is why there is a continued call for Israel to hand back pre-67 borders.

Don't get me wrong, I think the continued expansion of Israeli settlements is rather disgusting and in no way support that. However, I've always been under the impression that a lot of territory such as the Golan Heights etc became Israel's after they won the Six Day War. I mean, isn't that how most territory is claimed? Via war? So after forever-heightening tensions, war was declared on Israel and they happened to win and gain control over a large amount of territory that - under the guise of wars won at least (especially wars declared by opposing parties), I've considered fair game.

Again, let me stress that when it comes to this particular topic, I am very ignorant and am looking for perspective.

So I suppose my question is why there isn't there a call for the borders established in 67 immediately after the Six Day War which I suppose I've always considered fairly-won Israeli territory? I can understand why expansion via settlements etc after those 67 borders were established ought to be given back, but why the territories that Israel gained after being attacked themselves?

Is it just a case of Irredentism?

 

[el retorno]

One thing I'm hoping that somebody can explain to me (because I admit it's something I'm hopelessly ignorant about) is why there is a continued call for Israel to hand back pre-67 borders.

Don't get me wrong, I think the continued expansion of Israeli settlements is rather disgusting and in no way support that. However, I've always been under the impression that a lot of territory such as the Golan Heights etc became Israel's after they won the Six Day War. I mean, isn't that how most territory is claimed? Via war? So after forever-heightening tensions, war was declared on Israel and they happened to win and gain control over a large amount of territory that - under the guise of wars won at least (especially wars declared by opposing parties), I've considered fair game.

Again, let me stress that when it comes to this particular topic, I am very ignorant and am looking for perspective.

So I suppose my question is why there isn't there a call for the borders established in 67 immediately after the Six Day War which I suppose I've always considered fairly-won Israeli territory? I can understand why expansion via settlements etc after those 67 borders were established ought to be given back, but why the territories that Israel gained after being attacked themselves?

Is it just a case of Irredentism?

I'm not sure what you're asking. The 67 borders are the territory Israel "won" in the 67 war (Bit more than they had before then). So when someone says 67 borders they are referring to those after the war, not before. At least that's the way I understand it. I could be wrong.

The Golan is a different game since that's international recognized syrian territory it never was "unclaimed" like gaza was. Its like the sinai was before it was given back.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I'm not sure what you're asking. The 67 borders are the territory Israel "won" in the 67 war (I bit more than they had before then). So when someone says 67 borders those are those after the war, not before.
.

I get that, but I always see people say they should return to 'pre-67' borders.

 

[el retorno]

I get that, but I always see people say they should return to 'pre-67' borders.

Well I don't think the 67 borders really differ much from the green line (49) if at all. I think they might just be refering to the golan and the settlements and east Jerusalem which are both post 67.

 

[Ashes]

'67 borders are complicated enough.

 

[el retorno]

The main things people have problems with on the borders are Jerusalem and the settlements. Both of which Israel has made very confusing, with annexation, settlments, zoning laws, etc.

 

[Kad5]

I think we can all agree that the British and the French did a fantastic job shitting up the Middle East.

And let's not forget Russia and America either.

 

[devilhawk]

I have wondered similar things. If areas such as Golan Heights are not considered fairly acquired territory then it means there will never be repercussions to attacking Israel. If countries can attack, lose, and have assurances for the prewar status quo, there is no negative to attacking Israel.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Nevermind.

 

[Bo-Locks]

One thing I'm hoping that somebody can explain to me (because I admit it's something I'm hopelessly ignorant about) is why there is a continued call for Israel to hand back pre-67 borders.

Don't get me wrong, I think the continued expansion of Israeli settlements is rather disgusting and in no way support that. However, I've always been under the impression that a lot of territory such as the Golan Heights etc became Israel's after they won the Six Day War. I mean, isn't that how most territory is claimed? Via war? So after forever-heightening tensions, war was declared on Israel and they happened to win and gain control over a large amount of territory that - under the guise of wars won at least (especially wars declared by opposing parties), I've considered fair game.

Again, let me stress that when it comes to this particular topic, I am very ignorant and am looking for perspective.

So I suppose my question is why there isn't there a call for the borders established in 67 immediately after the Six Day War which I suppose I've always considered fairly-won Israeli territory? I can understand why expansion via settlements etc after those 67 borders were established ought to be given back, but why the territories that Israel gained after being attacked themselves?

Is it just a case of Irredentism?

I'm quoting this, because I have a similar (if not identical) question that is tied into this.

After the six day war Israel eventually signed a peace agreement with Egypt and then Israel handed back the Sinai. That's generally the way most conventional wars work. Two (or more) states go to war, the winners of the war conquer territory, the losers accept defeat and sign a peace agreement, and the winners then hand back an agreed amount of land. That's how things work, right?

Egypt and Israel signed a peace agreement and Israel handed the Sinai back, but did that ever happen with Jordan and Syria regarding the West Bank and Golan Heights? I might be completely ignorant, but I don't think peace agreements were ever signed with Jordan and Syria, so technically, the state of war between the countries never even ended. The Arabs were so furious and bitter that they would never sign a peace agreement with Israel. So the pre-67 borders argument does appear to be strange to me as well. Why should the borders revert back to pre-67 if Israel conquered the land fair and square and the Arabs wouldn't even communicate with Israel afterwards?

So when people use word like "illegal", which the UN never even used, they're both factually incorrect and just peddling biased emotive arguments. The lands might still technically be occupied, but that's because a peace agreement was never signed with Jordan and Syria regarding the West Bank and Golan Heights. But that doesn't make them illegal.

The subject of Gaza and the fundamental right of Palestinians to form an independent state is another matter altogether, I'm just talking about the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the state of relations between Israel, Jordan and Syria.

I'm fully ready to be proven wrong, I'm looking for some perspective too.

I think we can all agree that the British and the French did a fantastic job shitting up the Middle East.

And let's not forget Russia and America either.

And ironically, this gets back to the point that I'm making. The British and French carved up the Ottoman Empire after they were defeated during WWI, that's the way things have been since the beginning of time.

So maybe the Middle East did a fantastic job of shitting up itself since the Ottomans allied themselves with the losing German Empire in the first place. Ah well. Coulda woulda shoulda.

 

[Kad5]

So maybe the Middle East did a fantastic job of shitting up itself since the Ottomans allied themselves with the losing German Empire in the first place. Ah well. Coulda woulda shoulda.

The Arabs helped the British against the Ottomans in return for their own self-determination. The British should have allowed the arab people to independently decide for themselves the political make up of the former territories of the empire they were living under.

 

[el retorno]

So when people use word like "illegal", which the UN never even used, they're both factually incorrect and just peddling biased emotive arguments. The lands might still technically be occupied, but that's because a peace agreement was never signed with Jordan and Syria regarding the West Bank and Golan Heights. But that doesn't make them illegal.

The subject of Gaza and the fundamental right of Palestinians to form an independent state is another matter altogether, I'm just talking about the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the state of relations between Israel, Jordan and Syria.

The Golan is completely illegal. Nobody but Israel thinks of it as Israeli territory. International agreements and law disallowed wars of conquest and the acquisition of territory through war after WWII. It was sovereign Syrian territory. It can't be Israeli unless Syria renounces its claim to it. Until then Israel is only there because its still technically at war with Syria and occupying its enemy's territory. Its anexation of it is not seen as legal anywhere. Not even the US.

The west bank and gaza are more tricky because be they've never been independent. The way I understand it is that Israel's mere occupation is legal but it becomes illegal when they violate the rules of what an occupying power can do, changing populations, annexing land, building settlements etc. That includes in international eyes east jersualem. So the fact that Israel has calmed part of the land beyong the green line as its own makes it illegal. It can only legally occupy it as a foreign land but its done more.

A treaty could transfer sovereignty though.


These are the rules of occupation. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III:_Occupied_territories Israel has violated some of them. I think Israel contends that its not an occupier or something though I'm not sure.

I think the hague conventions also have other provisions.

 

[Cromat]

.

Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan.

Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank in the early 90s (late 80s?), thereby removing the territorial dispute between the two countries. The peace treaty was signed in 1994, after Israel recognized the PLO.

 

[Aadil]

hey guys...thought you all might find this article interesting, its in relation to the ceasefire and whilst yes it is good...(because no one is throwing bombs anymore), its only gonna be short lasted and only for really political purposes, for both twats Hamas and Netanyahu....

the real issues in Gaza have still not been addressed...


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-was-it-all-for-the-murder-of-palestinians-and-israelis-is-just-a-prelude-to-the-next-gaza-war-8344077.html


also, any confirmation of reports that rockets were fired after the ceasefire?
Kind of behind on things...internet here has been crappy lately.

 

[el retorno]

hey guys...thought you all might find this article interesting, its in relation to the ceasefire and whilst yes it is good...(because no one is throwing bombs anymore), its only gonna be short lasted and only for really political purposes, for both twats Hamas and Netanyahu....

the real issues in Gaza have still not been addressed...


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-was-it-all-for-the-murder-of-palestinians-and-israelis-is-just-a-prelude-to-the-next-gaza-war-8344077.html


also, any confirmation of reports that rockets were fired after the ceasefire?
Kind of behind on things...internet here has been crappy lately.

Where are you at?

I'm not a pessimistic. The arab world kept Israel from going overboard.

And anyways I don't even think the other issues were even supposed to be talked about till today. I think its more important to stop the rockets an missles before solving every problem

 

[phosphor112]

My dad thinks Obama forced Israel to take the ceasefire.

I'm also surprised that Gaza got that 450m in aid.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

This is something I've never seen a decent answer to, and thus why I don't believe Israel seeks peace between two viable, sovereign states. It is also why peaceful protest will accomplish nothing but to run out the clock.

That does not justify rocket attacks, but when there are no other avenues for justice, people will be driven to lash out.

I doubt you'll get a decent answer anytime soon. If you challenge the mythology that Israel is negotiating in good faith, the IDF may have to change its name.

After the six day war Israel eventually signed a peace agreement with Egypt and then Israel handed back the Sinai. That's generally the way most conventional wars work. Two (or more) states go to war, the winners of the war conquer territory, the losers accept defeat and sign a peace agreement, and the winners then hand back an agreed amount of land. That's how things work, right?

Yes. Until the shin dig in Geneva. Then things changed. The anti-colonial movement grabbed the world stage and became codified. Israel, as a colonial project, had extremely bad timing.

A common refrain we hear from hasbarists is to plaintively compare the historic depredations of American or British imperialism. "Why do they get a pass and not us?" What they won't see, or can't see, is that Zionism is stuck in time.

 

[Aadil]

Where are you at?

I'm not a pessimistic. The arab world kept Israel from going overboard.

And anyways I don't even think the other issues were even supposed to be talked about till today. I think its more important to stop the rockets an missles before solving every problem

China...lol not at war, apart from the war against the internet! Most people here are oblivious to whats going on elsewhere...my driver told me today though that Pakistan is apparently going to start attacking Israel, so Im kind of curious as to how that even reached his ear when I havent heard or seen a thing on it.

Good point though, I guess its better to stop throwing bombs before treaties are made...but do you really think they will be? I saw a quote from JFK today...something like 'those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable'

 

[KimiNewt]

How do the call ups work? I had a friend who got called up and posted about it on facebook.

What do you mean? For reservists, they just get a call saying they have to be at X by whenever.
Their salaries are then paid for by the military, so it's a costly affair.

 

[archnemesis]

Gaza crisis: Palestinian 'shot dead near border'

A Palestinian man has been shot dead by Israeli soldiers close to the Gaza border, say Palestinian officials.

It is the first reported killing since the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel came into force on Wednesday evening.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed only that it had fired "warning shots" after seeing a group walking towards the border fence.

Earlier, Israel said it had arrested several people over a bus bomb in Tel Aviv on Wednesday.

The blast, which injured 29 people, came just hours before the ceasefire began and was the first such attack in Tel Aviv for more than six years.

The shooting on Friday, east of Khan Younis, left another 10 people injured, said health officials in Gaza.

Eyewitnesses said the group were farmers, the BBC's Jon Donnison in Gaza reports.

Wednesday's truce ended eight days of Israeli attacks on Gaza from the air and the sea - and militant rocket attacks against Israeli towns.

Provisional UN figures say that 158 people were killed in the Gaza Strip during the violence.

Four Israeli civilians and two soldiers were killed - the second of the military casualties died of his wounds on Thursday.

Under the truce deal, Israel has agreed to end all hostilities and targeted killings of militants, while all Palestinian factions will have to stop firing rockets into Israel and staging border attacks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20461914

 

[L0st Id3ntity]

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed only that it had fired "warning shots" after seeing a group walking towards the border fence.

Right...

7 injured as well according to Aljazeera, all farmers.