I agree with you 100%
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict [UN: 1,525+ Palestinian dead, mostly civilian; 66 Israeli]
- Thread starter L0st Id3ntity
- Start date
- Status
I agree with you 100%
phalestine
aka iby.h
Was this ever posted?
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407241758-0023962
shit hit me really hard; RIP you poor kids.
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407241758-0023962
shit hit me really hard; RIP you poor kids.
AstroNut325
Member
I'm looking for a unbiased source that covers the history of Palestine and Israel. Any recommendations?
Agreed, this conversation is pointless. You want to ignore the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Ignore they pushed out Fatah, used suicide bombers when they could and rockets now. Then give them some credit for obeying a cease fire, which is contested, while saying Israel instigated. Fine. We disagree. They are constantly re-arming and then attacking, rather than building on what progress was made.
Israel is under zero obligation to allow anyone it doesnt want across it's borders. Especially those who have an elected government who is a group that formed to destroy Israel.
So If I'm Israel here's my response:
Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border.
- Israel can protect it's own border.
Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths.
- Whole can of worms here, it's a legal issue.
Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people.
-Opening the Israeli border? Again zero obligation.
Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision.
- This seems only fair. Although I think the UN is shit at supervision and it will only lead to re-arming, the alternative is starving people and poverty. While I blame that on Hamas, I think you have to agree to this.
Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers.
- sure
Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations.
- That's up to Egypt.
International forces on the borders.
- Sure keep them on the Gaza side.
Easing conditions for permits to pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque.
- Seems fair.
Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement.
- Seems fair.
Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.
- This is one of those "Sounds good" but turns out to be a Food for Oil thing where it's completely abused and for every shipment of food and medicine in comes some Iranian or Syrian rocket.
BBC has some good stuff. But just read a bunch of different sources.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/
This was posted a lot and covers quite a bit. It might not contain answers to all your questions but it's a pretty good place to start.
http://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I've never denied that many countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.
I've never denied this either. In fact, I gave you an explanation of precisely why this happened.
Rather than building on progress? They sat down to make a Unity government with Fatah this year, a group with which they have had famously poor relations and used to hate, all in the name of peace. Meanwhile, Israel is killing women and children.
When those borders are formed from illegally annexed territory, it has no right to do anything.
the area bordering gaza was not annexed illegally, Israel has no obligation to let anyone into Israel, the problem is that Israel is also blockading Gaza and not letting them leave by boat or air, and that is the problem.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
While the area directly around Gaza was not annexed, the area around the West Bank was, and Hamas' intention is to represent all Palestinian citizens, even if they were only elected to the Gaza strip. When Hamas asks for Israel to allow border crossings, it's fairly clear they don't mean "so we can all go into Israeli territory" - they mean "so all of the Palestinian refugees left to die in Jordan can return to their homelands".
And what do they want, a medal? So they do all they did, and now this year make overtures for a Unity government with the group they violently pushed out of the region. I'll believe it when I see it. Not impressed. With that said I agree Israel shouldn't have a say in it.
Exactly, this is where Israel needs to capitulate. And that's not to say this doesn't pose huge security risks for them but, it's necessary. So yet again Israel will need to make a unilateral withdrawal with no assurances from a terrorist organization.
still in order to reach 67 borders israel must agree to it, and that is my point. Its not that it could just annex Pa without the agreement of the UN. The shit of the situation is that Pa never actually founded real borders or a nation, making israel and Pa like some weird joined nations. And thats how things are now, pa might "run itself", but it is life supported by israel as a nation, and the wording "occupation" is a proper view of the situation in my opinion, its just not as malicious as people portray it, its not like israel want to control palestine, there is just not enough resolve between all parties to get pa independent. is a tragedy.
Probably posted already but
At least 15 dead in Israeli shelling of Gaza school- Health Ministry
Israeli Fire Hits UN School In Gaza, At Least 15 Dead
Fuck every single cunt who's still agreeing with this shit. I wish you the worst.
At least 15 dead in Israeli shelling of Gaza school- Health Ministry
Israeli Fire Hits UN School In Gaza, At Least 15 Dead
Fuck every single cunt who's still agreeing with this shit. I wish you the worst.
Incoming IDF Response: Hamas now hiding in UN Schools. Those Children should've known better. The pretty much wanted to die to make Israel look bad.
And the rest of the western media just nodding and parroting that IDF talking point.
IDF: It was actually Hamas' own rocket that probably caused those deaths! And if it was us its because Hamas forced us to bomb that school by hiding arms there.
Like, you can't even get your fucking excuses in order.
Israel want land. The more extreme Israelis want all of the land. The more moderate less of it. They have overwhelming military might so ordinarily they'd just take the land they want by force, but they can't because they are being limited by the UN/International law. So they have had to compromise and thus we have the occupation and any land acquisition is limited to the expanding settlements which is a slow process.
The problem with occupation is that it is expensive and the Palestinians are going to fight it which will make it even more expensive. It also means Israelis have to live under threat and reality of conflict and thus still don't feel secure and happy.
Typically, in a good faith negotiation you should want a 50/50 win/win. In the 90s Israelis had a chance for an agreement that 90/10 in their favour. They chose not to take it(driven by the hardliners).
So now the two sides have grown further apart. The problem for Israel is that things are going against them now. Rise of the Internet has lead to greater public awareness globally. Global public opinion is turning against Israel which weakens their hand in negotiations. Technology also improves and Palestinians are gaining better weapons over time. This further increases the costs for Israel and again weakens their hand in negotiations.
Of course a weakening hand means greater compromise, but the hardliners won't accept that. If the benefits of settlement expansion are lower than the cost of occupation and other factors turning against them then Israel will have to take action to protect their interests. If the hardliners prevent them from choosing to cut their losses then the only option is to fight back more strongly(whether it's on the battlefield or diplomatically or the PR war etc).
Edit: Hardliners distorting things may also be an issue for the Palestinian side. The above is a view from an Israeli perspective.
What?!
When Israel was established they said "we are here" and the Arab League said "not on my watch" and they started a war that Israel pretty much won and of course as the victor won land that many arabs fled out of fear of the consequences of war and because Arab leaders and the Grand Mufti said not to live under a Jewish state.
Then of course later on Egypt and Jordan who were in control of Gaza and West Bank went and started positioning their military on the boarder near Israel and then the Six Day war started and that's how Egypt and Jordan lost Gaza and West Bank.
Israel never initiated land grabs through military means. They defended themselves successfully from aggressors and pushed them back aquiring land with their victory. That's how war is done. Trying to pretend that Israel is land hungry is a blatent lie.
has the UN said anything about the bombing?
I am amazed at how ppl keep mention the war and forgot the fuking peace talk which lead to The Assassination of Count Bernadotte by the jaw cuz they didn't want his proposal to end the war... which all the Arab league accept the ceasefire in which they could have accepted 2 state solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte
Israel isn't 'land hungry'?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
And why does it want to do that?
Unity government = more likely to get peace due to becoming more moderate. Possibly gaining more international support and potentially, less rockets.
If Israel doesn't want peace, then what does it want?
...
I am not entering the entire conversation other than to state that the image you posted is quite incorrect. The 1946 image is basically comparing Jewish land ownership to all land available in the region and just assuming that it was owned by non-Jewish Palestinians. That is quite a misleading comparison. I also believe that the land ownership for Jews at that time is also incorrect. For instance, I don't see a white dot anywhere close to Jerusalem, and in 1946 it was majority Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem
It seems like during the 1800's Jerusalem kept switching between a Jewish and Muslim majority until about 1882 when the Jewish majority took hold until today.
I am not sure where the maps in that image were created or what data they are using, but it seems that at the very least the 1946 one is incorrect.
m_shortpants
Member
The settlements say hello.
Your quote is talking about the disappearance of the rockets in one of the 2 vacant schools. An hour ago, Ban ki moon condemned the bombing but said the circumstances was unclear.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, those maps have been annoying me, especially because most of the area disproportionality is created by the totally empty Negev desert.
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
I'm not sure I follow.
Egypt and Jordan lost Gaza and the West Bank, but they're not the ones asking/fighting for it back?
What right does Hamas have to this land? Why would Israel go back to 67 borders if the countries who controlled the land then aren't even involved now?
On a strictly logistical level, I don't even understand how it'd work. West Bank and Gaza are in 2 separate parts of Israel, how could they be a United state? Is there anywhere else in the world were a solution like this exists.
It'd be like if Texas was a part of Canada, no? Am I missing something?
Some Israeli's are land hungry, as are some Palestinians.
I found this article really interesting about the psychology behind what's going on on both sides: http://prospect.org/article/your-brain-war-dispatch-jerusalem
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Alaska and the United States is a pretty good example of a non-contiguous nation.
MisterFalcon
Member
Yes, both countries have signed treaties where they renounce claims on those territories.
That is a very good question.
in 1948 getting slaughtered in their homes and driven out.
and the 6 day war was noting more than a act of aggression by isreal and a land grab. Even retired isreali commanders admit this.
the palestenians have been living there all this time, even though control has changed hands.Hamas claims, as anyone else would do to claim the right for the land it inhabits ( and well whole israel as well but forget that for now) It is hard to answer what right anyone has for any land to be honest..
Israel recognizes the right of the Palestinians to live where they are now, well the majority do, to an array of 67-ish borders, with fixes accompanying the changes since.
As to how west bank and gaza would operate, that is a good question, i have actually not given it much thought, i shall now though!
I can say though, an alternative solution to 2 state Israel/Palestine, there are people who think it should be 1 state with 2 nations.
What the hell is this? Talk about selectively picking only one aspect of this conflict, misrepresenting it's context and then using that misrepresentation to skew the argument.
Acquiring land via military action or war.
Yes, that war happened when the Arab states did not agree to the UN 47 agreement or borders (no surprise there), but the land which Israel occupied during that war, and up to the 67 green line, was occupied even according to Israel back then. Add to that, you do not "acquire" land in wars. Were that true, the US would own most of the Middle East right now. Land acquiring through military action is illegal under international law.
On top of that, do you intentionally leave out facts and figures that go against your favoured narrative, or do you just have no knowledge of the history of this conflict beyond 1967?
Past the 1967 borders.
Ever since the war, and the green line, Israel has, through military supported action, destroyed countless more Palestinian homes and in doing so displaced thousands, and expanded it's illegal settlements within Palestinian land. There is a reason why the map of Palestine today looks nothing like it did even in 1967, because Israel has continuously stolen more and more land, and settled upon it. That is FACT.
A 2013 report found that only 8% of Historic Palestine remained Palestinian. So Even the diagram below is outdated. The only blatant lie is outright denying Israel isn't land hungry, based on all the evidence before us.
New report shows Palestinians own only 8% of historic Palestine
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/palestinians-historic-palestine.html
As of 2013, this is what the map of Palestine looks like.
Freezie KO
Banned
Both sides want land. 60% of Palestinians want to reclaim all of "historic Palestine, from the river to the sea."
And Hamas's demand of opening the borders is ridiculous. Of course Israel shouldn't accept that.
And Hamas's demand of opening the borders is ridiculous. Of course Israel shouldn't accept that.
I'm beginning to think they should, on the condition of a two state agreement:
Food for thought: (this will never actually happen) Assuming two states on the 67 borders, the outcome in my mind is likely:
1. The Israeli hardliners riot/bitch/moan and given the strength of israels legal/police establishment the conflict is generally contained within the Israeli state.
2. The Palestinian hardliners riot, and based on the likely weakness of a new Palestinian government, they either take over or operate outside the law: there are a few rocket attacks and maybe some suicide bombers.
3. Outlying arab states probably don't get involved as the ones who want to are too unstable and the rest wouldn't risk a fight with the US.
5. The conflict on the ground looks almost the same as it does now: rocket attacks from palestine into israel, israel bombing military targets in palestine with lots of collateral damage, with the exception of possibly more munitions on the Palestinian side from allies like iran, leading to a likely more casualties on the israeli side than we have now.
Israel has the opportunity to trade, in the short term, few Israeli lives for legal and international legitimacy, which in the long run will, IMO, lead to more pressure on the Palestinian state and bring about a longer lasting peace, and fewer, greater, future casualties. Discuss.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
What the hell is this? Talk about selectively picking only one aspect of this conflict, misrepresenting it's context and then using that misrepresentation to skew the argument.
Acquiring land via military action or war.
Yes, that war happened when the Arab states did not agree to the UN 47 agreement or borders (no surprise there), but the land which Israel occupied during that war, and up to the 67 green line, was occupied even according to Israel back then. Add to that, you do not "acquire" land in wars. Were that true, the US would own most of the Middle East right now. Land acquiring through military action is illegal under international law.
On top of that, do you intentionally leave out facts and figures that go against your favoured narrative, or do you just have no knowledge of the history of this conflict beyond 1967?
Past the 1967 borders.
Ever since the war, and the green line, Israel has, through military supported action, destroyed countless more Palestinian homes and in doing so displaced thousands, and expanded it's illegal settlements within Palestinian land. There is a reason why the map of Palestine today looks nothing like it did even in 1967, because Israel has continuously stolen more and more land, and settled upon it. That is FACT.
A 2013 report found that only 8% of Historic Palestine remained Palestinian. So Even the diagram below is outdated. The only blatant lie is outright denying Israel isn't land hungry, based on all the evidence before us.
New report shows Palestinians own only 8% of historic Palestine
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/palestinians-historic-palestine.html
As of 2013, this is what the map of Palestine looks like.
FYI, this image is also a little misleading, but definitely better than the previous one the other poster used. The Pre-1948 map states 100% of Historic Palestine. That map is in fact the Borders of Mandatory Palestine which was under British administration from 1920 to 1948. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
Historic Palestine is the green outline here:
Boundaries of Roman Syria Palaestina, where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn), as well as Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar).
As you see, it is not exactly the same and actually encompasses part of Jordan and Lebanon.
The images also don't really tell the complete story since Historical Palestina had a mixed population that also included Jews, whereas the Palestinians of today are of different makeups/proportions.
EDIT
I can't seem to direct link that image, but here is another one from 1759
I dont think you're aware of the history either. Again you can look to this timeline which is pretty good for a broad overview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1917.stm
Note that the land your little pictures show as 100% Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. WWI changed that and it came under British rule. i.e. Land it acquired from war.
So yes over the various wars in which Arab nations attacked Israel, they did acquire more land. And then gave much of it back, as an example Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1979.stm
all of this happened before the UN was created so is irrelevant.
Haha yes, a sovereign nation that would have control of it's own borders? preposterous.
Right, as I've said myself countless times. Palestine pre-47 was Mandated Palestine, or the British Mandate for Palestine, which as you mentioned the British controlled.
However due to pressure from both Arabs and Jews, but mainly as a result of violence from Israeli terrorist organisations such as Irgun and Lehi, and the death of British personal by their hands, is what led Britain to finally give up that land and task the UN with drawing up the new borders, which it did.
The problem today is that Israel's thirst for land and disregard for Palestinian life or loss, is compelling them to steal more and more of Palestine on a yearly basis, as they have done for decades on end. In-fact, they have destroyed Palestinian structures and displaced masses of Palestinians from their homes, on a weekly (I repeat, weekly) basis with little stoppage, for years and years on end. This is actually well documented by on the ground weekly UN reports.
Freezie KO
Banned
Isn't the irony of your statement that Hamas is demanding Israel (a sovereign nation) to open its borders? If Israel wants to shut them, it should be able to.
Now, if Egypt wants to open the border to Gaza, that'd be interesting, considering Sisi executes Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas members like he's checking things off his grocery list.
And yet both ulmert and barak were ready to land swap to reach the same % of land ownership as 67 lines.
There are land hungry aspect of israel, the actual settlers aim for a "complete israel" and they have a portion of the government. but its not the actual policy of israel, and changes have occurred to support this - israel ripped its own people by force out of gaza region. but its of course comfortable to just say the resistance booted them out, then on the other hand, people also say israel looks for any reason to go into gaza, whatever works.
keep your bull headed views and generalizing about israel policy, you are the exact reason why the right wings in israel keeps coming back. well that and the common stupidity of any nation driven by fear, perfect match.
It's not bull headed. It's based on the evidence and facts. 2013 actually saw the largest expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in years. You can ignore that, along with all the other news, UN reports, findings and everything else, and try to assume Israel's position on this in a baseless fashion, but I'd rather let the governments actions be the evidence for any such assumptions.
With respect to Israel pulling out of Gaza, political scientist's even back then theorised that it was a stunt with which they'd leverage more of a focus and presence with settlements in the West Bank instead, and that's exactly what happened and is still happening.
This ignoring that despite pulling out of Gaza, Israel still maintained major control over its air space, ports, trade, supplies, borders (besides those connected to Egypt), electricity, access and all.
Maninthemirror
Banned
False!
in the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israel refused to budge on the settlements in the west bank while building even more settlements while the summit was taking place. They offered 88% of the west bank while Israel still controlled the settlements WITHIN West Bank. Israel also refused to budge on the right of the palestinians to return to palestine.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was part of the negotiations on the Israeli side said Palestinians wanted Immediate withdrawl of Israelis from west bank, gaza and east jeruselum aka the arab quarter of jeruselum. Israel's response? we will NOT start negotiatations on the pre condition that this will be based on the 1967 border.
All Hail C-Webb
Hailing from the Chill-Web
Alaska is probably the best example and it's an awful one.
The 67 borders would lead to 2 separate Palestinian nations (1 State), inside of the country it considers it's enemy.
Israel would not feel safe and would limit trade, travel etc between the 2 because it would be going right through their country. This would never work, and things would be worse than they are now.
The only treaty I can see Israel agreeing to is one where they have full control of the borders (more likely in a 1 state solution), and from what I read, Hamas will never agree, and things will continue as they are.
Israel will continue to keep Hamas in check (not opening borders, bombing) and potentially expand settlements, while Hamas will keep firing rockets waiting for the day they get something strong enough to do some real damage.
False? Ulmert and barak are 2008 onward...
Maninthemirror
Banned
Ehud barak was the pm from 1999 to 2001, Ulmert did nothing on significance even close to 2000 Camp David which is probably the closest to a peace deal we will probably ever get
its called east and west palestine or would be. A seemingly open border system would allow east and west to travel to each location
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not that big a problem. Just stick a demilitarized zone in the Negev desert, which is not inhabited anyway, and build a connection between the two Palestines in it. The road could pass through Rahat (Bedouin territory) into the south of the West Bank.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Plus if palestinians do get thier independence, their survival would depend on trade with Israel and that would mean eventually an Israeli would travel to West Bank or Gaza and a Gaza or West Bank person would travel to Israeli and as there would be nothing but trade and both are independent there would be no rockets, no suicide bombings, no blockade and the number one reason Al Qaeda and terror groups use as a reason would be gone.
They could even have the TSA run security, win/win
sorry it was 2007 when ulmert was prime minister and barak was the defense minister, stop forcing 2000, thats was not discussed by me.
wikipedia: on Annapolis peace talks
"During the talks, Olmert agreed that Israel would share Jerusalem as the joint capital of Israel and a Palestinian state and hand over its holy sites to a multinational committee, land swaps that would allow Israel to keep its major settlement blocs in the West Bank, the construction of a tunnel connecting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and a demilitarized Palestinian state with an American-led international security force stationed on the Palestinian–Jordanian border. Both sides disagreed over how much land would be exchanged in the swaps, with Olmert demanding at least 5.9% of the West Bank and Abbas offering 1.9%"
Abbas said they were 2 months away form peace.
Its hard for me to argue regarding settlement because i find them utterly stupid, israel manages to circumvent the illegal claims by legal claims for occupied territories turning all the UN claims to nothing but pointless moans that do nothing. To sum it up, Israel is dumb to promote settlements in my view, but i dont regard them as such a big deal because once an agreement is signed land swapping was already confirmed this might be naive of me, but there are bigger issues, and secondly the Palestinians should win next time they decide to wage war, maybe then all the Israelis can claim back all their homes back in Europe, and Arab countries in the middle east,
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked