Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
It's actually pretty simple.
The whole thing is the UK's fault.
Which lead to an imperfect solution that Israel accepted and Palestine didn't.
As such, the wars etc, and the fighting has just continued since despite claimed ceasefires.... and Hamas is almost always the one who fires first.
If what the concessions in the Palestine Papers are true, then the Palestine Authority should in fact state that openly and say that is there deal, and have Israel explain why they won't accept it.
As it is, neither side wants to admit that it was that far, and I believe at least one Israel official went as far as to say "If they offered that, we'd have a deal right now."
As for why Israel wouldn't accept such a deal, the fact that the PA is denying that was an offer kinda explains why they would doesn't it? If it's a deal they can't even admit to their people they'd make what's the point?
The expectations of the Palestine people are unrealistic and have been maintained that way throught the entire history.
There were much better deals on the table for the Palestinians and they walked away because their people wouldn't accept it.
Like Ireland, they need to realize, they lost a war,(they basically started, well them or the UK.) are not on an equal playing field, and in fact the more time they waste, the more uneven the playing field becomes.
Right now Hamas and the PA's goal seems to be to make the Palestinians as pathetic as possible to try and garner international sympaty and keep poking israel with a stick hoping despite Israel being way more powerful.
Versus the Irish way of taking as much as you can, building up your nation and then arugeing you were forced into a bad agreement by durress.
Neither strategy is likely to work... but only one of them leads to a ton of deaths and poverty for basically all.
As long as rocket attacks are practicallly a daily basis you'll never get enough support to stop any of the things Israel is doing.
Could you imagine if Cuba strated firing missles into florida? Or Laos into China, or even Latvia into Sweeden?
It'd be no different.
|
Yes it's the UK's fault way back then. And it's completely understandable why most of the Arabs rejected the partition plan. Despite being the overwhealming majority, they were to only accept 45% of Palestinian land with the rest going to a population mostly consisting of recent European Jewish immigrants fleeing from persecution in Europe. Israel then unilaterally declard independance something they are currently having issues with the Palestinians from doing. And you have to remember the Palestinians want a return to the 1967 borders, not 1947.
It's actually incorrect to assume Hamas breaks ceasefire terms with Israel. It's normally Israel carrying out airstrikes on Hamas members or other Palestinian factions firing rockets, factions that Hamas has been trying to rein in. It was after all Hamas who proposed a long term ceasefire with Israel years ago and under such long term deals a viable peace could have been established just like in Northern Ireland. Israel rejected the deal back then.
If you had read the Palestinian Papers then you should know why the PA kept it a secret and why the Israeli Government at the time rejected them. The concessions were pretty shameful but Israel wanted more. Both parties would have been embarassed but for opposite reasons. Since Israel rejected them there was no point the PA going public with them and it was after all leaked by a disgruntled Palestinian lawyer. The closest the PA and Israel came to a comprehensive settlement was in Taba, Egypt between Arafat and Barak but Israel called them off early.
One of the major hurdles the Palestinians face are the settlement projects which continue unabated to this day and exasperated by the Israeli Law of Return (ironic since the Israelis want the PA to completely drop the Palestinian Right of Return). And I don't think Ireland is a fair comparison. Ireland after all got the vast majority of it's land back with only the North Eastern part with a large Protestant Loyalist population remaining part of the UK. It would be much more wise to compare it with the South African Apartheid era Governments 'Bantustans' where non continuous chunks of land are set aside.
The PA and Hamas don't have to make the Palestinians look as pathetic as possible. Israel is doing that for them. And the rocket attacks pale into comparison what Israel is doing. Gaza is one large prison camp. More and more of the West Bank is being settled by Ultra Zionists. Cuba, Laos and Latvia are not occupied so I don't see the conmparison. If the PA should accept whatever the Israelis offer then they might as well not bother having a negotiator. I guess the South Africans should have just accepted the Bantustans on offer from the Apartheid Government. Luckily for them they kept on resisting injustice and it eventually paid off.
|
1) It wasn't really unilateral as the original independence was outlined in the UN plan that they actually agreed to which is kinda important since the whole region was under UN control and mandate. As for the borders statement, i'm not seeing where it's relevent.
As for it being Israel that's always breaking the ceasefires... i'd note that Israel attacks always seem to happen after Palestinian rocket attacks, which seem to happen basically all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2010#References
2) Actually it's quite the opposite. Like I said, copping to negotiations like that would STRENGTHEN Palestines strength on a national stage. It would actually give their whole UN Recognition attempt a shot at actually working, rather then just being a silly attempt to annoy Israel. Furhtermore they could actually get a deal.
3) The Law of Return and the Palestines claim of "Right of Return" aren't even remotely similar. One is that anyone who is Jewish can immigrate to Israel. While the other is that palestinians who left Israel during the war want to be able to return to Israel. One is about entry of immigrants and the other is about what constitutes renouncing citizenship and land.
Anyone who sees a conflict here is forcing themself to see one.
4) The people of the Aparthed didn't have their own government. Palestine does. Gaza is one big "prison camp" because Hamas and other terroist groups have made it that way by there terroism. If Laos started firing rockets into China like Palestine does to Israel, you can bet your ass the Chinese WOULD invade it and initatite the same measures. The same could be said for every other situation.
5) Comparing Palestine to the Apartheid is just... stupid... unless you want to argue that rather then being two "states" negotations that Israel owns all the land now and is just argueing with a different group of Israel proper. It's as much as an Apartheid as England and Ireland.
|
Borders statement- Arabs attacked Israel in 1947 and lost. 1)1967 Israel attacked and subsequently occupied Palestine. Palestinians want a return to the 1967 borders not 1947 even though in 1947 they had more land.
2) Yes I know the Corporate media prefers to only mention attacks by Palestinian rocket attacks first and the Israeli retaliation but believe me when I say the ceasefire prior to Operation Cast Lead was broken by Israel.
3) The Palestinians/Arabs have been trying to get a deal for decades. Just read up on UN Resolution 242 way back in 1967. The more recent Oslo accord was land for peace but Israel was more interested in building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It's well documented Israel has for most of it's existence been more interested in expansion into Biblical Israel than peace with it's neighbours. This is just historical fact. West Bank is refered to as Judea and Samaria. And since we know about the Pal papers, it only weakened the PA with the resignation of their cheif negotiator. The only thing it showed was just how inflexible Israel had become with regards to the peace process.
4) Gaza, contrary to popular thought has always been under the control of Israel but since Hamas won a free and fair election (the most democratic in the whole Arab world) Israel practically laid a siege and then the PA with the blessing of Israel and the US forced Hamas out of the West Bank (after failing to do so in the Gaza Strip) even though they were no longer in power. This was all before a single rocket was fired.
5) And I still don't see the analogy of Cuba, Laos and Latvia. Neither of them are living under a brutal occupation by those countries you mentioned so have no reason to fire anything. Although using your logic, Cuba has every right to commit acts of state sponsored terrorism against the US since the US has in the past at least tried very hard to destroy the Cuban revolution and has carried out acts of state sponsored terrorism in Cuba (this is documented fact).
|
1) After terroist attacks by the PLO.
2) Kinda hard to argue that when the timeline shows the opposite as for the "corporate media" I'd note that most news people when polled actually show bias towards palestine and not israel, which is keeping in the fact that reporters self idenitify as liberal far more then conservative.
The first bombing of Operation Cast Lead happened December 27th in 208 correct? On December 26th, 2008, 12 rockets were shot into Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2008#December
I'm not sure where that ceasefire is supposed to have existed looking at that page... unless you consider rockets being shot at you about every two days as a "ceasefire."
3) Or is it just the Israelis walked away first because the Palestinians had ridiculious preconditions in the first place? Walking away first doesn't mean you want peace less. It just means you could stand your oppositions proposal less.
Again, they had a chance to prove this here. The Chief negotiater that resigned and the PLO could of said "We offered that deal, they rejected it, and they're lieing when they said they'd accept it... we'd sign that deal right now."
The deal they'd directly drafted.
Had they come out and said that... Israel would of been forced to sign such a deal, or face intense negative backlash. They didn't do that however... again I ask.... why? You've yet to actually argue a reason why this was.
4) I agree. Hamas should of been recognized as the legitamite government. However there had been plenty of rockets fired before they were even elected. A terrorist group should of been made the official leaders of Palestine... and faced the consequences. Being elected the head of your government doesn't exactly wipe away all your crimes before you became leader.
5) The occupation is brutal BECAUSE they're firing the rockets. IF those countries fired rockets they also would be under a brutal occupation to stop the rockets from happening.
As for cuba... they can sponser all the state terrorism they like... so long as they are willing to accept the consequences.
