Forum menu
Also, if you want to sanction Israel over human rights issues, you will face questions over why other countries with even worse human rights issues aren't sanctioned. China has an even worse human rights record. So does Saudi Arabia. So do dozens of other countries. Nobody wants to go down that road.
I agree, the Palestinian freedom fighters launch rockets from built up urban areas, then disappear.
That's a war crime. That's why Western countries will not supply weapons. Glad we agree.
Two states = an apartheid state + a Bantustan
fwiw, I think thols2 is sensibly and calmly demonstrating a balanced and objective view and has explained quite clearly what he thinks needs to happen pragmatically to support the Palestinians and (ideally, subject to extremists on both sides standing down) try to bring the conflict to an end.
The fact that it doesn't exactly sit with some people's black and white simplistic world view doesn't justify ignoring or misrepresenting what he has written. The fact that Israel keeps committing offences and getting away with it is horrendous, but arming those who seek to wipe them out is not the solution.
And nor was that the point of the thread, despite any pigheadedness to the contrary...
At the end of the day, we have 2 similar stories of territorial infringement and slaughter by oppressors… so why the disparity?
I appreciate that you've actually read what I wrote.
The fact that Israel keeps committing offences and getting away with it is horrendous, but arming those who seek to wipe them out is not the solution.
I completely agree with this part of what you said.
The fact that Israel keeps committing offences and getting away with it is horrendous,
This part is important too.
arming those who seek to wipe them out is not the solution.
Yawn...
Yet arming the invading party is wholly supported, with nary a whisper from the media
I will pop in for the economics.
The question is how long can the United States maintain that level of crucial support? The simple answer is not for ever.
The USA can always afford it.
In fact congress is always rather generous with military spending. The limit as always are the resources.
US is currently spending not far off a trillion dollars (800 billion give or take) on the military - per year.
Nowhere else comes close.
And they always pass the bills, no ifs or buts.
That’s a war crime.
But is there even such a thing ?. Or is it just a ploy for one group to demonize the other.
WW2, French resistance killed not only German military, but also French civilians who collaborated with them. Or the cities we carpet bombed, the targets only being the civilian population ?.
"All's fair in love and war".
Yawn…
Well that's a pretty convincing and insightful argument.
Yet arming the invading party is wholly supported, with nary a whisper from the media
I certainly don't blindly support it, and I don't think thols2 does either from what he's written. Arms supply should ideally be a reward for engaging in the peace process and moving this shit forward.
But the fact remains that if we just walk away from Israel there will be another Holocaust, and not just on the Jewish side this time.
In the world of international conflict, pragmatism is usually the only solution that succeeds. Everyone has to swallow their pride and accept the unacceptable.
Or the cities we carpet bombed, the targets only being the civilian population ?.
See also London, Coventry etc
“All’s fair in love and war”.
When you are fighting for your/your familys/your countrys survival, it often has to be, tragically.
fwiw, I think thols2 is sensibly and calmly demonstrating a balanced and objective view
Well that's your opinion, and well worth every penny I paid you for it. But it's maybe instructuve that nobody has suggested:
arming those who seek to wipe them out is not the solution.
However, we seem to be more than happy to supply weapons and money and diplomatic cover to the Israelis. So if someone is seeing things in black and white, I'd suggest it's not me.
In the world of international conflict, pragmatism is usually the only solution that succeeds. Everyone has to swallow their pride and accept the unacceptable.
How much pride have the Israelis swallowed lately? Coming bck to the topic of the thread, how much pride have the Ukrainians swallowed? They and their backers are demanding that Russia withdraws from Donbas and Crimea. Not much swallowing of pride there. So Palestinians uniquely are the ones accepting being mapped oiutof existence.
This part is important too.
arming those who seek to wipe them out is not the solution.
Lucky that NOBODY here has suggested it, then, despite you repeatedly bringing it up.
Also, if you want to sanction Israel over human rights issues, you will face questions over why other countries with even worse human rights issues aren’t sanctioned.
Well I am asking why is Russia sanctioned over invading a neighbour while Israel is not, so this can go round and round.
Nice Dr J .👍
The USA can always afford it.
Certainly whilst the US is the dominant global power, and propping up a client state in a region vital for energy supplies which will bomb and attack in a way that serves US interests, without any concern for neither national nor international legal obligations.
It is easier both logistically, and more importantly politically, for Israel to carry out a bombing raid on say Iran, for example, than the United States to do so.
But if you accept that the United States has reached its peak and is now experiencing a period of decline, much as Great Britain did a hundred years ago (remember it was Great Britain's financial strength which allowed her to fight successful wars in the 19th century) then who is to say what the US will be able to afford in 50 or a 100 years? Or whether the Middle East will still be considered a region of vital US interests.
Or whether the US will still be a single nominally united country in 50 or 100 years time? Do you honestly believe that wealthy states like California will always want to remain in the Union whatever the cost or political makeup? Or hard-right republican states will equally always want to remain in the Union?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/06/americans-national-divorse-theyre-wrong-515443
A recent survey by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia found that about 50 percent of Donald Trump voters and 40 percent of Joe Biden voters agreed to some extent with the proposition that the country should split up, with either red or blue states seceding.
The clock is ticking as far as Israel is concerned imo, the United States cannot be guaranteed to be propping it up in 50 or a 100 years time, but it is reasonable to assume that Palestinians will still be around in 50 or a 100 years time.
Israel is a relatively liberal democracy
Israel is not a liberal democracy. Any country in which the freedoms of individuals are based on their ethnicity cannot be described as a liberal democracy.
A distinction can be made between 'human rights issues' and legalized apartheid.
In Sharpeville a 'modest' 69 kids were killed. The Palestinians have suffered much worse, hence Tutu's comments.
That’s a war crime.
But is there even such a thing ?. Or is it just a ploy for one group to demonize the other.
Yes, there is such a thing.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
So, thus far we've established:
Arming and supporting an apartheid colonizing power is A-OK, as long as they serve the interests of those that fund them
War Crimes are bad when the other side does them
Natives are only allowed primitive weapons; when those weapons fail to hit military targets (and in the vast majority are intercepted by the Colony's superior weapons systems), they can immediately be accused of attacking the Colony's civilian population
The Colony's civilian population are allowed to attack Natives, Natives are not allowed to fight back
Ukraine has every right to defend itself
Anything else?
So, thus far we’ve established:
Arming and supporting an apartheid colonizing power is A-OK, as long as they serve the interests of those that fund them
War Crimes are bad when the other side does them
Natives are only allowed primitive weapons; when those weapons fail to hit military targets (and in the vast majority are intercepted by the Colony’s superior weapons systems), they can immediately be accused of attacking the Colony’s civilian population
The Colony’s civilian population are allowed to attack Natives, Natives are not allowed to fight back
Ukraine has every right to defend itself
Anything else?
Stop posting rubbish.
We've established that Palestine and Ukraine are different in very important ways. That's why they are treated differently.
If you're serious about making things better for Palestinians, you're going to need to devise some sort of peace treaty that makes it possible for an Israeli state and a Palestinian one to co-exist. Among the many difficult things that would require would be for Palestinians to stop attacking Israeli civilians and for Israel to return annexed lands. That's the land-for-peace model. If you think you can find some way to persuade Israelis to return annexed land without Palestinians stopping attacks on Israel, please explain it. If all you're going to do is post nonsense, you're not taking Palestinian's problems seriously, you're just being a smartarse on the internet.
I'd be surprised if any of us were in a position to broker a groundbreaking international peace deal of a Sunday morning, but as usual, you're conveniently forgetting something...
You're avoiding the question. What do you propose as a deal that Israelis might accept? Do you believe that Israel can be persuaded to return land without an end to attacks on Israeli civilians? I don't, but I'd be interested to hear what you think might a peace settlement might look like.
Could you explain where settler violence would fit into your narrative?
“Settler violence has always been an extremely disturbing feature of the Israeli occupation,” said the experts. “But in 2021, we are witnessing the highest recorded levels of violence in recent years and more severe incidents.
“The Israeli Government and its military have done far too little to curb this violence and to protect the Palestinians under siege. In several cases, Israeli security forces and outsourced private security companies stand by and take no action to prevent the violence; instead, they respond to settler-related violence by ordering Palestinians to leave the area, including Palestinian-owned land, or even actively support the settlers.”
According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), already in the first 10 months of 2021, there have been 410 attacks by settlers against Palestinians (302 against property and 108 against individuals). Four Palestinians were killed by settlers this year. In 2020, there was a total of 358 recorded attacks. In 2019, there were 335 such attacks.
These settler attacks are primarily directed against rural Palestinian families living on small farms or in villages and towns in the occupied West Bank located in close proximity to Israeli settlements. Many of these Palestinians reside in the so-called “Area C” of the West Bank, which is under complete Israeli security and civil control, and where Israel’s de facto annexation stratagem is most evident.
The experts noted that settler violence has taken many forms, including physical violence, shooting with live ammunition, torching of fields and livestock, theft and vandalization of property, trees and crops, stone-throwing and tenacious intimidation of herders and their families. In the autumn, it is often directed towards Palestinians engaged in the olive harvest. Harvested olives are stolen or ruined. Olive trees are destroyed. Harvesters are attacked with rocks and pipes, or threatened with weapons.
On other occasions, settlers have seized private or public Palestinian land and brought sheep and cattle to graze on the land, as an initial step to drive Palestinians away from their land. If Palestinians attempt to keep their land, they are frequently met with violence.
“The ubiquity of these attacks, and the credible reports of the Israeli military’s passivity in combating this violence, has deepened the atmosphere of fear and coercion throughout the West Bank,” said the experts.
“We are very troubled by the failure of Israel, the occupying power, to exercise its substantial obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, including Article 27, to protect the population under occupation.”
According to Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights organization, 91 percent of investigations into settler attacks against Palestinians between 2005 and 2019 were closed by the Israeli authorities with no charges filed. Yesh Din has also reported that more than 40 percent of the Palestinians who have contacted the organization since 2018 to report settler violence have chosen not to file complaints with the Israeli authorities because they have no expectation that justice will be served.
“This precipitous rise in settler violence is not simply the result of a few ‘bad apples’ among the settler population,” the experts said. “The deep state support provided by Israel to the illegal settlement enterprise, including to the more than 140 settlement outposts established throughout the West Bank in defiance of even Israel’s own laws, has fueled this coercive environment and encouraged violence.
“In an atmosphere where the rights of the protected population are ignored, where settler violence is met with complicity and the prevailing political message from the occupying power is that this land belongs to only one people, the international community has a solemn responsibility to impose accountability measures to end this climate of impunity and to insist upon respect for the international rule of law.”
For someone who pesters incessantly for answers jhj, you don’t really like to do it yourself. No great surprise like, ever the sea-lion.
If we're talking about brokering a peace deal, settler violence is an essential issue to address; I'm curious as to why thols never mentions it...
He's just virtue signaling online. He has no serious idea about what it would take to achieve peace in Palestine. Hard to believe he takes the situation seriously if he hasn't put any thought into what a solution would be.
Are insults a key part of the peace process?
If we’re talking about brokering a peace deal, settler violence is an essential issue to address; I’m curious as to why thols never mentions it…
I have. Back in the 1990s it seemed hopeful that a land-for-peace deal could go ahead. Moderate Israeli's seemed open to it. However, extremists on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides set out to derail it by inflicting brutal attacks on civilians. Those attacks had no military purpose, they were deliberately intended to make a peace deal impossible. If there is ever to be a peace deal, attacks on civilians have to stop. There can be no peace deal while that is happening.
This is more problematic for Palestinians because there is no single Palestinian government that has a monopoly on the use of force, there are multiple armed groups vying for power. Some of those groups have made the destruction of Israel their rallying cry. That means that their very reason for existing is under threat by a peace deal. Extremist Israelis are dangerous too, but violence against Palestinians isn't the rallying cry that unites Israelis, they are united by the desire to have a secure homeland for Jewish people. If an Israeli government can show that Israel is secure, it's likely that moderate Israelis will accept it and understand that violence against Palestinians is an obstacle to security. It's far more difficult for Palestinian militant groups to renounce violence and pledge loyalty to a single civilian government because the very reason for founding their organizations was to destroy Israel by violence.
Are insults a key part of the peace process?
Judging by this thread, a lot of forum users believe they are just fine. Go back and take a look. Keep in mind that several posts have been deleted by the moderators so you'll miss the best stuff.
Anyway, jhj, when can we expect an outline of your proposal for a peace deal? Surely you've thought it through in detail, must have some great ideas ready to share.
First and foremost, a means of halting expansion of Israel's territories would give a clear message to both sides that peace and stability was genuinely on the table.
This would mean full prosecution of settlers who had been found to indulge in violent behaviour, sabotage or coercion in pursuit of land grabs.
Given the history of Israel's continued expansion, it would understandably take some time for the Palestinians to believe that the Israeli authorities were genuinely acting in the interests of the Palestinian people.
Similarly, collective punishment would have to end; this would mean ensuring consistent clean water and electricity supplies to the populations of Gaza and the West Bank.
The real shift would come from allowing children to integrate; all too often, people have been conditioned into views throughout the course of their lives and as such, are too stubborn to budge, leading to cycles of violence that span generations.
One of the main barriers to this are the billions of dollars at stake for those in the arms industry, who often use Gaza as a testing ground:
The idea that the Israeli arms industry benefits from the occupation through having a captive population it can test new weaponry on is now widely accepted.
Israel tries out weapons in the West Bank and Gaza and then presents them as "battle proven" to the international market.
The high-velocity tear gas canister has been heavily tested in Bilin. In 2009, the weapon killed Bassem Abu Rahmah, an unarmed local activist, protesting the wall slicing into that village. At the end of 2011, another protester, Mustafa Tamimi, was killed in Nabi Saleh by a tear gas canister, shot at his head.
There is a sense of weariness in Haddad's voice. "I have seen how they are developing their tools and their weapons industry and the ways of dealing with the community," he said. "And, in 30 years, I never heard once that there is any kind of accountability for any soldier."
First and foremost, a means of halting expansion of Israel’s territories would give a clear message to both sides that peace and stability was genuinely on the table.
What is that means? Military? Diplomatic? If it's military, who's going to do it? It's not going to be any Middle-Eastern country, they have absolutely no desire to get into another war with Israel. If it's diplomatic, you're going to have to negotiate with Israel and give them assurances that attacks on Israel will stop. How will you back up those assurances?
If a Palestinian group violate the deal and attack Israeli citizens, will you send armed troops into Palestine to disarm them? If an Israeli group violate it, will you be willing to send armed troops into Israel?
Extremists on both sides will attempt to derail any peace settlement that forces compromises on their side. If you can't back your treaty up with soldiers and tanks and missiles, it will collapse. So, where do you plan on getting that army?
Blimey, sounds like you wanna sell more weapons!
Perhaps an army of cameras would be more effective:
Blimey, sounds like you wanna sell more weapons!
Quite the opposite, I want to know how you intend to disarm militants on both sides who refuse to lay down their weapons.
It's the critical question that makes any peace deal so difficult to achieve. Your response makes it seem as though you are trying to avoid addressing the question.
Documenting and broadcasting attrocities has a long history of bringing those attrocities to a close...
Want warring parties to lay down their weapons? Halt the ammunition supply!
Want warring parties to lay down their weapons? Halt the ammunition supply!
Iran is supplying Palestinian groups with weapons. Do you have a plan to stop that? Invade Iran? Blockade Palestine? The rockets that Palestinians use are basically a pipe filled with fertilizer. Do you plan on confiscating all the pipes and all the fertilizer in Palestine.
Israel has a large weapons industry. Do you have some plan on how to prevent Israelis from making their own ammunition. Bomb them? Invade?
Blimey, sounds like you wanna sell more weapons!
Which bit of the post you responded to indicates this?
And quote it, without extrapolating with your own commentary of it to suit
Not meaning to have a dig, im just not seeing it.
If you can’t back your treaty up with soldiers and tanks and missiles, it will collapse. So, where do you plan on getting that army?
And for bonus points:
Bomb them? Invade?
Do I honestly think for a moment that the good folk of this forum are finally going to make that all important breakthrough that ensures peace in the land the majority of us have been taught since a young age is key to all that is holy?
Probably not... clearly there are many obstacles to overcome before than can be achieved;
That said, sanctions against Israel would surely be a start, which begs the question;
Why is Israel allowed to act with such impunity?
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/1215077548180283392
You're trying to evade the question again. What do you propose to do if Israeli or Palestinian extremists violate the peace treaty you've suggested? It's almost guaranteed that that will happen and everyone knows that, that's why peace negotiations have always collapsed. If you want to sell it to moderate Israelis and Palestinians, you will need to explain how you will enforce it against heavily armed militias? If you find that Iran or Saudi Arabia or Russia or North Korea or China or some other country have been smuggling in weapons, what will you do about that?
Evidently you have all the answers, so fire away...
Evidently you have all the answers, so fire away…
I don't have the answers. That's why I'm asking you what you believe the answers are. But you just keep being evasive.
What will you do when your proposed peace settlement gets derailed by violent extremists, just like every previous attempt has been derailed?
Blimey, sounds like you wanna sell more weapons!
Which bit of the post you responded to indicates this?
And quote it, without extrapolating with your own commentary of it to suit
Not meaning to have a dig, im just not seeing it.
Once more for luck...
What will you do when your proposed peace settlement gets derailed by violent extremists, just like every previous attempt has been derailed?
Both sides have the means to capture and incarcerate extremists; at the end of the day, you have to show that such behaviour will not be tolerated; unfortunately, as it stands, that is not the case... see above:
“The Israeli Government and its military have done far too little to curb this violence and to protect the Palestinians under siege. In several cases, Israeli security forces and outsourced private security companies stand by and take no action to prevent the violence; instead, they respond to settler-related violence by ordering Palestinians to leave the area, including Palestinian-owned land, or even actively support the settlers.”
So what are your proposals for curbing colonialist settler violence, which is clearly one of the primary drivers for tensions?
Both sides have the means to capture and incarcerate extremists; at the end of the day, you have to show that such behaviour will not be tolerated; unfortunately, as it stands, that is not the case
The Palestinian leaders don't. There isn't a Palestinian state with a government that is accepted as legitimate by the majority of Palestinians. There are multiple groups vying for power in different areas, competing with each other. For many of them, killing Israelis is how they appeal to their followers. If a Palestinian government tried to arrest members of a rival group for killing Israelis, you'd end up with a civil war between Palestinians. Israelis know this and will never trust Palestinians to enforce any peace treaty.
Which leaves you with the question, if either side refuses to arrest militants who breach the peace agreement, what will you do? I know you hate answering questions, but this is the big question that both sides will demand answers to before any peace settlement is possible. No peace settlement is possible without answering that question.
I'd have big billboards in prominent spots on either side of the wall(s), broadcasting the awkward answers of those in the chain of command of the relevant authorities gave when questioned as to why they hadn't arrested the extremists who were inflaming the conflict.
Hopefully this would have the desired effect and the civilian populations of either side would press for justice in the quest for peace.
Just to clarify, these are the walls I'm refering to:
