Guys, I found this link which is pretty great.
Please review the information before commenting
Guys, I found this link which is pretty great.
Please review the information before commenting
i watched the video. seems like israel's the one holding up the peace process with demands that would make a Palestinian state not viable if met :shrug:
At some point you've got to expect blowback...
The Palestinians are located in two, non contiguous areas (West Bank/Gaza), with two, enemies(Fatah/Hamas), running each area. Before they can be recognized, it would seem to me, they will need to agree among themselves who their government is.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a two state solution (or even a three state, if that is what they want) but part of recognition is going to really cheese off one either Fatah of Hamas.
There is not right side in this one. Both sides are guilty of atrocious violations that any of us would find reprehensible. The issue is much, much deeper, older, and mor complicated than this video indicates.
And even if Palestine is formally recognized, with official borders, it is not going to solve this problem, or end hostilities.
If the international community was remotely serious about this issue, the UN would go in, and basically police the entire area, but that won't happen either.
Until both sides are srious about ending the violence, (and neither are even remotely close to this), this will only continue.
EDIT: Cabs is also exactly right.
Palestine never really existed on any map, it was anciet lands and part of the Ottoman empire for most of our history..1500s on.
before then it gets to muddeled for our purposes.
So after WW1 it became under British mandate.
there had already been a huge influx of Jews dating back to the 1800s, but becasue it was under British control, the issue of Jewish/muslim control was mitigated bt the third party.
The Brits, wanted two states and basically created Israel and Jordan as the solution.
So ethinic arab palestinians actually HAD a homeland, but didnt want to have to move.
after all the fighting over the next 20 years or so, the current situation developed.
What do you guys think the fair solution should be?
but anyways...i think the a fair solution should be the solution that the international community currently support...the same solution that our country currently endorses.
well to clarify, they werent asked to leave, but they refused israeli authority so that is where the tit for tat began.
I just would like to hear all the views out there.
\Oh and there are 5 videos on that link that provided more depth to the difficulties of the two state approach if not the history that brought us here.
Palestinians need to stop shelling Isreali citizens. They need to dismantle the terrorist sections of Fatah, Hammas, and Hezbullah needs to be brought to justice. They must stop receiving weapons from Iran, China, and Russia to murder civilians.
Until both sides do all of the above, we are kidding ourselves.
All friendly organizations.
israel has been backed into a corner, and has been screwed multiple times. i support israel 110%.
Israel has more military might than the rest of the Middle East put together. If we let them off of their leash they could conceivably deal with the Mid East by themselves. They are one of the most powerful countries in the world.
The solution is to get out of this mess and let both sides off of their leash. Let them deal with their own problems and if it ends up that Israel marches in and wipes Palestine off the face of the planet than so be it. We need to let other countries determine their own fate so long as they leave us alone.
As of late Friday the ceasefire in Gaza seems to be holding, if tentatively. While we should be pleased that this round of fighting appears temporarily on hold, we must realize that without changes in US foreign policy it is only a matter of time before the killing begins again.
It feels like 2009 all over again, which is the last time this kind of violence broke out in Gaza. At that time over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of which just 235 were combatants. The Israelis lost 13 of which 10 were combatants. At that time I said of then-President Bush’s role in the conflict:
“It's our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza…. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp.”
The US role has not changed under the Obama administration. The same mistakes continue. As journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote last week:
"For years now, US financial, military and diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict. The bombs Israel drops on Gazans, and the planes they use to drop them, and the weapons they use to occupy the West Bank and protect settlements are paid for, in substantial part, by the US taxpayer…”
Last week, as the fighting raged, President Obama raced to express US support for the Israeli side, in a statement that perfectly exemplifies the tragic-comedy of US foreign policy. The US supported the Israeli side because, he said, "No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test. But it wasn’t funny.
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, but she refused to meet with elected Palestinian leaders. Clintonsaid upon arrival in Israel, “America's commitment to Israel’s security is rock-solid and unwavering.” Does this sound like an honest broker?
At the same time Congress acted with similar ignobility when an unannounced resolution was brought to the House floor after the business of the week had been finished; and in less than 30 seconds the resolution was passed by unanimous consent, without debate and without most Representatives even having heard of it. The resolution, H Res 813, was so one-sided it is not surprising they didn’t want anyone to have the chance to read and vote on it. Surely at least a handful of my colleagues would have objected to language like, “The House of Representatives expresses unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders...”
US foreign policy being so one-sided actually results in more loss of life and of security on both sides. Surely Israelis do not enjoy the threat of missiles from Gaza nor do the Palestinians enjoy their Israel-imposed inhuman conditions in Gaza. But as long asIsrael can count on its destructive policies being underwritten by the US taxpayer it can continue to engage in reckless behavior. And as long as the Palestinians feel the one-sided US presence lined up against them they will continue to resort to more and more deadly and desperate measures.
Continuing to rain down missiles on so many increasingly resentful nations, the US is undermining rather than furthering its security. We are on a collision course with much of the rest of the world if we do not right our foreign policy. Ending interventionism in the Middle East and replacing it with friendship and even-handedness would be a welcome first step.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly has voted by a more than two-thirds majority to recognize the state of Palestine.
The resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations was approved by the 193-member world body late Thursday by a vote of 138-9 with 41 abstentions.
Voting "no" Thursday were Israel, the United States and Canada, joined by the Czech Republic, Panama and several Pacific island nations: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. The Pacific nations typically support the U.S. and Israel at the U.N. on key General Assembly resolutions
once again guys, its important to just acknowledge facts rather then rhetoric.
1) palestine never existed, it was part of the ottoman empire until the end of ww1.
until then, muslims,. jews, and christians all lived together under Turkish rule with relatively no problems.
After ww1, The British took over and divided "palestine" into seperate regions creating syria, and Iraq among others.The new borders were drawn for political and finanacial concerns, not to please the locals.
Kuwait was created just to deny Iraq access to the sea.The Turks were spread out over four new countries without one of their own to keep them without political leverage.
this continued throughout the 1940s and when the smoke had settled after WW2,The british spereated what was left into Israel and Jordan. The kingdom of Jordan was supposed to be the palestinian home land.One of the problems was they instituted a monarchy, the other was that large population centers of Muslims, were in the Jewish zone.
I will offer this opinion.
The greenline was the same line that allowed for the creation of the jewish state, they cannot acknowledge it for their soverignty at the same time rejecting it for the palestinians.
They big issue that they use to justify the occupation is to protect thier cities, so if we were to reinstate the Greenline and then create a demilitarized zone like in south korea, and a UN buffer zone on the border to Jordan, that would nutralize that arguement and we would see who was truley interested in peace.