The israeli palestinian debate

[stephkyle7]

Iran through their proxys have waged a terrorist war against Israel for 40+ years.
Iran has been politically and idoelogically divergent from US world view.

This is the second issue that effects this problem.

IMO, we should return the borders to the Green line and then have UN and Nato troops stationed on the borders between.

[C-ross12]

What we should do is absolutely nothing. We need to cut the military to cut spending. We spend an abusrd amount of money there. We have a massive debt and a deficit that needs to be cut severely. This practice of borrowing money from ourselves to pay for wars against countries that dont have to technology to attack us in a military fashion is...well... extremely dumb.

The Israelis are more then capable of defending themselves.

[stephkyle7]

Our debt isnt a problem.The idea that it is is a contrived issue for the sake of attacking spending that doesnt support a particular Ideology.

[nastynice]

so while I am not suggesting they welcomed all Muslims with open arms, they werent trying to ethnically cleanse the land.

Just something to add to this idea of "ethnic cleansing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org...=000636#graph1

I know that wikipedia is kinda sloppy source, but if that number of over 700,000 palestinians displaced is accurate, then compare it to the number of total palestinian population in the 2nd link, and you're looking at about 70% of palestinian muslims and christians uprooted and turned refugee while losing all personal property to the gov't of israel.

This is just about the very definition of what an ethnic cleansing is.

**I wouldn't necessarily use wikipedia as an absolute source, but its definitely good for summarizations and to give good ideas of what events to further dive into.

[C-ross12]

Our debt isnt a problem.The idea that it is is a contrived issue for the sake of attacking spending that doesnt support a particular Ideology.

The debt itself isn't a big issue. Debt spending is actual a good idea at an appropriate level. But everything I've read so far states that with a fluttering economy, this type of spending isn't sustainable. Thats the real issue. But we've strayed off topic a bit.

[Labgrownmangoat]

On a tangent, let me ask this. If the situation were entirely reversed and Gaza and the West Bank were filled with impoverished, unemployed, virtually imprisoned Jews, and Israel was filled with Muslim Palestinians living a first-world life, what would world Jewish leaders be saying about the situation? Any possibility they would want to get rid of the state holding their fellow Jews?

[cabernetluver]

On a tangent, let me ask this. If the situation were entirely reversed and Gaza and the West Bank were filled with impoverished, unemployed, virtually imprisoned Jews, and Israel was filled with Muslim Palestinians living a first-world life, what would world Jewish leaders be saying about the situation? Any possibility they would want to get rid of the state holding their fellow Jews?

My primary disagreement is the idea that the people on the West Bank and Gaza, are "virtually imprisoned". My disagreement is based on their actual ability to completely change their relationship with Israel by accepting the current and future state of Israel at their border (side note, Israel is not even on their maps), and work towards a mutually beneficial relationship. This is not even in the vocabulary of Hamas. Now, don't take this as a blame free, get out of jail free, fill in your own terms, that Israel is blameless. But Israel is not the subject of your prisoner metaphor.

Once that acceptance is actually made, and the leader or leaders (my opinion is right now, a lack of coherent leadership is in and of itself a problem, in that one group represents Gaza, another group represents the West Bank) sits down with the Prime Minister (I tend to think it will not be Bebe) then matters will actually cease to look like a virtual prison. Why? Because it will be in both sides best interest.

If you or I were sent to prison, we don't have the key to get out. This is not the case there.

[valade16]

You are using a well worn internet technique of never ending questions. You want to say something? Say it!

To be fair, they've been 2 questions. The same one repeated over and over and over and finally the 2nd one from the last post.

Our alliance with Israel is straining our relationship certainly with the rest of the middle east and has at the very least put us in stark disagreement with most of the rest of the world. We have decided to take a side in a clash that we really have nothing to do with, and do so at the risk to our own security and world standing.

Based on what I've seen and been told regarding the relative benefits of continuing to support Israel in such a manner, I think it is untenable and we need to severely reduce our involvement in the conflict.

But again, were I to get some sort of actual evidence as to Israel's strategic value to the defense of the US, as well as some sort of idea as to whether it was cost effective to maintain the alliance with them in the defense of our country, I'd certainly reconsider my views.

Once that acceptance is actually made, and the leader or leaders (my opinion is right now, a lack of coherent leadership is in and of itself a problem, in that one group represents Gaza, another group represents the West Bank) sits down with the Prime Minister (I tend to think it will not be Bebe) then matters will actually cease to look like a virtual prison. Why? Because it will be in both sides best interest.

If the US and UN haven't been able to get these 2 sides to sit down and come to a peaceful resolution that is acceptable to both parties in the 50+ years we've been trying I don't see what else we can do to actually make it happen.

[Patsfan56]

To be fair, they've been 2 questions. The same one repeated over and over and over and finally the 2nd one from the last post.

Our alliance with Israel is straining our relationship certainly with the rest of the middle east and has at the very least put us in stark disagreement with most of the rest of the world. We have decided to take a side in a clash that we really have nothing to do with, and do so at the risk to our own security and world standing.

Based on what I've seen and been told regarding the relative benefits of continuing to support Israel in such a manner, I think it is untenable and we need to severely reduce our involvement in the conflict.

But again, were I to get some sort of actual evidence as to Israel's strategic value to the defense of the US, as well as some sort of idea as to whether it was cost effective to maintain the alliance with them in the defense of our country, I'd certainly reconsider my views.



If the US and UN haven't been able to get these 2 sides to sit down and come to a peaceful resolution that is acceptable to both parties in the 50+ years we've been trying I don't see what else we can do to actually make it happen.

They came close duing Clinton's administration, they came close until Arafat ****ed them over at the last minute.

[cabernetluver]

If the US and UN haven't been able to get these 2 sides to sit down and come to a peaceful resolution that is acceptable to both parties in the 50+ years we've been trying I don't see what else we can do to actually make it happen.

This is just historically inaccurate. For the first part of Israels existence, the people referred to as Palestinians were essentially being shuffled from one Arab country to another. The discordant behavior, from Israels point of view, through the early 1970's were with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Minor contributors were Saudi Arabia, Kuait, Iraq, with Lebanon entering the fray in the early 70's.

At about the time of the early 70's the PLO also became a player. Without making this a huge history lesson, the first real uprising (the First Intifada) was in the late 80's (I think 1987, but I am sure it was the late 80's). So, the current conflict really is not 50+ years, it is about half that.

Now, from the PLO, there were multiple almost agreements. Yassar Arafat could not accept a good agreement, that by today's standards, would be considered a great agreement. So, your description of the history is just historically inaccurate. Until a single leader comes from the Palestinians, which could happen tomorrow, or not until a new decade comes and goes, it is hard to negotiate, but to give up on it, is nonsense.

Right now, the bigger issue is Hezbollah which is a proxy for Iran. Most of the Arabic countries do not like Iran. It turns out, that this displeasure with Iran just might lead to the Palestinian/Israel peace, because it is in the best interest of most of the Arabic countries. This is three dimensional chess. We have good minds who know how to play it. Patience with a sense of the changes that have been going on are really all it takes for a just and fair peace.

Just look at the original combatants, all of whom have had a quarter century of peace with Israel. In fact, Jordan and Israel have a positive (if under the table) relationship.

[Patsfan56]

This is just historically inaccurate. For the first part of Israels existence, the people referred to as Palestinians were essentially being shuffled from one Arab country to another. The discordant behavior, from Israels point of view, through the early 1970's were with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Minor contributors were Saudi Arabia, Kuait, Iraq, with Lebanon entering the fray in the early 70's.

At about the time of the early 70's the PLO also became a player. Without making this a huge history lesson, the first real uprising (the First Intifada) was in the late 80's (I think 1987, but I am sure it was the late 80's). So, the current conflict really is not 50+ years, it is about half that.

Now, from the PLO, there were multiple almost agreements. Yassar Arafat could not accept a good agreement, that by today's standards, would be considered a great agreement. So, your description of the history is just historically inaccurate. Until a single leader comes from the Palestinians, which could happen tomorrow, or not until a new decade comes and goes, it is hard to negotiate, but to give up on it, is nonsense.

Right now, the bigger issue is Hezbollah which is a proxy for Iran. Most of the Arabic countries do not like Iran. It turns out, that this displeasure with Iran just might lead to the Palestinian/Israel peace, because it is in the best interest of most of the Arabic countries. This is three dimensional chess. We have good minds who know how to play it. Patience with a sense of the changes that have been going on are really all it takes for a just and fair peace.

Just look at the original combatants, all of whom have had a quarter century of peace with Israel. In fact, Jordan and Israel have a positive (if under the table) relationship.

Best post in the thread.

[BroadwayJoe]

This is just historically inaccurate. For the first part of Israels existence, the people referred to as Palestinians were essentially being shuffled from one Arab country to another. The discordant behavior, from Israels point of view, through the early 1970's were with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Minor contributors were Saudi Arabia, Kuait, Iraq, with Lebanon entering the fray in the early 70's.

At about the time of the early 70's the PLO also became a player. Without making this a huge history lesson, the first real uprising (the First Intifada) was in the late 80's (I think 1987, but I am sure it was the late 80's). So, the current conflict really is not 50+ years, it is about half that.

Now, from the PLO, there were multiple almost agreements. Yassar Arafat could not accept a good agreement, that by today's standards, would be considered a great agreement. So, your description of the history is just historically inaccurate. Until a single leader comes from the Palestinians, which could happen tomorrow, or not until a new decade comes and goes, it is hard to negotiate, but to give up on it, is nonsense.

Right now, the bigger issue is Hezbollah which is a proxy for Iran. Most of the Arabic countries do not like Iran. It turns out, that this displeasure with Iran just might lead to the Palestinian/Israel peace, because it is in the best interest of most of the Arabic countries. This is three dimensional chess. We have good minds who know how to play it. Patience with a sense of the changes that have been going on are really all it takes for a just and fair peace.

Just look at the original combatants, all of whom have had a quarter century of peace with Israel. In fact, Jordan and Israel have a positive (if under the table) relationship.

cab, have i told you how good it is to have you back around these parts?

the elder statesman of the politics forum.

[valade16]

^ That would solve the Israeli-Palestinian part of the problem, but there would still be tension in the Middle East regarding Israel. And that has been around for 50+ years...

[cabernetluver]

If the US and UN haven't been able to get these 2 sides to sit down and come to a peaceful resolution that is acceptable to both parties in the 50+ years we've been trying I don't see what else we can do to actually make it happen.

^ That would solve the Israeli-Palestinian part of the problem, but there would still be tension in the Middle East regarding Israel. And that has been around for 50+ years...

Thanks for playing. It is clear that the coherence of your argument is not based on facts, as shown by your lack of knowledge of the Palestinian Israel conflict. By the way, even your 50+ year time frame makes no sense, since Israel was created 64 years ago, along with Jordan and Lebanon.

You want to turn this into the entire Middle East? Start a new thread. This one is titled "The Israeli Palestinian Debate" while a Middle East question is far different. Israel is certainly in the Middle East, but it in no way is the entire Middle East. It is but one part of a very complex region.

[valade16]

Duplicate post