That’s assuming the Palestianians would be satisfied with that. My guess is they’d want the whole thing again very quickly. I really don’t think peace is possible unless both sides can accept not having everything.
Taking down the barrier, giving terrorists access to Jewish civilians, to you would “stop” violence. In your world, therefore, killing Jewish people can’t be violence. That’s just idiotic as logic, but it’s yours.
You of course ignore the ideological reasons behind the Islamist movements among the Palestinians, and the Palestinian (e.g. pcpsr) polling as to why they oppose Israel. There’s a sharp difference between the Barrier and the settlements beyond it, or those where the barrier has been abused to incorporate them. In quite a few cases, yes, the Barrier is too far east, but that’s not the same as it being a bad idea generally.
In fact, Amnesty International condemn the barrier only where it is not on the Green Line.
Human Rights Watch…have said that the barrier “Inside the West Bank” (i.e. East of the Green Line) is the issue.
And oh look, I want the modified Green Line - as outlined by Peace Now - to be the border. And if you want to condemn Peace Now, you’re against the most doveish elements of Israeli society.
There’s an issue of self-defence there, just as there’s an issue of self-defence with Iron Dome - but I’m sure you’d spout the “Israel is bad there because it’s defended it’s people and only suffered a handful of casualties” line too.
What part of the Geneva convention are they in violation of?
Part of the disconnect between you and starlight here seems to be that you aren’t recognizing the security issues that Israel faces. In the past, whenever Israel has let its guard down, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israeli civilian populations. So Israel is put into a position where they aren’t really able to simply “trust” the Palestinians, out of fear of having their civilians killed.
I’ll link you to the verdict of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. It doesn’t reference the precise section of the 4th Geneva Convention that was violated, but I’m sure that info is out there somewhere.
Part of the disconnect between you and starlight here seems to be that you aren’t recognizing the security issues that Israel faces. In the past, whenever Israel has let its guard down, Palestinian terrorists have attacked Israeli civilian populations. So Israel is put into a position where they aren’t really able to simply “trust” the Palestinians, out of fear of having their civilians killed.
And you and Starlight don’t recognize the fact that those security concerns are largely a result of Israeli policy. “We have to build settlements and walls to protect ourselves from the violence caused by settlements and walls” is circular reasoning. Tear 'em down, move 'em out, establish a free and independent Palestine. That will remove one of the biggest root causes of Middle Eastern conflict and go a long way towards peace. Not all the way, but a long way.
Timex - Exactly. I’m completely against the settlements, ***em and tear virtually the lot down, without compensation.
(Again, I’m with Peace Now on the route here - modified green line. The “strict green line” is unrealistic and a stalling tactic against peace)
But a barrier - the route is a problem, yes - has been effective at stopping attacks. Tearing it down wholesale is a bad idea. Re-routing it, certainly - and if things calm down, the control of people through it can be loosened in a progressive fashion.
And you and Starlight don’t recognize the fact that those security concerns are largely a result of Israeli policy. “We have to build settlements and walls to protect ourselves from the violence caused by settlements and walls” is circular reasoning. Tear 'em down, move 'em out, establish a free and independent Palestine. That will remove one of the biggest root causes of Middle Eastern conflict and go a long way towards peace. Not all the way, but a long way.
But that’s easy for you to say, because you aren’t the one getting blown up.
I understand the THEORY that the Israelis are the instigators of everything, but frankly, that just doesn’t seem to mesh with reality.
There are groups within the Palestinians who obviously are not cool with the existence of Israel at all. Even if Israel were to do what you describe, those groups will not suddenly be cool with it. And the Palestinians are incapable of policing their own.
This reality then necessitates a more strict stance regarding security on the part of Israel. They can’t just tear down their walls, because the environment isn’t secure. Israeli’s government has a responsibility to its civilian population to protect them, and unlike some threats, the threats of terrorist violence against Israeli civilians is most certainly real. Much more real and omnipresent than anything western nations are really used to dealing with.
Timex, the fact that settlements on the West Bank aren’t secure and need walls to protect them is the same circular reasoning as before. If the settlements aren’t there, the walls around them don’t need to be, either. Whole Palestinian communities have been cut in two or isolated by this policy. Look at the map I posted on the last page of this thread.
You have no idea what the barrier is for, check.
edit: Some settlements have their own walls, but that ain’t the barrier. (And the rest is a routing issue)
No, you’re twisting things as always. If Israeli wanted to build a mile high wall of ice around its 1967 borders, I wouldn’t care at all. I care about walls, roadblocks, and settlements that have split families, isolated communities, and ruined the economy of the West Bank. There are walls everywhere, not just defending Israel proper.
Ah, the objection to peace - the strict green line border.
I am and have been defending the barrier along the modified green line. You are objecting to it.
(Once more - **** the settlers)
Reading through this, I’m very much swayed by Dave Markell’s Arguments. I just don’t think Starlight’s views hold any water (or reflects reality), and I think Timex is not acknowledging that Israeli is making the situation worse for itself. There are using extreme actions on a population, and are surprised that they get extreme actions in return. One side or the other will have to make the first move, and considering everything, I think it should be Israeli. The past governments have never shown themselves to be trustworthy, and should be held to account by the international community.
Israeli is looking more and more like a fascist state (what, a handful of people own 50% of the economy) which makes a target of minorities so that they can place all the blame there. It’s a tactic that gets used over and over again.
Edi: That last part wasn’t necessary.
I do in fact acknowledge the fact that through its action, Israel can be contributing to the terrorism and violence that it is specifically trying to fight and prevent.
But I think that it’s naive to believe that the violence and terrorism is solely a result of Israel’s actions, and that if Israel decided to lay down its arms and stop doing the things that are being described by Dave as the cause of the violence, that the violence would stop.
Violence from Palestinians is not merely reactionary. They have, historically, engaged in pro-active terror campaigns when Israel has let its guard down. And those campaigns have contributed heavily to the current mentality in Israel.
And the reality is, why must Israel be “the bigger man” here, and unilaterally stop antagonizing the Palestinians? Make no mistake, I fully grasp why that would be good…but I also note that there is a problem with putting that entirely on their shoulders. Because it kind of presumes that the Palestinians aren’t capable of simply being civilized people and not continuing to terrorize the Israelis. It seems to be perceiving them as some kind of animalistic automatons, where they simply MUST respond to Israel’s actions with terrorism, because… reasons?
If terror attacks against Israel stopped, then you dramatically strengthen the Palestinians’ position on the world stage. You remove the legitimate arguments the Israelis have for segregating the palestinians off.
And yet there is this mentality being presented here by Dave that somehow the Israeli actions somehow justify terrorism and attacks on civilians. Sorry, but no. They do not. Those actions are not ever justified.
When have I ever advocated Israeli disarmament? I say it should pull back to the 1967 borders, not that it should “lay down its arms.” It will need a massive military establishment for the foreseeable future to guarantee those borders. That’s a guarantee I would have the US reinforce as part of the peace process. In exchange for pulling out of the occupied territories and creating an independent Palestine, the US should unilaterally pledge to defend Israel against any nation or combination thereof that attacks it.
I hear a lot of straw man arguments from the other side. Not much else. I remain convinced that of the many evils in this conflict, Israeli is the greater one (or at least has the most control in the situation). Also, the results of the elections in Israeli has not only reinforced a negative view of the nation in my mind.
So. again, how many million Jewish refugees should America take?
Or will you be happy, since you view the Israelis as “the greater” evil, for them to be pushed into the sea?
Timex is right, and I’ve referred twice to a Palestinian polling organisation whose own polls makes this clear.
If Hamas laid down their arms and started using peaceful methods, I would bet they’d get their way within five years - they’d have a lot of support from within Israel, too.
Dave - So the hardline anti-peace border, no controls on it, cancel all democracy and to double and more it’s military spending, including the need for massively more internal security - and it still wouldn’t work! The US won’t do a thing about terrorist actions, and the “guarantee” you offer is no better than that offered to the Ukraine.
You know fullwell that an Israel denied border security wouldn’t last a decade. The economy would collapse in short order. (And take the Palestinian economy with it, people like Islamic Jihad and Daesh (IS) would move in, happily!)
Not the terrorists who intentionally target and murder Israeli civilians?
If we are going to breakout ever sub group, I would put the leaders of Israeli over the terrorists, and than everyone else below that. I really have lost faith in the Israeli Government. It’s a matter of power and control, and those with the most power and control must be held to a higher standard than those without.
I’d still put the terrorists first, though some members of the Isreali government are trying their best to get up there.
You know absolutely nothing about the language of diplomacy. It’s simple to understand IF you make a minimal effort. Our treaty with Ukraine guaranteed that we would respect their territorial integrity, and we have. It did not in any way commit us to intervene militarily against other nations that did not. I am proposing an iron-clad security guarantee that mandates war against any power that takes up arms against Israel. We have that sort of commitment to NATO; we never have with Ukraine and never will.
As for the “anti-peace border” (whatever that means) with “no controls on it,” you’re once again inventing reasons to be outraged that have 0.00 basis in anything anyone has posted. I said earlier that Israel could fortify its 1967 borders to whatever degree it wants, and I meant it. If Israel wants to seal itself behind a combination of the Great Wall and the Maginot Line, great. Its border, its choice.
The treaty with the Ukraine was the testbed, the marker for if even major invasions would produce a response. They will not. Nuclear weapons are now back on the agenda of a number of nations, and your “iron-clad” promise is worth as much as Chamberlain’s “scrap of paper”, that’s what has become clear.
In fact, I see a lot of parallels between you and Chamberlain, who was in power during the Evian Conference, when Great Britain did not refer to the mandate when refusing to take Jewish Refugees from the Reich.
(If you have a copy of Alan Bennet’s “40 years on”, look up the song about Chamberlain, and apply)
We have that sort of commitment to NATO; we never have with Ukraine and never will.
No, as discussed NATO is not that. You’re arguing for NATO weakening, as far as I can see. And your rejection of the will of the people of the Ukraine shows how little use you have for democracy.
Basically, you’re now trying to change your view, when you’ve previously admitted that you’d not accept anything but free movement of people without monitoring over the border, free movement for terrorists. Never mind that closing the border would utterly shaft the Palestinians, and Gaza would under your plan be taken back over by Israel.
The fact is, which you’re ignoring, Israel would have a much BETTER justification in international law for hostilities if Palestine was a nation and allowed strikes to be made from it’s land, especially if it did not condemn them! The Israeli right would be able to shed a lot more blood, and there’s very little which could be said about it.
Oh, and you’re confusing the Ukraine and The Ukraine. (One’s a reference to the Ukraine when talking about something other than the country, the other is an improper usage of it’s name, which is Ukraine.)