Palestinian Statehood ( Part 3 )

They waged war on Israel, tried to push them into the sea. You have a terrible memory we've been through this before.

 

These claims are written in the protocols of the Elders, but I couldn't find any reference to such anywhere else. Everywhere else, it says that Israel attacked in 1967 and that Israel took one-sided measures in 1948. Yet, you blame and condemn the hated Semites for things that they never did.

 

That's not what wikki says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

 

Wiki writes that some people at the time took one-sided measures to declare national independence which resulted in civil war to which some Arab States joined one side of the struggle:

creation of an independent Israel... following a period of civil war... Arab armies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

Wiki does thus not support your protocols of the Elders theory. You've provided nothing to show that the hated Semites "ignored international law in 1948"


Question. Since you honor one-sided independence declarations, why does the retarded and bigoted US regime, as far as middle east politics are concerned, not honor such today as well? Isn't it amazing how incredibly stupid the US government is on this topic? It is amazing that the US government seriously wants to demonstrate its retarded hypocrisy with a veto of one-sided independence declaration that it itself vigorously defends with a passion?

 

In 1967 Israel was first to attack, but that's because it was sitting on indefencible borders and had no choice. Several parties could be blamed for the outcome. Sinai was a demilitarized zone since 1956, and its demilitarization was enforced by the U.N. troops, right? Then Nasser asked the U.N to pull out its troops from Sinai and they left. Stupid and strange. Immediately, Nasser - the self-proclaimed defender of the Palestinians and a champion for a unified state with Syria - moved his tanks into Sinai and began provoking Israel diplomatically. It is uncertain whether he intended to attack Israel as he was at the time heavily involved fighting factions in Yemen or Aden. He may have just wanted Israel to lose face diplomatically and wield some Arab muscle by moving troops around provocatively in the Sinai. Who knows, but Israel did not want to take chances. So the 67 war goes to show that Israel indeed cannot return to the pre-67 borders because that's a recipy for more wars as Israel will not wait for one of its neighbours to attack its indefencible borders first, will become reactionary with its measures, and will launch pre-emptive cross border airstrikes at any slightest provocation or unascertained troop movement. Israel hence cannot give up its border along the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights. On the point of the latter, the Golan Heights overlook Israel's most fertile valley where it grows most of its food. This valley was undeveloped before 1967 bacause the Syrians would shell it constantly.

Having retained its secure borders in return, Israel should pull out all of its illegal settlements and give up most or all lands where Palestinians form the majority. This includes East Jerusalem. If Israel wishes to retain East Jerusalem which is so integrated with the rest of Jerusalem in terms of infrastructure, and since I believe it claims that the Arabs there do not wish to secede, then it should compensate the PA state with other concessions and perhaps cede a few other towns where non-Palestinians constitute only a slight majority. On top of it, Israel should make it more readily accessible for the Palestinians to travel to work in Israel, reducing a hold-up time at checkpoints and such.

 

Why should Israelites allow Palestinians into their country to work or for any other reason. They should install a wall without a gate and leave them to themselves.

 

That's the status quo over there. The Israeli economy benefits from that, perhaps it's a source of cheap or cheaper labour for them, and it benefits the Palestinians who earn higher wages and are able to find employment they wouldn't otherwise in Palestine. They live in Palestine but work in Israel on some contracts. It makes both sides less radical.

 

How do you rate the defensibility of Palestine's borders ?

 

No they didn't, its a lie.

 

The "indefencible borders" argument has one and only one purpose: To misuse and abuse the Holocaust in order to fooling well-intended Europeans into believing that Israel must expand its borders at the expense of hated Semites. It's a trick that Israelis have been using to fool friendly Europeans since even before Israel was created.

With modern weaponry, the concept of "indefensible borders" is obsolete. It is no longer relevant except for where the European Guilt Complex is concerned. No longer do troops hide behind stone walls or large rivers. Wars are rather fought in cyberspace, targeting critical infrastructures, with nuclear deterrence, with economics and especially with global alliances. Many nations are smaller than Israel. Many nations have borders along flat terrain. The "indefensible borders" argument just does not work. The only way for Israel to have "defensible borders", is for it to build powerful trade networks with its neighbors.

 

Someone posted a youtube link on this over here a few days ago, explaining how the Jordan Valley forms a natural barrier that if covered by artillery will stop or slow down heavy armour from advancing. If that makes Israelis feel secure and make them less prone to launch pre-emptive strikes and instead draw their war plans based on defensive response if attacked first, then this is likely good for the region. On the other hand, the Palestinians have displayed much flexibility in the recent years in their willingness to achieve a working compromise with Israel, but now Israel under Netanyahu seems to have adopted a hardliner stance and approach. For example, PA no longer negotiate like Arafat by throwing in new demands as soon as the Israelis agreed to their old ones, which in the end caused the Israelis to break off negotiations when Arafat insisted that a highway be built linking Gaza with the West Bank effectively splitting Israel in two. Recently, the PA negotiators threw in this demand as a joke and a bargaining chip, arguing this demand has as much bargaining power and leverage as those illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israel argues that if it pulls out its West Bank settlements, then East Jerusalam should stay with them. But I believe the Palestinians should be better compensated than that.

 

Peter, the notion of ' secure borders ' pre-dates ballistic missile technology. For the Zionists to bang on about ' secure borders ' is an extension of their ethnic cleansing program.

 

Israel gave up its ideas of expansion at the cost to its neighbours with the Yom Kippur war and the departure of the hardliner Moshe Dayan who occasionally made such statements in private. On the point of building secerity through strong trade networks, now common. This is Middle East we're talking about which is always unpredictable. Look what just recently. In 1979 Israel ceded Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for a permanent peace. 30 years later, a change of heart, the new Egyptian government threw this agreement in a garbage bin. How will a trade agreement sort this out? You need someone like Jimmy Carter to figure this out.

 

So tanks are irrelevant nowadays? Do Israelis have enough ballistic and cruise missiles to take out all of Syrian armour and vice versa?

 

Missile launch sites can be quickly overrun unless enemy advancement is stopped by infantry or armour. Such launch sites can also be targeted by artillery from strategic points such as the Golan Heights. Even if you took out all armour with rockets, that still leaves infantry. Would you use ballistic or cruise missiles against spread out infantry?

 

Peter is living on a different planet. Netanyahu is as hard line as Moshe Dayan (read his statements on what Israel consists of) and the settler movement (semi-legally) and the government (legality of the occupier) have been taking Palestinian land at an alarming rate. Israel may not want Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian or Egyptian land but no Palestinian land is safe (including the Dome of the Rock).

Israel obviously doesn't want security with the Palestinians, because the same measures you say it has pursued with other Middle Eastern nations (strong trade networks) have atrophied and disappeared with respect to the Palestinians. It's a strong indicator that Palestinians have no future in the future of Israel.

As for Egypt, Israel was incredibly stupid in handing Egypt not one but two crises by getting a spy caught and shooting across the border in the Sinai (while chasing terrorists) and killing 5 policeman. They eventually covered up the one and apologized for the other, but they took so much time doing it the effect was largely negated.

If you have a very beneficial arrangement with the ruler of a neighboring country and he is overthrown by a populace who are much cooler towards you, your best course of action is not to go out of your way to deliberately (*)(*)(*)(*) them off. At least the Israelis roped the Egyptians into the recent Hamas prisoner exchange and I understand that calmed a few Egyptian tempers inside the government.

 

Wasn't it the Palestinians who passed the law banning all Israeli products from being offered for sale in the Palestinian territories? This resulted in the Palestinian security staff raiding all Palestinian stores confiscating anything with Made in Israel on it and then throwing it into bonfires. The Israelis then I believe responded with similar measures. But that's it. I'm done with this subject. In the end it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to sort out their own differences. Good luck with that.

 

Destroying trade is the natural result of illegal settlement expansion activities, and such can't be described as being a beneficial process.

 

Again, - as if it would ever be any different- the neoZionist occupiers reject any legal move towards Palestinian Statehood and the relinquishment of the territory illegally held by Israel's occupying forces and illegal squats. Nevertheless, Israel has long since lost any moral position in the matter- and the US of AIPAC along with it. American statements concerning Palestine are simply lip-service to law whilst supporting crime.

 

It has far more than enough tanks and US aircraft, yes. And I was talking about incoming missiles, not outgoing missiles. Times are changing, Peter. Zionism's rewards are not far off.

 

Good example of "Israel" taking America down with them. What a reliable ally...

The US is losing influence and credibility in the world and a reason for this is their foreign policy regarding "Israel"...

سلام

 

QUOTE: "The US is losing influence and credibility in the world and a reason for this is their foreign policy regarding Israel".

This problem is not confined to world opinion. The US Government is also losing influence and credibility with the American people. In the interest of "Homeland Security", US citizens at home and abroad are now subjected to ever expanding intrusions on personal freedom and Constitutional protections.

There appears to be an ill-advised US policy that views "Homeland Security" and "Palestinian Statehood" as entirely separate and unrelated issues. Israel deserves US and World support; but support need not include the annexation of all of Palestine. A change in US policy is long overdue!

 

Yes, but Americans will suffer the slings and barbs of world ridicule as long as they still have jobs, money in the bank, their own homes, cheap fuel and are treated with dignity by the country's financial institutions.

Er.........................

 

Very amusing, these threads....a trilogy of fantasy and wishful thinking.

Nothing changed for America. Its still the most sought after,most generous,most powerful nation on Earth..despite its issues amazingly enough.

International critcisms have always been part of the package..comes with the territory...folks everywhere are emotional and jealousy is an inate emotion...in other words its natural to look at ones self and be angry about what couldve been.

Americans arent blindly lending their support to the Israelis. The fact is the Palestinians are perceived to be terrorist sympathizers,well because theyre run by terrorists they chose to run them. They do not renounce the violence proclaimed in their honor and refuse to accept Israel as its neighbor. Gee whats not to like. Israel despite its enormous climb from the bottom still can claim victim status and does.....because the leaders of 'Palestine" are calling for the state of Israels demise..ultimately.

A little pragmatism would go along way...but thats not their style.

 

No, ' Relevant ', the recent exposure of US of AIPAC duplicity and hypocrisy won't be glossed over as ' normal '.