BF2S Forums Israel: What To Give Up

konfusion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Certainly not - I am sure of it - I think it was part of the Roman Empire.

-konfuison

It was indeed. Syria Palestinia.

Precisely - abbreviated Paelestina (it's actually Syria Paelestina - dunno why they have that e)

-konfusion

I think it's actually Palaestinia, if you want to be pedantic.

Bertster7 wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It was indeed. Syria Palestinia.

Precisely - abbreviated Paelestina (it's actually Syria Paelestina - dunno why they have that e)

-konfusion

I think it's actually Palaestinia, if you want to be pedantic.

Yeah, that one

-konfusion

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

If you live in the past, you'll have no future.  They need to leave their past behind and build the future with a new attitude (from both sides).  What really matters is the current conflict, and finding a solution.  If you want we can argue for hours about the failures of Mankind.

I agree. But examining the past is the best way to foresee the future. Certainly if Israel dwelled in the past and looked back historically they would see that every time they have given up land it has resulted in them being on the defense. Remember If we decide to discard the past than we must also discard the argument of who is rightfully entitled to the land (Historically). That article has acknowledged that Israel must give up land. It discusses which areas should be given to the Palestinians and which land will allow Israel to keep it's security.

Things that should be considered. "Israel can never surrender the Golan Heights. We might as well be honest about it. Syria repeatedly - three times - attacked Upper Galilee from the Golan. Three strikes and you're out."

But when it comes to strategic terrain, forget about Hebron - the West Bank town that's home to less than 1,000 Israeli settlers, and well over 100,000 Palestinians. It's just one of the many settlements that hurt Israel's security instead of helping it.

I think both Palestine and Israel have the right to live there.  TBH this issue is kinda frustrating, coz I can't understand human stupidity.  They should sort their problems out and stop the hatred.

Just wait and see in about 5 years I think! Then there will not be any problems.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I would have liked to seen this topic turn into a real discussion of the areas that should be given up. Let's talk about specifics and what would be the most effective land to turn over without the complete removal of the state of Israel. That is the difficult question here. Something beyond "all" or "none" would be interesting and at least involve some serious thought.

A little help if you need it.

http://i14.tinypic.com/6h8b0n9.jpghttp://i19.tinypic.com/5yulxlz.jpg

More here http://www.theglobaleducationproject.or … /maps.html

The blue dots should disappear. West Bank and Gaza should be a free country aka Palestine.  They should have an international highway to connect both regions, allowing free circulation for Palestinians.  The rest should be Israel.  No walls included.

I agree, it seems simple to us doesn't it..lol . If they did remove all the blue dots and get out of those territories do you think they would continue to be attacked?

What about a tunnel to connect the two regions, expensive and a little farfetched I know but it would mean Palestinians could travel freely without cutting through Israel, providing they don't put a great big bomb in there.

It's really simple....  AIPAC, PNAC, and the military industrial complex run our government while radical Islamism and anti-Semitism plague Arab governments and the Iranian one as well....

It's never going to change, so why argue about it?  Just stay out or pick a side.  If we feel it necessary to pick a side, I guess the Israeli one is probably better, since their military is much more advanced.

At this point, the moral/diplomatic approach is basically a joke.  This isn't going to end until one side kills off the other.  This is why I prefer we just stay out of it.

ATG wrote:

When the Mexican get a piece of our land from the U.N. we'll talk.

I don't accept the Zionist argument. How many times must I explain that?

Then why should we accept that you're not anti-mexican, you're just anti-immigration?

SineNomine wrote:

History shows that the guarantor of long lasting peace is ethnic homogeneity. A clear seperation in this case would be the first step.
Or, if this doesn't help do what was done a thousand times before: Exterminate one side.

You're suggesting ethnic cleansing as a solution?

If so, great idea. I'm sure there are plenty of members of Hamas and plenty of more extreme Zionists who feel exactly the same way.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

The blue dots should disappear. West Bank and Gaza should be a free country aka Palestine.  They should have an international highway to connect both regions, allowing free circulation for Palestinians.  The rest should be Israel.  No walls included.

I agree, it seems simple to us doesn't it..lol . If they did remove all the blue dots and get out of those territories do you think they would continue to be attacked?

I don't know.  But I think they should try it.

Say they do, and the attacks continued.
Then what?

ATG wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I agree, it seems simple to us doesn't it..lol . If they did remove all the blue dots and get out of those territories do you think they would continue to be attacked?

I don't know.  But I think they should try it.

Say they do, and the attacks continued.
Then what?

History has taught us that they will. The Palestinian government needs to have a tight grip on the militants so that there is no excuse on either side when Israel folds to international pressure. The problem is that it only takes a few to screw it up for the whole, and there are a few who just do not want peace at all.

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I don't know.  But I think they should try it.

Say they do, and the attacks continued.
Then what?

History has taught us that they will. The Palestinian government needs to have a tight grip on the militants so that there is no excuse on either side when Israel folds to international pressure. The problem is that it only takes a few to screw it up for the whole, and there are a few who just do not want peace at all.

Palestine has been offered a free Palestinian state on three occasions, so it can be said that Israel has already folded to international pressure. Each time the land offer for this Palestinian state gets smaller. When I was four my dad gave me ten jellybeans, to which I exclaimed “is that all?” He came back and removed four leaving me with six. Fair enough, I learned my lesson. Palestine as a whole doesn‘t seem to be quite as receptive as a four year-old Ty.

Even if Palestinians were to be offered the exceedingly generous offer of all of the light-tan area in Kmarion’s map it is unlikely that they would accept it. Hamas, Hezbollah and other rejectionist groups as well as 87% of the general Palestinian population have expressed the desire to continue terrorist attacks on Israel after the formation of a Palestinian state, with 87.5% of Palestinians being in favour of “liberating all of Palestine”, in other words, destroying Israel in it’s entirety – a completely unrealistic proposition. To my way of thinking that is not a few who would sabotage peace, it more shows the refusal of Palestinian people as a whole to accept any peaceful and reasonable proposition. Even with Gaza and the West bank combined it would not be enough to ensure peace in the region.

(statistics were taken from Najah University in Nablus research, published in Alan Dershowitz’s book “The Case for Israel” chapter 22.)

Ty wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Say they do, and the attacks continued.
Then what?

History has taught us that they will. The Palestinian government needs to have a tight grip on the militants so that there is no excuse on either side when Israel folds to international pressure. The problem is that it only takes a few to screw it up for the whole, and there are a few who just do not want peace at all.

Palestine has been offered a free Palestinian state on three occasions, so it can be said that Israel has already folded to international pressure. Each time the land offer for this Palestinian state gets smaller. When I was four my dad gave me ten jellybeans, to which I exclaimed “is that all?” He came back and removed four leaving me with six. Fair enough, I learned my lesson. Palestine as a whole doesn‘t seem to be quite as receptive as a four year-old Ty.

Even if Palestinians were to be offered the exceedingly generous offer of all of the light-tan area in Kmarion’s map it is unlikely that they would accept it. Hamas, Hezbollah and other rejectionist groups as well as 87% of the general Palestinian population have expressed the desire to continue terrorist attacks on Israel after the formation of a Palestinian state, with 87.5% of Palestinians being in favour of “liberating all of Palestine”, in other words, destroying Israel in it’s entirety – a completely unrealistic proposition. To my way of thinking that is not a few who would sabotage peace, it more shows the refusal of Palestinian people as a whole to accept any peaceful and reasonable proposition. Even with Gaza and the West bank combined it would not be enough to ensure peace in the region.

(statistics were taken from Najah University in Nablus research, published in Alan Dershowitz’s book “The Case for Israel” chapter 22.)

It's not all just about land.

The solution needs to address the refugee issue.

The PNA were close to accepting the Taba summit terms, yet it collapsed. The most common attribution of the collapse is the change in US government, to one that was considered likely to put less pressure on Israel for peace than the Clinton adminstration did.

The underlying issue that was unresolved at the summit was the right of return. A perfectly valid legal right that many Palestinian refugees have, enshrined in 3 seperate bodies of international law. This legal right means that most Palestinian refugees are entitled either to financial compensation from the Israeli government from being driven from their homes, or that they be allowed to return to their homes. This was not fully addressed at the summit, had it been then we might have seen a solution.

The very fact that the talks progressed so far and collapsed so suddenly with a change in US leadership, is demonstrative that international pressure on Israel is the only way peace will be achieved.

Have you read Alan Dershowitz’s newer book, The Case for Peace?

Bertster7 wrote:

Have you read Alan Dershowitz’s newer book, The Case for Peace?

Not yet but I imagine I will – POLS 264, Ethics and International Affairs.

Since it is unrealistic that Palestinians will be able to use their right of return as it would more or less mean the merging of Palestine and Israel which simply would not happen, compensation is the better way of resolving this issue. This compensation would also help ensure the economic survival of a Palestinian state. However remember that 87.5% of Palestinians clearly do not want peace until Israel is destroyed, it is unlikely that compensation would be widely accepted or if it was, whether it would pacify the Palestinian people.

That’s the thing isn’t it, whether or not Israel crashes completely to pressure there will be no secure peace. One can also look into the connotations of what giving in to the terrorism of Palestinians will mean – if terrorism can succeed in giving Palestinians a free state and compensation why should it not continue to be used to ensure what the majority of Palestinians are after?