Comrade Anklebiter |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Sweetman wrote:An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.I love how Gaza's idea of a cease fire is to only fire one-eight rockets a month... It's not what the name suggests to me.
Article wrote:Thus the latest ceasefire ended when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel.Or perhaps it ended with the rocket fired in July? Maybe with the 8 rockets fired in August?
Or in June when the IDF opened fire against fishermen and children?
Comrade Anklebiter |
Yeah. I mean, Hamas are a bunch of scumbags, but if we're going to hold them accountable for every Palestinian who sets off a rocket, well, can we start talking about settler violence?
(Random article grabbed from 2008)
Oh wait, no, Lord Snow has already said that no one in Israel can control them, so I guess they're not accountable.
Hmmm.
Spoiler for Lord Snow:
Anyway, I don't have any particular animus against you, but some of the comments of the people rallying to your support are riling me. I'm sorry that your girlfriend is in danger.
Quaeryt |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you believe Homer.
At least we know for a fact that Virgil really lived.
You don't entirely need to rely on Homer. Less than 100 k south of the excavations of Troy is the ruins of Ephesus which was not only Greek but was also the site of the Temple of Artemis (one of the seven wonders). I think that speaks to a very strong Greek presence.
Angstspawn |
Yes, clearly America (Allied powers) were far more evil than the Nazis (and Axis powers) since, ya know, we're the only ones to ever have deployed a nuke in warfare.
I don't know if you're American but you're clearly not European to say so! Whatever the number of victims from Hiroshima and Nagazaki you can't compare it to Nazi monstrosity!!
Making experiments on prisoners, using the human ashes from extermination camps to grow plants, killing children and asking their classmates to walk hover the bodies to have it compact, gathering civilians in a building and burning it to the ground, slaughtering disabled people, and countless war crimes killing millions of people!
How can you even think the United States were worse than the Nazis??? How many US soldiers gave their lives or integrity to save much more than their country? Maybe it was possible to influence or force Japan to submit differently but Japanese had to understand that Americans had spill to much blood to shed a single more drop (it had cost several dozen of thousands US soldiers lives to submit Japan with conventional ways).
Imperial Japan was nothing close to nowadays Iran. It was a very strong military power, it had a real will to dominate by might all Asia and was slaughtering populations not mentioning making experiments or torturing thousands of prisoners.
I'm not American and sometimes even very critic about US foreign policy, nonetheless ignorance can't excuse every fallacies...
BigNorseWolf |
Every nation that took part in World War II has blood on their hands from it, some more than others.
Yes but there's a vast difference between going to far in doing what you think you need to do and outright cartoon villainy. Neither the internment of the Japanese nor the concentration camps were right, but they were not wrong to the same degree.
meatrace |
I don't know if you're American but you're clearly not European to say so! Whatever the number of victims from Hiroshima and Nagazaki you can't compare it to Nazi monstrosity!!
If you will notice, in the post you quoted, I myself quoted something stated by Icyshadow. When someone quotes something and then makes a post, that usually means it is a response to the quote. Hence, my response was clearly in the context of what Icyshadow wrote. Quoting only my response, and thus taking it out of the context in which it was delivered, is shady at best and disingenuous at worst. You oughtn't do that.
Just so we're clear, I will repost the original quote:
Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.
If what he says were true, then the US would be worse than Nazi Germany, since we had and used a nuclear weapon.
Second, and I'm only guessing from the posts of yours that I've read thus far that English is not your first language, I'd like to direct you here.
meatrace |
English is indeed not my first language, but I do know what sarcasm is by now.
Perhaps you should go read up on what the meanings of the words "ignorant" and "jerk" are.
Don't call me names just because you can't reconcile what you said (quoted above) with the facts.
You, by your own statement, have implied that the US was worse than the Nazis. Do you want to walk back that statement?
Irontruth |
I don't think much can be done, unless one side stops using violence completely. For the Palestinians, that means no more rocket attacks and selling out those who do commit violence. For the Israelis that means no more retaliation and probably arresting illegal settlers. I don't see either side doing that though.
Renouncing violence is different from denouncing it. Pretty much all we've seen over the years is lots of denouncing from both sides, with little to no intent of actually giving up the armed aspect of the struggle.
Erik Mona Publisher, Chief Creative Officer |
In fact, calling people names on these boards is a violation of the community rules, so please knock it off, everyone.
We will shut down threads like this if they descend into name-calling. Please be on your best behavior and make every effort to be polite to one another, no matter how much you may disagree.
Thanks.
Yakman |
Thank you Erik. Also, you are a pretty good guy at the whole RPG thing, btw.
Anyhoo, there are no easy solutions to the Israel-Palestinian problem. Nothing that everybody, or anybody, will be happy with. Kissinger said something like there are no solutions, only accomodations, and that's how it is going to have to be.
As far as "the latest violations of whatever ceasefire or another" goes, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is about local politics. Local politics in this particular area goes back about 100 years, and is easily incited by anyone with a less than 100% conciliatory agenda (a.k.a. anyone).
meatrace |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Can we go back to the ironically less contentious simmering cauldron of power politics and religion that is the palastinian/isreali conflict?Sounds better than people pulling strawmen out of my statements.
Yes. Directly quoting someone is erecting a strawman now.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Irontruth |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the ALLIES were worse than the Nazis. Even I haven't heard that one before.
Did you know, the Atomic Bomb Casualties Comission may have denied surviving victims medical care in the interest of seeing what happened to people suffering from radiation exposure.
The Nazis were worse, but sometimes that distance isn't as big as we'd like to think.
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Can we go back to the ironically less contentious simmering cauldron of power politics and religion that is the palastinian/isreali conflict?Sounds better than people pulling strawmen out of my statements.
But problem with the whole conflict is, what can be done to stop it now?
Its sort of like asking what can be done to stop a ship. You can drop anchor, but if you expect it to be like slamming on the breaks of a car you're out of luck. There's 70 years of very angry momentum built up there, and whatever solution you take you're going to have to wait for it to stop.
1) Two state solution.
Israel HAS to pull the settlers out. If they are left there they will at best simply be controlling to much of the resources for the locals to live off of. More likely the palastinians like the one tied to the telephone pole are going to come calling to exact revenge, and pull israel back into a war.
There will be rockets. Lots of them. But you can build the kind of society where people won't want to launch them: the kind of society you're perpetuating.
2) Annexation
If people see that change is possible through voting, fewer of them (but not none) will think that the only way they can react to a cleptocratic system is through violence. A palastinian voting block would do a fairly good job of counteracting he religious block thats keeping the settlers from being removed. Having civil rights that require a greater deal of evidence and discretion on the part of law enforcement rather than the far looser judgement of the military will cut back on some of the less pleasant aspects of military occupation.
If it sounds like i'm asking the palastinians to do nothing and give up nothing, you're right. They have nothing to give and nothing to give up. They have no power, they have no control over their own situation. There is NOTHING that they can do to end the situation. Israel has all the cards... which is crux problem.
Israel has little if anything to gain from peace. With the continuing conflict they can slowly continue to nibble away at the land the palastinians have left. They already have 3/4 of the west bank under their control. What are they going to give that up for?
Any deal with hamas recognizing the existence of Israel would be wasted paper. Those that feel the need to resort to violence will simply leave hamas and form something else and continue launching rockets.
3) Mediation
Put a neutral, armed, military force in between the two and give them the ability to settle, and enforce, disputes. The UN is a fair possibility but tends to be seen as an arm of israel and has a severe lack of guts. I seem to recall sweden of all places was held in fairly high regard by the palastinians (idea may be out of date or i may not be recalling that correctly)
No matter how well this works at stopping the rockets, israel would feel that it could do a better job and would insist on taking back over. Like any other plan it doesn't gain Israel anything over its current situation: oddly enough when it decides how to settle disputes it settles them in its favor.
Yakman |
Its sort of like asking what can be done to stop a ship. You can drop anchor, but if you expect it to be like slamming on the breaks of a car you're out of luck. There's 70 years of very angry momentum built up there, and whatever solution you take you're going to have to wait for it to stop.
1) Two state solution.
2) Annexation
3)Mediation
When we get to the end of things, it will be all of the above.
The basic way that things are going to work out has already been determined by Israel putting up concrete walls where they want. Palestine will be the state behind the walls, Israel will be the state without. The question is: when will Israel be able to manage that situation within its internal politics? Something like 1/5 to 1/6 of Israel's voters LIVE IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. That's an enormous proportion of the electorate + an economy that backs them, who is committed to electing parties that support them.
The West Bank is going to be less, geographically, than it was originally. The Gaza Strip will be what it was originally. There's going to be annexation. The question is, how much?
As far as mediation goes, that's a given. Lines on the ground are really easy compared to everything else - the RIGHT OF RETURN is really important, as are things like WATER and ELECTRICITY and JOBS and CAN A PALESTINIAN STATE HAVE AN ARMY? This is all subject to mediation, as is everything else. Hard, hard, hard work that has no simple answers.
thejeff |
When we get to the end of things, it will be all of the above.The basic way that things are going to work out has already been determined by Israel putting up concrete walls where they want. Palestine will be the state behind the walls, Israel will be the state without. The question is: when will Israel be able to manage that situation within its internal politics? Something like 1/5 to 1/6 of Israel's voters LIVE IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. That's an enormous proportion of the electorate + an economy that backs them, who is committed to electing parties that support them.
The West Bank is going to be less, geographically, than it was originally. The Gaza Strip will be what it was originally. There's going to be annexation. The question is, how much?
As far as mediation goes, that's a given. Lines on the ground are really easy compared to everything else - the RIGHT OF RETURN is really important, as are things like WATER and ELECTRICITY and JOBS and CAN A PALESTINIAN STATE HAVE AN ARMY? This is all subject to mediation, as is everything else. Hard, hard, hard work that has no simple answers.
The problem is it's not a matter of "how much" in terms of percentages or square miles. The settlements are scattered throughout the West Bank, linked by Israeli controlled roads. There's no way Palestine can be viable if Israel keeps any significant amount of settlements. Lines on the map are just as hard as the rest of it.
Deiros |
So, to steal lands is perfectly fine I guess. I mean, if you are stronger and have a lot of resentment then why not?
How many generations have to live on land their ancestors took from somebody else before it's actually theirs?
Let's ask the Native Americans and Mexicans about how the U.S. took their lands from them. Go as this question and let's see what happens.
Yakman |
Let's ask the Native Americans and Mexicans about how the U.S. took their lands from them. Go as this question and let's see what happens.
This is two different questions.
There is the false reality a.k.a. the insane Chicano Nationalist Reality, wherein the USA "stole" land from Mexico, which was lawfully ceded in the wake of a war (land, which, for anyone with half a brain, a.k.a., the people that were there, was completely ungoverned and mismanaged).
Then there is the real reality a.k.a. the legitimate claims of the native americans, who were swindled and massacred, and butchered out of their holdings.
These two are very different claims. There is the claim of the bizarre and completely unfounded chicano nationalists who believe that 1/4 of the USA belongs to Mexico (it doesn't), and there is the claim of native americans that most of the country was stolen from them (by and large, they are correct).
Both of these stories of land-grabs have a place in the Israel-Palestine narrative. But both have their flaws. What is more important, is that rather than placing stories that take place hundreds of years past and thousands of miles away, we focus on what took place AT THE TIME and IN THE PLACE.
Analogies are wonderful in the abstract. But reality is a bit more important than simile or metaphor.
BigNorseWolf |
Analogies are wonderful in the abstract. But reality is a bit more important than simile or metaphor.
What the native american example provides is perspective and a common ground. We (almost) all agree that what happened to the native americans was wrong. This is easy to do because there's very little if any impact from that realization. If the situations are analogous, then whats happening to the Palestinians is also wrong... but this conclusion is harder to reach because it would require an actual change in behavior
1) The palastinians don't have an organized country, so when foreign powers carve up their lands its legal and thus ok. (an argument I've heard on these very boards for the Louisiana purchase)
2) Manifest destiny
3) Neccesity
4) They weren't using all the land anyway (since low intensity uses like grazing look empty vs towns cities and fenced in pastures)
5) They keep attacking us with terrorist actions (attacking settlers moving into native american lands in the night would certainly have gotten this label) So we need to move against them, which invites more terrorist actions from even further out, which means we need to take more land so we can stop it...
Deiros |
Yes I do agree with you, but I was trying to make an analogy of the situation.
The Mexican part of the situation is a bit more complex, but that is irrelevant to this thread and shall keep it like that I suppose unless someone starts it's own thread on it.
I do believe that this war has been going for too long and either side just doesn't know how to end it.
Then again, IMO, I think it if they are able to take religion out of the equation they should be able to solve it with a bit more ease.
Mark Sweetman |
Population of the Gaza Strip: ~1.7 million people
Number of Settlers in the West Bank: >300,000 people
Also going back a bit - rockets fired from Gaza into Israel are not the only provocative actions during ceasefires.
Israeli Settler Violence being one prime example.
And a reference to previous discussion US labels settler attacks on Palestinians as terrorism
A quote from a UN report: According to the UN office for humanitarian affairs, the number of settler attacks causing casualties or damage to Palestinian property has increased by 144% between 2009 and 2011(pdf). Three Palestinians were killed and 183 injured by settlers last year; about 10,000 trees were damaged or destroyed; and more than 90% of complaints filed with Israeli police were closed without charges being brought.
Icyshadow |
Icyshadow wrote:True, but as fair as it is, we'd just have to hope both sides choose to accept such a deal.Why would Israel do this? It doesn't gain any actual security by doing so, since Hamas can't stop the rockets.
Why would Israel let this situation get worse, then? For s***s and giggles?
Like I've said before, it's 100% sure there are people on both sides who want peace.
thejeff |
Icyshadow wrote:True, but as fair as it is, we'd just have to hope both sides choose to accept such a deal.Why would Israel do this? It doesn't gain any actual security by doing so, since Hamas can't stop the rockets.
Hamas can't stop the rockets completely, but Hamas can and has cut them back drastically during various ceasefires. If one rocket a week is better than dozens a day, then there is value for Israel.
Comrade Anklebiter |
In regards to the Indian and Mexican derail above, scroll all the way down to the last picture.
Vive le Galt!
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would Israel let this situation get worse, then? For s***s and giggles?
Because its other option is giving up land , the only thing they're not making any more of. The golan heights provides something like 60% of Israels water. If the palastinians were in control of that they would have too much power over israel.
There is also a sizable, voting contingent that believes in the biblically established borders. If the options are to displace half a million of its own citizens-loosing their vote and that of their supporters- or continue to oppress 2.5 million non voting Palestinians then the choice if you want to get elected is clear.
Like I've said before, it's 100% sure there are people on both sides who want peace.
No one is disputing that. The problem is that what the government on the isreali side is willing to give up in order to get it simply doesn't leave a viable situation for the Palestinians.
Yakman |
Because its other option is giving up land , the only thing they're not making any more of. The golan heights provides something like 60% of Israels water. If the palastinians were in control of that they would have too much power over israel.
a few points:
1 - the Golan Heights is Syrian territory (although the Syrians like to claim that some of what Israel occupies is actually a bit of Lebanon... French maps from the 30s aren't clear on the issue), not part of what anyone would include in a Palestinian state. Israel took the Golan during the 1967 War.
Supposedly, the Israelis were willing to give almost all of the Golan back to Syria during some negotiations that Ehud Barak conducted, in exchange for perpetual peace, like the Israel-Egypt deal. Because it wasn't all of the land, and talking (screaming) points are more important than national benefit in Syria's autocracy, the deal was not made.
2 - Land for peace works. It's how Camp David worked - Israel gave back all of the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for eternal peace. In a conflict about Land, Land is going to change hands. The question is: how much, to who, and under what terms?
3 - Water rights are an enormous issue. Israel/Palestine is mostly desert. Who controls the water controls the country. One of the sticking points in every significant negotiation is the water issue.
There is also a sizable, voting contingent that believes in the biblically established borders. If the options are to displace half a million of its own citizens-loosing their vote and that of their supporters- or continue to oppress 2.5 million non voting Palestinians then the choice if you want to get elected is clear.
You CAN win without the settler vote.
The problem is that if you aggressively alienate all of the settlers, keeping a coalition together in the energetic Israeli Knesset is hard.
GentleGiant |
It's quite sad to see a people seeking recognition of being treated badly and put into ghettos having no qualms about doing the exact same thing and put another people into a ghetto.
Things might have been quieter if, you know, once the Jewish people were given their own nation, they had actually stayed within those boundaries.
GentleGiant |
Written by the Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, working at the Shifa hospital in Gaza (quick translation by Google Translate and me):
Travel letter from Mads Gilbert, 21.11 2012:
Midnight passed. No truce (weapons rest).
Also no rest for child, woman or mankind.
Drones buzz as insects of evil and we know they are followed by thunderous detonations. The curtains in the window where I am writing this moves with the air pressure and I can clearly feel the pressure waves. All windows are open so they do not implode and spread deadly swarms of glass. There are so many deadly swarms here in Gaza. Grenade and bomb shrapnel, drone swarms, swarms of flyers with threatening content to further terrorize the civilian population dropped from the sky.
It's been a terrible day.
It's hard to describe 13 torn bodies, decapitations, torn limbs, charred, toddlers split in two - it all comes to Shifa. With a desperate cry for help, screams of pain. Moms who collapsing in paralyzed despair when the dead children are recognized.
We are working.
Intubating, cutting off clothes, injecting, trying to understand where the damage is on those who still have signs of life.
Today there were 24 deaths and 189 injured. Not everyone is going to Shifa, but many.
We lost two "on the table," shrapnel damage to the pulmonary artery and debilitating head injuries. A cava inferior-tear was saved with the help of skilled vascular surgeons in the group of 40 volunteering Palestinian doctors who came from the West Bank yesterday.
Solidarity. New alliances among Palestinians. Major Arab delegations whizzes through the hospital with shocked faces while the roar of bombs continually reminding them of the imminence in their political responsibilities.
A family with children comes in the morning hours after Israeli jet bombers have crushed the largest bank in the center of Gaza City. Dad is furious, calling for revenge. The children are listening, horrified.
Timeout at 00:44: Damn, now they're bombing right next to us. Serial Bombings (cluster bombs?).
How are they able to comfort their children during this night?
I'm scared. Evil seems to prevail.
I do not know if "the world" knows what this prison of millions is really like. It is not possible to find shelter, solace, a way out, flight, protection. And the same power that keeps everyone trapped is at the same time bombing incessantly with one of the world's most powerful war machines.
What would happen if Michelle Obama was here last night with her two daughters? Lived in a house in Beit Lahia in the outskirts of Gaza City, poor people's quarters, without light, without any security. What if she came in with one of her beautiful children in her arms, penetrated by shrapnel - without any chance to get away?
Would there be a change then?
I don't understand that Jens, Espen and Inga Marte [Norwegian politicians] and the others who said so many right things about the struggle against terrorism and political violence a while ago [regarding Anders Breivik's terror actions] - how can they sit with all their influence and either be silent or express understanding for Israel's "right to to defend itself "?
Defend?
They attack more, as they have attacked in the past 60 years.
Did we not learn that injustice must be stopped now, in our time, while we know and can act - not as an archaeological exercise with the benefit of hindsight and the cool, historic distance making the discomfort of betrayal easier to live with?
Do not send more bandages, doctors, lunches and meaningless statements.
Stop the bombing.
Open Gaza.
End the occupation of Palestine.
Let the kids have peace.
Let the mothers breastfeed.
Let the old people drink clean water.
Let the fishermen fish and farmers harvest.
Let teachers teach and children learn.
Let the youngsters go and discover something other than siege, blockade and fear.
Let the soothing gentleness of a night's sleep lie like a blanket of years of longing for rest of Gaza's people.
When they do not have to defend themselves against superior odds.
'Then drop weapons impotent down
We create worth of man
We create peace, ' he wrote, Nordahl.
Gaza, in the night's terror.
Midnatt passert. Ingen våpenhvile.
Heller ingen barnehvile, kvinnehvile eller menneskehvile.
Dronene surrer som onde insekter og vi vet de etterfølges av drønnende detonasjoner. Gardinene i vinduet der jeg skriver dette følger lufttrykket og jeg kjenner tydelig trykkbølgene. Alle vinduer er åpne så de ikke skal implodere og spre dødelige svermer av glass. Det er så mange dødelige svermer her i Gaza. Granat- og bombesplinter, dronesvermene, svermene av flygeblad med truende innhold for ytterligere å terrorisere sivilbefolkningen som slippes fra himmelen.
Det har vært en forferdelig dag.
Det er vanskelig å beskrive 13 sønderrevne kropper, dekapierte, avrevne lemmer, forkullete, småbarn delt i to – alt kommer til Shifa. Med desperate rop om hjelp, skrik i smerte. Mamma’er som faller sammen i paralysert fortvilelse når de døde barna gjenkjennes.
Vi jobber.
Intuberer, skjærer av klær, kanylerer, prøver å skjønne hvor skadene er på de som fortsatt har livstegn.
Idag var det 24 drepte og 189 skadde. Ikke alle kommer til Shifa, men svært mange.
Vi mistet to “på bordet”, splintskader til arteria pulmonalis og ødeleggende hodeskader. En cava inferior-avrivning ble berga med hjelp av dyktig karkirurg i gruppen på 40 frivillige palestinske leger som kom fra Vestbredden igår.
Solidaritet. Nye allianser mellom palestinerne. Store arabiske delegasjoner fyker gjennom sykehuset med sjokkerte ansikter mens bombedrønnene ustoppelig påminner dem om det imminente i deres politiske ansvar.
En barnefamilie kommer inn i morgentimene etter at israelske jetbombefly har knust den største banken i sentrum av Gaza by. Pappa er rasende, roper på hevn. Barna hører forskrekket på.
Avbrudd kl 00:44: Fy faen nå bomber de rett ved oss. Seriebomber.
Hvordan klarer de å trøste barna sine i denne natt?
Jeg er redd. Ondskapen synes å seire.
Jeg vet ikke om “verden” skjønner hvordan dette millionfengselet egentlig er. Det er altså ikke mulig å finne ly, skjul, utvei, flukt, beskyttelse. Og den samme makt som holder alle innesperret bomber samtidig ustoppelig med et av verdens sterkeste krigsmaskineri.
Hva hadde skjedd om Michelle Obama var her inatt med sine to døtre? Bodd i et hus i Beit Lahia i utkanten av Gaza by, fattgfolks kvarter, uten lys, uten noen sikkerhet. Hva om hun kom løpende inn med ett av sine vakre barn i armene, gjennomtrengt av granatsplinter – uten noen mulighet til å slippe unna?
Ville det blitt en endring da?
Jeg skjenner ikke at Jens, Espen og Inga-Marte og de andre som sa så mye riktig om kamp mot terror og politisk vold for litt siden – hvordan kan de sitte med all sin innflytelse å enten tie stille eller uttrykke forståelse for Israels “rett til å forsvare seg”?
Forsvare seg?
De angriper jo, slik de har angrepet de siste 60 årene.
Har vi ikke lær at urett må stoppes nå, i vår tid, mens vi vet og kan handle – ikke som en arkeologisk øvelse det etterpåklokskapens lupe og den kjølige, historike distansen gjør ubehaget ved sviket lettere å leve med?
Ikke send flere bandasjer, leger, matpakker og intetsigende erklæringer.
Stopp bombingen.
Åpne Gaza.
Avslutt okkupasjoen av Palestina.
La ungene få fred.
La mødrene amme.
La gamlingene drikke friskt vann.
La fiskerne fiske og bøndene høste.
La lærerne undervise og ungene lære.
La ungdommene reise og oppdage noe annet enn beleiring, blokade og frykt.
La nattesøvnens lindrende mildhet legge seg som et teppe av års etterlengta ro over Gazas mennesker.
Da trenger de ikke forsvare seg mot en overlegen overmakt.
‘Da synker våpnene maktesløs ned
Skaper vi menneskeverd
Skaper vi fred’, som han skrev, Nordahl.
Gaza, i nattens uhygge.
Yakman |
Things might have been quieter if, you know, once the Jewish people were given their own nation, they had actually stayed within those boundaries.
A few problems with the maps:
Partition Plan, 1947 : The Partition Plan was not going to work as it mostly ignored all of the facts on the ground. It was cover for the British to leave and let the Jews and the Arabs fight it out. Neither state was viable, and the Partition Plan completely ignored the fact that the Arab League was actively interested in taking most of that territory for itself (a.k.a., the King of Transjordan basically made peace with the Israelis after they allowed him to swallow the West Bank into his Kingdom). People were already shooting each other.
After Israel declared independence, it was attacked by most of the Arab World, and had to fight a pretty major war for two years before defeating them, and that war of survival resulted in borders of a larger state, rather than the Partition Plan ones.
None of this is to justify the egregious and frequently quite horrible things that both sides did during the war, but throwing up a map of a failed plan and saying "that's what should have happened" is insane.
Compare the 1947 map to the Partition Plan map. See all that green getting wiped off the map? Oh... that's Palestinians being economically and politically displaced to make room for Jewish immigrants - there's a reason they were angry, and were going to ask for aid from the Arab League. At the same time, the UN couldn't create an unviable Jewish state from the territories in the 1947 map.
1949 - 1967 : The "Palestinian Land" on the map IS NOT PALESTINIAN. Gaza was given to Egypt, the West Bank to Transjordan (now Jordan). In 1967, the Israelis defeated the Arabs and took over the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. It did not conquer some mythic "Palestinian State" that has never existed. It took land from Syria, Egypt, and Transjordan.
thejeff |
GentleGiant wrote:Things might have been quieter if, you know, once the Jewish people were given their own nation, they had actually stayed within those boundaries.A few problems with the maps:
Partition Plan, 1947 : The Partition Plan was not going to work as it mostly ignored all of the facts on the ground. It was cover for the British to leave and let the Jews and the Arabs fight it out. Neither state was viable, and the Partition Plan completely ignored the fact that the Arab League was actively interested in taking most of that territory for itself (a.k.a., the King of Transjordan basically made peace with the Israelis after they allowed him to swallow the West Bank into his Kingdom). People were already shooting each other.
After Israel declared independence, it was attacked by most of the Arab World, and had to fight a pretty major war for two years before defeating them, and that war of survival resulted in borders of a larger state, rather than the Partition Plan ones.
None of this is to justify the egregious and frequently quite horrible things that both sides did during the war, but throwing up a map of a failed plan and saying "that's what should have happened" is insane.
Compare the 1947 map to the Partition Plan map. See all that green getting wiped off the map? Oh... that's Palestinians being economically and politically displaced to make room for Jewish immigrants - there's a reason they were angry, and were going to ask for aid from the Arab League. At the same time, the UN couldn't create an unviable Jewish state from the territories in the 1947 map.
1949 - 1967 : The "Palestinian Land" on the map IS NOT PALESTINIAN. Gaza was given to Egypt, the West Bank to Transjordan (now Jordan). In 1967, the Israelis defeated the Arabs and took over the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. It did not conquer some mythic "Palestinian State" that has never existed. It took land from Syria, Egypt, and Transjordan
No one ever claims there was a "Palestinian State". They claim there is a Palestinian people. They may even claim there should have been a Palestinian state.
Your description of 1949-1967 is a little off as well. Nothing was given to Egypt or Transjordan. They took them. Egypt occupied, but did not annex Gaza and Transjordan did annex the West Bank, but that was not widely recognized. The current State of Palestine has far more international recognition than Transjordan's claim to the West Bank ever did.
At least you do admit "that's Palestinians being economically and politically displaced to make room for Jewish immigrants"
The problem with current situation is made clear by the last of those maps. The way the green in the West Bank is cut into isolated patches by Israeli settlements. No solution that doesn't deal with can begin to be viable.
While Hamas may talk about not recognizing Israel, Israel has been methodically going about rendering a Palestinian state impossible for decades and continues to expand settlements even while negotiating a two-state solution.
Yakman |
No one ever claims there was a "Palestinian State". They claim there is a Palestinian people. They may even claim there should have been a Palestinian state.
Your description of 1949-1967 is a little off as well. Nothing was given to Egypt or Transjordan. They took them. Egypt occupied, but did not annex Gaza and Transjordan did annex the West Bank, but that was not widely recognized. The current State of Palestine has far more international recognition than Transjordan's claim to the West Bank ever did.
My comments were on the maps. Saying "Palestinian Land" when it is a British Mandate or annexed to another country... well... that's a little disingenuous.
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:My comments were on the maps. Saying "Palestinian Land" when it is a British Mandate or annexed to another country... well... that's a little disingenuous.No one ever claims there was a "Palestinian State". They claim there is a Palestinian people. They may even claim there should have been a Palestinian state.
Your description of 1949-1967 is a little off as well. Nothing was given to Egypt or Transjordan. They took them. Egypt occupied, but did not annex Gaza and Transjordan did annex the West Bank, but that was not widely recognized. The current State of Palestine has far more international recognition than Transjordan's claim to the West Bank ever did.
Well what you call it then?
On the first map, all the land is British Mandate. I suppose you could just use "Jewish" and "Arab" land.
As for the later maps, it wasn't annexed. Or wasn't recognized as annexed. If you're going to claim the West Bank was part of Transjordan, you should also admit that there is a Palestinian state.
You could also have a map claiming it was all Israel, since Israel has occupied both the West Bank and Gaza.
GentleGiant |
thejeff wrote:My comments were on the maps. Saying "Palestinian Land" when it is a British Mandate or annexed to another country... well... that's a little disingenuous.No one ever claims there was a "Palestinian State". They claim there is a Palestinian people. They may even claim there should have been a Palestinian state.
Your description of 1949-1967 is a little off as well. Nothing was given to Egypt or Transjordan. They took them. Egypt occupied, but did not annex Gaza and Transjordan did annex the West Bank, but that was not widely recognized. The current State of Palestine has far more international recognition than Transjordan's claim to the West Bank ever did.
Is it more disingenuous than calling the UN Mandate a legitimate nation when it replaced the British Mandate?
It was, after all, called the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - so what else would you call it than Palestine?Yakman |
My point was that the situation is insanely complex - and putting four maps next to each other which are poorly described (at best) - and saying that serious information can be gleaned from them is misleading.
There's no demographic data there, no mention of Jordanian or Egyptian administration of territories, no mention of mandates, British or otherwise... What we get are two colors.