I think the only reason they have not tried to kill or drive out all of the palastinians is that would give "cause" for the nations around them to attack
What nations would have any chance of attacking them and lasting more then 3 days?
Lebanon? Currently fractionated though the strongest group is anti-Israeli Hezbollah. Still they hardly possess a modern army.Syria? Currently caught in a Civil War.
Jordan? Small, with an army a fraction of the size of Israel's
Egypt? Currently run by the Egyptian Military whose pay cheques are signed by the United States.
All that said if Israel did decide to see if they could make a new record in terms of Genocide its quite possible that long term it might not work out so well for them. I mean the west would have a much harder time supporting them and the various governments in the Muslim world would probably have to seriously step up anti-Israeli activity or face the wrath of their citizens.
I think the only reason they have not tried to kill or drive out all of the palastinians is that would give "cause" for the nations around them to attackWhat nations would have any chance of attacking them and lasting more then 3 days?
Lebanon? Currently fractionated though the strongest group is anti-Israeli Hezbollah. Still they hardly possess a modern army.Syria? Currently caught in a Civil War.
Jordan? Small, with an army a fraction of the size of Israel's
Egypt? Currently run by the Egyptian Military whose pay cheques are signed by the United States.
All that said if Israel did decide to see if they could make a new record in terms of Genocide its quite possible that long term it might not work out so well for them. I mean the west would have a much harder time supporting them and the various governments in the Muslim world would probably have to seriously step up anti-Israeli activity or face the wrath of their citizens.
Russia, China, France, and maybe Germany. Britain switches sides depending on who's in office, so Britain is a wild card that may end up in the mix as well.
People forget that Russia is in bed with the Palestinians, and China itself has weighed in before and made it clear that it's on the Palestinian side. France isn't too happy with Israel and hasn't been for a long time, and Germany would just like to not be the bad guy for once. Britain has a lot of people who are not happy with Israel either.
Just none of them want to start a war with the United States at the moment.
Proto-Israeli Terrorists Tangent
Still, looks interesting. They claim that, above and beyond Jabotnitsky's and the whole proto-Likud movement's pre-war love affair with Mussolini (which I already knew about), Avraham Stern refused to abide by the ceasefire against the Britishiznoids during WWII and even envisioned an alliance with Hitler to kick them out!
Anyway, I didn't get to finish watching it, so I'm posting it here fore later. Not that it really means anything in relation to the current bombing of Gaza and Hamas, but it's something I'm interested in.
It's not the best solution, by far. I wish that people on both sides hadn't made choices that led to that being the only real option left to them at the time.
Same thing could very well happen in the middle east, if Israel is pushed too far.I know I'm breaking my word, but I have to comment on this.
The problem is that neither side made the choice. The British are the ones who made the choices that put them at conflict.
Pretty much, the British made a stupid choice: They promised the Palestinians their ancestral homeland, what is now Israel and Palestine, when the Palestinians finally get their freedom; as far as the Palestinians were concerned, the land was their's. And then the British gave it to the Jews. Naturally, the Palestinians didn't take giving away what was their land for generations to what in their eyes amounted to a group of foreigners.
Now, why was it the Palestinian homeland? Because the Romans took Jerusalem away from the Hebrews and gave it to what are now the Palestinians (who, in turn, were later conquered by the Arabs). Why? Because the Romans wanted to deny the Hebrews access to Jerusalem (it was in response to be a revolt).
So, yes, this really is all about the city.
Edit: Corrected part to sound clearer.
That is an interesting contention...where did the Italians find these Palestinians in order to give them Rome?
As it stands I'm aware of three major ethnic cleansing events of the Jews in the Holy Land. The Jewish revolt in 66 A.D. the second Jewish Revolt in 135 A.D. and the Crusades. The Crusaders tended to conquer Muslims but generally killed any Jews they could lay their hands on - Jews usually fled to Muslim controlled territory where they would be safe so long as they payed the J@~yah tax. Historically in Muslim controlled territory Christians, Jews and Sabians have roughly equal status under the law but must pay a special J$+yah tax.
It's not the best solution, by far. I wish that people on both sides hadn't made choices that led to that being the only real option left to them at the time.
Same thing could very well happen in the middle east, if Israel is pushed too far.I know I'm breaking my word, but I have to comment on this.
The problem is that neither side made the choice. The British are the ones who made the choices that put them at conflict.
Pretty much, the British made a stupid choice: They promised the Palestinians their ancestral homeland, what is now Israel and Palestine, when the Palestinians finally get their freedom; as far as the Palestinians were concerned, the land was their's. And then the British gave it to the Jews. Naturally, the Palestinians didn't take giving away what was their land for generations to what in their eyes amounted to a group of foreigners.
Now, why was it the Palestinian homeland? Because the Romans took Jerusalem away from the Hebrews and gave it to what are now the Palestinians (who, in turn, were later conquered by the Arabs). Why? Because the Romans wanted to deny the Hebrews access to Jerusalem (it was in response to be a revolt).
So, yes, this really is all about the city.
Edit: Corrected part to sound clearer.
That is an interesting contention...where did the Italians find these Palestinians in order to give them Rome?
As it stands I'm aware of three major ethnic cleansing events of the Jews in the Holy Land. The Jewish revolt in 66 A.D. the second Jewish Revolt in 135 A.D. and the Crusades. The Crusaders tended to conquer Muslims but generally killed any Jews they could lay their hands on - Jews usually fled to Muslim controlled territory where they would be safe so long as they payed the J*!yah tax. Historically in Muslim controlled territory Christians, Jews and Sabians have roughly equal status under the law but must pay a special J@%yah tax.
The people the Romans gave the land to were part of the Roman Empire. They became Palestinians because of the Roman name for the area: Syria Palaestina.
On the subject of not killing. IIRC, the baskian ETA was remarkably skilled at launching operations without killing anyone. And good thing too. After decades of doing this, Baskia was given independence from Spain specifically because of this strategy. It could so easily either have become a bloodbath, or never resulted in anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I (and most sane people) support the two-state-solution to the conflict - Palestinians get to gain independence, illegal settlements are either destroyed or become part of the new Palestinian state and the two nations declare a ceasefire. After such a solution takes place, remaining terrorists who decide to act against Israel on their own volition will be jointly handled by the two countries. A similar in agreement is in effect between Israel and Egypt, and it works rather well.It used to work rather well, but the current Egyptian government no longer honors it. You have the U.S. to thank for that scenario going south. Just Israel has been too busy to notice one of its long-time friends is no longer friendly.
Your kidding right?
The pro-American Egyptian Military overthrew the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood government and are currently dutifully hunting down the Muslim Brotherhood supporters and other anti-Isreali elements.
I mean last year we had the rather Orwellian speech by Obama along the lines of 'We will not say it was a coup, we will not say it wasn't a coup - we'll just not say'. This of course because America made the mistake at some point of passing a law saying that they won't send huge sums of foreign aid to countries that throw coups and depose democratically elected governments...but since America really wanted this military to oust this democratically elected government that law had to be...err...ignored.
Anyway at this point Egypt, and in particular her military, are one of the top recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid and for good reason.
From Wikileaks
"President Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the USD 1.3 billion in annual FMF as "untouchable compensation" for making and maintaining peace with Israel. The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace."
Now this is from 2009 but if you replace Former Air Force Commander President Mubrak with the Former Commander and Chief of the Egyptian Military President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi it amounts to the same thing.
This is why I (and most sane people) support the two-state-solution to the conflict - Palestinians get to gain independence, illegal settlements are either destroyed or become part of the new Palestinian state and the two nations declare a ceasefire. After such a solution takes place, remaining terrorists who decide to act against Israel on their own volition will be jointly handled by the two countries. A similar in agreement is in effect between Israel and Egypt, and it works rather well.It used to work rather well, but the current Egyptian government no longer honors it. You have the U.S. to thank for that scenario going south. Just Israel has been too busy to notice one of its long-time friends is no longer friendly.Your kidding right?
The pro-American Egyptian Military overthrew the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood government and are currently dutifully hunting down the Muslim Brotherhood supporters and other anti-Isreali elements.
I mean last year we had the rather Orwellian speech by Obama along the lines of 'We will not say it was a coup, we will not say it wasn't a coup - we'll just not say'. This of course because America made the mistake at some point of passing a law saying that they won't send huge sums of foreign aid to countries that throw coups and depose democratically elected governments...but since America really wanted this military to oust this democratically elected government that law had to be...err...ignored.
Anyway at this point Egypt, and in particular her military, are one of the top recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid and for good reason.
From Wikileaks
"President Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the USD 1.3 billion in annual FMF as "untouchable compensation" for making and maintaining peace with Israel. The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace...
No, I am not kidding. Egypt has been showing more and more tendencies towards helping Hamas than towards helping Israel. The U.S. is probably the only reason it is not overly critical of Israel (despite what the article I linked says).
A world that can read quotes like this:
As the days go by, however, the public pressure builds on Egypt to act on the Palestinians’ behalf, and so belatedly on Thursday, it opened the border temporarily so that wounded Palestinians could cross and receive medical treatment in Egypt.
Egypt destroyed many of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza and allied itself with the conservative powers in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan – against radical revolutionary forces who wish to topple the established order.
Zvi Mazel, who served as Israel’s sixth ambassador to Egypt and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs today and a contributor to this newspaper, told The Jerusalem Post that he thinks a channel of communication between Egypt and Hamas is open despite the hostility between them.
Although Egypt banned Hamas, “geography forces them to communicate on common issues such as the Rafah passage which opens rarely.”
“In the coming days Egypt will probably feel itself forced to be more active to show its empathy for ‘their brethren in Palestine,’” Mazel added.
Those are not statements that speak of a nation truly friendly to Israel.
So, what is it like to be from your world?
A world that can read quotes like this:
As the days go by, however, the public pressure builds on Egypt to act on the Palestinians’ behalf, and so belatedly on Thursday, it opened the border temporarily so that wounded Palestinians could cross and receive medical treatment in Egypt.Egypt destroyed many of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza and allied itself with the conservative powers in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan – against radical revolutionary forces who wish to topple the established order.
Zvi Mazel, who served as Israel’s sixth ambassador to Egypt and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs today and a contributor to this newspaper, told The Jerusalem Post that he thinks a channel of communication between Egypt and Hamas is open despite the hostility between them.
Although Egypt banned Hamas, “geography forces them to communicate on common issues such as the Rafah passage which opens rarely.”
“In the coming days Egypt will probably feel itself forced to be more active to show its empathy for ‘their brethren in Palestine,’” Mazel added.Those are not statements that speak of a nation truly friendly to Israel.
So, what is it like to be from your world?
OK, well it is obviously a precarious situation. I mean we pay them to kill their own people and to metaphorically hold a gun to the populaces head and force them to say 'I love Israel'. The common population obviously is anti-Israeli and even the Egyptian Military has to be careful about its actions. Only those at the top of the greasy pole really get true wealth and power from this arrangement and there is always the danger of a massive revolt or, alternatively, a captains (or barracks) revolt that might bring down the military backed government. That's bad for us (the population would express their true desires and those don't align with our agenda) and bad for the military rulers of Egypt (they'd be lucky to escape execution).
So yeah - Egypt is inherently hostile but their military leadership is not and so long as the military leadership can keep control of the country and manage to oppress the populace their agenda will align with our desires...should they slip up...well then we might have to face the actual desires of the Egyptian population and we won't like that.
OK, well it is obviously a precarious situation. I mean we pay them to kill their own people and to metaphorically hold a gun to the populaces head and force them to say 'I love Israel'. The common population obviously is anti-Israeli and even the Egyptian Military has to be careful about its actions. Only those at the top of the greasy pole really get true wealth and power from this arrangement and there is always the danger of a massive revolt or, alternatively, a captains (or barracks) revolt that might bring down the military backed government. That's bad for us (the population would express their true desires and those don't align with our agenda) and bad for the military rulers of Egypt (they'd be lucky to escape execution).A world that can read quotes like this:
As the days go by, however, the public pressure builds on Egypt to act on the Palestinians’ behalf, and so belatedly on Thursday, it opened the border temporarily so that wounded Palestinians could cross and receive medical treatment in Egypt.Egypt destroyed many of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza and allied itself with the conservative powers in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan – against radical revolutionary forces who wish to topple the established order.
Zvi Mazel, who served as Israel’s sixth ambassador to Egypt and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs today and a contributor to this newspaper, told The Jerusalem Post that he thinks a channel of communication between Egypt and Hamas is open despite the hostility between them.
Although Egypt banned Hamas, “geography forces them to communicate on common issues such as the Rafah passage which opens rarely.”
“In the coming days Egypt will probably feel itself forced to be more active to show its empathy for ‘their brethren in Palestine,’” Mazel added.Those are not statements that speak of a nation truly friendly to Israel.
So, what is it like to be from your world?
Very much so. I'd say we'll be lucky if the Egyptian government continues to hold any support for Israel at all; the people obviously don't have it and ever since 2011 they've been in a rebellious mood. The military can't afford yet another rebellion, especially so soon after losing one of their leaders and then having a bad government come into power. Sooner or later, they'll likely have to start helping Hamas just to keep the population appeased, and even then they'll have to struggle to make certain they're not helping too much.
Overall, Egypt is out of the picture as an Israel-friendly nation; the government can't afford the risk. So their best scenario is that Israel goes in and beats on Hamas before they're forced to make a stand; then they both are rid of Hamas and can appease their populace by going guns on blaming Israel for a genocide. The U.S. would not be in any political position to do anything about it (this is part of why the U.S. has worked hard to try to keep Israel from doing that). The U.S. might even be forced to back Egypt just to salvage its own political situation.
So, from the Egyptian standpoint, Israel is political poison right now. It needs to get its own population to change their minds on the matter.
Wow. You pretty much just cherry picked some stuff out of context and spun it to mean what you want it to rather than what it actually said.A world that can read quotes like this:
As the days go by, however, the public pressure builds on Egypt to act on the Palestinians’ behalf, and so belatedly on Thursday, it opened the border temporarily so that wounded Palestinians could cross and receive medical treatment in Egypt.Egypt destroyed many of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza and allied itself with the conservative powers in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan – against radical revolutionary forces who wish to topple the established order.
Zvi Mazel, who served as Israel’s sixth ambassador to Egypt and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs today and a contributor to this newspaper, told The Jerusalem Post that he thinks a channel of communication between Egypt and Hamas is open despite the hostility between them.
Although Egypt banned Hamas, “geography forces them to communicate on common issues such as the Rafah passage which opens rarely.”
“In the coming days Egypt will probably feel itself forced to be more active to show its empathy for ‘their brethren in Palestine,’” Mazel added.Those are not statements that speak of a nation truly friendly to Israel.
So, what is it like to be from your world?
Prove it. Because I'm not seeing any evidence for that.
While I did take them out-of-context, in-context they do not say anything different. In fact, I even copied that bit about collapsing tunnels so people could get an idea of the context and see how the statement itself showed a contradiction in actions.
A world that can read quotes like this:Those quotes directly contradict you.
So... That's a strange world.
Considering my quotes show the Egyptian people are being pro-Palestinian and Egypt itself actually giving medical aid to Palestinian, you are going to have to prove that they do contradict me. Because it is a rather absurd claim.
Considering my quotes show the Egyptian people are being pro-Palestinian and Egypt itself actually giving medical aid to Palestinian, you are going to have to prove that they do contradict me. Because it is a rather absurd claim.A world that can read quotes like this:Those quotes directly contradict you.
So... That's a strange world.
Which is about what the situation between Egypt and Israel has been like for decades. The people are sympathetic to Palestine. The government, under pressure and bribery works with Israel.
The status quo, interrupted briefly and only to a degree by Morsi, continues.And "so that wounded Palestinians could cross and receive medical treatment in Egypt" is not quite the same as "giving medical aid to Hamas". Though I'm sure some Hamas fighters were among those, I suspect the majority were wounded civilians.
The rest of the context, some of which you even quote, is the open hostility between Hamas and the Egyptian government and all the ways in which it cooperates with Israel.
Unlike your original claim, these quotes show that the current Egyptian government still honors the deal, about as well as it ever did. Perhaps you're mistaken about the degree of friendship between Israel and Egypt under Mubarak and earlier, so you see this as a more radical change than it really is?
They also show that Egypt is talking with Hamas (again, not a new situation), but has the new situation that the current government faces more pressure to support the Palestinians than existed under Mubarak. Mubarak, for all of his faults, was really good at keeping himself isolated from a lot of public pressure. That's ultimately what led to his downfall, though...
The current government is not as steady as his was, and they've already had to toss out the results of one election because of who ended up in charge. Overall, the people and stances are the same, but the political situation is entirely different and everyone knows it. That's why the Israeli ambassador to Egypt stated that Egypt's government will likely feel forced to support the Palestinians. Which, no matter how much everyone dislikes it, includes Hamas.
Now, I admit I am most likely wrong about how close Mubarak was to Israel. If so, that does disprove the claim that it is a new situation... and, unfortunately, makes it a longstanding situation :/
Edit: Clarified wording to sound better.
Or he did a quick Google search for something with a title that appears to support his claim and then when people call him on it he doubles down and demands we disprove his claim rather then try and actually proove his ridiculous and false claim.
Its sort of his modus operandi at this point.
I've also had people prove me wrong before. I ask for people to prove it so I can see the logic myself and come to understand it. I do not hesitate to admit I am wrong when I am wrong, and you can check my posting history and see the number of times I have admitted it. I have even admitted it a couple times before the other person even had a chance to reply because events proved me wrong.
Now, here's the funny thing: If Egypt is really holding up their terrorism deal with Israel, then why are they talking with Hamas? I might be wrong that it is a relatively new situation, but I am not wrong that Egypt is not honoring the deal.
Or he did a quick Google search for something with a title that appears to support his claim and then when people call him on it he doubles down and demands we disprove his claim rather then try and actually proove his ridiculous and false claim.
Its sort of his modus operandi at this point.
I've also had people prove me wrong before. I ask for people to prove it so I can see the logic myself and come to understand it. I do not hesitate to admit I am wrong when I am wrong, and you can check my posting history and see the number of times I have admitted it. I have even admitted it a couple times before the other person even had a chance to reply because events proved me wrong.
Now, here's the funny thing: If Egypt is really holding up their terrorism deal with Israel, then why are they talking with Hamas? I might be wrong that it is a new situation, but I am not wrong that Egypt is not honoring the deal.
Egypt has always talked to Hamas. They've been one of the main conduits for backdoor talks to broker ceasefires and similar deals. They've always talked over border openings and closings.
The recent banning of Hamas by Egypt has far more to do with Egyptian politics and the ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas than any agreements with Israel. Talking to Hamas is not a violation of any deal with Israel.
Okay. My understanding of the whole situation involving keeping up the terrorism deal was based on a flawed understanding of the politics. That does happen.
I'm going to blame that one on not checking out information on my end clearly enough.
Edit: Turns out I'm not wrong. There was a deal made, in part; the same agreement that allowed Egypt to move troops into Sinai was also the one where Egypt closed the tunnels to stop Hamas from moving shipments through them. That is definitely post-Mubarak and is part of more recent cooperation between Egypt and Israel. That does bring into question why Egypt would oppose Hamas, declare them outlaws, and then talk to them.
Lord snow: even the "legal" settlements are going to get run out of palistine on a rail if a genuine palastinian state becomes a reality. They're using 60% of the regions water, on top of what Israel diverts for its own use. That situation couldn't be maintained with a democratically elected palastinian government.And then 2 hours after the troops leave they'll be getting sent back in to "save the settlers who are having their water and land stolen from them!" (as both our medias will report it). The "God did my land survey!" crowd is pretty active in israel and the us. The palastinians.. not so much. If a conflict comes between them both our governments are going to side with the jewish settlers, keeping de facto control of the area (they own a good chunk of it), the roads, and the water.
|
Considering my quotes show the Egyptian people are being pro-Palestinian and Egypt itself actually giving medical aid to Palestinian, you are going to have to prove that they do contradict me. Because it is a rather absurd claim.A world that can read quotes like this:Those quotes directly contradict you.
So... That's a strange world.
Oh, sorry, I guess if you define "closing the tunnels to choke off the territories" as "helping Hamas", then yes, they are helping Hamas. Just be aware that nobody else uses that definition.
Oh, sorry, I guess if you define "closing the tunnels to choke off the territories" as "helping Hamas", then yes, they are helping Hamas. Just be aware that nobody else uses that definition.Considering my quotes show the Egyptian people are being pro-Palestinian and Egypt itself actually giving medical aid to Palestinian, you are going to have to prove that they do contradict me. Because it is a rather absurd claim.A world that can read quotes like this:Those quotes directly contradict you.
So... That's a strange world.
And where did I say that the Egyptian government is helping Hamas? I'm using Egypt the nation and the Egyptian government as two different entities for this discussion because they are political opposites in several areas, including this one.
Because you can talk to your enemies?
That article does show that Egypt worked with Israel against Hamas (and the MB). It does not show any details of the agreement (Not surprising, since both Egypt and Israel denied any cooperation.) and thus doesn't show any violation.
Opening the borders enough to treat some of the wounded is at least as much humanitarian aid as support for Hamas. But you have to talk to Hamas to do it.
Which creates a problem that you are working with Hamas to further one of their interests, even if it's just through rendering medical aide. That's part of what is screwed up about this situation. Plus, the next time they ask for aid, it's harder to say no without looking even worse.
Part of the problem is that the interests of Hamas are so heavily tied into the welfare of the Palestinians.
The issue with the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with Hamas or Israel; Egypt almost had those people running the country after Mubarak was tossed out and is trying to make certain they are out of the nation. So it's more about making certain the terrorists don't end up in charge of Egypt than it is about helping Israel....
Hamas is Muslim Brotherhood or more specifically Hamas is a Chapter of the the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a pan Arabic organization of which Hamas is a part. For example when the Muslim Brotherhood has some kind of an international meeting Hamas sends a representative.
When the Egyptians elected the Muslim Brotherhood they elected a government that would have had fairly close ties to Hamas. Possibly not actual war with Israel but certainly an easing on the border restrictions on the Egypt frontier with Gaza.
The current Egyptian Government, in destroying the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has done serous damage to Hamas by destroying supporters who also provided a significant chunk of their supplies.
In effect the Military Government in Egypt can never be friends with Hamas. They have gone way to far for that ever to be possible. That does not preclude them talking with Hamas, they share a border and will be forced to do so just as Israel will talk to Hamas for the same reasons.
The issue with the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with Hamas or Israel; Egypt almost had those people running the country after Mubarak was tossed out and is trying to make certain they are out of the nation. So it's more about making certain the terrorists don't end up in charge of Egypt than it is about helping Israel....Hamas is Muslim Brotherhood or more specifically Hamas is a Chapter of the the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a pan Arabic organization of which Hamas is a part. For example when the Muslim Brotherhood has some kind of an international meeting Hamas sends a representative.
When the Egyptians elected the Muslim Brotherhood they elected a government that would have had fairly close ties to Hamas. Possibly not actual war with Israel but certainly an easing on the border restrictions on the Egypt frontier with Gaza.
The current Egyptian Government, in destroying the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has done serous damage to Hamas by destroying supporters who also provided a significant chunk of their supplies.
In effect the Military Government in Egypt can never be friends with Hamas. They have gone way to far for that ever to be possible. That does not preclude them talking with Hamas, they share a border and will be forced to do so just as Israel will talk to Hamas for the same reasons.
Which makes it interesting that Egypt is hunting the Muslim Brotherhood, but remains one of the best methods for accessing Hamas to talk. Even more so that Egypt continues to campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood while making deals with Hamas to allow people through the border for medical aide.
Despite what connection the two groups share, it almost looks like Egypt treats them as separate entities in a number of ways.
Very much so. I'd say we'll be lucky if the Egyptian government continues to hold any support for Israel at all; the people obviously don't have it and ever since 2011 they've been in a rebellious mood. The military can't afford yet another rebellion, especially so soon after losing one of their leaders and then having a bad government come into power. Sooner or later, they'll likely have to start helping Hamas just to keep the population appeased, and even then they'll have to struggle to make certain they're not helping too much.
While they are caught in a bind they won't help too much...we pay them to maintain friendly relations with Israel. They've massacred hundreds of their own people for this. They are very unlikely to throw it all away now. Its not like they can ever really go back. If the Egyptian People actually got political power the guys at the top of the current Egyptian Government would definitely be put on trial and probably sentenced to die.
They've made their bed and that includes as cordial relations with Israel as is at all possible. Would not surprise me in the least if Mossad was working overtime trying to keep significant members of the Egyptian Government safe from assassination.
|
(Amusingly enough, in 95% of off-topic discussions I find myself disagreeing with him, but in this case he's being amazingly patient and reasonable.)
And there I was thinking I'm always reasonable :)
I think for the most part you really did sum the issue up, but I think things are even more difficult than you described. You described the conflict as mostly revolving around who controls which territory, and the Palestinian struggle for independence. Sadly, by this point the clash is much more personal than that - it's a clash of cultures that can't seem to tolerate each other.
A good example of that is the failure of the latest peace talks. Nearing their end, when it started to seem a little like an agreement might be reached, Israel came up with a new term to continue the talks - Palestine will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. A seemingly innocuous and obvious term. Of course, the Palestinians refused, and the chance for peace died again. In Israel, many claim that the government came up with that term knowing full well that Palestine would never agree, in an attempt to sabotage the peace.
You don't refuse to recognize someone (and really, Israel IS practically a Jewish state, there's not much point in refuting that) for what they are if your beef with them is something is non-essential as disputes over territories. That refusal - that preference of Palestinians to give up their chance for freedom rather than say the words "Israel is a Jewish state" - really says it all. The war between Israel and Hamas is a war between cultures and religions.
What does that mean? it means that the two peoples will have to show much more than simple restraint in order to solve this Gordian Knot. They'll have to accept the other culture and be willing to coexist with it.
|
|
Lord snow: even the "legal" settlements are going to get run out of palistine on a rail if a genuine palastinian state becomes a reality. They're using 60% of the regions water, on top of what Israel diverts for its own use. That situation couldn't be maintained with a democratically elected palastinian government.And then 2 hours after the troops leave they'll be getting sent back in to "save the settlers who are having their water and land stolen from them!" (as both our medias will report it). The "God did my land survey!" crowd is pretty active in israel and the us. The palastinians.. not so much. If a conflict comes between them both our governments are going to side with the jewish settlers, keeping de facto control of the area (they own a good chunk of it), the roads, and the water.
Maybe short term. But after a while, if the Palestinians maintain sovereignty over the area, things will have to change. I hope.
|
|
The delaying tactic that you've mentioned is employed by both sides - Hamas often demands that prisoners (often "heavyweight" prisoners - those who either executed or orchestrated some of the worse attacks against Israel) will be released and construction stop not only in settlements, but also in Jerusalem, as prerequisite terms for peace talks. And, often, after getting what they wanted, they also find a reason to blow up negotiations.
It's a pattern that repeats itself in both sides, which suggests that the issue is not as simple as disputes over lands. Both sides need to accept the other's right to exist, and they don't seem able to. I just used the recent term of acknowledging Israel as a Jewish state as a very clear cut example. I think acknowledging reality IS a trivial thing (as we can all agree, Israel is a Jewish state and a national home for Jews), unless you think that reality needs to change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The delaying tactic that you've mentioned is employed by both sides - Hamas often demands that prisoners (often "heavyweight" prisoners - those who either executed or orchestrated some of the worse attacks against Israel) will be released and construction stop not only in settlements, but also in Jerusalem, as prerequisite terms for peace talks. And, often, after getting what they wanted, they also find a reason to blow up negotiations.
It's a pattern that repeats itself in both sides, which suggests that the issue is not as simple as disputes over lands. Both sides need to accept the other's right to exist, and they don't seem able to. I just used the recent term of acknowledging Israel as a Jewish state as a very clear cut example. I think acknowledging reality IS a trivial thing (as we can all agree, Israel is a Jewish state and a national home for Jews), unless you think that reality needs to change.
There is no way the Palestinians are going to concede that and all it implies (no right of return, no single state option etc.) without at least a major Israeli concession of some equal magnitude. Demanding that it just be given up, for free, as a condition for everyone to even sit at the table was clearly intended to insure that no one would ever sit at the table and the Americans would go home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe short term. But after a while, if the Palestinians maintain sovereignty over the area, things will have to change. I hope.
There's no way to get there from here. How can the palastinians possibly have sovereignty over their own territorry if israel can and will override any decision they make with an invasion?
Is it possible that there's too many people on both sides who don't want peace for peace to happen?
And there I was thinking I'm always reasonable :)(Amusingly enough, in 95% of off-topic discussions I find myself disagreeing with him, but in this case he's being amazingly patient and reasonable.)
Nah; it's more that I consider myself a "green anti-Republican" (strong personal freedoms, personal responsibility, strict controls on businesses) so we frequently seem to be at opposite ends of far-more-trivial discussions. But I also rarely pipe up on such discussions (I like to read 'em, but rarely have something to say that hasn't already been said), so you don't see me around much.
I had no intention of describing the conflict as over territory; I'm in full agreement that it's far more personal now, and that's what makes it so hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible that there's too many people on both sides who don't want peace for peace to happen?
Unknown. On the isreali side, peace would require giving up a lot and getting effectively nothing in return. I don't know if any nation has ever done that.
This is going to get massively ugly.
No. This is SOP. This is what the bombing campaigns in Gaza look like.
Granted that's massively ugly, but not worse than the last time it was massively ugly.
Might get a lot worse.
Some of the Israeli commanders seem to be indicating a major ground operation in Gaza ala Cast Lead. The body count for Cast Lead was about 1400 so if it comes to that then this really will be small comparatively.
|
|
Shockingly, this opinion is a real one. However, in practice this too is likely a bad idea. The unification plan is popular mostly among the religious right-wing parties in Israel, and what they aspire to is more like an occupation than a unification - simply adding all remaining Palestinian grounds to Israel's rule, while still keeping the Palestinians themselves as second rate citizens with very few...
Actually the solution may be unification.
Fortunatly I believe in the Palestine both factions turned their backs to. The one where citizenship comes with the obligation of loyalty to every citizen's rights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to be blunt: It's quickly reaching the point where the only way there will be peace in Israel is if we nuke Jerusalem. Because, sadly, that city is what all of the fighting is about.Just No.
And horribly provocative. This thread is doomed, but there's no need to kick it over the edge.
Lord Snow. Glad you're alright. Glad the defense system worked and no one was hurt in that attack.
Have to agree with MJ. There will be no peace until one side of the conflict is obliterated, and even then...