Israel-Palestine kerfuffle

[AsburySkinsFan]

they had been at an uneasy truce for years until israel fired rockets to kill that hamas leader which triggered it
so israel started it, but it was justified. And this is just like being on a playground talking to kids.
"he started it. No he started it."
both these guys need to head to time-out.

exactly!!!!

[Larry]

I have to confess, there are times where I wonder:

If the US were to make an offer:

The US will occupy the West Bank and Gaza.
Israeli settlements in these territories will revert to Palestine.
Palestine will create their own civil government, but the US will maintain an arms embargo and similar security measures.

The US will gradually transition Palestine to self rule. First their police powers, and eventually their own military (but that's a long way down the road.)

Maybe something along the lines of what we did in Germany after WW2. (Which, I will confess, I don't know much about.)

1) Would the US be willing to do that?

2) Would that be acceptable? To either side?

3) Could we successfully do it? I mean, our occupation of Iraq wasn't exactly smooth.

----------

Me, if something like that would work, if 30 years from now, we have a peaceful, self-governing, Palestine, I'd be willing to spend a lot. (of money and lives. I have no delusions that it would take both).

But would it work?

[thebluefood]

I dunno about that, Larry. I don't think Israel's going to give an inch peacefully and there seems to be so much animosity toward the west (especially the United States) among Palestinians that they wouldn't want to see an American soldier anywhere near their land, even if it is to help establish a Palestinian state.

Plus, there's that pesky, but all important question: "Can we afford it?" We've spent over one trillion dollars fighting the War on Terror. Can we afford to keep the peace in Gaza and would that really be good for anyone in the long term?

If something like this were to happen, I think a multi-nation coalition (i.e. NATO) would be more suitable for the job. Someone might be able to sell me on something like that, but even that doesn't seem all that appealing. This conflict is so personal and emotional that I'm not sure the west or the east or anyone else besides the Palestinians and Israelis have any say in what happens. This is their fight. It's been their fight for God only knows how long.

[Mad Mike]

......this round you mean? See that's why this whole "who started it" is silly, this is just round 43. What does it matter who threw the first punch THIS time?

I *strongly* disagree. That kind of thinking is what perpetuates this war.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 06:09 PM ----------

I have to confess, there are times where I wonder:

If the US were to make an offer:

The US will occupy the West Bank and Gaza.
Israeli settlements in these territories will revert to Palestine.
Palestine will create their own civil government, but the US will maintain an arms embargo and similar security measures.

The US will gradually transition Palestine to self rule. First their police powers, and eventually their own military (but that's a long way down the road.)

Maybe something along the lines of what we did in Germany after WW2. (Which, I will confess, I don't know much about.)

1) Would the US be willing to do that?

2) Would that be acceptable? To either side?

3) Could we successfully do it? I mean, our occupation of Iraq wasn't exactly smooth.

----------

Me, if something like that would work, if 30 years from now, we have a peaceful, self-governing, Palestine, I'd be willing to spend a lot. (of money and lives. I have no delusions that it would take both).

But would it work?

Bah. I'm not putting our troops in between these fools.

If elected president, my position would be to start with whatever peace plan can get the most international support and tell israel to stop new settlements and get serious about making concessions or we will withdraw our support for them, and tell the palestinians that they must stop attacking civilians and make their own concessions (Jerusalem is too important to too many people for one to claim it as *their* capitol) or we will give even more support to Israel and stop trying to hold them back. IMO neither side will back down until their very existence is seriously threatened.

It's a position few would agree with and would probably piss off most of the world but I'm tired of holding hands with these idiots and trying to get them to sing kumbaya.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 06:07 PM ----------

I have to confess, there are times where I wonder:

If the US were to make an offer:

The US will occupy the West Bank and Gaza.
Israeli settlements in these territories will revert to Palestine.
Palestine will create their own civil government, but the US will maintain an arms embargo and similar security measures.

The US will gradually transition Palestine to self rule. First their police powers, and eventually their own military (but that's a long way down the road.)

Maybe something along the lines of what we did in Germany after WW2. (Which, I will confess, I don't know much about.)

1) Would the US be willing to do that?

2) Would that be acceptable? To either side?

3) Could we successfully do it? I mean, our occupation of Iraq wasn't exactly smooth.

----------

Me, if something like that would work, if 30 years from now, we have a peaceful, self-governing, Palestine, I'd be willing to spend a lot. (of money and lives. I have no delusions that it would take both).

But would it work?

Bah. I'm not putting our troops in between these fools.

If elected president, my position would be to start with whatever peace plan can get the most international support and tell israel to stop new settlements and get serious about making concessions or we will withdraw our support for them, and tell the palestinians that they must stop attacking civilians and make their own concessions (Jerusalem is too important to too many people for one to claim it as *their* capitol) or we will give even more support to Israel and stop trying to hold them back. IMO neither side will back down until their very existence is seriously threatened.

It's a position few would agree with and would probably piss off most of the world but I'm tired of holding hands with these idiots and trying to get them to sing kumbaya.

[No Excuses]

I'm kind of at the point where we should just let them take the leashes off, let them have a full scale war and winner takes all. Everyone stay out of it and let them have a knock down, dragged out fight. Get it over with already. It's been 100 years. Settle it already.

If it ever escalates to that point, it won't be a 1 vs 1 war. It's going to be Israel vs. every other neighboring Muslim country. And as a consequence, the US and other Israeli allies will be drawn in. We're probably looking at WWIII.

[Predicto]

I am extremely concerned about Palestinian bias as many seem to think they are this victim of the big bad "Zionist" machine.

Both sides are at fault, Palestine isn't the victim, as well as the "Zionist" machine

To say overwhelmingly that Palestine is victim, while ignoring all that Terrorist organization Hamas does to Israel, is simply short-sighted.

This is true, but when you are talking about American attitudes, the opposite problem of ignoring Israel's wrongful acts and provocations is at least as strong, perhaps much stronger. A rocket lobbed by a militant at an Israeli town is easy to understand and easy to denounce.

The REASON why that rocket keeps getting shot is a lot more complicated. It has something to do with this:




And, of course, the Israeli settlements have just grown even more in the last dozen years since that 2000 map, and the Palestinians who are there are powerless to stop it.

And then we are all surprised when some of them become terrorists.

[ixcuincle]

I was in a very spirited debate last night with a bunch of people who supported the Palestinian side. In addition to being called names such as "Zionist" and "AIPAC" drone, there was also a discussion about Hamas. This is an organization that has been focused on violence for years. Obviously it has not worked, so what incentive do they have to keep fighting, and incur Israeli wrath? Lay down your arms and talk.

Of course, for a terrorist organization whose own charter defines their primary purpose as "Destroy Israel", this cannot be possible. And that's sad.

[Predicto]

I was in a very spirited debate last night with a bunch of people who supported the Palestinian side. In addition to being called names such as "Zionist" and "AIPAC" drone, there was also a discussion about Hamas. This is an organization that has been focused on violence for years. Obviously it has not worked, so what incentive do they have to keep fighting, and incur Israeli wrath? Lay down your arms and talk.

Of course, for a terrorist organization whose own charter defines their primary purpose as "Destroy Israel", this cannot be possible. And that's sad.

And, of course, at the same time the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has been trying to "talk" for years and years, and all they get is more Israeli settlements on more West Bank land and the cold shoulder from Netanyahu, who is busy courting the settlers and their supporters in the Knesset.

And then you wonder why Hamas' approach starts to seem more desirable to the people who actually live there and are watching their homes get bulldozed.

(please understand, I understand your side of the argument, and agree with much of it. But there are two sides. Israel and its supporters have to realize that the Palestinians aren't just going to disappear, as much as they may want them to, and they have genuine grievances.)

[No Excuses]

Obviously it has not worked, so what incentive do they have to keep fighting, and incur Israeli wrath? Lay down your arms and talk.

You really don't know much about this issue. As Predicto said, it is kind of hard to 'talk' when the otherside won't stop building more and more settlements on your land.

When you say Bibi is great..you mean the man who blatantly disrespects the POTUS?

I'm not on either side here, I readily admit that both sides are wrong. But your opinions seem like something a person would piece together by reading twitter posts/Pro-Israeli blogs.

[ixcuincle]

You really don't know much about this issue. As Predicto said, it is kind of hard to 'talk' when the otherside won't stop building more and more settlements on your land.

When you say Bibi is great..you mean the man who blatantly disrespects the POTUS?

I'm not on either side here, I readily admit that both sides are wrong. But your opinions seem like something a person would piece together by reading twitter posts/Pro-Israeli blogs.

How about the terrorist organization stop firing missiles indiscriminately into Israel. That's a starting point

[Larry]

How about the terrorist organization stop firing missiles indiscriminately into Israel. That's a starting point

They did.

There was a cease fire in effect.

And then Israel decided to kill the head of Hamas, while he was driving down the street.

But please, feel free to keep announcing why one side of this is clearly, 100%, incapable of any peace. And accusing everybody else of partisanly blaming only one side.

[alexey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...election,_2013

Early parliamentary elections will be held in Israel on 22 January 2013 to elect the 19th Knesset

[twa]

They did.

There was a cease fire in effect.

.

I pretty sure there were rockets fired during the cease fire

of course there are so many rockets and ceasefires it is hard to keep track
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=291548

[Larry]

of course there are so many rockets and ceasefires it is hard to keep track

Agreed.

That's why I think that trying to pin down a "he started it" is a rather pointless exercise.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I *strongly* disagree. That kind of thinking is what perpetuates this war.

I agree with everything you wrote here, except what you wrote. Peace comes when we stop blaming.