Gaza conflict

Onside – 25th May @ 10:39pm

It’s a fundamental point that demonstrates the Palestinians have a right to protest against the current Israeli oppression and aggression and the nonexistence of a Palestinian state.

If you are talking about the right to protest, I 100% agree and, as we’ve already discussed, the Israeli reaction has been completely overboard.

If, however, you’re talking about the right of return, under UN laws, conventions or whatever you want to call them, that’s a different question and one that will only be resolved through negotiation and by both sides accepting that the other has a point.

Most of them want their own land, not a joint Israeli/Palestinian state.

They have land in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel should also hand back the land that the settlers are occupying too, but it’s impractical to give them land in Israel, for reasons already covered.

Additionally, few Palestinians can prove that they ever owned land in what’s now Israel so, even if a right of return was granted to those who left, there would be a big problem legitimising the claims and nothing stopping those who were already in Gaza and the West Bank from claiming property they never had.

There is also the argument that many Arabs left of their own volition to facilitate and/or join the Arab drive to wipe out Israel.

And a further argument is that Israel took in a similar number of Jewish refugees who were expelled from the surrounding Arab countries – the same ones that attacked them, confident that they would quickly wipe the new state out.

Point is that, as with any property dispute, whether it’s two neighbours or two nations, both sides need to be heard, any available evidence needs to be produced and then a neutral party needs to make a judgement based on the entire picture, not just the view of one side.

The borders of 1967 would be a good starting point for a peace process. Every sensible person understands compromises will have to be made.

I agree.

I have said nothing about laws (I assume you mean international laws) other than said right of return and nothing about 1948 apart from the naqba.

You’ve been talking about right of return, which is part of international law. I’m pointing out the mitigating argument that the Israelis will use. They will argue that the Palestinians have no legal claim to any part of Israel.

It’s not for you or me to decide who’s right legally – that will be done by people far better versed in international law than you or I and only as part of peace negotiations between all parties involved.

Also, for the record, for all their vices Hamas have less blood on their hands than the state of Israel.

“We’ve killed less people than you have” is not really an argument mate – certainly no more than the Israeli argument that they wouldn’t have killed anyone if the Arabs had abided by the original 1948 resolution.

The fact that Hamas – and the PLO before them – have killed fewer people was not through want of trying and the fact that most of their attacks didn’t kill as many people as intended, or failed altogether, is not really something I think they should get any credit for.

So your claim that no peace solution can be agreed upon as long as Hamas stay in power

Actually, what I said is that Hamas need to be reigned in. That means acting like a government and includes recognising Israel’s right to exist. If they do that then sure, it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

Right now, they are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation and certainly not a fitting peace partner.

(only the non-compromising stance from the state of Israel goes much further back).

It doesn’t go back any further than that of the Arabs and the very first compromise that has to be made is unconditional recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

Hamas and Fatah alike have announced they would accept the borders of 1967.

Hamas make clear that they will recognise the ’67 borders only as a means to an end. They have made it abundantly clear that, in the long term, they don’t recognise the ’48 borders, let alone the ’67 ones.

Further, don’t try to flip the point I made about complicity back on me.

I’m advocating your point – either you believe that prejudice should be tackled or you don’t. You gave the impression that you do.

I’ve made perfectly clear what’s relevant in this debate and what’s sidestepping it.

Sorry mate, I didn’t realise they appointed you the judge.

But the point you make about Israel being wiped out, if Arab neighbours had the upper hand militarily, is premature.”

Not really and the very fact that you use the term “premature” suggests you agree that it is a concern, even if you think it’s too early for the Israelis to be worried about it.

When your enemy so brazenly doesn’t accept your right to exist, you don’t dismiss it as irrelevant and something not to worry about just yet. You don’t give them the time and the chance to build up an army when they have made clear that their long-term intent is to wipe you out.

You mistake militant slogans and crowd bait for reality.

Wrong, I’m afraid. This is directly from the manifesto of the ruling party in Gaza, the same manifesto upon which they were elected in the first place, by the Palestinian people.

What we can say with certainty, though, is there is no Palestine and the Palestinians in Gaza, in particular, live under horrible conditions.

I agree 100%.

These conditions are likey to increase desparate acts in people, not the other way around.

There’s another angle to that – the argument that it’s the ‘desperate acts’ have led to these terrible conditions. Fatah finally recognised this, which was what saw them lose a lot of power and Hamas gain it.

There has been no let up, since the day that Israel declared itself a state, whether it was Arab armies lining up to drive the Jews into the sea, or the PLO bombing schools and school-buses, or Hamas firing rockets into Israel and inciting people to riot.

Seventy years of these ‘desperate acts’ have got the Palestinians nowhere. Time to try a different tactic, wouldn’t you say?

Show the world that they’re serious about peace, that they can form a responsible government and that they recognise the right of Israel to exist – they’ll gain a helluva lot more friends than they have at the moment – not least in Israel itself.

You might not like that idea and the Palestinians themselves might not like it, but for as long as they vote for an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, they ain’t doing themselves no favours.

Hence the question is this one: who has the military power, social economy, the political system etc to turn this maelstrom and make an admission for a hope of change?

Peace will require the will of both sides. Military power doesn’t begin to come into it, unless you want the IDF to enforce peace? Socially and politically, the Palestinians will need financial aid, but the rest is totally up to them.

I also have no sympathy for cameraderie over content.

Not sure what that’s got to do with the price of fish, but thanks for sharing anyway.

I floated the idea to young Palestinians about a one administration solution. Two states one parliament work around. Two passports, two states one government. Proportional representation across the demographics – Essentially the only way you’re going to get acceptance and tolerance is integration and free movement of people and goods.

It was an idea they thought could work. The distrust from Israeli’s and Palestinians towards their respective failed leaderships is interesting. Sadly, peace will only come about when the likes of Baghouti, Mashall, Abbas, Hamas/Fatah, Bibi and the racist far right elements of the Israeli state are are six foot under. Lets not also forget the extensive media influence PR companies working for AIPAC and the state create either.

Most Israeli’s and Palestinians I spoke to just want an end to violence perpetrated against them. Via the state actor or militia. The young are merely used by both sides be it as a conscript asked to break rules of engagement and murder or a demonstrator who is canon fodder in the eyes of the Israeli army. Following orders is not a defence.

If you want peace.. find the next leaders among the young on both sides of the divide and let them both reject the extremist approach each side takes. Tea and cake diplomacy is needed across the middle east.

RDP, the Israelis are never going to accept a shared administration – they already have their own state and their own administration. I don’t think there’s much appetite for that amongst the Palestinians either – they also want their own state and own administration.

The two big issues that need to be resolved are borders and the status of Jerusalem but, as you and Banjo say, the extremists on each side are the problem and feed the fears of the moderates on the opposite side.

The settlers need to be forcefully repatriated (they won’t go quietly) and the land they’ve built on needs to be handed back to the Palestinians. Meanwhile, Hamas needs to unequivocally and unconditionally accept Israel’s right to exist and act like a serious partner for peace. All this could and should be done not as part of peace talks or negotiations, but as a clear sign that both sides are even ready for talks in the first place.

What a surprise that racist Lenny is on running Muslims down again.

You don’t like Muslims…fine, just admit it instead of trying to dress it up in faux-intellectual language. Not just this thread Lenny, noticed it a few times now.

Lenny, these videos are pointless and do little more than cause offence. If you have your own opinion, great, give it but we can all find videos on the internet of other people giving theirs.

RDP, I think one big gesture from either side would get the ball rolling nicely. They each want to out-do each other and convince the watching world that they’re the ones who are serious about peace and the other side are the ones who don’t want it.

I really think Israel should get the settlers off land that doesn’t belong to them – it would be a massive gesture and would weaken support for Hamas immediately. As it stands, for the Palestinians, it’s a constant thorn and, quite reasonably, they see it as a sign that Israel has no intention of stopping at the ’67 borders, or any other borders.

If the moderates on each side think that there is a real possibility of long-term peace, the extremists will become less and less relevant. I know this to be very much the case in Israel and I’m pretty sure it’s the same amongst the Palestinians.

Well Gasbag, you’ve certainly proven that if you are going to make a rude noise it’s gonna come out of your jacksy. Try thinking a little clearer before you let another one go.

There you go again brandishing your racist card. Why bother Gasbag? It’s a blotto motto.
Instead of watching Question Time this evening, why not take an un-blinkered look at Condell’s excellent presentation about political correctness. It’d be a real eye-opener for someone of your persuasion. I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it myself on here at the moment but I’m pretty sure that Pat can wise you up if you’re capable of sussing out what he’s getting at. The jury’s out on that one of course, but he’s certainly no crackpot and articulately tells it like it is in plain English. Who knows, you might even learn something.. Hang on, is that a pig up there?