BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

That "mistake" was repeated throughout the middle east (Iraq, Jordan, etc). That's why you have so much sectarian tension in those regions.

It's not unique to Israel. Yet somehow, the world is able to deal with it in other places without losing its collective mind.

FEOS wrote:

It's not unique to Israel. Yet somehow, the world is able to deal with it in other places without losing its collective mind.

that's because in other places the mistake has been - for better or worse - allowed to work itself out. in israel/palestine this shit's been continuously stirred up for a number of different reasons.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not unique to Israel. Yet somehow, the world is able to deal with it in other places without losing its collective mind.

that's because in other places the mistake has been - for better or worse - allowed to work itself out. in israel/palestine this shit's been continuously stirred up for a number of different reasons.

Kurds?
Shia/Sunni?
Shit going down in Syria right now? (hint: it's sectarian as much as it's against the autocracy)
Libya?
Arab Spring? (again, sectarian as much as against the autocracies)

Yeah...that shit's on lock.

lol, i knew you'd say this. you are like clockwork toy, FEOS: push a button - hear one if its two pre-programmed phrases. /facepalm

lybia was fine, until certain "progressive and enlightened" came to fuck it up.
syria is still fine and capable of taking care of its problems - that is if it's left alone, especially by those, who thinks "it's against autocracy".
kurds would have been  history long ago if not for you know who.
fuck "arab spring" - there's no such thing. it's a fancy label, like "holocaust", invented to give a name to something which would otherwise not be looked at in the way needed by manipulators.

shia/sunni you say? how long did it take for catholics/protestants to resolve their problems? remember? do you think bombing from above or throwing money at both sides would speed up the process? or maybe you think getting in with "democracy, freedom and strawberry pie" would?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

that's because in other places the mistake has been - for better or worse - allowed to work itself out. in israel/palestine this shit's been continuously stirred up for a number of different reasons.

Kurds?
Shia/Sunni?
Shit going down in Syria right now? (hint: it's sectarian as much as it's against the autocracy)
Libya?
Arab Spring? (again, sectarian as much as against the autocracies)

Yeah...that shit's on lock.

In which of those places were an alien group of invaders allowed to displace the ethnic population, and backed militarily and financially by outside parties?

There are ethnic tensions everywhere, Israel/Palestine is a different situation.

It's only a different situation because you see it as different. It all comes down to the same thing: two parties can't live together on the same land that both think is theirs for various reasons, and which some third party (the UN or some colonial power) arbitrarily divided up. No side is happy, because all sides think they deserve everything based on some ancient right that was long ago irrelevant.

Then other people who have no skin in the game decide to support one or the other for some reason, using the same flawed logic, instead of looking at today's realities. Or, in some cases (like this one), say they support for those reasons, when they are using one or the other side as a proxy to further their own interests in the region, and could care less about the cause or the ancient "right".

It is no different. Not at all.

Except the last bit isn't true at all.

Who has been open to (and offered, multiple times) a two state solution and who has walked away from it (multiple times)?

I'll give you a hint: The former rhymes with "Israel" and the latter rhymes with "Palestine Authority".

Both sides are used as proxies by others who have interests in the region and who don't care about the core issues between the two parties involved. Otherwise, the issue would've been resolved long before now--it's more useful as an unresolved political football than as a resolved problem.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The last bit is entirely true.

A two state solution, one of which is populated exclusively by jews, is nothing like sharing the land - which was the original basis on which Israel was allowed to form.

Look at facts, Dilbert. Currently, non-Jews live in Israel and participate in Israeli life. There are even members of the Knesset who are non-Jews (granted, not many). On the other hand, the PA has baldly stated that there would be no Jews in their state.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you look closely you'll see the Israelis have also walked away from a two state solution, as the version on offer - where Arab-Israelis get to stay and refugees have the right of return - is not to their mono-racial liking.

Who has offered it and who has walked away? Israel has offered it (with nearly zero preconditions) and the PA has walked away...repeatedly.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Both sides are used as proxies by others who have interests in the region and who don't care about the core issues between the two parties involved.

Which two sides?

On the one side we have the US, which seems to think stirring up trouble in any part of the world it has an interest is somehow a good thing (see your STRATFOR posts).

On the other side we have ..... no-one, just many countries which would like Israel to stop causing trouble, stop stealing more and more land and STFU.

On one side, you have the US (primarily...there are others). On the other, you have the many Arab/Muslim countries supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PA. Some of the support for both sides is "legitimate" (ie, involved in resolving the core issues), but most is focused on perpetuating the conflict, as it is more useful to keep it going politically than having it resolved. Much like many other "political footballs" in the world (immigration reform, et al).

arabs need to stop using hospitals, schools and un buildings as points of origin for rocket attacks

FEOS wrote:

Beduin wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Who has offered it and who has walked away? Israel has offered it (with nearly zero preconditions) and the PA has walked away...repeatedly.

ok...why?

Probably because the one precondition Israel had at the time (when Arafat walked away) was that the PA had to recognize Israel's right to exist.

ahh... so settlement expansion has nothing to do with it.

Beduin wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Beduin wrote:

ok...why?

Probably because the one precondition Israel had at the time (when Arafat walked away) was that the PA had to recognize Israel's right to exist.

ahh... so settlement expansion has nothing to do with it.

When Israel offered to remove settlements? No. Pretty sure it didn't.

Beduin wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When Israel offered to remove settlements? No. Pretty sure it didn't.

remove settlement expansion?

Yes. Looks like you need to learn bit about this whole "peace process" thing.

Notice I didn't say "all", but they did offer to give up some, particularly some of the more controversial. Was highly unpopular with the more conservative parts of the population. Caused some stand-offs in the settlements, IIRC.