Gaza - conflict, war, land, water rights, bad colonional legacies...

[xzar_monty]

16 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But what  should leadership  on both sides agree  to  in  the interests of peace? Lets say you were  in charge of  negotiations, what reasonable demands   would you  raise?

You didn't ask me, but I would simply point out that this is a long-standing conflict that an awful lot of people have tried to work on for decades, some with better intentions than others. I think it's preposterous to assume that anyone here could make a reasonable suggestion other than in the most general terms that ultimately mean nothing. Like: in order to play the piano well, you press the white and black keys so that they make beautiful music. That's true, but that's of no use to anyone. You can make similar statements about the conflict, but they don't mean anything.

[BruceVC]

54 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

You didn't ask me, but I would simply point out that this is a long-standing conflict that an awful lot of people have tried to work on for decades, some with better intentions than others. I think it's preposterous to assume that anyone here could make a reasonable suggestion other than in the most general terms that ultimately mean nothing. Like: in order to play the piano well, you press the white and black keys so that they make beautiful music. That's true, but that's of no use to anyone. You can make similar statements about the conflict, but they don't mean anything.

Yes but you can  be  informed about the conflict and have an opinion and it would  echo  what other recognized negotiators have raised. It does require  understanding of the  conflict so I definitely dont think  becoming informed   about something is preposterous or  means nothing, its  just an opinion based on historical data  and  what other people  have suggested through the decades

And thats better  than   a lot of what I hear which is unhelpful or unrealistic suggestions like " the Israeli are  Colonialists "or  "Israel doesn't  have a right to  exist "  or "  there  is no  way a 2 state solution can work " which doesn't help in the interests of compromise 

Your opinion also doesn't have to be deep, for  example the  obvious way  to end the war   in Ukraine is for  Russia to   end its  invasion. Then they can start  discussing things like NATO  or Crimea  

But in the Israeli conflict  there  are   real points of contention and compromise that need  to be made  like Jerusalem,  the ending of the  building of illegal Israeli settlements,  Israel's right to exist and the borders  of a 2 state solution 

None of these  dont mean anything,  they all relevant because they have been raised  through the  decades 

So  Im asking what is  anyones suggestion to a long  term  solution to  peace based on the numerous issues that both sides have?

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by BruceVC

[pmp10]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

They just don't do genocide like they used to in the old days... Europeans used to be good at that. No rebellions or uprisings when there is nobody left to rebel or rise up. The world has grown soft...

Just kidding of course, but they are still all discussing fighting the symptoms of a problem instead of addressing the cause.

The impact is just not serious enough for anyone to care.
Israel will get its way and all that remains is to make useless fell-good statements and monetize the angertainment. 

[xzar_monty]

21 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

The impact is just not serious enough for anyone to care.
Israel will get its way and all that remains is to make useless fell-good statements and monetize the angertainment. 

Comments like this always intrigue me. The point here appears to be that the world and the people in it are too cynical for their own good, but it is this comment itself that is most cynical here.

[uuuhhii]

nothing breed resistance more than oppression

 

pretty sad people still trying to both side this nonsense

[uuuhhii]

17 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Comments like this always intrigue me. The point here appears to be that the world and the people in it are too cynical for their own good, but it is this comment itself that is most cynical here.

 

seen on some forum with massive population nihilist and nazi can live in peace while attacking everyone else

it is easy to be nihilist on place like that

Edited November 16, 2023 by uuuhhii

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Gorthfuscious what's your view on a sustainable solution to this  decades   long  conflict? I am not sure if you have noticed   but generally most people  only get involved  or have an opinion when there is an active conflict  like what  happened on 7 October and  then the views are just about the responses that  both sides  make because we  are dealing with symptoms 

But what  should leadership  on both sides agree  to  in  the interests of peace? Lets say you were  in charge of  negotiations, what reasonable demands   would you  raise?

If I had a real answer to that, I would nominate myself for a Nobel prize. Not that I care about the title (since that one has largely been politicized these days), but the monetary grant could always come in handy

The only thing I have is observation skills and opinions. But I guess you have to start asking questions somewhere and I do tend to question people, if I think they have entrenched themselves in opinions. For the this part of The Middle East, the options are somewhat limited.

The two sides are not equal, since one side is effectively the one in control and calling all the shots (literally and figuratively). Similar to asymmetrical warfare, you have an asymmetrical power balance, where one side has all the soldiers, all the tanks, all the fighter jets and also all "international recognition" from several of the richest and most influential countries. The other side has been living as a defeated and occupied enemy for close to 70 years, without a proper leadership nor infrastructure (Israel has actually worked against any form for centralized Palestinian control since 1948, which doesn't make it easier to have a face to face meeting between leaders, since one side categorically rejects the idea, that the other side could have a leadership, as that would imply something close to statehood.

One idea? Support the creation of a *viable* state for the occupied population to call home. People tend to be easier to negotiate with if they feel they have something to lose other than their lives. They haven't had anything to lose the last 2-3 decades. Hence why you can't bargain with "them" (an abstract them), because they don't have central leadership, no sense of identity (other than victims of occupation) and no sense of purpose. Give them something to lose and see if they are willing to make it work?

[Chilloutman]

Palestinians could have their coutry 3 times over if they didn't always obstructed its creation...

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

Palestinians could have their coutry 3 times over if they didn't always obstructed its creation...

Yes they have  also refused several  offers for a state and some really good peace  deals 

https://besacenter.org/palestinian-rejectionism/

 

[Malcador]

7 hours ago, pmp10 said:

Israel will get its way and all that remains is to make useless fell-good statements and monetize the angertainment. 

Behold the rules based order.

  

15 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes they have  also refused several  offers for a state and some really good peace  deals 

https://besacenter.org/palestinian-rejectionism/

 

That seems a bit too brief for something not as simple as this.  e.g. as a counterpoint - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/opinion/fictions-about-the-failure-at-camp-david.html?pagewanted=

Arafat saw what happened to Rabin.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Malcador

[HoonDing]

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by HoonDing

[BruceVC]

21 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Behold the rules based order.

  

That seems a bit too brief for something not as simple as this.  e.g. as a counterpoint - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/opinion/fictions-about-the-failure-at-camp-david.html?pagewanted=

Arafat saw what happened to Rabin.

Sure,   not all the offers were  great but did  you did you  read the first one ?

"After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, following World War I, Britain took control of most of the Middle East, including the area that constitutes modern Israel. 17 years later, in 1936, the Arabs rebelled against the British and against the Jewish neighbors.

The British formed a task force, the Peal Commission, to study the cause of the rebellion. The Commission concluded that the reason for the violence was that two peoples, Jews and Arabs, wanted to govern the same land. The answer, the Peal Commission concluded, would be to create two independent states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, a two-state solution.

Rejection number one. The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory, the Jews the remaining 20%. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion"|

 

It seems  like the Palestinians had no interest in sharing the disputed territory because that  was a  good deal 

 

[Malcador]

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Sure,   not all the offers were  great but did  you did you  read the first one ?

Oslo / Camp David are more relevant.  Every dance needs two, Netanyahu's a great partner for that in how we got here.

[uuuhhii]

trying to frame violent rebellion against britain as bad thing is pretty much up hill battle

is this kind of manipulative language suppose to work on people know little about west asia history

[Zoraptor]

Yep. You hear a lot about the Balfour Declaration, you don't hear much about the multiple agreements that had promised the same land to the Arabs years earlier. Brits got what they deserved there, unfortunately just their soldiers mostly not the duplicitous politicians who made the actual decisions. Reminder: Winston S Churchill was 100% fine with gassing arabs who didn't agree with the British Empire reneging on their deal.

Strange that Bruce doesn't mention the Jewish rebellion of Irgun and especially Lehi/ Stern Gang though. Especially since Likud was basically the Lehi political party. Very peculiar.

Anyway, I'm going to offer 20% of Bruce's house to a Zimbabwean refugee. Bruce gets 80% so it's heavily in his favour, and the Zimbabwean refugee has already accepted...

Edited November 16, 2023 by Zoraptor

[Zoraptor]

IDF says it may take 'weeks' to fully search Al-Shifa Hospital.

Remember a few days ago about how they knew exactly where the command bunker was, and it was the 'beating heart' of Hamas? Guess they're hoping everyone will have forgotten that in a few weeks, after they start in on the hospitals in southern Gaza...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

IDF says it may take 'weeks' to fully search Al-Shifa Hospital.

Remember a few days ago about how they knew exactly where the command bunker was, and it was the 'beating heart' of Hamas? Guess they're hoping everyone will have forgotten that in a few weeks, after they start in on the hospitals in southern Gaza...

Was that when they used a cgi presentation as proof? I honestly don't remember, the level of bull**** to come out of Israeli government accounts and politicians is enough to make Colin Powell's WMD presentation look credible by comparison.

[Zoraptor]

Think so, they had very detailed looking 'plans' for it at least.

They do seem to be claiming to have found something now (beyond ten AKs and a grenade), though the only 'proof' offered is a crater with a hole at its bottom. Strange that, since Israel insisted it hadn't attacked the hospital. Then again, we don't have a tape measure to see if the crater is 5-7m wide either, if it isn't it can't have been from Israel and must have come from Hamas' air force trying to make Israel look bad.

Should be noted since it's likely to become an issue that literally no one disputes that Al Shifa has a basement since it's on the official plans for the compound, the dispute is on its use. I rather suspect we're going to get a lot of people insisting it was built by Hamas- cunningly using the Jewish pseudonyms Gershon Tzapor and Benjamin Edelson- over the next few days.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Zoraptor

[uuuhhii]

47 minutes ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

Was that when they used a cgi presentation as proof? I honestly don't remember, the level of bull**** to come out of Israeli government accounts and politicians is enough to make Colin Powell's WMD presentation look credible by comparison.

quality of those cgi are truly insulting

they can drop thousands of bomb but couldn't even afford to use unreal store asset

[Malcador]

"Terror tunnel".  Ah takes me back to the 9/11 days.

[Gfted1]

"Terror tunnel" got a chuckle out of me too.

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Yep. You hear a lot about the Balfour Declaration, you don't hear much about the multiple agreements that had promised the same land to the Arabs years earlier. Brits got what they deserved there, unfortunately just their soldiers mostly not the duplicitous politicians who made the actual decisions. Reminder: Winston S Churchill was 100% fine with gassing arabs who didn't agree with the British Empire reneging on their deal.

Strange that Bruce doesn't mention the Jewish rebellion of Irgun and especially Lehi/ Stern Gang though. Especially since Likud was basically the Lehi political party. Very peculiar.

Anyway, I'm going to offer 20% of Bruce's house to a Zimbabwean refugee. Bruce gets 80% so it's heavily in his favour, and the Zimbabwean refugee has already accepted...

Its  not the same analogy and you know that 

A house is a personal space and land  in this case represents a state for  both groups and both sides  need  to accept they going to  be living next to each other, neither side is going away 

Also the Jews and Palestinians  both can trace their  ancestry to the region  going back thousands  of years. So both sides have valid arguments to want a state in the region 

[Zoraptor]

It isn't the same; hence it is analogy. If it was the same it'd be, well, homology. Point being of course that it's very easy to accept being given 20%- the most fertile 20%, including places like Haifa which had 90%+ muslim population- if you had zero percent before. It's a lot harder when you had 100% and someone is taking that 20% off of you while leaving you such veritable gardens of eden as the Negev Desert. To put it in perspective it would have been a population exchange of 225,000 Arabs and 1250 (!) Jews- 180x as many Arabs as Jews. Baffling how the arabs rejected such a fair offer, eh?

Kind of irrelevant anyway since the Jewish Agency Council actually voted to reject the Peal [sic; actually Peel] Commission recommendations, not accept them as you claimed. Largely because its leadership thought they could drive out even more muslims and get more land. Which proved to be accurate, since they ended up expelling 720k arabs during Nakba. Which is of course why all those loony tunes right wing national religious nutbars talking about second Nakbas and 'voluntary' expulsions have to be taken very, very seriously.

[Elerond]

That 20% was already owned by jews that had bought it with backing of rich Zionist jews around the world. 

Haifa has not had 90% Muslim population after Ottoman Empire collapsed.

The 1922 census of Palestine, conducted by the British authorities, recorded Haifa as having a population of 9,377 Muslims, 8,863 Christians, 6,230 Jews, and 164 others. By the time of the 1931 census of Palestine, this had increased to 20,324 Muslims, 13,824 Christians, 15,923 Jews, and 332 others.  In 1938, 52,000 Jews and 51,000 Muslims and Christians lived in Haifa

[Malcador]

Sounds like they discovered a basement.  Shame no drone footage, yet. Hopefully they use the F.E.A.R. OST