Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Because of partisan support from the USA, Israel has absolutely no incentive to change.

As I've said on the US politics thread, the embassy move has been a debacle.

None the less, I've recently came to the conclusion that there will be trouble in the Holy Land, big trouble

and it will have nothing to do with Jerusalem or the Iran nuclear deal.

I've been watching documentaries on this, and the big flash point will be:

Water...

With climate change, freshwater is starting to run out there...

Egypt/Sudan/Ethiopia are already arguing about the Nile and who gets access.

and Israel has had water wars in the past with its neighbours.

It has been said that society is always three meals away from revolution. You can add 1 glass of water to that saying...

Frankly, as the area of the world apart from the US who has beneifted most from fossil fuel sales, I'm not super sympathetic about the Middle East suffering from Climate Change.

 Da Boss wrote:
Frankly, as the area of the world apart from the US who has beneifted most from fossil fuel sales, I'm not super sympathetic about the Middle East suffering from Climate Change.

I'm inclined to agree with that, but I don't like to see normal people suffer.

From a purely selfish, what's in it for us, point of view,

we in Europe better hope there isn't any more trouble.

The Syrian civil war and the migrant crisis put a huge strain on Europe, and probably contributed to the Brexit vote.

Could Europe handle another major migrant crisis?

Unfortunately, the wheels are in motion and at this point there's not much anyone can do.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Right and wrong is always blurred in war/conflict. What you should really do is look at the peoples motivations.

What motivates the Palestinians?
Reclaimation of the holy land - the death of Israel.

What motivates the Israelis?
Security. Peaceful coexistence.

You can not claim that these are not true statements.

Actually:

What motivates the Palestinians?
To take their homes back. The Israelis displaced over 700,000 Palestinians.
Religious zealots (take your pick of groups)

What motivates the Israelis?
To seize yet more land
Religious zealots (the ultra nationalist Haredi in particular. These guys should switch their arm bands to red instead of blue

I mean, dude, if Israelis were interested in Peaceful co-existence, burning people alive is probably not the best way to go about it.

Taking their homes back is impossible without war - which they have no means to wage and therefor have no leverage. They've already tried that multiple times anyways. They lost - now they are suffering for it. How long must this nonsense continue? All of this because of some nonsensical religious structures.

I've got a great idea - lets just blow them up - evac the city and burn it to the ground. Then what's left to fight for? It's time for humanity to stop living in the stone age and grow up and stop believing in fairies. That's the real truth of it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Right and wrong is always blurred in war/conflict. What you should really do is look at the peoples motivations.

What motivates the Palestinians?
Reclaimation of the holy land - the death of Israel.

What motivates the Israelis?
Security. Peaceful coexistence.

You can not claim that these are not true statements.

Actually:

What motivates the Palestinians?
To take their homes back. The Israelis displaced over 700,000 Palestinians.
Religious zealots (take your pick of groups)

What motivates the Israelis?
To seize yet more land
Religious zealots (the ultra nationalist Haredi in particular. These guys should switch their arm bands to red instead of blue

I mean, dude, if Israelis were interested in Peaceful co-existence, burning people alive is probably not the best way to go about it.

Taking their homes back is impossible without war - which they have no means to wage and therefor have no leverage. They've already tried that multiple times anyways. They lost - now they are suffering for it. How long must this nonsense continue? All of this because of some nonsensical religious structures.

Well, more practically speaking, you had a bunch of Europeans stream in over several different waves and push the existing post-Ottoman Arab population out, it's not just a religious thing, there's very clear ethnic/racial issues above and beyond religion.

I've got a great idea - lets just blow them up - evac the city and burn it to the ground. Then what's left to fight for? It's time for humanity to stop living in the stone age and grow up and stop believing in fairies. That's the real truth of it.

I could get behind that. Level the whole area, turn it into a giant parking lot.

But, even taking the religion aspect out of it, the fundamental issue is that you have over 3 million people living under occupation and desperate poverty with no functioning government and little but anger to subsist on, and another 2 million living largely the same existence except under blockade instead of direct occupation. You could erase every religious concept tomorrow, and nothing would probably change. A lot of effort has gone into that as well, it has largely been in the interests of all parties in the middle east to keep the Palestinian question open but unresolved for one reason or another at one time or another, and a functioning Palestinian government is something that has been intentionally undercut and destroyed.

The Israelis could consider giving some land back in exchange for them accepting the land is Israeli in the pre 67 areas or at least compensate the families for what they have lost. But Israel is not interested in meeting the millions of DPs in the middle, they are a far too convenient political tool to exploit.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Israelis could consider giving some land back in exchange for them accepting the land is Israeli in the pre 67 areas or at least compensate the families for what they have lost. But Israel is not interested in meeting the millions of DPs in the middle, they are a far too convenient political tool to exploit.

The middle ground right now looks more like Palestine renouncing the the entire city of Jerusalem and Syria to the Golan Height and Israel expulsing the colonists out of the West Bank and giving back the buildings and infrastructures created by the colonists as a financial compensation. The refugees living in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypte and Syria would then be naturalised and denied the right to return (unless they want to live in Palestinian lands). That's pretty much the best one can hope, but Israel will never risk dismantling the colonist as not to give control of the vital Jordan river to the highly unstable, corrupted and incompetant Palestinian leadership with which they were at war for decades. On their side, Palestinians will never accept to surrender the entirety of Jerusalem to the Hebrew State even though they would probably incapable of insuring security and good administration in Jerusalem East, a site of historical and cultural importance like none other in addition to be a major touristic attraction.

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The Israelis could consider giving some land back in exchange for them accepting the land is Israeli in the pre 67 areas or at least compensate the families for what they have lost. But Israel is not interested in meeting the millions of DPs in the middle, they are a far too convenient political tool to exploit.

The middle ground right now looks more like Palestine renouncing the the entire city of Jerusalem and Syria to the Golan Height and Israel expulsing the colonists out of the West Bank and giving back the buildings and infrastructures created by the colonists as a financial compensation. The refugees living in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypte and Syria would then be naturalised and denied the right to return (unless they want to live in Palestinian lands). That's pretty much the best one can hope, but Israel will never risk dismantling the colonist as not to give control of the vital Jordan river to the highly unstable, corrupted and incompetant Palestinian leadership with which they were at war for decades. On their side, Palestinians will never accept to surrender the entirety of Jerusalem to the Hebrew State even though they would probably incapable of insuring security and good administration in Jerusalem East, a site of historical and cultural importance like none other in addition to be a major touristic attraction.

True, but I don't consider that the middle ground, that is just accepting the current political reality. Palestine is never going to renounce Eastern Jerusalem (should they really?) and Israel is pretty unwilling to deal with the settlers. Israel and Palestine could work together in Jerusalem as a dual city, but one should not discount Israeli actions leading to the current day Palestinian state. With help it is not unthinkable that Palestine can develop properly. As for the surrounding countries just accepting all those Palestinian refugees, fat chance, they don't want to and its millions of people who would have to go somewhere.

Its more Israel having its cake and eating it too than a middle ground with the best you said they can hope for. That's why it won't happen, its asking everyone to roll over for Israel.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

True, but I don't consider that the middle ground, that is just accepting the current political reality. Palestine is never going to renounce Eastern Jerusalem (should they really?) and Israel is pretty unwilling to deal with the settlers. Israel and Palestine could work together in Jerusalem as a dual city, but one should not discount Israeli actions leading to the current day Palestinian state. With help it is not unthinkable that Palestine can develop properly. As for the surrounding countries just accepting all those Palestinian refugees, fat chance, they don't want to and its millions of people who would have to go somewhere.

Its more Israel having its cake and eating it too than a middle ground with the best you said they can hope for. That's why it won't happen, its asking everyone to roll over for Israel.

I think that describing what I suggested as ''the middle ground'' to be rolling over for Israel. In fact, I consider the most important concession are made by Israel to the Palestinians. Beside Jerusalem East, Palestenians cead nothing and gain a lot of quality farms, roads, sewers, power plants and housing for free. They don't even need to manage, pay and operate the expulsion of 400 000 people. That's a very sweet deal for Palestine in my opinion and a very gakky one for Israel who risks to the most under that plan.

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

True, but I don't consider that the middle ground, that is just accepting the current political reality. Palestine is never going to renounce Eastern Jerusalem (should they really?) and Israel is pretty unwilling to deal with the settlers. Israel and Palestine could work together in Jerusalem as a dual city, but one should not discount Israeli actions leading to the current day Palestinian state. With help it is not unthinkable that Palestine can develop properly. As for the surrounding countries just accepting all those Palestinian refugees, fat chance, they don't want to and its millions of people who would have to go somewhere.

Its more Israel having its cake and eating it too than a middle ground with the best you said they can hope for. That's why it won't happen, its asking everyone to roll over for Israel.

I think that describing what I suggested as ''the middle ground'' to be rolling over for Israel. In fact, I consider the most important concession are made by Israel to the Palestinians. Beside Jerusalem East, Palestenians cead nothing and gain a lot of quality farms, roads, sewers, power plants and housing for free. They don't even need to manage, pay and operate the expulsion of 400 000 people. That's a very sweet deal for Palestine in my opinion and a very gakky one for Israel who risks to the most under that plan.

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

That's also a missleading way to see it. It would be like if someone stole your gakky little house, demolished it, built a newer, bigger better house, built roads and infrastructures around it and then, would be forced to give it back to you because the land on which they built all this was stolen. Land is fairly worthless compared to what's on it. I think it would be very dishonest to say that getting back your land with a serious update in terms of infrastructure isn't a net gain. The fact that you don't have to handle the expropriation and relocation of the colonist or pay a dime for it is a pretty big boon. Can you imagine what would happen if the Palestinian authorities would have the duty to handling the expropriation? It would be a logistical and humanitarian nightmare.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

Because it has the same symbolic value for both people (slightly larger for the Hebrew, it's, afterall, the holliest city of Judaism vs the third for Islam). It's also the site of all of Israel political institution beside their ministery of defense and foreign embassies. Having an incompetant, disorganised, bicephalous regime handling the most important city of Judaism would be an enormous security hazard. Would you trust a government without a trained police force to insure the security surrounding invaluable monuments and artefacts in a climate of rife religious extremism that could lead to violence or the destruction of those monuments? I wouldn't. Thus Jerusalem should be under the curtain of a Sate that can insure the security of the population and preserve the patrimony of humanity held within the city. It's not ideal, but it's reasonnable has Israel has recognised the rights of Muslims and Christians to worship in those place and the preservation of those monuments and artefacts.

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

That's also a missleading way to see it. It would be like if someone stole your gakky little house, demolished it, built a newer, bigger better house, built road and infrastructure around it and then, when would be forced to give it back because the land on which they built all this was stolen. Land is fairly worthless compared to what's on it. I think it would be very dishonest to say that getting back your land with a serious update in terms of infrastructure isn't a net gain.

It isn't when you consider you were evicted at gunpoint 50 years ago and get zero compensation except for a house of a settler which they might burn down out of spite. Great, you got a nice house after 50 years of hardship, better hope there are enough to go around. A better analogy is an intruder stole your house and you were homeless for 50 years. Who cares if the house is slightly better, you were fething homeless for 50 years. But sure, lets be grateful these people build a better house in the conviction they never planned on giving back.

All that infrastructure is aimed at Israel and not at the Palestinian state. Its nice to have a road and all but not when its directly pointed at Tel Aviv and nowhere else.

epronovost wrote:

u also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

Because it has the same symbolic value for both people (slightly larger for the Hebrew, it's, afterall, the holliest city of Judaism vs the third for Islam). It's also the site of all of Israel political institution beside their ministery of defense and foreign embassies. Having an incompetant, disorganised, bicephalous regime handling the most important city of Judaism would be an enormous security hazard. Would you trust a government without a trained police force to insure the security surrounding invaluable monuments and artefacts in a climate of rife religious extremism that could lead to violence or the destruction of those monuments? I wouldn't. Thus Jerusalem should be under the curtain of a Sate that can insure the security of the population and preserve the patrimony of humanity held within the city. It's not ideal, but it's reasonnable has Israel has recognised the rights of Muslims and Christians to worship in those place and the preservation of those monuments and artefacts.

Because it has symbolic value for both Israel should just have it? Hell what you desribe is exactly what Israelis have done as well, plenty of extremist Israelis. Neither side is great at protecting the other's heritage, what a bad argument. Netanyahu has even said that Israel could just destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque but doesn't want to. By that argument you could end up defending colonialism, it comes awefully close to the white man's burden.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

True, but I don't consider that the middle ground, that is just accepting the current political reality. Palestine is never going to renounce Eastern Jerusalem (should they really?) and Israel is pretty unwilling to deal with the settlers. Israel and Palestine could work together in Jerusalem as a dual city, but one should not discount Israeli actions leading to the current day Palestinian state. With help it is not unthinkable that Palestine can develop properly. As for the surrounding countries just accepting all those Palestinian refugees, fat chance, they don't want to and its millions of people who would have to go somewhere.

Its more Israel having its cake and eating it too than a middle ground with the best you said they can hope for. That's why it won't happen, its asking everyone to roll over for Israel.

I think that describing what I suggested as ''the middle ground'' to be rolling over for Israel. In fact, I consider the most important concession are made by Israel to the Palestinians. Beside Jerusalem East, Palestenians cead nothing and gain a lot of quality farms, roads, sewers, power plants and housing for free. They don't even need to manage, pay and operate the expulsion of 400 000 people. That's a very sweet deal for Palestine in my opinion and a very gakky one for Israel who risks to the most under that plan.

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

It isn't when you consider you were evicted at gunpoint 50 years ago and get zero compensation except for a house of a settler which they might burn down out of spite. Great, you got a nice house after 50 years of hardship, better hope there are enough to go around. A better analogy is an intruder stole your house and you were homeless for 50 years. Who cares if the house is slightly better, you were fething homeless for 50 years. But sure, lets be grateful these people build a better house in the conviction they never planned on giving back.

Lets not spit in their face either. They might not even be the original thieves. Getting your stuff back with some high quality and high cost infrastructures and no need to manage the expropriation and resettlement. It's a reasonnable settlement as it returns the stolen property (the essential) and offers a modicum of compensation. It's not perfect for the Palestenians, but it isn't nothing either. A peace resolution is not about being grateful or avenging people who died in a conflict that is already 70 years old for its first victims. It's about finding common ground, forgive a little bit and carry on.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

All that infrastructure is aimed at Israel and not at the Palestinian state. Its nice to have a road and all but not when its directly pointed at Tel Aviv and nowhere else.

They don't just lead to Tel Aviv and even then, Tel Aviv is the main economical center of the region. You need road that leads there and the future Palestenian State will be almost completly economically dependant to Israel and might even use its currency. That's not a disandavantage at all.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Because it has symbolic value for both Israel should just have it? Hell what you desribe is exactly what Israelis have done as well. Neither side is great at protecting the other's heritage, what a bad argument. Netanyahu has even said that Israel could just destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque but doesn't want to. By that argument you could end up defending colonialism, it comes awefully close to the white man's burden.

Yes, sadly, it has a lot of point in common with the White Man's burden. The only substancial difference is that Israel claim to East Jerusalem comes from the fact there is an extremely ancient population of orthodix jews that lives there since perhapse antiquity, that their most holy site is there too. A colonisator cannot make such claim over colonised land. Advocating for an immediate and total return of East Jerusalem to a government like the Palestinian authorities would, ironically, be similar to the Reparation/Restauration policies implemented in Zimbabwe for example. They led to ethnic violence and disastrous economical consequences that triggered new conflicts. There are risks and ugliness in both positions and I don't like it more than you do.

If you ask Israel to dismantle its colony and shoulder that cost alone and do so in manner that would preserve infrastructures to then give them to Palestine, you have to expect Palestine to give something in return. Sovereignty over East Jerusalem seems like a good compensation and its extremely easy to implement since its already the case in practice. The expropriation and re-settlement of 400 000 people and dealing with the backlash (which is going to be violent) will take enough time and energy at that point. It will take around 5-6 years to simply dismantle the colonies at minimum and probably 15-20 years to see a semi-competant government administer Palestine. Keeping East Jerusalem within the hands of Israel limits instability and the strength of the innevitable rise of zionist terrorism following the expropriation of the colonists and the peace between Israeli and Palestinians. It's not ideal, but we are well passed the ideal scenario.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

True, but I don't consider that the middle ground, that is just accepting the current political reality. Palestine is never going to renounce Eastern Jerusalem (should they really?) and Israel is pretty unwilling to deal with the settlers. Israel and Palestine could work together in Jerusalem as a dual city, but one should not discount Israeli actions leading to the current day Palestinian state. With help it is not unthinkable that Palestine can develop properly. As for the surrounding countries just accepting all those Palestinian refugees, fat chance, they don't want to and its millions of people who would have to go somewhere.

Its more Israel having its cake and eating it too than a middle ground with the best you said they can hope for. That's why it won't happen, its asking everyone to roll over for Israel.

I think that describing what I suggested as ''the middle ground'' to be rolling over for Israel. In fact, I consider the most important concession are made by Israel to the Palestinians. Beside Jerusalem East, Palestenians cead nothing and gain a lot of quality farms, roads, sewers, power plants and housing for free. They don't even need to manage, pay and operate the expulsion of 400 000 people. That's a very sweet deal for Palestine in my opinion and a very gakky one for Israel who risks to the most under that plan.

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

guess we better not talk about Irgun and Lehi and the roles they played in creating Israel, the Israeli military, and the Israeli government...

So...hey...this guy only wants to share his "fire water":
Yitz O'Meerkat, Full Semi-Auto Jew (@MeerkatYitz)

5/15/18, 8:57 AM
#CNNHeadlines: Palestinian killed by IDF while sending drinks to Israeli soldiers pic.twitter.com/Ccq9fbFWlw

...dammit, poor ol'Palestinian just wanted to share!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again? Second, when the Israelis did it is was already clearly put into law that this was illegal. We hold the Turkish Republic of Cyprus to be illegal for the very same reason and so does the US btw. Your knowledge of the historical background is the only thing laughable here.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

It isn't when you consider you were evicted at gunpoint 50 years ago and get zero compensation except for a house of a settler which they might burn down out of spite. Great, you got a nice house after 50 years of hardship, better hope there are enough to go around. A better analogy is an intruder stole your house and you were homeless for 50 years. Who cares if the house is slightly better, you were fething homeless for 50 years. But sure, lets be grateful these people build a better house in the conviction they never planned on giving back.

Lets not spit in their face either. They might not even be the original thieves. Getting your stuff back with some high quality and high cost infrastructures and no need to manage the expropriation and resettlement. It's a reasonnable settlement as it returns the stolen property (the essential) and offers a modicum of compensation. It's not perfect for the Palestenians, but it isn't nothing either. A peace resolution is not about being grateful or avenging people who died in a conflict that is already 70 years old for its first victims. It's about finding common ground, forgive a little bit and carry on.

Does it matter if they are the original thieves? These people chose to live there with the full knowledge of what that would entail. It isn't nothing, but lets not pretend that Israel finally forcing the settlers out is a huge concession either, those people should never have been there in the first place. It is an imaginary concession.

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

All that infrastructure is aimed at Israel and not at the Palestinian state. Its nice to have a road and all but not when its directly pointed at Tel Aviv and nowhere else.

They don't just lead to Tel Aviv and even then, Tel Aviv is the main economical center of the region. You need road that leads there and the future Palestenian State will be almost completly economically dependant to Israel and might even use its currency. That's not a disandavantage at all.

It is if you're not allowed to go to Tel Aviv. Israeli border control is notorious, unless you have a good reason to go you can't cross. Again, the infrastructure is fully geared towards being Israeli. A ton of investment needs to be made to integrate it into Palestine. Its not going to be easy, it has obvious downsides as well as advantages, not jist advantages.

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Because it has symbolic value for both Israel should just have it? Hell what you desribe is exactly what Israelis have done as well. Neither side is great at protecting the other's heritage, what a bad argument. Netanyahu has even said that Israel could just destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque but doesn't want to. By that argument you could end up defending colonialism, it comes awefully close to the white man's burden.

Yes, sadly, it has a lot of point in common with the White Man's burden. The only substancial difference is that Israel claim to East Jerusalem comes from the fact there is an extremely ancient population of orthodix jews that lives there since perhapse antiquity, that their most holy site is there too. A colonisator cannot make such claim over colonised land. Advocating for an immediate and total return of East Jerusalem to a government like the Palestinian authorities would, ironically, be similar to the Reparation/Restauration policies implemented in Zimbabwe for example. They led to ethnic violence and disastrous economical consequences that triggered new conflicts. There are risks and ugliness in both positions and I don't like it more than you do.

If you ask Israel to dismantle its colony and shoulder that cost alone and do so in manner that would preserve infrastructures to then give them to Palestine, you have to expect Palestine to give something in return. Sovereignty over East Jerusalem seems like a good compensation and its extremely easy to implement since its already the case in practice. The expropriation and re-settlement of 400 000 people and dealing with the backlash (which is going to be violent) will take enough time and energy at that point. It will take around 5-6 years to simply dismantle the colonies at minimum and probably 15-20 years to see a semi-competant government administer Palestine. Keeping East Jerusalem within the hands of Israel limits instability and the strength of the innevitable rise of zionist terrorism following the expropriation of the colonists and the peace between Israeli and Palestinians. It's not ideal, but we are well passed the ideal scenario.

What, you can't be serious? Just because some orthodox Jews lived there since ancient times the Israeli can't be colonizers? The modern Israeli is almost exclusively decendent from Western settlers in the 20th century. To pretend a Jewish enclave in Jerusalem represents Israel is just revisionism and offensive to Jews in general. Israel is a Western Jewish colonial state in all but name. Coopting the original inhabitans as some valid historical Israeli claim is a big no no.

I am not advocating for the immediate transfer of East Jerusalem. A time table can be established with international monitoring. My issue is just with letting Israel have it because the people they have been beating on for the past 70 years are in a bad shape.

Again, Israel let those settlements be build knowing full well it was illegal. Palestine should not give anything in return for just reversing something that was plain illegal in the first place. Its a false concession. Its like the car thief saying, "well I brought your car back, how about you give me a 1000 bucks for it?" Israel has dismanteled settlements twice before in regions, there is no reason it can't do so again in the West Bank. Giving potential zionist terrorism as a reason to keep East Jerusalem is just icing on the cake, what about Islamic terrorism over it then? There are no good arguments for Israel to permanently keep East Jerusalem.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again? Second, when the Israelis did it is was already clearly put into law that this was illegal. We hold the Turkish Republic of Cyprus to be illegal for the very same reason and so does the US btw. Your knowledge of the historical background is the only thing laughable here.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

Gotta be honest - don't know a lot about your little country. At some point in the history of your land - some tribe lost territory to another in a war or a clash - I don't even need to know the history to know that. It's been going on for ages. It's only recently in the past 100 years that this sort of thing has fallen out of style. That's the point I'm making. Also what are you talking about Illegal? Illegal to what? Which countries laws are they breaking - and why don't they do anything about it? Laws that aren't enforced aren't worth a dang thing.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again? Second, when the Israelis did it is was already clearly put into law that this was illegal. We hold the Turkish Republic of Cyprus to be illegal for the very same reason and so does the US btw. Your knowledge of the historical background is the only thing laughable here.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

Gotta be honest - don't know a lot about your little country. At some point in the history of your land - some tribe lost territory to another in a war or a clash - I don't even need to know the history to know that. It's been going on for ages. It's only recently in the past 100 years that this sort of thing has fallen out of style. That's the point I'm making. Also what are you talking about Illegal? Illegal to what? Which countries laws are they breaking - and why don't they do anything about it? Laws that aren't enforced aren't worth a dang thing.

Actually being a wind blasted hell scape drowning in the sea for the good part of 2000 years means our history is a lot less violent and more about small movements of people or absorbed waves of refugees in the 15th century. So we're not on that level really going by recorded history. It helps to live on a piece of dirt nobody wants

Its illegal according to the rules set up partially by the US about bringing in settlers on occupied land. Its international law that the US has a vested interest in protecting when eyeing countries like China and Russia. And the US does protect that in Crimea and Cyprus, it just doesn't really in Israel on that level, although it maintained its opposition to the settlements until Trump I guess. That is the issue at stake that we as Westerners have a vested interest in: international law. While most times we think international law as weak, you have to see it as an extension of American power and hegemony. Our wealth is build on the system international law is part of. Once that starts to decline the position of the West in the world also declines, to our relative detriment. Countries like China and Russia don't care about international law and dislike it because it contrains their might makes right actions. Preserving it should be a US goal and it used to be until Trump's vague problems with it.

Meanwhile Israel is a two bit player dependent on the US. But we're all acting like its the other way around. We can still support Israel, but pressuring it to follow our rules is good for our system in the long run while it barely harms Israel except for its nationalistic feelings.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again? Second, when the Israelis did it is was already clearly put into law that this was illegal. We hold the Turkish Republic of Cyprus to be illegal for the very same reason and so does the US btw. Your knowledge of the historical background is the only thing laughable here.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

The Gauls who were you there first? Or my peeps the neanderthals.

No, the Gauls didn't go this far north. The Gauls are pretty much French adjacent. Then we have the Belgicae who became sort of Belgium and up here we have a few Germanic tribes. Later those few tribes fell under the control of some Frankish and Viking influence but nobody really got displaced. It just blended together. Or not in the case of the Frisians who didn't mix and are still distinct in the north of our country, with a name going back to Roman times.

Funnily enough we might have some 'Gaul' in us, because Belgium and the Netherlands were once considered one region and when we struggled for independence in the 16th century a lot of what we now call Belgians fled north to what became the Netherlands.

Also most 'white' people have some neaderthal in them, they went extinct due to a number of enviromental factors but they had snu snu with our European ancestors beforehand.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again? Second, when the Israelis did it is was already clearly put into law that this was illegal. We hold the Turkish Republic of Cyprus to be illegal for the very same reason and so does the US btw. Your knowledge of the historical background is the only thing laughable here.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

Gotta be honest - don't know a lot about your little country. At some point in the history of your land - some tribe lost territory to another in a war or a clash - I don't even need to know the history to know that. It's been going on for ages. It's only recently in the past 100 years that this sort of thing has fallen out of style. That's the point I'm making. Also what are you talking about Illegal? Illegal to what? Which countries laws are they breaking - and why don't they do anything about it? Laws that aren't enforced aren't worth a dang thing.

Primarily those recognized by the organization that helped create Israel in the first place, the UN, and it is the US through the use of its Veto power that prevents any action on the part of the UN. Not that the UN was ever going to try and marshal an army to push Israel out, but without US backing the settlement construction and hold over the West Bank would not be what it is today, especially not without the literal billions drawn from US funding sources that directly financed much of their construction.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again?

The sea. The Dutch stole their land from the sea.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

I find no reasonable discussion can be had once people start dismissing the deaths of thousands of civilians with fact resistant handwavium.

 feeder wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again?

The sea. The Dutch stole their land from the sea. .

Lies, us Dutch build the sea as a wall to keep out the Mexicans. Didn't you see our infomercial "America first, the Netherlands second"? (stolen from us by so many copycats)

 feeder wrote:

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

I find no reasonable discussion can be had once people start dismissing the deaths of thousands of civilians with fact resistant handwavium.

If that was the case I might as well stop posting here, when does a discussion not involve handwaving the death of thousands, from healthcare to automated cars?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Not really, saying free is misleading when it was illegally occupied by Israeli settlers in the first place. Its like a thief stealing your car and expecting you to be happy when you return it. Israel let those settlers rampage knowing it was illegal, yet it did nothing to stop them. Israel should not be rewarded for bad behaviour.

You also seriously undervalue the meaning of East Jerusalem. If its so easy, why don't the Israelis just let them have it?

IDK - why don't my people just give back all the lands we stole - it's literally all stolen - even the territory we bought was stolen? Why don't yours? Probably because it's freaking laughable to even suggest such nonsense. Ownership of territory has always and will always be determined by 2 thing. Military power and strong political ties - Palestine has none of these things. For feth sake their government is a terrorist organization.

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again? Second, when the Israelis did it is was already clearly put into law that this was illegal. We hold the Turkish Republic of Cyprus to be illegal for the very same reason and so does the US btw. Your knowledge of the historical background is the only thing laughable here.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

Gotta be honest - don't know a lot about your little country. At some point in the history of your land - some tribe lost territory to another in a war or a clash - I don't even need to know the history to know that. It's been going on for ages. It's only recently in the past 100 years that this sort of thing has fallen out of style. That's the point I'm making. Also what are you talking about Illegal? Illegal to what? Which countries laws are they breaking - and why don't they do anything about it? Laws that aren't enforced aren't worth a dang thing.

Actually being a wind blasted hell scape drowning in the sea for the good part of 2000 years means our history is a lot less violent and more about small movements of people or absorbed waves of refugees in the 15th century. So we're not on that level really going by recorded history. It helps to live on a piece of dirt nobody wants

Its illegal according to the rules set up partially by the US about bringing in settlers on occupied land. Its international law that the US has a vested interest in protecting when eyeing countries like China and Russia. And the US does protect that in Crimea and Cyprus, it just doesn't really in Israel on that level, although it maintained its opposition to the settlements until Trump I guess. That is the issue at stake that we as Westerners have a vested interest in: international law. While most times we think international law as weak, you have to see it as an extension of American power and hegemony. Our wealth is build on the system international law is part of. Once that starts to decline the position of the West in the world also declines, to our relative detriment. Countries like China and Russia don't care about international law and dislike it because it contrains their might makes right actions. Preserving it should be a US goal and it used to be until Trump's vague problems with it.

Meanwhile Israel is a two bit player dependent on the US. But we're all acting like its the other way around. We can still support Israel, but pressuring it to follow our rules is good for our system in the long run while it barely harms Israel except for its nationalistic feelings.

I thought the idea was for the US to stop being world police? I am all about that btw. It's a bit hypocritical to tell a nation they can't do something like "settle in occupied land" when your entire fething country was settled in the exact fashion. A terrible terrible history. IMO the US - nor the UN has any right to tell Israel what to do with their land nor do they have any right to do the same to the Palestinians. International law is a failed experiment just like the league of nations. To bloody weak to do anything about anything and doesn't solve any problems - just helps some western elites sleep better at night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

First of all I'm Dutch, who did we steal our land from again?

The sea. The Dutch stole their land from the sea.

Israel was created by the UN of all things, neither military power or strong political ties were used. And as Vakathi said, Israel was founded by terrorists. For decades the country was run by people that had a terrorist past.

Read up on some Israeli history and international law in comparable cases where the US does observe the legal course of action and we can talk. But hats off to you for calling the genocide of a people in regards to the US nonesense though.

I find no reasonable discussion can be had once people start dismissing the deaths of thousands of civilians with fact resistant handwavium.

I see it differently - I think once all you care about is how many people died today doing dumb gak - it's not even about the issues anymore. Hammas is sending brainwashed zelots to their death to send a political message. This is where Hammas wants your attention. This is how they draw their support. This is what Israel is up against - I don't blame them one bit for anything they have done.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I thought the idea was for the US to stop being world police? I am all about that btw. It's a bit hypocritical to tell a nation they can't do something like "settle in occupied land" when your entire fething country was settled in the exact fashion. A terrible terrible history. IMO the US - nor the UN has any right to tell Israel what to do with their land nor do they have any right to do the same to the Palestinians. International law is a failed experiment just like the league of nations. To bloody weak to do anything about anything and doesn't solve any problems - just helps some western elites sleep better at night.

Quite a few people, with some Europeans squarly amongst them, seem to think that the US being world police is a bad thing. Honestly yes, the US makes mistakes, but the overall sentiment comes from a place of ignorance. The world is becoming a safer place and the US has incredible normative and economic power to our benefit and that of most of the world (although certain terrible parts as Guantanomo and the IMF exists). The world is becoming a safer place thanks to the US and its allies pushing their normative power. When the US steps back countries like China and Russia "human rights who dat?" are going to step in. And the US has benefitted immensly from its position as world police politically and economically. It would be tragic to see the US throw away so much political capital on Israel, which is already a sure thing.

Times change and you can change. What happened in US history is horrible. But the US didn't just shrug their shoulders when Nazi Germany started comitting genocide, because the US doesn't have to be stuck in its dark past. We as Europeans have done some horrific gak and now we promote human rights, it sounds a bit hypocritical, but how long can you stand idly by over the sins of the father when others are wronged? International law is what gives the US its justification to be world police, Afghanistan was covered by it, the first Gulf War was covered by it with it even going back to Korea in 1950, and the West is restraining Russia and China with the help of it. Throwing international law out the window will only embolden the West's opponents and weaken the place of the US and its allies in the world.

epronovost wrote:
That's also a missleading way to see it. It would be like if someone stole your gakky little house, demolished it, built a newer, bigger better house, built roads and infrastructures around it and then, would be forced to give it back to you because the land on which they built all this was stolen..

This happened in the late 1990's in the United States when Salamanca, New York's lease ran out. You'd be surprised how well it turned out.