How Does a State Built on Terorism Assume International Credibility?

[rick]

That video ignores the fact that nearly ALL the land belonged to the Palestinians 100 years ago, there were only 90,000 jews there in 1922, less than 13% of the population. Of course the jews were happy to settle for a quarter of someone elses country.

Maybe the USA should give 25% of their country away to Afro-Americans to make a separate state, I am sure that would be popular.......

[tamada]

Prager U.

Meanwhile, on Fox News...

[Udon Map]

Interesting piece by Bret Stephens in the New York Times:

If the Left Got Its Wish for Israel

Imagine an alternative universe in which an enlightened Israeli government did almost everything progressive America demanded of it.

An immediate cessation of hostilities in Gaza. An end to Israeli controls over the movement of goods into the territory. A halt to settlement construction in the West Bank. Renunciation of Israel’s sovereign claims in East Jerusalem. Fast-track negotiations for Palestinian statehood, with the goal of restoring the June 4, 1967, lines as an internationally recognized border.

Oslo would be placing phone calls to Jerusalem and Ramallah in October, to bestow the Nobel Peace Prize on the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Arab states such as Saudi Arabia would establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel. The international community would agree on a multibillion-dollar aid package for the new state of Palestine.

But there would be flies in this ointment.

Damascus would refuse to recognize Israel until it agreed to return the Golan Heights, which even the most left-wing Israeli government would refuse to do, given Bashar al-Assad’s record of brutality and Iran’s extensive military presence in Syria.

Lebanon, dominated as it is by Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy), would also refuse to recognize Israel, using the pretext of the Shebaa Farms, a sliver of land that Beirut claims is occupied Lebanese territory, even though the U.N. says otherwise.

As for Gaza, the end of the so-called blockade (“so-called” because plenty of licit goods reach Gaza today through Israeli border crossings) would turn the steady trickle of military equipment into the strip, most of it from Iran, into a cascade. Hamas, which currently makes do with relatively unsophisticated rockets, would replenish its arsenal with more powerful guided munitions, able to reach any target in Israel.

This would require Israel to change its military doctrine toward Hamas. Out would be the approach of periodically degrading the group’s military capabilities through targeted strikes. In would be a strategy calling for a full-scale land invasion and reoccupation of the strip in order to defend the Israeli heartland from Hamas’s missiles. The casualty count in the next war would be multiples of what it is today.

In addition to its new military might, Hamas would be strengthened politically. Its policy of resistance — i.e., guerrilla warfare and terrorism — against Israel would look to many Palestinians as though it forced a change in Israeli policy, while the more peaceful policies of Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party would smack of fruitless collaboration.

The international community would try to help Fatah with lavish economic aid and technical assistance. But Fatah has a long record of corruption and mismanagement, two factors that helped Hamas win parliamentary elections in 2006. Since then, Abbas’s approach to his political opponents has been to suspend elections and persecute rivals like Muhammad Dahlan and Salam Fayyad.

But at 85, Abbas won’t be able to stave off elections forever. Eventually, Hamas will come to power, doubly legitimized by success at the polls and its commitment to wipe Israel off the map.

Before then, however, Israel would freeze all settlement construction with a view toward forcing settlers to leave their homes or be stranded inside a future Palestinian state.

The result would be massive radicalization among Israelis against their own government, dwarfing the unholy furies that led to Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in 1995. Any decision to repartition Jerusalem in ways that risked or hampered access to the Western Wall and other sacred Jewish sites like the Mount of Olives (the entire Old City was in Jordanian hands before the Six-Day War) would likely spark civil war.

But perhaps the progressive Israeli government might yet succeed if a U.N.-sanctioned, U.S.-led force — you might almost call it a mandate — agreed to deploy peacekeeping forces to guarantee Jewish rights and security. America’s appetite for such deployments hasn’t exactly been growing in recent years, and its staying power is easily tested. Some Israelis might wonder how long their ostensible benefactors would stay should a suicide bomber kill several hundred Marines in a Beirut-style barracks attack.

In the meantime, a Hamas administration in the West Bank wouldn’t take long to duplicate the formula that paid such dividends for it in Gaza: the complete militarization of the territory, putting every Israeli at immediate risk of rocket attack.

In this it would be greatly assisted by Iran, especially if rising oil prices and the potential lifting of economic sanctions as part of a new nuclear deal replenish Tehran’s coffers and its appetite for regional adventures. Jordan, too, would be at risk if a radical Palestinian state turns its sights on a fractious Hashemite regime.

And what about peace? A Hamas government would likely renege on any agreement with a Jewish state that does not honor the “right of return” of the descendants of Palestinian refugees. Anti-Zionist groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace would make the Palestinian case in the United States while the Tucker Carlson wing of the Republican Party would call for sharp restrictions on immigration.

As for Israelis, they would eventually emerge from the morass, at a terrible cost in blood, because they have no other choice. When they did, they could be sure the progressive wing of the Democratic Party would be quick to denounce them for having the temerity to survive.

[jackspratt]

Interesting piece by Bret Stephens in the New York Times:

Interesting for sure.

Plenty of "what ifs" and "if only".

I didn't read any suggestions about how to sort out what has been an intractable problem for decades.

Such as stop taking over the few lands the Palestinians have left - which seems to be the core issue in this latest blow up. After all, they do have a point.

Let's just recognise it for what it is - the state of Israel is not interested in agreeing to a solution. Founded on terrorism, and apparently not interested in moving on.

But one thing we can be sure of - the (allegedly) corrupt Bibi will make the most of it to avoid being convicted, and being sent to the slammer.

[Udon Map]

Interesting piece by Bret Stephens in the New York Times:

Let's just recognise it for what it is - the state of Israel is not interested in agreeing to a solution.

Really? Here's a list of the times that the Palestinians have rejected a two-state solution.

Arab leaders have rejected an Arab state west of the Jordan River 12 times since 1937:

1. July 1937 – The British Peel Commission recommended a three-way division – Arab state, Jewish state and the internationalization of Jerusalem. While the Jews were extremely unhappy with the proposed land division, they were open to negotiations. The Arabs rejected this proposal out of hand.

2. United Nations Partition Plan, November 29, 1947, Resolution 181, proposed dividing Palestine into seven sections, with three each going to the Jews and Arabs, and one surrounding Jerusalem to become a Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish establishment and leadership, but was rejected by local Arab leaders and neighboring Arab governments.

3. Brits Withdrawal from Palestine and Independence Day, May 15, 1948, was a signal to the Arab armies to invade fully the Jewish areas, rather than declare an Arab state in the significant amount of land they were given by UN Resolution 181. The existing Arab nations never intended that any independent state exist west of the Jordan, but that they would capture, divide and annex the territory for themselves. The anticipated disposition of the Jews afterward resembled Hitler’s Final Solution.

4. 1949 Armistice between the Arab armies and Israel - Approximately one-quarter of the land west of the Jordan River remained in Arab control following armistice agreements. No Arab state was declared, but Egypt and Jordan kept their portions.

5. 1964 Founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization never led to an Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but focused solely on the elimination of Israel.

6. Aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War - Israel’s decisive victory over the Arab states in the defensive Six-Day War resulted in Israel occupying the Jordanian- or Egyptian-occupied territories of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza Strip. On June 19, 1967, Israel’s National Unity Government, including Menachem Begin, voted to return captured land in exchange for peace. Rather than grasp this opportunity to create an Arab nation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the PLO/PNC joined the rest of the Arab world at the September 1967 Khartoum Arab Summit in responding “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel.”

7. The 1979 Camp David Peace Accords offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence. They rejected any discussions.

8. The 1993 Oslo Accords led to the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements signed by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat at the White House in September 1993, laying the groundwork for an eventual Palestinian state. However, the process was disrupted by the worst wave of Palestinian terrorism to date, later proved to be instigated at least in part by Arafat’s administration.

9. The 2000 Camp David Summit saw Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offer more than 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority for an independent state. It is quite understandable that Israel – the victor in the wars of 1948 and 1967 – would not offer all of the territory, much as Ukraine retains control of much of pre-WWII Poland, Russia and Poland control much of pre-WWII Germany, China controls occupied Tibet, Morocco controls Western Sahara, etc. Arafat did not take advantage of this opportunity.

10. January 2001 - In a replay of the Camp David Summit, Olmert offered at the Taba Summit a peace deal to Arafat, who rejected it on January 3, 2001.

11. March 2006 - After Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the PA could have declared the beginnings of a state there. Rather, they launched thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. The PA is more interested in destroying Israel than in bettering the lives of its people.

12. September 2008 - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 99.5% of the West Bank and Gaza and shared Jerusalem, but Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas refused any discussion.

[Declan MacPherson]

That video ignores the fact that nearly ALL the land belonged to the Palestinians 100 years ago, there were only 90,000 jews there in 1922, less than 13% of the population. Of course the jews were happy to settle for a quarter of someone elses country.

Maybe the USA should give 25% of their country away to Afro-Americans to make a separate state, I am sure that would be popular.......

1918 blame the British Empire . 1922 blame the Peel commission . 1947 blame the UN . 1949 blame Jordan . blame losing the 1967 war to Israel . palestinians did not name themselves that until 1964 . Palestine has never been a state .

[tamada]

That video ignores the fact that nearly ALL the land belonged to the Palestinians 100 years ago, there were only 90,000 jews there in 1922, less than 13% of the population. Of course the jews were happy to settle for a quarter of someone elses country.

Maybe the USA should give 25% of their country away to Afro-Americans to make a separate state, I am sure that would be popular.......

1918 blame the British Empire . 1922 blame the Peel commission . 1947 blame the UN . 1949 blame Jordan . blame losing the 1967 war to Israel . palestinians did not name themselves that until 1964 . Palestine has never been a state .

The U.S. was nameless and their disparate tribes and residents similarly claimless even before it became the "United Colonies".

The British Empire can take a lot of deserved flak for some of their more egregious and arbitrary historical decisions and doling out flags, statehood and leadership to all sorts of horribly unqualified despots just to be shot of them.

Now I guess it's America's turn to churn out or support bodge jobs.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Does anyone remember scud missiles? They weren't very successful at turning back history either.

[Doodoo]

Laan
THe Palestinians have never used Scud Missles

[Udon Map]

That video ignores the fact that nearly ALL the land belonged to the Palestinians 100 years ago, there were only 90,000 jews there in 1922, less than 13% of the population. Of course the jews were happy to settle for a quarter of someone elses country.

Sure, 100 years ago. Try 2,500.

[Whistler]

Traditional owners, what a basis of contempt and tribalism.

A few centuries ago, most of Africa had no nations, only tribal areas. Most SE Asian countries, ditto. All of South America, ditto. All of North America, ditto. All of Australia ditto.

Are we going back to the flood? 100 years ago matters, a 1000 years ago does, or does not. This is 2021, we have a political structure that is entrenched, that should match an entrenched structure that is not race based, not belief based, but one that respects all of its citizenship. The everything else is history.

[tamada]

history .

Real history.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Laan
THe Palestinians have never used Scud Missles

Who said the Palestinians used scud missiles? I think Iraq fired them at Israel because they were upset about something.

[Doodoo]

The thread here is talking about Palistinians and their State and not Iraq You implied it
If you wish to start another one by all means

[Laan Yaa Mo]

The thread here is talking about Palistinians and their State and not Iraq You implied it
If you wish to start another one by all means

My apologies. I was under the impression that the topic centred on Israel as a state built on terrorism, not Palestine. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Udon Map]

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Fascinating. The presenter's analysis of the photo and the current conflict is spot on.

[jackspratt]

The presenter is Rowan Dean, Australia's Mini-me of Tucker Carlson.

The same can be said of the channel, with Sky Australia (after 6pm) being the spawn of Rupert Murdoch, and Fox News.

On the subject of Scuds - I read somewhere that there have been numerous versions over the years, but wasn't aware one those versions was the Red Herring.

[Declan MacPherson]

[/quote]

Real history.
where is israel.jpg
[/quote]

george armstrong . geographical map according to arabs . no boundaries . only cities and regions and georgraphical highlights . anyone can make maps here according to anyone https://www.scribblemaps.com/ . it all comes back to the british empire and peel and the un doing what they thought was best for the region (that history is inescapable)

[Declan MacPherson]

excellent .