Death toll mounts in Israel and the Palestinian territories

[Seastallion]

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

BTW Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, so other than Syria, who is threatening Israel now, that it requires more space for security? I have no problem with Israel occupying the Golan Heights as the previous situation was indeed intolerable.

The 1948 lines may be the only legal ones as far as Israel goes, that's for sure. The Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries initially rejecting the resolution could have raised some legal doubts as to ownership issues (this surfaced a bit later on, when Egypt and Jordan took over Palestinian territories), but this is water over the bridge by now.

Most of the world acknowledges that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible. This would have been different had there been serious peace negotiations right after the war. The Palestinian tragedy is that due to poor leadership and Arab countries meddling this did not come about. There are doubts regard peace being kept, but the Palestinians would have been better poised either way.

I am not sure if there is a relevant precedent for keeping control of conquered territory - post 1948, the Palestinians were still rejecting the partition and lacked any effective leadership. Israel withdrawing from conquered areas would not have resulted in a Palestinian state, but in relevant neighboring Arab countries take over. Or, good old fashioned anarchy. Post 1967 was pretty similar in that regard.

With the current accepted norm being the 1967 lines (or an approximation of), most 1948 lines references are futile.

Discounting the Palestinians as a potential threat, there is Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Syria keels over - who knows? (but then that goes for every country in the Middle East). Doubt that potential territorial expansion offers the security buffer it did years ago, what with rocket range and such. Granted true peace being the best defense, but solutions involving demilitarization might be a more realistic path.

I think most sensible people agree with that summary.

There are some points to add, though.

It's not futile. It's important to keep in mind the 1947 lines and that the 1967 lines are already way above and beyond what the 1947 Zionists and "Founders of Israel" accepted. Negotiations need to start at the 1967 lines but with "Well, you've already got that much more than you started with, so.....".

It's important to not allow a mindset of "We've got the 1967 lines, it's ours, but we want more, so lets talk about that...". This is where the settlement expansion is heading. Just as the 1967 lines have come to be ".... acknowledge(ed) that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible.", the settlements are likely to be treated the same way. There is little doubt that this is what the Zionists want and are proactively trying to achieve. And when you look at the map of aquifers in the region, and compare it to where the settlements are being built, there would be little or no water left for the Palestinians....they would have to leave....and thus the "river to the sea" would be achieved.

There is also this attitude of "Well, our neighbours are nasty, and we need to defend ourselves...so we'll have this lot of land, and this lot too....". This is just illegal and immoral. Nobody has the right to take what is not theirs just because they want it. Israel should be negotiating from a point of gratefulness that the 1967 lines are granted, not from a point of haughty "We've captured it, we're not letting it go, so stop harping on about it.".

Israel's defence is Israel's problem. They wanted to establish their state where it is knowing full well the dangers. It's not up to the Palestinians to sacrifice more for Israel's comfort.

If the world allows Israel to continue the way it is going, a lot of awful precedents will be set (awful precedents are already being set). What argument would there be against China deciding it wants all the water from the upper Mekong? Or Ethiopia the same with the Nile? What argument would there be against S. Korea deciding it wants that mountain range just north of the DMZ, "for our defence"? The US might decide (and if Trump gets in it's possible, lol) that parts of the Rio Grande are not a good enough barrier, but some hills south of the river are better..so just take them as their own. Dozens of countries could just decide that for survival they need to encroach on neighbour's property or rights and take it as their own.

If one country is let off the rules, all countries should be let off the rules. Without international law and enforcement of it, global anarchy will ensue. We don't want that, do we?

[thaibeachlovers]

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

BTW Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, so other than Syria, who is threatening Israel now, that it requires more space for security? I have no problem with Israel occupying the Golan Heights as the previous situation was indeed intolerable.

The 1948 lines may be the only legal ones as far as Israel goes, that's for sure. The Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries initially rejecting the resolution could have raised some legal doubts as to ownership issues (this surfaced a bit later on, when Egypt and Jordan took over Palestinian territories), but this is water over the bridge by now.

Most of the world acknowledges that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible. This would have been different had there been serious peace negotiations right after the war. The Palestinian tragedy is that due to poor leadership and Arab countries meddling this did not come about. There are doubts regard peace being kept, but the Palestinians would have been better poised either way.

I am not sure if there is a relevant precedent for keeping control of conquered territory - post 1948, the Palestinians were still rejecting the partition and lacked any effective leadership. Israel withdrawing from conquered areas would not have resulted in a Palestinian state, but in relevant neighboring Arab countries take over. Or, good old fashioned anarchy. Post 1967 was pretty similar in that regard.

With the current accepted norm being the 1967 lines (or an approximation of), most 1948 lines references are futile.

Discounting the Palestinians as a potential threat, there is Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Syria keels over - who knows? (but then that goes for every country in the Middle East). Doubt that potential territorial expansion offers the security buffer it did years ago, what with rocket range and such. Granted true peace being the best defense, but solutions involving demilitarization might be a more realistic path.

I think most sensible people agree with that summary.

There are some points to add, though.

It's not futile. It's important to keep in mind the 1947 lines and that the 1967 lines are already way above and beyond what the 1947 Zionists and "Founders of Israel" accepted. Negotiations need to start at the 1967 lines but with "Well, you've already got that much more than you started with, so.....".

It's important to not allow a mindset of "We've got the 1967 lines, it's ours, but we want more, so lets talk about that...". This is where the settlement expansion is heading. Just as the 1967 lines have come to be ".... acknowledge(ed) that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible.", the settlements are likely to be treated the same way. There is little doubt that this is what the Zionists want and are proactively trying to achieve. And when you look at the map of aquifers in the region, and compare it to where the settlements are being built, there would be little or no water left for the Palestinians....they would have to leave....and thus the "river to the sea" would be achieved.

There is also this attitude of "Well, our neighbours are nasty, and we need to defend ourselves...so we'll have this lot of land, and this lot too....". This is just illegal and immoral. Nobody has the right to take what is not theirs just because they want it. Israel should be negotiating from a point of gratefulness that the 1967 lines are granted, not from a point of haughty "We've captured it, we're not letting it go, so stop harping on about it.".

Israel's defence is Israel's problem. They wanted to establish their state where it is knowing full well the dangers. It's not up to the Palestinians to sacrifice more for Israel's comfort.

If the world allows Israel to continue the way it is going, a lot of awful precedents will be set (awful precedents are already being set). What argument would there be against China deciding it wants all the water from the upper Mekong? Or Ethiopia the same with the Nile? What argument would there be against S. Korea deciding it wants that mountain range just north of the DMZ, "for our defence"? The US might decide (and if Trump gets in it's possible, lol) that parts of the Rio Grande are not a good enough barrier, but some hills south of the river are better..so just take them as their own. Dozens of countries could just decide that for survival they need to encroach on neighbour's property or rights and take it as their own.

If one country is let off the rules, all countries should be let off the rules. Without international law and enforcement of it, global anarchy will ensue. We don't want that, do we?

Good point about the Nile water. The only "right" Egypt has to stop the up river countries taking the water is an old treaty signed back when Britain ruled Egypt.

[Morch]

Couldn't you guys (both sides of this off topic argument) simply agree that some criticism comes with antisemitic motivations and some do not?

Not all criticism of Israel denotes antisemitism,but obviously, some does. Rejecting all criticism as hidden antisemitism is absurd. Not all claims that criticism on Israel indicates antisemitism are wrong. Denouncing every instance where this is raised as deflection, is ridicules.

You are wasting your pixels. That point has been noted on these pages many times, to ZERO effect.

Some posters clearly support Israel right or wrong ( or see no wrong at all ) while to others, Israel can do no right. I like to think that better heads will rule eventually.

It is worth remembering that one can only make peace with an enemy.

Peace can be made with an enemy, provided the enemy is not perceived as too alien, too morally repugnant or too untrustworthy. There has to be some common ground, and a basic acknowledgment of the other side's essential humanity (a big word, yes - but covers most related issues).

Hence my comments on the rhetoric appearing in many of these topics - making the enemy too vile, too horrid, is not conductive to promoting chances for peace, Insisting that the side of choice is wholly righteous is a mirror image of the same.

Considering how people not directly involved interact on this issues is sometimes disheartening.,

[Jingthing]

Morch, to be clear, from my part personally, I do not feel and have never expressed that all criticism of specific Israeli policies are rooted in Jew hatred. Obviously, some is. I admit I hold a controversial position that anti-Zionism is (with some exceptions) a very close cousin to Judeophobia as I've explained my rationale in detail before so will not repeat. But things like Israel should stop building new settlements, a position I agree with, is certainly not Judeophobic in itself.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

BTW Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, so other than Syria, who is threatening Israel now, that it requires more space for security? I have no problem with Israel occupying the Golan Heights as the previous situation was indeed intolerable.

The 1948 lines may be the only legal ones as far as Israel goes, that's for sure. The Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries initially rejecting the resolution could have raised some legal doubts as to ownership issues (this surfaced a bit later on, when Egypt and Jordan took over Palestinian territories), but this is water over the bridge by now.

Most of the world acknowledges that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible. This would have been different had there been serious peace negotiations right after the war. The Palestinian tragedy is that due to poor leadership and Arab countries meddling this did not come about. There are doubts regard peace being kept, but the Palestinians would have been better poised either way.

I am not sure if there is a relevant precedent for keeping control of conquered territory - post 1948, the Palestinians were still rejecting the partition and lacked any effective leadership. Israel withdrawing from conquered areas would not have resulted in a Palestinian state, but in relevant neighboring Arab countries take over. Or, good old fashioned anarchy. Post 1967 was pretty similar in that regard.

With the current accepted norm being the 1967 lines (or an approximation of), most 1948 lines references are futile.

Discounting the Palestinians as a potential threat, there is Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Syria keels over - who knows? (but then that goes for every country in the Middle East). Doubt that potential territorial expansion offers the security buffer it did years ago, what with rocket range and such. Granted true peace being the best defense, but solutions involving demilitarization might be a more realistic path.

I think most sensible people agree with that summary.

There are some points to add, though.

It's not futile. It's important to keep in mind the 1947 lines and that the 1967 lines are already way above and beyond what the 1947 Zionists and "Founders of Israel" accepted. Negotiations need to start at the 1967 lines but with "Well, you've already got that much more than you started with, so.....".

It's important to not allow a mindset of "We've got the 1967 lines, it's ours, but we want more, so lets talk about that...". This is where the settlement expansion is heading. Just as the 1967 lines have come to be ".... acknowledge(ed) that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible.", the settlements are likely to be treated the same way. There is little doubt that this is what the Zionists want and are proactively trying to achieve. And when you look at the map of aquifers in the region, and compare it to where the settlements are being built, there would be little or no water left for the Palestinians....they would have to leave....and thus the "river to the sea" would be achieved.

There is also this attitude of "Well, our neighbours are nasty, and we need to defend ourselves...so we'll have this lot of land, and this lot too....". This is just illegal and immoral. Nobody has the right to take what is not theirs just because they want it. Israel should be negotiating from a point of gratefulness that the 1967 lines are granted, not from a point of haughty "We've captured it, we're not letting it go, so stop harping on about it.".

Israel's defence is Israel's problem. They wanted to establish their state where it is knowing full well the dangers. It's not up to the Palestinians to sacrifice more for Israel's comfort.

If the world allows Israel to continue the way it is going, a lot of awful precedents will be set (awful precedents are already being set). What argument would there be against China deciding it wants all the water from the upper Mekong? Or Ethiopia the same with the Nile? What argument would there be against S. Korea deciding it wants that mountain range just north of the DMZ, "for our defence"? The US might decide (and if Trump gets in it's possible, lol) that parts of the Rio Grande are not a good enough barrier, but some hills south of the river are better..so just take them as their own. Dozens of countries could just decide that for survival they need to encroach on neighbour's property or rights and take it as their own.

If one country is let off the rules, all countries should be let off the rules. Without international law and enforcement of it, global anarchy will ensue. We don't want that, do we?

The 1948 lines were rejected by the Palestinians and Arab countries, a stance that lasted many years. This probably does not amount to forfeiting an ownership (even if this was the actual outcome vs. Israel, Egypt and Jordan), and surely does not bestow ownership rights on others. But it does make retrospect claims to the rejected partition somewhat dubious. Making the 1948 lines the underlying baseline for negotiations, carries the meaning that essentially nothing is resolved. If negotiations revolve around the 1967 lines, but actually incorporate the notion that the Israel already "got something extra", then why stop there? A future claim could be raised that the the partition plan itself represented undue Israeli (or, at that time, Jewish) territorial gains, thus making even the 1948 lines unacceptable. Looking back at many of the topics dealing with the conflict, this line of thinking is not imaginary. Sanctifying the 1948 lines without any reference to choices made by the Palestinians spells that nothing is concrete. If there is no accountability for past actions, no responsibility taken for choices made, then there is also no obligation to stand by future agreements.

Since most agreement proposals more realistically focus on the 1967 lines, adding complicating factors might not be the best way forward.

The illegal settlements are indeed an obstacle in that they alter conditions on the ground. Not an insurmountable obstacle perhaps, considering there is no Israeli consensus with regard to most. Even under current conditions, there is considerable resentment towards the economic, political and security costs connected with maintaining them. There is a misconception that all settlers and settlements will be gone from the Palestinian territories following an agreement. In all likelihood, some will remain, provided territorial continuity could be achieved. That implies limited territory and population exchanges between the sides. Not the most just of solutions, but perhaps a viable one.

The views regarding Israel's security concerns and considerations as being illegitimate or as irrelevant to the Palestinians could be morally argued for, of course. But bottom line, these sort of decisions come down to either pining for an unachievable perfect agreement or reaching an imperfect but workable one. If history's lessons are not to be wasted, the latter is to be preferred.

As far as I am aware, Israel's actions are not an international precedent (and no, not condoning), nor would the conflict's resolution directly bear on similar situation elsewhere. China will not be effectively censured for its conduct in Xinjiang and Tibet regions, or with regard to the Mekong issue following an Israeli Palestinian agreement. The South Korea and USA hypothetical examples are not realistic, to say the least. The attempt to present Israel as the only country to disregard international conventions, and to make this the linchpin of global stability is both incorrect and hyperbolic.

In my opinion, the post replied to represents an attitude which first and foremost is aimed at undermining the position of the perceived "enemy". It does not so much address the realistic interests of the Palestinians, as much as it attempts to set straight a historical score. Somewhere along the way, it gets caught up in its own rhetoric and again makes the other side an ultimate negative case. Without getting into the inane (and often ignorant) arguments concerning definitions of Zionism: the insistence to use the Zionists or Zionist state, instead of Israelis and Israel is both ridiculous and contributes to a perception of delegitimizing Israel.

[Morch]

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

BTW Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, so other than Syria, who is threatening Israel now, that it requires more space for security? I have no problem with Israel occupying the Golan Heights as the previous situation was indeed intolerable.

The 1948 lines may be the only legal ones as far as Israel goes, that's for sure. The Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries initially rejecting the resolution could have raised some legal doubts as to ownership issues (this surfaced a bit later on, when Egypt and Jordan took over Palestinian territories), but this is water over the bridge by now.

Most of the world acknowledges that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible. This would have been different had there been serious peace negotiations right after the war. The Palestinian tragedy is that due to poor leadership and Arab countries meddling this did not come about. There are doubts regard peace being kept, but the Palestinians would have been better poised either way.

I am not sure if there is a relevant precedent for keeping control of conquered territory - post 1948, the Palestinians were still rejecting the partition and lacked any effective leadership. Israel withdrawing from conquered areas would not have resulted in a Palestinian state, but in relevant neighboring Arab countries take over. Or, good old fashioned anarchy. Post 1967 was pretty similar in that regard.

With the current accepted norm being the 1967 lines (or an approximation of), most 1948 lines references are futile.

Discounting the Palestinians as a potential threat, there is Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Syria keels over - who knows? (but then that goes for every country in the Middle East). Doubt that potential territorial expansion offers the security buffer it did years ago, what with rocket range and such. Granted true peace being the best defense, but solutions involving demilitarization might be a more realistic path.

I think most sensible people agree with that summary.

There are some points to add, though.

It's not futile. It's important to keep in mind the 1947 lines and that the 1967 lines are already way above and beyond what the 1947 Zionists and "Founders of Israel" accepted. Negotiations need to start at the 1967 lines but with "Well, you've already got that much more than you started with, so.....".

It's important to not allow a mindset of "We've got the 1967 lines, it's ours, but we want more, so lets talk about that...". This is where the settlement expansion is heading. Just as the 1967 lines have come to be ".... acknowledge(ed) that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible.", the settlements are likely to be treated the same way. There is little doubt that this is what the Zionists want and are proactively trying to achieve. And when you look at the map of aquifers in the region, and compare it to where the settlements are being built, there would be little or no water left for the Palestinians....they would have to leave....and thus the "river to the sea" would be achieved.

There is also this attitude of "Well, our neighbours are nasty, and we need to defend ourselves...so we'll have this lot of land, and this lot too....". This is just illegal and immoral. Nobody has the right to take what is not theirs just because they want it. Israel should be negotiating from a point of gratefulness that the 1967 lines are granted, not from a point of haughty "We've captured it, we're not letting it go, so stop harping on about it.".

Israel's defence is Israel's problem. They wanted to establish their state where it is knowing full well the dangers. It's not up to the Palestinians to sacrifice more for Israel's comfort.

If the world allows Israel to continue the way it is going, a lot of awful precedents will be set (awful precedents are already being set). What argument would there be against China deciding it wants all the water from the upper Mekong? Or Ethiopia the same with the Nile? What argument would there be against S. Korea deciding it wants that mountain range just north of the DMZ, "for our defence"? The US might decide (and if Trump gets in it's possible, lol) that parts of the Rio Grande are not a good enough barrier, but some hills south of the river are better..so just take them as their own. Dozens of countries could just decide that for survival they need to encroach on neighbour's property or rights and take it as their own.

If one country is let off the rules, all countries should be let off the rules. Without international law and enforcement of it, global anarchy will ensue. We don't want that, do we?

Good point about the Nile water. The only "right" Egypt has to stop the up river countries taking the water is an old treaty signed back when Britain ruled Egypt.

Israel and its neighbors already had a go airing differences on water and water sources. More on this can be found by looking up The Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan (aka Johnston Plan) and the so-called War over Water in the 1950's and 1960's.

[Somtamnication]

Latest is the peace loving Israelis shot, kicked and hit an innocent Eritrean Jew over the head with a bench. Madness on both sides!

[Morch]

Latest is the peace loving Israelis shot, kicked and hit an innocent Eritrean Jew over the head with a bench. Madness on both sides!

There is a parallel topic including this piece of news.

Almost got it right - the Eritrean was not Jew - doesn't make the loss of life any more justified, but robs the comment of a barb. Obviously, no mention of the context - a terrorist attack resulting in one additional casualty (other than the terrorist) and several wounded.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Scott

[up-country_sinclair]

Judaism is a religion. The end.

It's followers are not "a people" any more than Catholics, Buddhists or Scientologists are "a people".

Personally I wouldn't ever call Jews a race