Bloodshed continues in occupied West Bank

[Pakboong]

Problem is, things are quickly getting way out of control. A couple of Israeli Jews have been killed because they have been mistaken for knife wielding Palestinians. How can that happen in a reasonably considered defense against knife terrorism?

These mistakes are serious evidence that no caution what-so-ever is being taken and that is not good for either side.

To add insult to injury, the Israelis killed by other Israelis have been added to the total of Israelis killed by terrorists.

[dexterm]

Sorry, thread full

Morch wrote...

Leaving issues for a "final agreement" is a bad choice. The OP serves as a bitter reminder - "An interim agreement in the 1990s divided the city, placing the center under full Israeli control and the rest under Palestinian self-rule. The fate of the Hebron settlers was left to a final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that never materialized." Any issue not resolved would simply fester into another instance of the same conflict.

An agreement needs to be very detailed, very clearly defined, with agreed upon mediator for future issues bound to come up. As there is zero trust between the sides, nothing should be left to goodwill, and no assumptions regarding the inherent goodness of human beings. The time for showing heart would come later, if and when the basic situation changes and the agreement holds.

Saying Sharon had to do....anything, is simply misunderstanding underestimating the man. Israeli presence being legal or illegal to the world was not a main factor for him as well.

Two other things missing from your daydream are that there is no leadership capable of pushing this through on either side, and that considering Abbas's age and health, not sure he could be counted on to be around 5-10 years hence.

For once I agree with much of what you say. Perhaps you are right about not leaving loose ends such as the status of Jerusalem in a final peace agreement. It would simply fester.

If you are correct...

there is no leadership capable of pushing this through on either side

With this in mind is Israel sleepwalking into a one state solution 10-20 years down the road?

The Palestinian population within Israel and the West Bank is increasing at a faster rate than the Jewish population. 72 Palestinians tragically killed so far in the present unrest, but probably 720 born during the same period.

We have previously looked at the options. You said Israelis, let alone the global community, do not have an appetite for the type of mass ethnic cleansing as occurred in 48 and 67. Jordan doesn't want the Palestinians , and the Palestinians don't want Jordan. The current West Bank land area segmented by Israeli colonies is not a viable state and the Palestinians would not accept a further erosion of their historic homeland anyway. The EU does not want a far bigger refugee problem especially when the Palestinians already have a home to go to.

I think/hope pressure will eventually come to bear on Israelis from the EU or even the US, and they see the sense of a 2 state solution, and that pressure creates alternative leadership offering Israelis hope for a better more peaceful future.

And of course there's always something that comes out of left field I suppose... a dirty bomb, or a worldwide escalation with Israelis and their interests attacked overseas, another 911, or Palestinians supporting the IDF to fight ISIS on their communal doorstep.

We live in interesting times.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." T.E.Lawrence.

I am hoping for a few more peaceful dreamers of the day to take center stage.

Edited November 2, 2015 by dexterm

[hugh2121]

Since the latest wave began on October 1, at least 62 Palestinians have been shot dead by Israelis in the West Bank and in Gaza. Of those, 35 were assailants armed mainly with knives and in some cases with guns, Israel has said. Many were teenagers.

Eleven Israelis have been killed in stabbings and shootings.

The kill ratio of 5*63 Palestinian deaths as opposed to 0*177 Israelis deaths is indeed a very potent indicator of the brutality and the terrorist tactic activities employed by some members of the I.D.F.

The blatant brutality and terrorism is on show for the to the whole world to see, yet the blind apologists for the Zionist Likud regime refuse to open their eyes to the truth.

Any peace move no matter where it may spring from is a step in the right direction which will hopefully bring peace to the area, all involved have to bend in the wind.

The Zionist need to come to realise and understand that in time their actions will come back to them with a vengeance if they will not or do not sit down and talk and follow and implement the agreement recommendations, that also applies to the Palestinians too. Do not.Ignore the outstanding list from the U.N. nor any recommendations that may be made.

The wailing and the gnashing of teeth concerning the claimed sufferings of the Jews over the years has been and still is never ending,

Why don't those in power now query why such situations arose?

Perhaps the behavior pattern of those people in the time past and even now as we read this forum brought on the calamities that they claim have befallen them then and even now.

arfurcrown, I would be interested to hear your definition of the word "terrorist". Yes, Israel responds brutally to Palestinian terrorism but it is fighting for it's very existence after being attacked previously by massed *******.

Israel is in no danger of being destroyed by Palestinians carrying out knife attacks. Could we drop the hysteria?

I wonder how hysterical you might become if a total stranger approached and stuck a knife in you in the street!

[Jingthing]

Of course the recent wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks (knives, guns, Molotov cocktails, car ramming, rocks, etc.) is a major annoyance but Morch is correct that this wave alone is not a threat to the existence of the state of Israel. Of course, in general, when you consider the multiple threats to Israel from various forces, including Iran, Isis, the BDS movement, etc., then it is reasonable to assert that Israel faces existential threats. Certainly more so than most countries which don't have a Star of David TARGET on their head. Isis has recently declared their goal of genocide of the Jews with a video in Hebrew. So what else is new?

[konying]

https://www.facebook.com/StandWithUs/videos/10153279991132689/

Sara Zoabi - an Israeli, Muslim and a Zionist, speaks out in the Israeli Knesset against incitement and what life is really like in Israel.

[oncearugge]

The Palestinians will continue their murderous attacks hoping to provoke a Big reaction from Israel . To achieve this they will have to start up the rocket attacks again.

The despicable Muslim terrorists will then herd their best fighters (unarmed women and children) into/onto the rocket launch sites which will include hospitals and schools in the hope that these "innocents" will be killed by the "bad" Israeli who is seeking to stop the rocket fire.

Whilst Hamas rules there will never be peace.

[dexterm]

The Palestinians will continue their murderous attacks hoping to provoke a Big reaction from Israel . To achieve this they will have to start up the rocket attacks again.

The despicable Muslim terrorists will then herd their best fighters (unarmed women and children) into/onto the rocket launch sites which will include hospitals and schools in the hope that these "innocents" will be killed by the "bad" Israeli who is seeking to stop the rocket fire.

Whilst Hamas rules there will never be peace.

Well, with 72 Palestinians and 9 Israelis killed (2 of those by their own side) I don't think the Palestinians are winning in your "murderous attacks" stakes.

So you start using the future tense to invent the pure fantasy of Hamas firing rockets, to help you trot out all the usual cliches.

"to achieve this they will have to start..."

"The despicable Muslim terrorists will then herd..."

One enormous and very transparent straw man.

Then you conclude by imagining that Hamas have already fired their rockets and are entirely responsible for the present unrest.

A very strange post indeed.

Edited November 2, 2015 by dexterm

[Morch]

It is simply unrealistic to believe that all Israeli on Palestinian violence is justified and all Palestinian violence is terrorism. It may well be 90-10 but that number is still unreasonable. Until the numbers at least try to reflect reality, there can be no peace. The number simply is what it is but not real IMO.

What would you describe "Palestinian violence" as if not terrorism.

How do you catagorise firing rockets, suicide bombings and deliberate, murderous attacks on individual Israeli citizens.

Does Israel not have a duty to protect its citizens from terrorism ?

I would describe Palestinian violence as resistance against an occupying army.

Israel has a duty to protect its citizens within Israel but not when they are part of an army of occupation or illegal colonists in the West Bank.

Your might is right principle is an anachronism from the Dark Ages. Most civilized people in modern times prefer to live within the rule of [domestic and international] law rather than anarchy. Much safer and pleasanter that way, and more chance of getting along with your neighbors..

Knife stabbing attacks against civilians (at time children and elderly), suicide bombers, indiscriminate rocket fire on civilian population.

These were not aimed exclusively at the IDF, nor targeted just Israelis within the Palestinian occupied territories.

Palestinian sources, official and otherwise, usually refer to most violent actions against Israelis as "resistance". Same goes form Arabic language sources in general. There is relatively very little by way of rejecting and denouncing violence as means to an end. The qualification in your post is very rarely applied, if at all.

The claim that Israel does not have a duty to protect its citizens and soldiers the minute they cross the 1967 lines is absurd. Countries go to certain lengths to protect their citizens wherever they are. If it was meant as a personal opinion as to the legitimacy of extending such protection - there is no scenario in which the State of Israel, under whatever government, will simply leave the settlers (illegal as they might be) to fend for themselves. The same goes for IDF soldiers.

Before preaching about the relationship between might and right, may want to have a look at news headlines in general. Seems like the application of might is right would depend not on moral merits, but on the balance of power and interests involved. That in an ideal world things should be different is one thing, that ours is not a prefect one is another.

[Morch]

If Israel ended its occupation and gave Palestinians the right to self determination in their own viable state with all the relevant parties signed up to a permanent peace deal, I would be one of those defending Israel's right to retaliate and pre-empt attacks from hot heads (on both sides) who will inevitably not accept the decision of the majority and will attempt to derail the peace.

But when you ignore the huge elephant in the room, the biggest provocation of all...the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza... I dismiss all Israel's retaliation as unjustified.

Yeah, that's about what I said.

Unless Israel complies with all Palestinian wishes (or rather, your view of what these wishes are), its right to defend itself is scrapped. Not partially, not conditionally - its yet another one of them achievable all-or-nothing formulations. And as usual filled with undefined verbal mines to boot - "self-determination", "viable state", "all relevant parties". That's basically stacking it so that there could always be a loop hole to deny the right of action.

The blockade of Gaza, in its full blown form, was not in place prior to Hamas takeover. Defining it as the reason for violence, without addressing the context is disingenuous.

How does any the above relate to Israeli actions with regard to its Lebanese and Syrian borders is unclear.

[dexterm]

If Israel ended its occupation and gave Palestinians the right to self determination in their own viable state with all the relevant parties signed up to a permanent peace deal, I would be one of those defending Israel's right to retaliate and pre-empt attacks from hot heads (on both sides) who will inevitably not accept the decision of the majority and will attempt to derail the peace.

But when you ignore the huge elephant in the room, the biggest provocation of all...the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza... I dismiss all Israel's retaliation as unjustified.

Yeah, that's about what I said.

Unless Israel complies with all Palestinian wishes (or rather, your view of what these wishes are), its right to defend itself is scrapped. Not partially, not conditionally - its yet another one of them achievable all-or-nothing formulations. And as usual filled with undefined verbal mines to boot - "self-determination", "viable state", "all relevant parties". That's basically stacking it so that there could always be a loop hole to deny the right of action.

The blockade of Gaza, in its full blown form, was not in place prior to Hamas takeover. Defining it as the reason for violence, without addressing the context is disingenuous.

How does any the above relate to Israeli actions with regard to its Lebanese and Syrian borders is unclear.

You appear to be muddying the timeline and drifting off topic discussing Lebanon and Syria. We are discussing the present unrest in the West Bank.

The claim that Israel does not have a duty to protect its citizens and soldiers the minute they cross the 1967 lines is absurd. Countries go to certain lengths to protect their citizens wherever they are.

I find your attempt to conflate the IDF supporting invading and occupying illegal colonists as some sort of consular assistance offered to citizens travelling overseas as absurd. End the occupation and you will ultimately end the violence. The brutal repression cause by the Israeli occupation is what this conflict is all about. Don't try to sweep the main issue under the carpet.

"Self determination" has something to do with not getting shot to death extra judicially by foreign soldiers at any one of numerous checkpoints in your own land.

"Viable state" means something like not a patchwork quilt of Jewish only colonies in the occupied West Bank situated next to essential aquifers connected by a network of Jewish only roads, where Palestinians can get shot by crossing them in the wrong place.

You have stated and I agree that the occupation is illegal and a hindrance to peace, and that 2 states is best for a peaceful solution to the problem.

You are full of criticism of my idealism. So what's your strategy for achieving what you believe is right, other than wringing your hands and saying this is all too hard, reality is not so simple, we have not got the leadership at present.

[Morch]

Problem is, things are quickly getting way out of control. A couple of Israeli Jews have been killed because they have been mistaken for knife wielding Palestinians. How can that happen in a reasonably considered defense against knife terrorism?

These mistakes are serious evidence that no caution what-so-ever is being taken and that is not good for either side.

To add insult to injury, the Israelis killed by other Israelis have been added to the total of Israelis killed by terrorists.

The situation is far from perfect, and some of the reactions displayed by the Israeli public were not reasonable, organized or in in line with what they could have been. Then again, conflating between these incidents and "defense against knife terrorism" is your own construct - and obviously not what is referred to. These mistakes are not indicative of no caution, but rather of over-reaction by stressed members of the public. That it is not a good development is agreed.

As for adding insult to injury - about as honest as citing Palestinian killed carrying knife attacks as innocents bystanders. The same in evidence with regard to the Gaza fighting - casualty figures tossed around turn all into civilians, Hamas adding Palestinians killed by rocket misfire and those executed for supposed collaboration with Israel to casualty lists. Can't recall this ever presenting much of an outrage for certain members.

Wonder how Israeli Arabs carrying out attacks are counted....

But either way, more a spin based on shoddy reporting than anything else.

[Steely Dan]

Simple solution is for Palestinians to stop trying to kill Jews. Then Israel would not have anything to retaliate over. Israel is perfectly willing to live in peace if it's neighbours would cease trying to completely destroy their homeland and kill all the Jews. Crying because you started a fight and finished with a bloody nose doesn't wash.

Nobody mentions J K Rowling's lunatic raving on TV so I will. It's just what one would expect from a writer of fantasy fiction.

Israel, inasmuch as it is represented by its current government, is not "perfectly willing to live in peace...etc.". At most, it can be said to be willing to accept "a peace" - the definition of which falls short of what the Palestinians wish for or what is generally considered to be adequate.

Are you privy to official Likud policy on the matter of a peace settlement? I would observe that no Israeli government of any party has ever made an offer acceptable to the Palestinians, even the unilateral withdrawal (by Sharon) met with yet more violence. I put it to you that inter-party squabbling within Israel should perhaps take a back seat whilst getting to grips with the obviously deliberate Palestinian rejectionism.

There is no "official Likud policy" on the matter of a peace settlement, which is part of the problem. The positions of current office holders are pretty clear with regard to what they do not agree to. This is not a matter of being privy to anything, most of it on record.

For better or worse, right wing oriented coalitions led Israel for much of its recent history. Pointing out that were gaps between the positions of any Israeli government and those of the Palestinians is a given. The question is more to do with the possibility of bridging these gaps. With Center/left notions of peace it could prove difficult, but not impossible. When it comes to current right wing formulations, impossible seems generous.

The unilateral move by Sharon's government was not coordinated with the Palestinian leadership. Not saying that it would not have resulted in violence anyway, but some of the effects it had on Israeli-Palestinian relationships could have been mitigated.

The Palestinian "rejectionism" is a mirror image of the Israeli side. Leaderships simply not up to making hard decisions, and are overly invested in domestic politics.

Let's look at it this way. The o.p mentions more bloodshed in the West Bank. There is an undeclared assertion with this and any Intifada related thread that the violence came about directly or indirectly due to Likud policies. Well we are some twenty years now since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Correct my memory if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a spate of terrorist attacks proximate to his peace overtures to the Palestinians, you see Israeli governments of all shades are met with the same Palestinian rejections. Had Olmert offered 98% of the land prior to 67 instead of 97% I put it to you it would have made no difference. Has he offered 100% I suspect an intifada would have ensued even quicker.

Let's face it there was quiet in Gaza and the West Bank between 1949 and 1967 when Egypt and Jordan ruled over them respectively. But as per usual Netanyahu is depicted as a pantomime villain, when the real reasons for no peace lay elsewhere.

[Morch]

Sorry, thread full

Morch wrote...

Leaving issues for a "final agreement" is a bad choice. The OP serves as a bitter reminder - "An interim agreement in the 1990s divided the city, placing the center under full Israeli control and the rest under Palestinian self-rule. The fate of the Hebron settlers was left to a final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that never materialized." Any issue not resolved would simply fester into another instance of the same conflict.

An agreement needs to be very detailed, very clearly defined, with agreed upon mediator for future issues bound to come up. As there is zero trust between the sides, nothing should be left to goodwill, and no assumptions regarding the inherent goodness of human beings. The time for showing heart would come later, if and when the basic situation changes and the agreement holds.

Saying Sharon had to do....anything, is simply misunderstanding underestimating the man. Israeli presence being legal or illegal to the world was not a main factor for him as well.

Two other things missing from your daydream are that there is no leadership capable of pushing this through on either side, and that considering Abbas's age and health, not sure he could be counted on to be around 5-10 years hence.

For once I agree with much of what you say. Perhaps you are right about not leaving loose ends such as the status of Jerusalem in a final peace agreement. It would simply fester.

If you are correct...

there is no leadership capable of pushing this through on either side

With this in mind is Israel sleepwalking into a one state solution 10-20 years down the road?

The Palestinian population within Israel and the West Bank is increasing at a faster rate than the Jewish population. 72 Palestinians tragically killed so far in the present unrest, but probably 720 born during the same period.

We have previously looked at the options. You said Israelis, let alone the global community, do not have an appetite for the type of mass ethnic cleansing as occurred in 48 and 67. Jordan doesn't want the Palestinians , and the Palestinians don't want Jordan. The current West Bank land area segmented by Israeli colonies is not a viable state and the Palestinians would not accept a further erosion of their historic homeland anyway. The EU does not want a far bigger refugee problem especially when the Palestinians already have a home to go to.

I think/hope pressure will eventually come to bear on Israelis from the EU or even the US, and they see the sense of a 2 state solution, and that pressure creates alternative leadership offering Israelis hope for a better more peaceful future.

And of course there's always something that comes out of left field I suppose... a dirty bomb, or a worldwide escalation with Israelis and their interests attacked overseas, another 911, or Palestinians supporting the IDF to fight ISIS on their communal doorstep.

We live in interesting times.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." T.E.Lawrence.

I am hoping for a few more peaceful dreamers of the day to take center stage.

Interesting, just a few days ago you was all in favor of broad brush stroke peace deals, and agreements focusing on details were termed "nitpicking".

The bit quoted from my post referred to leaderships on both sides. You choose to focus solely on the Israeli side. Why is that? Why not quote the full sentence?

Two other things missing from your daydream are that there is no leadership capable of pushing this through on either side, and that considering Abbas's age and health, not sure he could be counted on to be around 5-10 years hence.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/866731-bloodshed-continues-in-occupied-west-bank/?p=10030063

Much as some would like to fantasize and deflect, this conflict got two sides involved. And no, it is not totally up to one side to sort things up. Not unless insisting on juvenile way of looking at things.

And no, lumping all current Palestinian deaths as "tragic", without context to their action does not wash.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread above full with multiple quotes,

Any unnatural death is tragic IMO, and especially unlawful ones.

While all this conflict management is going on as a smokescreen for more illegal colony building making a viable Palestinian state impossible, Netanyahu winning revenge points with the electorate "Yeah we showed 'em" 72-9, 20 years after we were so close to a deal [we had the hand shake but no kissing] before an extremist Zionist fanatic of the same ilk as those running Israel now destroyed a possible peace opportunity.

Amidst all the hot air and bluster, have any Israelis actually noticed that the Palestinian population is growing at a faster rate than Israeli Jews, they are still there whether the fanatics like it or not and they ain't going away.

My question to Morch which you have not answered: Is Israel sleep walking into a one state solution 10-20 years down the road?

Doesn't bother me. I rather like the idea of Israel becoming a regular multi cultural democracy. Just curious. I was hoping to get an intelligent answer from you.

[Morch]

arfurcrown, I would be interested to hear your definition of the word "terrorist". Yes, Israel responds brutally to Palestinian terrorism but it is fighting for it's very existence after being attacked previously by massed *******.

Israel is in no danger of being destroyed by Palestinians carrying out knife attacks. Could we drop the hysteria?

I wonder how hysterical you might become if a total stranger approached and stuck a knife in you in the street!

There is a slight difference between personal safety and a threat to a nation's survival. This is exactly the hysteria I was referring to. Citizens being alarmed, weary, panicked even - is one thing. Understandable. Posted on this topic no issues with shooting down attackers. The country's existence at risk because of knife attacks - hyperbole.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

The Palestinians will continue their murderous attacks hoping to provoke a Big reaction from Israel . To achieve this they will have to start up the rocket attacks again.

The despicable Muslim terrorists will then herd their best fighters (unarmed women and children) into/onto the rocket launch sites which will include hospitals and schools in the hope that these "innocents" will be killed by the "bad" Israeli who is seeking to stop the rocket fire.

Whilst Hamas rules there will never be peace.

Most of the events and issues raised in the OP are centered on the West Bank. Not currently under Hamas's control. While Hamas expressed support for the violence and encourages demonstrations in the Gaza Strip, there are no signs that they are up for a fight at this time. Winter is coming (for real, not the Westeros line), and Gaza is not much better off since the last round.

[Morch]

If Israel ended its occupation and gave Palestinians the right to self determination in their own viable state with all the relevant parties signed up to a permanent peace deal, I would be one of those defending Israel's right to retaliate and pre-empt attacks from hot heads (on both sides) who will inevitably not accept the decision of the majority and will attempt to derail the peace.

But when you ignore the huge elephant in the room, the biggest provocation of all...the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza... I dismiss all Israel's retaliation as unjustified.

Yeah, that's about what I said.

Unless Israel complies with all Palestinian wishes (or rather, your view of what these wishes are), its right to defend itself is scrapped. Not partially, not conditionally - its yet another one of them achievable all-or-nothing formulations. And as usual filled with undefined verbal mines to boot - "self-determination", "viable state", "all relevant parties". That's basically stacking it so that there could always be a loop hole to deny the right of action.

The blockade of Gaza, in its full blown form, was not in place prior to Hamas takeover. Defining it as the reason for violence, without addressing the context is disingenuous.

How does any the above relate to Israeli actions with regard to its Lebanese and Syrian borders is unclear.

You appear to be muddying the timeline and drifting off topic discussing Lebanon and Syria. We are discussing the present unrest in the West Bank.

The claim that Israel does not have a duty to protect its citizens and soldiers the minute they cross the 1967 lines is absurd. Countries go to certain lengths to protect their citizens wherever they are.

I find your attempt to conflate the IDF supporting invading and occupying illegal colonists as some sort of consular assistance offered to citizens travelling overseas as absurd. End the occupation and you will ultimately end the violence. The brutal repression cause by the Israeli occupation is what this conflict is all about. Don't try to sweep the main issue under the carpet.

"Self determination" has something to do with not getting shot to death extra judicially by foreign soldiers at any one of numerous checkpoints in your own land.

"Viable state" means something like not a patchwork quilt of Jewish only colonies in the occupied West Bank situated next to essential aquifers connected by a network of Jewish only roads, where Palestinians can get shot by crossing them in the wrong place.

You have stated and I agree that the occupation is illegal and a hindrance to peace, and that 2 states is best for a peaceful solution to the problem.

You are full of criticism of my idealism. So what's your strategy for achieving what you believe is right, other than wringing your hands and saying this is all too hard, reality is not so simple, we have not got the leadership at present.

My timeline is just fine, thank you very much. As for declaring certain countries off-topic, didn't seem to bother you when Rwanda and Nazi Germany were used as examples. Either having trouble following your own arguments or got nothing by way of reasonable answer, hence calling it off-topic:

Your original statement to deny objection to Israel taking defensive actions, as long as it was "in their own country" and not in the occupied West Bank.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/866731-bloodshed-continues-in-occupied-west-bank/?p=10022111

My reply was that such objections are actually quite common on this forum (Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip as examples), even when they are not directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/866731-bloodshed-continues-in-occupied-west-bank/?p=10028916

The one who seems to prefer muddying the waters over an ungraceful backtracking is yourself.

Most of the illegal settlers, by and large, are not illegal when it comes to Israeli law. More than a few are there following government decisions. Surprising as it may seem, the Israeli government is subject to Israeli law. The same goes for the IDF.. Hence, protection of citizens, even if their presence is considered illegal by international laws and standards, is still the responsibility of the Israeli government (ANY Israeli government). That you seem to think international law (or at least, the cherry picked bits) should supersede sovereignty, does not make it so.

Ending the occupation, if and when such a process begins, will take a long time. And it will be preceded by lengthy negotiations. As yourself acknowledge, the violence will not disappear overnight, but "ultimately". At the same time, you reject any Israeli action until the actual ending of the occupation - what would that mean for the interim period, for example?

As for your "definitions" - that's exactly what I'm talking about. Slogans. Nothing more. Zero value when it comes to setting out workable and well defined terms. Always open for further interpretation, always leaving room for additional conditions to be imposed. Self determination is about a whole lot more. It has to do with who is sovereign (currently two contenders on the Palestinian side), who is accountable, who bears responsibility. When you can face this question without any of the usual wiggling, come back with definitions of self-determinism. So "viable state" would seem to mean territorial continuity and a fair share of natural resources. How can a ("viable") Palestinian state not be divided considering that the West Bank is geographically separated from the Gaza Strip? Or would achieving this bit of territorial continuity to be brought up at a later date? And no mention of "all relevant parties", as this would complicate things some, obviously.

No wringing of hands, apart from your tedious and repeated allusions to such. Can't help it if some prefer fairy tales and fantasies over bleak reality. And the same goes for those seeing simple solutions or possessing one-sided views of the conflict. Acknowledging issues instead of constantly trying to gloss over those not fitting the agenda would make a good start. There is no other way for this conflict to ever be solved if people on both sides do not accept some of the unpleasant truths. In general, there are three categories of answers to these sort of questions - what should be done, what could be done, what would be done. The issue with most posters is conflating between different modes. You seem fixated on the should, without much care for the other two. Should is a rare commodity in real life, and more so when it comes to this conflict.

Having a bit of a deja vu here, but got used to it by now. Whenever slogans fail addressing reality, shooting the messenger commences. I have previously posted a fairly detailed account of what such an agreement might include. As we had the exact same exchange three weeks back, shouldn't be too hard for you to find the link.

[Morch]

Israel, inasmuch as it is represented by its current government, is not "perfectly willing to live in peace...etc.". At most, it can be said to be willing to accept "a peace" - the definition of which falls short of what the Palestinians wish for or what is generally considered to be adequate.

Are you privy to official Likud policy on the matter of a peace settlement? I would observe that no Israeli government of any party has ever made an offer acceptable to the Palestinians, even the unilateral withdrawal (by Sharon) met with yet more violence. I put it to you that inter-party squabbling within Israel should perhaps take a back seat whilst getting to grips with the obviously deliberate Palestinian rejectionism.

There is no "official Likud policy" on the matter of a peace settlement, which is part of the problem. The positions of current office holders are pretty clear with regard to what they do not agree to. This is not a matter of being privy to anything, most of it on record.

For better or worse, right wing oriented coalitions led Israel for much of its recent history. Pointing out that were gaps between the positions of any Israeli government and those of the Palestinians is a given. The question is more to do with the possibility of bridging these gaps. With Center/left notions of peace it could prove difficult, but not impossible. When it comes to current right wing formulations, impossible seems generous.

The unilateral move by Sharon's government was not coordinated with the Palestinian leadership. Not saying that it would not have resulted in violence anyway, but some of the effects it had on Israeli-Palestinian relationships could have been mitigated.

The Palestinian "rejectionism" is a mirror image of the Israeli side. Leaderships simply not up to making hard decisions, and are overly invested in domestic politics.

Let's look at it this way. The o.p mentions more bloodshed in the West Bank. There is an undeclared assertion with this and any Intifada related thread that the violence came about directly or indirectly due to Likud policies. Well we are some twenty years now since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Correct my memory if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a spate of terrorist attacks proximate to his peace overtures to the Palestinians, you see Israeli governments of all shades are met with the same Palestinian rejections. Had Olmert offered 98% of the land prior to 67 instead of 97% I put it to you it would have made no difference. Has he offered 100% I suspect an intifada would have ensued even quicker.

Let's face it there was quiet in Gaza and the West Bank between 1949 and 1967 when Egypt and Jordan ruled over them respectively. But as per usual Netanyahu is depicted as a pantomime villain, when the real reasons for no peace lay elsewhere.

It is true that even following the signing of the Oslo Accords, and even under governments which were (theoretically, but this is another discussion) willing to go ahead with the peace process, violence never really ceased. This is something I allude to in many posts - that signing an agreement, or another unilateral Israeli withdrawal, will not being about peace in the sense that there will be no further violence. Surely not anytime soon, that is.

It should be remembered that the illegal settlement drive predates the Oslo Accords, and that the Rabin government had to deal with an already problematic reality. The policies of following governments did little to address these issues, with most actually making things worse. Netanyahu did not create this situation, but he sure did his best to cement it in a way which discourages any chances of progress toward resolution.

Continued violence by the Palestinians could be equated with ongoing settlement effort and the military occupation. Not as if Israel took off settlements right after signing the Accords or that IDF presence was no more.

Under no illusions that whatever peace agreement is reached, things would continue to be tense between Israelis and Palestinians. No illusions that for many of the Palestinians such an agreement might not be considered a final proposition on the matter. But this is also the situation today, only with more friction points available. The two-state solution might not be a very Utopian outcome, but in the long run, probably the best available alternative.

[Jingthing]

Yes so much of this is an endless loop. Clearly Morch has the patience of some biblical figure. Y'all know the name. Not sure what this forum did to deserve him.

[Morch]

Sorry thread above full with multiple quotes,

Any unnatural death is tragic IMO, and especially unlawful ones.

While all this conflict management is going on as a smokescreen for more illegal colony building making a viable Palestinian state impossible, Netanyahu winning revenge points with the electorate "Yeah we showed 'em" 72-9, 20 years after we were so close to a deal [we had the hand shake but no kissing] before an extremist Zionist fanatic of the same ilk as those running Israel now destroyed a possible peace opportunity.

Amidst all the hot air and bluster, have any Israelis actually noticed that the Palestinian population is growing at a faster rate than Israeli Jews, they are still there whether the fanatics like it or not and they ain't going away.

My question to Morch which you have not answered: Is Israel sleep walking into a one state solution 10-20 years down the road?

Doesn't bother me. I rather like the idea of Israel becoming a regular multi cultural democracy. Just curious. I was hoping to get an intelligent answer from you.

For someone habitually justifying almost any violence by Palestinians, even when directed at civilians - the any-death-is-tragic bit, is a bit too much.

And on with the slogans.

Netanyahu is not earning much electoral credit over the current violence. Most see him as weak and indecisive. His Mr. Security mantle tarnished further, with the gap between words and outcomes glaring (Hamas, Iran). The ones who score points here are to his right, something which fails to get through to some posters. What almost done deal was that? Another fantasy or historical revisionism?

You repeat questions which I have answered over and over again, on multiple topics. Always a brand new day with some posters. Once more then - there is no "Israel" in the sense of a hive-mind, which makes the question inane. The right wing mostly ignores this, living in denial. Centrist and left wing forces acknowledge the issue, but due to political realities are impotent. The Israeli Arabs are mostly supportive of any Palestinian self-determination, as long as they themselves get to keep the freedoms and lifestyle currently possessed. If you want intelligent answers, try asking intelligent and relevant questions. Or simply stop acting as if this is the first time the question came up.

[arjunadawn]

"Israel says it has a right to use lethal force to stop attempts to kill its citizens."

Ok, I agree with that. But what of the (around) 50% of Palestinians killed that were NOT assailants????????????

Is this number right? Are such high numbers killed that are not involved? I do not know. No policy remotely approaching such numbers should be acceptable, regardless of the threat- not innocents anyway. I just don't know so I ask.

[hugh2121]

arfurcrown, I would be interested to hear your definition of the word "terrorist". Yes, Israel responds brutally to Palestinian terrorism but it is fighting for it's very existence after being attacked previously by massed *******.

Israel is in no danger of being destroyed by Palestinians carrying out knife attacks. Could we drop the hysteria?

I wonder how hysterical you might become if a total stranger approached and stuck a knife in you in the street!

There is a slight difference between personal safety and a threat to a nation's survival. This is exactly the hysteria I was referring to. Citizens being alarmed, weary, panicked even - is one thing. Understandable. Posted on this topic no issues with shooting down attackers. The country's existence at risk because of knife attacks - hyperbole.

And, presumably, you would also include beheadings.

[Morch]

Israel is in no danger of being destroyed by Palestinians carrying out knife attacks. Could we drop the hysteria?

I wonder how hysterical you might become if a total stranger approached and stuck a knife in you in the street!

There is a slight difference between personal safety and a threat to a nation's survival. This is exactly the hysteria I was referring to. Citizens being alarmed, weary, panicked even - is one thing. Understandable. Posted on this topic no issues with shooting down attackers. The country's existence at risk because of knife attacks - hyperbole.

And, presumably, you would also include beheadings.

Presumably you could cite cases of beheading relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or maybe not.

But either way, beheadings got propaganda and terrorism value, they are not direct threat to a country's survival by themselves.

Another example of the sort of hysteria I was referring to.

[Steely Dan]

Here is an article which may be of interest.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/11/arab-media-and-governments-signal-their.html

It would seem that the Arab Media outside Palestine are fed up and critical of the continual trouble making incited by Palestinian leaders. This is actually a far far bigger story than the usual 'bad Israel' stuff. It also seems support for the intifada is far greater in some of our esteemed members than the Arab states.

In a nutshell events more important to Arab nations has seen them quietly realign their stance to Israel, I see this trend accelerating.

[hugh2121]

Al-Qaeda leader calls for lone wolf attacks on West The Al-Qaeda leader hailed the past month's attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel and the West Bank

"The supporters of Israel must pay with their blood and their economy."

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has called for lone wolf attacks against Western countries, in particular America, and praised recent Palestinian attacks against Israelis.

The Al-Qaeda leader hailed the past month's attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel and the West Bank.

Full story at Daily Telegraph 3 Nov 2015.

Special for Morch and all terrorist lovers.

Edited November 3, 2015 by hugh2121

[Morch]

Here is an article which may be of interest.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/11/arab-media-and-governments-signal-their.html

It would seem that the Arab Media outside Palestine are fed up and critical of the continual trouble making incited by Palestinian leaders. This is actually a far far bigger story than the usual 'bad Israel' stuff. It also seems support for the intifada is far greater in some of our esteemed members than the Arab states.

In a nutshell events more important to Arab nations has seen them quietly realign their stance to Israel, I see this trend accelerating.

The not-quite-Intifada failing to garner continuous and mass support was mentioned on previous topics. There was a peak, until leaders met and got some sort of deal on Temple Mount regulations. But in terms of timing, it is all wrong - the world in general, and the Arab world in particular got more pressing Middle East issues at the moment - ISIS, refugees Iran, and keeping a lid on domestic affairs in certain countries.

The Arab media is not exactly against the riots, as such. It simply doesn't give events the usual hype. Whether this reflects a public sentiment or instructions from above is a matter of interpretation.

The linked column is off with regard to the media coverage issue. The "dozen Arabic newspapers" are somewhat less numerous, double listings discounted, as well as a couple which are fairly new additions (a few months in existence). All basically all carry the same version, as often happens in online media these days. Wouldn't say the list quite represents the heavy weights in terms of Arab media. Al-Halabi represents a stream within Salafist movement, or perhaps even a splinter from that stream. This could be about the current situation in the West Bank, and/or part of the ongoing struggles between streams of Islamic thought.

[Morch]

Al-Qaeda leader calls for lone wolf attacks on West The Al-Qaeda leader hailed the past month's attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel and the West Bank

"The supporters of Israel must pay with their blood and their economy."

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has called for lone wolf attacks against Western countries, in particular America, and praised recent Palestinian attacks against Israelis.

The Al-Qaeda leader hailed the past month's attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel and the West Bank.

Full story at Daily Telegraph 3 Nov 2015.

Special for Morch and all terrorist lovers.

And that is supposed to be a credible threat to Israel's existence?

You seem to be confused - my position is not that terrorism is not a threat or that its benign. Just that it is not severe enough to threat the existence of Israel. Guess I have a wee bit more confidence in the country's capability to withstand such things.

[cdnvic]

One post removed because it altered another's quotes.

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[Ulysses G.]

e

Special for Morch and all terrorist lovers.

Morch is not a terrorist lover. However, IMO, he gives them a lot more sympathy than they deserve. Sometimes he can be naive, but he understands the history of the region and current events more than anyone else who posts here regularly.

[hugh2121]

e

Special for Morch and all terrorist lovers.

Morch is not a terrorist lover. However, IMO, he gives them a lot more sympathy than they deserve. Sometimes he can be naive, but he understands the history of the region and current events more than anyone else who posts here regularly.

Please note the inclusion of the word "and".

Morch and all terrorist lovers.