Israel, Palestine and Iran

[HeyAnty]

Can anyone explain why no other countries have entered this directly in the region?  Are they scared to.  Its as bad as I’ve ever witnessed in the region, just surprised at the restraint of Iran etc.  Normally they wouldn’t need any encouragement, especially what happened in the country a couple of years back. 

[Tumblerseven]

3 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

 Ok fair points but how would you propose the West Bank Radicals should be "forcefully kicked out" if violence is not an acceptable method? And by whom? 

I guess you would suggest discourse and diplomacy - but what confidence should the Palestinians put in attempting a solution through discourse and diplomacy when the great powers, including the UN have demonstrated a massive degree of untrustworthiness towards them?   

What percentage chance would you give the Palestinians of getting a fair hearing and outcome?  What percentage chance would you give of Israel complying with any outcome that reverted land back to Palestinians? 

There may not have been a Palestinian State per se, but other parts of the Arab World "liberated" from the Ottoman occupation were granted the right to self governance in line with the League of Nations charter.  I'm sure the existing population would have been more than happy to "build a country" if they had been allowed to.

I can't speak for the Palestinian people re Hamas. I have no idea how many of them would support Hamas or any other violent opposition to what they see as occupation. I suspect that a significant number of them may do, given they have been treated worse than shit for so long now that it must have given rise to a massive degree of anger and resentment, which has to find an outlet at some point.  I also suspect a fair number of them don't simply because they know that anything Hamas do will be returned with massive and indiscriminate interest by Israel.  

@VILLAMARV you ok buddy? you wanted to ask me a question or something? I think im here in a minority who actually will answer questions and have strong position about stuff and not try to weasel out of difficult questions or dog-whistle endlessly.

I think IDF should come kick their assess(literally) pack their stuff and bring them home. Those people are religious lunatics and provokers they should not be there.

No i suggest pull out of Gaza unblock them fully support them for a few years then cut everything off and let them guide themselves into terrorist actions and then attack them with full force and annex them.

You trying to paint a picture like Palestinians want peaceful solution and they are getting cheated by Israel or UN. NO! HARD NO!

As i understand Palestinians in every step sabotaged peaceful solutions and talks for decades!  Thats why their population is uneducated thats why they dont have any real allies thats why they have terrorists in government and thousands of rockets flying into the israel. They care about from river to the sea more than they care about population education or living conditions.

Self-governance. Hey i am not defending what Britts did i think its a mess.

Everyone is talking about Israel and UN and Britts responsibilities. But no one is talking about Palestine responsibilities building their own country.

Decisions or events in 1920 or 1948 or 1967 didnt prevented Palestine to build their country into normal country. We cant pretend that because of those dates Palestinians have no responsibilities.

When i look at Palestine i dont see a country who wants to be a country or who wants to survive as a country. I see a country who dont want another country (israel) to exist.

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, Tumblerseven said:

So my point was take any terroristic organization you prefer they have a country near your borders and they kill 4000 people in London. The suggestion that anyone would like to talk or negotiate after that event is ludicrous.

I get this, I see the anger in Israel and the pain, but what I don't get is that if you're not proposing to move to negotiation at any point, and you believe the population to already be radicalised, your logic takes you to a pretty dark place.

If you don't believe that any form of peace can be achieved, and you don't believe that there can be any change in the thinking of Palestinians or Israeli's in the future, if you think that talk and negotiation is pointless, what is your solution - is this a war to an end? Is the end the permanent removal of Gaza and its people?

If you kill 40,000 Hamas militia, you're killing the fathers, brothers and sons of civilians - you're creating the next wave, the next attack over the border in, i dunno, 2030 or whatever.

Unless you're talking about killing or displacing millions, then negotiation is an absolute necessity surely?

[Tumblerseven]

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I get this, I see the anger in Israel and the pain, but what I don't get is that if you're not proposing to move to negotiation at any point, and you believe the population to already be radicalised, your logic takes you to a pretty dark place.

If you don't believe that any form of peace can be achieved, and you don't believe that there can be any change in the thinking of Palestinians or Israeli's in the future, if you think that talk and negotiation is pointless, what is your solution - is this a war to an end? Is the end the permanent removal of Gaza and its people?

If you kill 40,000 Hamas militia, you're killing the fathers, brothers and sons of civilians - you're creating the next wave, the next attack over the border in, i dunno, 2030 or whatever.

Unless you're talking about killing or displacing millions, then negotiation is an absolute necessity surely?

So you see i actually said concrete steps in the comment above.1. give them freedom unblock them 2. support them for few years 3. let them guide themselves into terrorism 4. attack them 5 Annex them.

People keep saying talks negotiations like its a real answer to the question. ITS NOT

Can you give me 5 steps in negotiations with Hamas what would you negotiate give or take stuff  to solve the conflict. Good Luck.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[OutByEaster?]

Just now, Tumblerseven said:

So you see i actually said concrete steps in the comment above.1. give them freedom unblock them 2. support them for few years 3. let them guide themselves into terrorism 4. attack them 5 Annex them.

Why go through steps one to four if step five is your aim?

[meregreen]

35 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

Can anyone explain why no other countries have entered this directly in the region?  Are they scared to.  Its as bad as I’ve ever witnessed in the region, just surprised at the restraint of Iran etc.  Normally they wouldn’t need any encouragement, especially what happened in the country a couple of years back. 

The one thing guaranteed to make this situation even worse, would be for it to spread to other countries. Perhaps no one else is too keen to join this shit storm. Who can blame them.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

So you see i actually said concrete steps in the comment above.1. give them freedom unblock them 2. support them for few years 3. let them guide themselves into terrorism 4. attack them 5 Annex them.

People keep saying talks negotiations like its a real answer to the question. ITS NOT

Can you give me 5 steps in negotiations with Hamas what would you negotiate give or take from the talks with Palestinians to solve the conflict. Good Luck.

1. Stop the settlers  Return the stolen land they took.

2. Release the hostages.

3. Hamas lay down arms and commit to peaceful 2 state resolution. Internationally monitored.

4. Israel and all of Palestine commit, with international supervision, to allow free and fair elections of new governments.

5. Rebuild, with international support, destroyed Palestinian infrastructure.

[Tumblerseven]

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Why go through steps one to four if step five is your aim?

Whoa didint we already talked about this? i literally answered all of these questions and you liked those comments. Why are we doing a round two?

Are you going to answer mine?

[OutByEaster?]

18 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Can you give me 5 steps in negotiations with Hamas what would you negotiate give or take from the talks with Palestinians to solve the conflict. Good Luck.

The key is to politically and socially separate the people of Gaza (or Palestinians or however you'd like to describe them) from Hamas and give them 'normal' aspirations and lives.

The starting point of any negotiation should be to make the people of Gaza feel safe - that's step one - restore safety for the people of Gaza. A people that feel safe can start to think and you can start to talk to them.

Step two is to alienate Hamas, make sure that their hatred becomes the outlier, the voice of extremism for the people of Gaza (you can arrest those that organised terrrorism while you do this) - for any type of long term success, it's the people of Gaza, not the people of Israel that will need to remove Hamas - bombing won't do it, it just creates more fear, more anger, more grief - more Hamas.

Step three is to make sure that the people of Gaza have options, that there are other political choices for them that can be in opposition to the Israeli point of view but not have the extremism of violence - with the security to go about their everyday lives without being killed, you can begin to engage people - in order to negotiate a long term solution, you need to help build a Gaza where ordinary people feel they can develop and thrive - where those normal ambitions are their focus.

Step four is the people of Gaza choosing people who want to continue a better pathway to a better Gaza - people that Israel will find it easier to negotiate with - security brings a better democracy, a better democracy brings more talking and more talking bring more ways to bring people together.

Step five is a process of negotiation over decades that sees a successful Gaza forging closer and closer links with Israel, with greater freedom and less violence on both sides.

I know that all sounds ever so lovely and pie in the sky and candy floss and clouds, but given that the alternative is genocide I reckon it's probably worth a go.

[Tumblerseven]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

1. Stop the settlers  Return the stolen land they took.

2. Release the hostages.

3. Hamas lay down arms and commit to peaceful 2 state resolution. Internationally monitored.

4. Israel and all of Palestine commit, with international supervision, to allow free and fair elections of new governments.

5. Rebuild, with international support, destroyed Palestinian infrastructure.

So we negotiating with hamas dont forget.

1. Release the all stolen land you mean from the river to the sea right? its all stolen? right?

3. What is percentage you would give that Hamas would accept? more than 30% or less than 30%

4. sry sry misread.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Tumblerseven
misread.

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Whoa didint we already talked about this? i literally answered all of these questions and you liked those comments. Why are we doing a round two?

I thanked you for the comments, that's a very different thing. i liked that you took the time to lay out your thoughts.

Your thoughts are mental though.

It's a five stage process in which the first three stages seem to be to spend years and billions of pounds on supporting a peaceful process, purely so that you can say "I told you so" if that process breaks down in any way whatsoever and use that as an excuse to complete your actual aim of completely destroying a region and displacing or murdering two and a half million people.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

So we negotiating with hamas dont forget.

1. Release the all stolen land you mean from the river to the sea right? its all stolen? right?

3. What is percentage you would give that Hamas would accept? more than 30% or less than 30%

4. So 9 million israelis with 5 million palestinians. Do you understand that one failed election and you have an actual genocide of jews??

1. No. The land stolen by the illegal settlements, illegal even under Israeli law, but to which a blind eye has been turned.

3.  I don’t know, nor do you. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them and the same applies to Netanyahu and his government. But that’s not really relevant. All negotiations to end longstanding conflicts start with extreme distrust.

4. I don’t understand your comment. I don’t understand how Palestine electing a new government for Palestine and Israel electing a new govt for Israel, so both start with fresh leadership causes genocide.  I’m not talking about uniting Israel and Palestine as one place. 2 state solution. With the carrot that if Palestine behaves, it can become internationally recognised as a state/nation.

[Tumblerseven]

16 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The key is to politically and socially separate the people of Gaza (or Palestinians or however you'd like to describe them) from Hamas and give them 'normal' aspirations and lives.

The starting point of any negotiation should be to make the people of Gaza feel safe - that's step one - restore safety for the people of Gaza. A people that feel safe can start to think and you can start to talk to them.

Step two is to alienate Hamas, make sure that their hatred becomes the outlier, the voice of extremism for the people of Gaza (you can arrest those that organised terrrorism while you do this) - for any type of long term success, it's the people of Gaza, not the people of Israel that will need to remove Hamas - bombing won't do it, it just creates more fear, more anger, more grief - more Hamas.

Step three is to make sure that the people of Gaza have options, that there are other political choices for them that can be in opposition to the Israeli point of view but not have the extremism of violence - with the security to go about their everyday lives without being killed, you can begin to engage people - in order to negotiate a long term solution, you need to help build a Gaza where ordinary people feel they can develop and thrive - where those normal ambitions are their focus.

Step four is the people of Gaza choosing people who want to continue a better pathway to a better Gaza - people that Israel will find it easier to negotiate with - security brings a better democracy, a better democracy brings more talking and more talking bring more ways to bring people together.

Step five is a process of negotiation over decades that sees a successful Gaza forging closer and closer links with Israel, with greater freedom and less violence on both sides.

I know that all sounds ever so lovely and pie in the sky and candy floss and clouds, but given that the alternative is genocide I reckon it's probably worth a go.

This is not a real answer. This is Disney tale with vague statements and steps.

This is like socialists on the internet telling about their socialist utopia you get this kind of nonsensical answer. I cant engage with this compete fantasy and utopian thinking.

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, Tumblerseven said:

I cant engage with this compete fantasy and utopian thinking.

I know.

[Tumblerseven]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

1. No. The land stolen by the illegal settlements, illegal even under Israeli law, but to which a blind eye has been turned.

3.  I don’t know, nor do you. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them and the same applies to Netanyahu and his government. But that’s not really relevant. All negotiations to end longstanding conflicts start with extreme distrust.

4. I don’t understand your comment. I don’t understand how Palestine electing a new government for Palestine and Israel electing a new govt for Israel, so both start with fresh leadership causes genocide.  I’m not talking about uniting Israel and Palestine as one place. 2 state solution. With the carrot that if Palestine behaves, it can become internationally recognised as a state/nation.

1. No in hamas and palestinians eyes from river to the sea. If im not mistaken before 2nd Intifada israel removed settlements and then terroristic attacks increased and war followed.

4.was mistake sorry that would happen with one state solution.

3. I would give less than 15% that terrorists accept. Can you admit that if 3and1 fails there are no real answer to solve this conflict in negotiations or talks for a foreseeable future??

Ah no sorry in 2005 they removed settlements and they elected Hamas in 2006 OMEGALOL

Israeli disengagement from Gaza - Wikipedia

Quote

In 2005, 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip were unilaterally dismantled and Israeli settlers and army evacuated from inside the Gaza Strip.

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[El Segundo]

14 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

@VILLAMARV you ok buddy? you wanted to ask me a question or something? I think im here in a minority who actually will answer questions and have strong position about stuff and not try to weasel out of difficult questions or dog-whistle endlessly.

I think IDF should come kick their assess(literally) pack their stuff and bring them home. Those people are religious lunatics and provokers they should not be there.

No i suggest pull out of Gaza unblock them fully support them for a few years then cut everything off and let them guide themselves into terrorist actions and then attack them with full force and annex them.

You trying to paint a picture like Palestinians want peaceful solution and they are getting cheated by Israel or UN. NO! HARD NO!

As i understand Palestinians in every step sabotaged peaceful solutions and talks for decades!  Thats why their population is uneducated thats why they dont have any real allies thats why they have terrorists in government and thousands of rockets flying into the israel. They care about from river to the sea more than they care about population education or living conditions.

Self-governance. Hey i am not defending what Britts did i think its a mess.

Everyone is talking about Israel and UN and Britts responsibilities. But no one is talking about Palestine responsibilities building their own country.

Decisions or events in 1920 or 1948 or 1967 didnt prevented Palestine to build their country into normal country. We cant pretend that because of those dates Palestinians have no responsibilities.

When i look at Palestine i dont see a country who wants to be a country or who wants to survive as a country. I see a country who dont want another country (israel) to exist.

Yes that would be nice if the IDF could clear out the nutters and give the land back to its original owners, but wouldn't it need a change of policy over the settlements and expansion by Israel first?  How likely is that to happen? And haven't the IDF been complicit in the land grabs and expulsions in occupied territories themselves?   

I'm not trying to paint a picture that Palestinians want a peaceful solution at all.  You said they should find an alternative to violent means, I've raised that approach as one of very few alternatives and asked you how realistic you think it is for them.  So if violence is not an option, and they, in your view at least, do not want a peaceful solution, what alternatives do you suggest?  

How have they sabotaged peace negotiation and solutions ?  Is it by refusing to sign up to agreements that sanction and condone the Israeli occupation?

The creation of Mandatory Palestine in 1919 and the the declaration of Israel in 1948 absolutely did prevent the Palestinians from building a country in which they could self govern the territories they lived in as of 1919-1920. 

Do you have evidence that counters the recorded facts that the British refused the people of Palestine self governance until 1948? And evidence that counters the recorded fact that the UN relieved them of 56% of the territory in 1948? If not, what do you base your hard no on?  

What are/were these "Palestinian responsiblities" you refer to in this context?  Was it to defy the occupying forces and create their own country regardless?  If so, isn't that exactly what they've been trying to do?

[Chindie]

Nobody is going to agree that Israel gets what it wants, which is everything that used to be called Palestine. No amount of navel gazing or pooh-poohing any response that isn't 'flatten Gaza and eradicate the subhuman roaches that pretend they're a nation' is going to change that.

Similarly nobody is going to agree that the other side gets to erase Israel either.

There must be compromise, and given the Israel has all the power, Israel will have to give most.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Chindie

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

1. No in hamas and palestinians eyes from river to the sea. If im not mistaken before 2nd Intifada israel removed settlements and then terroristic attacks increased and war followed.

4.was mistake sorry that would happen with one state solution.

3. I would give less than 15% that terrorists accept. Can you admit that if 3and1 fails there are no real answer to solve this conflict in negotiations or talks for a foreseeable future??

Ah no sorry in 2005 they removed settlements and they elected Hamas in 2006 OMEGALOL

Israeli disengagement from Gaza - Wikipedia

 

You initially asked for 5 things to negotiate. My number 1 was that Israel should agree (as they did, and as you point out, in 2005). I’m not sure that Israel endorsing its own law was the cause of the intifada. But you know, illegal settler land grab is an obvious thing to be reversed. Each side must make concessions.

on 3, ( and the whole process) of course it could fail. It’s been close before only to have been derailed by extremists on one side or the other. But that’s not a reason not to try again. Looking from the outside people in both places live in various degrees of mortal fear. Peace is better than war. Bombs don’t destroy ideas or ideologies.

[Tumblerseven]

4 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Yes that would be nice if the IDF could clear out the nutters and give the land back to its original owners, but wouldn't it need a change of policy over the settlements and expansion by Israel first?  How likely is that to happen? And haven't the IDF been complicit in the land grabs and expulsions in occupied territories themselves?   

I'm not trying to paint a picture that Palestinians want a peaceful solution at all.  You said they should find an alternative to violent means, I've raised that approach as one of very few alternatives and asked you how realistic you think it is for them.  So if violence is not an option, and they, in your view at least, do not want a peaceful solution, what alternatives do you suggest?  

How have they sabotaged peace negotiation and solutions ?  Is it by refusing to sign up to agreements that sanction and condone the Israeli occupation?

The creation of Mandatory Palestine in 1919 and the the declaration of Israel in 1948 absolutely did prevent the Palestinians from building a country in which they could self govern the territories they lived in as of 1919-1920. 

Do you have evidence that counters the recorded facts that the British refused the people of Palestine self governance until 1948? And evidence that counters the recorded fact that the UN relieved them of 56% of the territory in 1948? If not, what do you base your hard no on?  

What are/were these "Palestinian responsiblities" you refer to in this context?  Was it to defy the occupying forces and create their own country regardless?  If so, isn't that exactly what they've been trying to do?

Settlements. Well it happened once in 2005 when israel removed settlements from gaza and then they elected established terrorist organization in 2006. So its possible i would say very likely.

Alternative to violent means you build your country educate and elevate your people and areas you have find allies and trades and recognition and then negotiate with israel like equals. Nothing of sort have been done period.

I think i agreed about the self-governance im not trying to defend what Britts did. I already said this.

So now i will ask the questions.

2023 does israel have the right to exist in those lands?Not including west bank gazas. no why/yes why?

From 1948 did Palestinians have any responsibility to build their own country gaza westbank? yes why/no why?

From 1948 did Palestine did a good job building up their country gaza westbank? yes why/no why?

[KentVillan]

20 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Settlements. Well it happened once in 2005 when israel removed settlements from gaza and then they elected established terrorist organization in 2006. So its possible i would say very likely.

Alternative to violent means you build your country educate and elevate your people and areas you have find allies and trades and recognition and then negotiate with israel like equals. Nothing of sort have been done period.

I think i agreed about the self-governance im not trying to defend what Britts did. I already said this.

So now i will ask the questions.

2023 does israel have the right to exist in those lands?Not including west bank gazas. no why/yes why?

From 1948 did Palestinians have any responsibility to build their own country gaza westbank? yes why/no why?

From 1948 did Palestine did a good job building up their country gaza westbank? yes why/no why?

Let’s be realistic, no state exists in an isolated vacuum. There has been an awful lot of interference in Palestinian state building by Israel, other neighbours, western powers, and so on, and you can’t necessarily blame ordinary Palestinians split across two separate territories for not making a stellar job of this in the circumstances.

Hamas itself was sponsored by elements in Israel to displace the PLO and Fatah, and there has been blowback from that.

Israel’s most conciliatory leader was assassinated by a fellow Israeli.

The story is complex, and there is lots of blame to throw around.

In answer to your first question, yes I believe Israel has a right to exist in something like its current form, but it does not have the right to act with impunity whenever that is threatened.