Israel's assault on Gaza and Hamas
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
challenge_everything
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Conflicts happen because they weren't solvable through politics.....
Edit: And when I say weren't solvable, I mean one side or both sides refused to come to an agreement.Of course it could be solved, but it wasn't.
Edit: And when I say weren't solvable, I mean one side or both sides refused to come to an agreement.Of course it could be solved, but it wasn't.
challenge_everything
Active Member
And quite obviously you're right.
Well no-one has produced any arguments to the contrary.
Blind Guardian
Member
It takes something more than unresolved agreements for a country to take military actions, if not Russia and Ukraine would've been at war because Russia refused to export gas to Ukraine and central Europe right now. Instead after a long time that conflict is looking as it's going to be solved, thanks to not acting like impulsive hotheads.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
After doing a bit of research (not much though, I am no expert) it seems to me that what Challenge Everything is getting at, is that this issue can more or less be resolved by a two state solution, which has support in the International community, European Union, the UN, and even the the civilians of Israel and Palestine.
I think we should also take into account the degree of violence being carried out by Hamas (a terrorist organization) and Israel (a state which commits terrorism against the Palestinian people on a huge scale), in which Israel is guilty of vastly more deaths than those attributed to Palestine or Hamas. Now I am not saying I support one side or the other, I don't, any act of terrorism whether state sponsored or not is to be condemned. However, I think we need to keep in mind the reality of the situation in that region in terms of who is responsible for what.
I think we should also take into account the degree of violence being carried out by Hamas (a terrorist organization) and Israel (a state which commits terrorism against the Palestinian people on a huge scale), in which Israel is guilty of vastly more deaths than those attributed to Palestine or Hamas. Now I am not saying I support one side or the other, I don't, any act of terrorism whether state sponsored or not is to be condemned. However, I think we need to keep in mind the reality of the situation in that region in terms of who is responsible for what.
challenge_everything
Active Member
The way intelligent debate works is, one person puts forward a case for a particular point of view, and those who disagree respond with criticisms and arguments of their own. Don't cop out by saying my case is "not satisfactory" with nothing backing it up.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
When making a claim that severely deviates from what is generally recognized as the case, one should be prepared to be held to more rigorous standards than would otherwise be the case. You haven't provided anything that is worthy of rebutting. What you have said thus far poses no threat to the general notion that the conflict between Palestine and Israel can not or will not be easily resolved via political means.
Dak
mentat
The Ukraine-Russia/Gas situation isn't even close to similar to the Israel-Palestinian issue.
Blind Guardian
Member
No of course not but it's the type of issue that could become a growing ground for greater conflict in certain parts of the world.
challenge_everything
Active Member
You are wrong for so many reasons.
1) I've supplied numerous arguments as well as providing facts and examples backing it up. I'm not here to spoon feed unarguable historical facts to lazy minds who have preconceived notions on who is right and wrong and on why this conflict occurs.
2) I don't see why it is so controversial that this conflict can be feasibly resolved, as I had already said several times how close it has come to being resolved before. If don't think this is the case, do some reading for yourself and say why this is not accurate.
3) A "controversial argument" is just as capable of rebuttal as any other. Put forward a (serious) controversial argument on any subject and I'll either agree with it, rebut it, or admit that I don't have the knowledge to do so. Perhaps you're afraid to do the latter?
Dak
mentat
Land disputes are vastly different from a non-delivery of services due to payment not rendered problem. Seeing it turn into a war is far fetched, unless Russia decided it wanted the ex-bloc countries back, which would really have nothing to do with commodity trade in the current issue sense.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
"Controversial arguments" generally don't need to be rebutted until they actually have some merit to them, which yours does not. You haven't shown at all any way in which the conflict could be thoroughly resolved in a manner that is actually conceivable. You have suggested a bunch of things that "should" be done, but nothing that anyone with a brain would recognize as a possibility of actually happening. Sure, if the situation were ideal, it could be resolved purely politically, but it's not, and you are not accounting for that in your oversimplification of the situation.
Vitor
Unconventional [Listener]
i think Israel is right trying dissolve Hamas, but the civillians should be move to another place for a while, if they accept (if they don't, they can't blame the goverment), and put them back after the attacks. Gaza can't be destroyed by the power of a majority that don't believe in a religious peace. UN should have resolved it a lot of time ago, but they expect a resolution by both and now we are watching a stupid and needless blood bath. I've heard that the red cross is being prohibited to help the victims. What the shame!!! Fuck the territory! Fuck the religious!!! When children and innocent people are dying for nothing, the interest must be put in the background.
challenge_everything
Active Member
Since you still are too scared to point out just how my argument is flawed, I guess I'll have to spoon feed you. The UN Security Council has, for a long time, been prepared to pass resolutions requiring Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders (ie giving up land which it has illegally invaded to allow the formation of a Palestinian state). These resolutions have not passed because the US vetoed them. In other words, all the major countries recognised Palestine's claims except the US. If these resolutions had passed, Israel in all likelihood would have submitted. It is really only the support of the US that allows Israel to continue to do what it is doing.
I've stated that it is historical fact that on several occasions Israel has come precariously close to a signed agreement with the Palestinians which would grant them sovereignty (based on the Oslo Accords). There was nothing inherent in the conflict which prevented completion of this agreement. Both sides obviously try to blame the other for these failures but it appears objectively that there were a number of reasons, the most prominent probably being the untimely assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
A survey in 2007 records over 75% of Palestinians in the occupied territories supported either the two state solution or a binational state (the latter obviously being even more favourable to Israel). So give them their state. I never said that this would immediately cure all violence, but watch the support of Hamas rapidly diminish.
Really? Where?
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Continue to assume my ignorance on the subject if it makes you feel more confident in your own argument. But how a conflict can be easily resolved when one party doesn't want it to be resolved is unclear to me. Israel does not want to give up its land, and this will never come to pass via the UN, so how else is this to be done? You know that the US will continually veto any measure to this effect in favor of Israel while continually sending them more and more billions of dollars in aid yearly. This is why I said that you are suggesting things that will never happen. Sure, it may look like the situation "came close" to being resolved via the UN, but surely you know that it was never genuinely in danger of coming to an end because you know the support that the US has for Israel. This is why I don't see the conflict being resolved at all within the relatively near future, whether via political or other means.
challenge_everything
Active Member
At least you seem to be recognising that the religious differences are not an insurmountable hurdle and that it is in fact primarily a conflict over land and sovereignty. That was the first and most important point I set out to make.
And now you also seem to recognise that it would be politically resolvable if it were not for the Israeli and US governments. Your conclusion seems to be that because these governments are not going to change their policies, that makes it politically unresolvable. But we are after all talking about two democratic (in theory at least) states. To say that the conflict is intractable is tantamount to saying you have no control over your government's policies.
True, it is quite likely that the conflict will continue for some time into the future. I lay the blame for this primarily with the hardliners in office in Israel and the US. I mentioned before that 3/4 of Palestinians supported a two state or binational solution. A majority of Israelis too support the existence of a Palestinian state (the exact percentages change all the time - when the two sides inflame things by bombing the shit out of each other, support for a Palestinian state unsurprisingly falls). So when you say "Israel does not want to give up its land" it is factually incorrect. A majority of citizens do, not to mention quite a few of the past leaders on both sides of the political spectrum, from the centrist Yitzhak Rabin to the very right wing Benjamin Netanyahu. I don't think it's any coincidence that the closest we came to a formalised peace agreement was when Arafat, Rabin and Clinton were the leaders of the respective states, all the most moderate leaders in the recent history of those states. It was also at this time that violence between Israel and the Palestinians was at its lowest ebb.
And now you also seem to recognise that it would be politically resolvable if it were not for the Israeli and US governments. Your conclusion seems to be that because these governments are not going to change their policies, that makes it politically unresolvable. But we are after all talking about two democratic (in theory at least) states. To say that the conflict is intractable is tantamount to saying you have no control over your government's policies.
True, it is quite likely that the conflict will continue for some time into the future. I lay the blame for this primarily with the hardliners in office in Israel and the US. I mentioned before that 3/4 of Palestinians supported a two state or binational solution. A majority of Israelis too support the existence of a Palestinian state (the exact percentages change all the time - when the two sides inflame things by bombing the shit out of each other, support for a Palestinian state unsurprisingly falls). So when you say "Israel does not want to give up its land" it is factually incorrect. A majority of citizens do, not to mention quite a few of the past leaders on both sides of the political spectrum, from the centrist Yitzhak Rabin to the very right wing Benjamin Netanyahu. I don't think it's any coincidence that the closest we came to a formalised peace agreement was when Arafat, Rabin and Clinton were the leaders of the respective states, all the most moderate leaders in the recent history of those states. It was also at this time that violence between Israel and the Palestinians was at its lowest ebb.
Similar threads
