Israel wants the Palestinian Gas

[biffvernon]

Yes, I'm reading it, and as you may guess, I wouldn't want to see anybody wiped off the map. Of course I would like to see all the people who live in the area formally known as Palestine to be able to live happily together without borders, the better to cultivate their orange and olive trees, but I would guess that UE will just accuse me of being an idealist dreamer with no grip on reality. Meanwhile, and as an interim measure, I do think that putting into place the actions required by the unanimous agreement of the 16 members of the Security Council under UN Resolution 242 would be a good place to start from. After that happens I'd say they should all sit down and have a lot of cups of tea.

[clv101]

My perspective is where is the criticism of Hamas?

I get the criticism of Israel, the settlements, the fanaticism of the Israeli religious Right... but there seems a total lack of criticism of the total hatred shown towards Jews and the state of Israel by Hamas.

All I here is justification and excuses which is why I wonder what the real agenda here.

Real agenda? I guess folk are seeing one group of people being treated unbelievably badly, for decades, and understand where their limited response is coming from. When one group of people is experiencing collective punishment, what some are describing as genocide, behind sealed borders - just how much criticism are you expecting of their response?

Here's a picture:

[biffvernon]

And you know what? I bet Hamas could be persuaded to stop firing those pesky little rockets if they knew that the rest of the world would guarantee that 242 would be enacted. In case you've forgotten what it demands, here's the text:

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

Got any objections to what the Security Council agreed must happen?

[vtsnowedin]

And you know what? I bet Hamas could be persuaded to stop firing those pesky little rockets if they knew that the rest of the world would guarantee that 242 would be enacted. In case you've forgotten what it demands, here's the text:

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

Got any objections to what the Security Council agreed must happen?

Objections? No but that part 1- (ii) has been a sticking point.

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

As far as I know no leadership or government of the Palestinians has ever acknowledged the right of Israel to exist, or that they have any right of sovereignty over as much as one acre of Israel.
Until they do that I see no chance of resolution 242 ever being placed in effect.

[UndercoverElephant]

And what the six million Jews currently living in the ME? What happens to them when Israel is 'wiped of the map' which is what you want?

They can go and live in America.

[Little John]

So here's the thing V. I hear this kind of apologetic bollocks all the time about how, if only the Paelstinians would be "reasonable", then they could have peace. Utter bullshit.

Let me put something to you:

Imagine that a people who have otherwise suffered, let's say the European Gypsies who were equally displaced and massacred as the were the Jews, were offered a land mass to set up as a new state by Russia and it's allies. Let's say that land mass included your own farm in it. Let's say you quite reasonably objected to your land being given away without your permission. Lets say that your objections were ignored and you were chased off it at gunpoint. Lets say that you now had nowhere to go except a small sliver of land on your coast that was completely surrounded by this new state and that you couldn't work, couldn't travel, couldn’t exist without the largess of this occupying force. Lets say every time you try to rebel, they rained bombs on the ghetto you were now forced to live in. Let's day this went on for decades. How would you regard sickeningly supercilious requests for "reasonableness" from bourgeois foreigners.

Now, I know what the stock bullshit response to the above will be and it goes usually along the lines of "that's just the way it is and you have to start from reality as it is". All of which is basically an appeal to a "Might is Right" doctrine. Okay then, that being the case, me and my mates are going to get some guns together and take your farm away from you. If we succeed, and that becomes the new reality, then you'll just have to live with that new "reality", right? Anything else would be just being "unreasonable", right?

It's funny how the above always only ever allies to others. Usually others with brown skin who live a long way away, right?

[biffvernon]

Objections? No but that part 1- (ii) has been a sticking point.

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

As far as I know no leadership or government of the Palestinians has ever acknowledged the right of Israel to exist, or that they have any right of sovereignty over as much as one acre of Israel.
Until they do that I see no chance of resolution 242 ever being placed in effect.

This is what the Security Council, your government, my government, the Russian, Chinese, French and the rest, demanded. My point is that if the Israelis agreed (pigs might fly but the Israelis will have to be forced) to what the UN has demanded, then the Palestinians might be persuaded to find a peaceful accommodation. It would at least provide a stable platform from which to start talking.

Meanwhile the reality is well illustrated by Steve's imaginary Roma state created in Vermont analogy. One would have to be a remarkably determined pacifist to decline taking up arms in these circumstances so I'm not rushing in to condemn Palestinian fighters.

[UndercoverElephant]

There can be no "two state" solution. The problem is the level of distrust/hatred, the lack of sufficient good-quality land and the fact that only one of these two states could own the strategically important places.

The Palestinians will never accept the right of Israel to exist, and with good reason. As Steve points out, it doesn't matter how long this "new reality" persists, it will remain as morally bankrupt as it was when it was first implemented, and will never be forgotten. It follows that Israel can never, ever, be secure and at peace. It will always be surrounded by enemies who do not believe it has any right to exist, and that situation can only end in the eventual non-existence of Israel. It is only a question of when, not if, this is going to happen.

[vtsnowedin]

I find your final solution no more acceptable now then it was when Hitler first came up with it.

[biffvernon]

Which is why the one state solution wherein everybody realises that tending orange and olive trees and having nice cups of tea is preferable to blowing children's bodies into small pieces.

Can anyone see a third alternative?

[Little John]

Which is why the one state solution wherein everybody realises that tending orange and olive trees and having nice cups of tea is preferable to blowing children's bodies into small pieces.

Can anyone see a third alternative?

There is only one solution and it involves the annihilation of one side or the other.

[Little John]

Death toll amongst Palestinians now approaching 1,000. What do you suppose is Israel’s final solution LB?

[another_exlurker]

I find your final solution no more acceptable now then it was when Hitler first came up with it.

Would that also apply to Israel's "final solution" as outlined by Moshe Feiglin?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Artic ... aspx/15326

[vtsnowedin]

I find your final solution no more acceptable now then it was when Hitler first came up with it.

Would that also apply to Israel's "final solution" as outlined by Moshe Feiglin?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Artic ... aspx/15326

As compared to this peace of reasonable compromise up thread.

Israel is a criminal state. It has no right to exist. Its existence is a criminal act, and the criminal involved was/is the United States of America.

Your punishment for this crime was 9/11. You deserved it. And you will get more.

[biffvernon]

Which is why the one state solution wherein everybody realises that tending orange and olive trees and having nice cups of tea is preferable to blowing children's bodies into small pieces.

Can anyone see a third alternative?

There is only one solution and it involves the annihilation of one side or the other.

I think that counts as two (bad) alternatives but doesn't count as a solution.