Israel or Palestine- who's the 'bad' guy?

Gaza is contigious territory. The West Bank is, mostly. Any realistic peace deal will involve removing the pockets of Jews in the West Bank. Which is another bone of contention. When the PA says that Palestine will be free of Jews, nobody blinks. But if Israel would announce that it is to be free of Arabs, what would be the reaction??

The 'wall' is mostly a fence. It is solid wall only where population centres need to be protected from incoming fire. There isa fence between the US and Mexico, I don't see anybody complaining. There is a fence between India and Pakistan, where is the UN outrage over that?

The only solution is a 2 state solution. Anything else would be genocide for the Jews.

 

In a way they are both bad guys.

 

That's where (one of the many) the problem lies; it's not going to be possible to remove the settlements, and they are as much of the reason as the wall itself why I describe the West-Bank as a series of Islands

The reason why many doesn't blink, is that most of the palestinians living inside Israel have lived there much longer than most Israelis and live integrated lives in that society, whereas the israelis living in what would be palestinian territory are more or less militant settlers that doesn't have anything to do with that society, have their own security force (+ the fact that IDF have to protect them as well), and that they burn down olive-fields, etc.

That said, I see your point; we (as people living in the west) should excpect the same standard from both sides, it's actually racisitic thinking that the palestinians are too primitive to be able to respect international law, etc. This is only speculation from my side, but I suspect that the ruling elite of the Palestinian islands are perfectly happy with the current situation; they get a lot of money from EU to run their sort of country, that they stuff in their own pockets, they send their children to schools abroad, and if anybody critisize them, they can all blame the Israelis. A collegue of mine have just come back from 6 months in Palestine, where he works for a christian organisation monitoring violation of human rights in Palestine/Israel, and most of the palestinian people he talked to would much prefere to be thrown into an Israeli jail than a palestinian one...

Try telling that to a woman on her way to a birth clinic, stuck in a 4 hour queue: "You see, it's not a wall, it's only a fence" I am aware that many complain about the wall, but that's not the point. The point is restriction of movement, and that has its pro's and cons. The pro is that it gives Israelis more security; the con is that it increases the claustrophobic and frustration-levels in Palestine, effectively turining Palestine into a breeding-ground for frustrated Palestinians without a future...

IIRC, there was some fuss about the Berlin blockade and the Berlin wall some years ago.... Norway have enjoyed a rather secure border with former Soviet union during the Cold war. Neither we or the russians on the other side had much problems with that fence, as only diplomats ever wanted to cross that border, and they did by aeroplane. It would be a whole different banana if people started separating Norway interior by strict border-lines, walls, fences, or only minefields. Even that would be liveable, if we didn't have to stand 4-6 hours in queue to get from work to home, to hospital, to the shop, etc.

I don't really see a big difference between a one-state solution and a two state solution where everybody respects everybody and all have the same rights within that given state, both are IMO both utopian by now.

When I'm opposed to a two state solution, I'm opposed to a two state solution where the palestinian state is as it is now; fenced in on all sides, 6 hour waiting queue to go from one island of Palestinians to another island, or even into Israel (many palestinians have a job inside Israel, and their workers rights are ...less than EU standard.

 

The series of islands argument falls down when you consider the number of countries that are series of islands and the number of countries that have non-contiguous territories. It requires cooperation between nations, but that can only be a good thing. It should also put Israel at ease as it gives them leverage in the event that the new Palestinian state becomes hostile.

No one credible thinks the two state solution is dead. In fact most credible analysts still recognise it as the only real solution to the problem.

 

There has to be a two state solution. In the long run, the only thing that will give Israel real security is having a stable and prosperous Palestinian state next door. As long as Gaza and the West Bank are a mess then there will continue to be problems for Israel.

 

"Just a wall"!.. It cannot be downplayed.
You dont need to be swayed towards one side or the other to see something is wrong with overlooking the actions of Israel, no matter the excuses you will hear.
For egsample: When a young lady of 19 working with the Red Cross was attempting to stop an israeli bulldozer from leveling a farm and associated buildings etc, She was working with the family/children there at the time.
She was determined to appeal to the driver and co that they were not allowed to do this. And was run over and killed, thats murder isnt it, she was a citizen of Australia.

Some egsamples of International concern over Israels idea of how to do things..

During the second Intifada, the UN commision on human rights reported "widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and the closure of palestinian territories, measures which constitute warcrimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity".

Israeli treartment of non-Israelis in territories occupied by Israel for the past forty years, has been compared to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during the apartheid era by various persons such as, The Congress of South African trade unions, Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter and Micheal Ben-Yair the Attorney general of Israel to name a few.
In 2009, south Africa's human sciences research council released a 300 page study that concluded that Israel practiced collonialism and apartheid in the occupied palestinian territories.

As for the wall, in 2003 the barrier was condemned by a UN resolution "overwhelmingly" passed by UN general assembly which also called for all construction to halt. The building of the barrier inside the west bank was also condemned by the International court of Justice which stated "Israel has an obligation to put an end to the violation of its International obligations flowing from its construction of the wall in occupied pallestinian territories. Reperation must, as far as possible, wipe out all consequences of the Illegal act".

April 2004 Human rights activists from Rabbis for human rights, reported that Israeli soldiers used a 13 year old boy Muhammed Badwan as a human shield during a demonstration in the west bank village of Biddu. By tying him up to the windscreen of their jeep! A picture got out and was published in the Daily Mail..
Numerous other factual accounts, It goes on and on.

2008-9 Gaza invasion "operation cast shield" Israeli forces used civilian human shields particularly children to walk in front of soldiers and enter buildings in order to test for mines, booby traps and gunmen etc and to inspect suspicious packages for exsplosives!
Even the Israeli high court issued an injunction against the practice, but it has continued.

Unfortunately, this is the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more.

 

Stolenbjorn showed you the Map, Im quite sure you were aware anyway.
You have a blinkered view on this, know what im saying.

You know very well and you compare it to a fence!
Are you suggesting the UN etc is wrong?

 

Yes, Israel regularly does very horrible things to Palestinians. This isn't news. It is, if anything, a reason for the Palestinians to start compromising in order to get out from under the boot of the Israelis.

 

Obama actualy made a remark saying Israel should consider at least partialy returning to pre 67 lines. Which is more inline with EU considerations regarding the two state ideal.
That is, pull back and give a little.

Compromise is a two way street.

Edit: Never the less, dont worry im old enough not to believe everything i hear lol.

I thought this vid was interesting,
http://youtu.be/yyVy5XHjuGI

Kind of made me wonder, who is the patsy, U.S or Israel?

 

In the Middle East peace process, compromise is very much a one way street. Israel are comfortable with the status quo. They're quite happy to take American money, bomb Palestinians and act the victim. The Palestinians are the ones who need change.

 

The series of Islands argument falls down when people are allowed to travel freely between the islands, when you are allowed to move to the same island that you work on, etc. Norway have thousands of islands, and hundreds of inhabited islands. The inhabited ones are either connected by ferries with a ferry-scedule that allows you to plan, or are connected with bridges. There are no foregin force standing on the pier deciding if and when the ferry is allowed to leave. Allso; if you consider living on a Norwegian island is too impractical, you can leave; not an option for Palestinians trapped in "islands". If you think it's OK and not a problem to live locked in, try asking the people living in weastern Berlin if it was fun when USSR started the embargo on the city in 1948 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade

I still want to say that I can understand the motivations between Israels action towards turning the West bank into an "island-paradise", norway have so far only had one idiot with a bomb, and he was ethnically norwegian, christian etc, and we found out pretty fast, so not too many muslims or people with a turban was dragged out of trams and busses and beat up and spat at. Had we been bombed on a monthly basis or shelled with home made Hamas-missiles, we would probably be just as "bad" as Israel.

As for the two-state solution; it's actually a reality today. The Palestinian gouvernment have allready declared the Palestinian state. I still doesn't see any happy ending, and thus the two-state solution is no solution.

The solution will be when Israelis can open their borders and when palestinians stops terrorising Israelis. If this is done in a one-state solution or with an integrated-two-state-solution is not that relevant. It's still not going to happen :bang:

 

When the Israelis forcibly removed the Jews from Gaza, the Palestinians used the new freedom to increase attacks.

A one state solution is a non-starter because demographics favour the Palestinians. And as soon as they'd get a majority, they would expel the Jews and Israel would cease to exist.

Yes, the UN is a joke.

In almost every case where the Palestinians have disputed the path of the fence, the Israeli supreme court has demanded that it be rerouted, and it was.

I gather that none of you has actually spent time in Israel.

BTW, the WB under the PA has the fastest growing economy in the region.

All it would take is for the Palestinians to recognize Israel and to sit down and seriuosly work on borders. Camp David brought them so incredibly close, until Arafat returned home and started the second intifada.

 

So...the Israelis are rejecting peace over an ego trip? Because that's what the 'All the Palestinians have to do is say "We recognise Israel as a Jewish state"' nonsense is about. It means nothing, they're just words meant to humiliate the Palestinians further. If the Israelis were truly invested in peace, they would stop playing games with the Palestinians and make peace.

And the Gaza strip is the world's biggest concentration camp. What's your point?

 

Those that asked the fence not to be built on their property, what about them? You that have visited Israel can probably tell us how many percentages of the fence/wall/border that is constructed on palestinian soil kontra israeli soil?

As for visiting Israel; I know a lot of people that do visit Israel, and they come home, argumenting for everything from extreme pro palestine to extreme pro Israel, so I don't buy that argument. We have people visiting Israel from Norway saying that the terror bomb in Oslo july22 2011 is gods punishment for us having relations with the palestinian gouvernment.....

So, you've been in Israel, congratulations, we should all do as you say, then. But you're not allowed an oppinion on Norwegian whaling (be it positive or negative) until you've visited Lofoten in Northern Norway

Allso a shame that those of us age 70 and below are not allowed to have an oppinion on WW2, Holocost, and Nazism, as we've not been in Nazi germany :zzz:

As I say; I have no quick-fix for the area (it seems you have, as you've visited the place), I symphatize with both parties, but I don't pretend that the wall is a happy-happy-joy-thingie that all palestinians in secret celebrate and only cry about whenever a weastern media-team passes by.

The wall is a terrible stop-gap-solution to a huge and complex problem, but I have problems seeing a better alternative as long as there's no true motivation to fix things, and massive hatred and mistrust on either side.

 

Got some conflicting information-need clarity here!

Two people I know have given me conflicting information and i've become swamped, not knowing who's right!!!!!

Pro Israeli in blue
Pro Palestinian in red

 

Ronki, you might best be served by looking into academic works on the history of the region, dating at least back to the Ottoman Empire. You can search for articles in academic journals or full on monographs via Google Scholar, Worldcat, Jstor or your university's library. If you're writing a paper that involves the history of the area, I'd imagine that you'd need to cite stronger sources than the back and forth on an internet forum (however informative it might be).

 

I'm not an expert on this topic, but you can say that those more or less conflicting quotes is a good illustration on how deep and complicated the conflict is. As far as I can see, they are sort of right, all the quotes, it's just a matter of how you put it forth.

The argument about Palestine not beeing a country before after ww2 is sort of correct, just as there was no Apache-country in north armerica or Inuit country on greenland. By that definition, you could allso say that there was no Israel until after ww2 either. Political states was formed during those days based on colonies and protectorates beeing let free by imperialistic european states. Many borders are based on ruler-borders made on imperialist conferences in europe and are the cause for a lot of the wars inside states and between states in Africa.

 

Its a no win situation on both sides....