Israel proposes West Bank barrier as border - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34451242]Concessions don't have to be purely territorial. For example if Hamas makes acceptable steps to ensure rocket attacks no longer happen in Israel, Israel can concede something(lifting the blockade completely?). In exchange for some Israeli settlements to become part of Israel, the West Bank is allowed to have other parts, or reclaim East Jerusalem. These types of things would allow both sides to get what they want.[/QUOTE] As I've said, Hamas has already stated that it will cease all armed resistance once a Palestinian state is established under these conditions: 1. East Jerusalem is the capital 2. All of the West Bank, including the border with Jordan under Palestinian control and 3. Actual sovereignty Anything less is unacceptable, considering that greater fragmentation would be catastrophic for any Palestinian state, and conceding more land to Israel where their settlements are would be tantamount to giving legitimacy to those settlements.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34449607]no one said that, however Also, let me point out, the Palestinians aren't "slaughtering" anyone The Israeli's? well [IMG]http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/chron-fig1.gif[/IMG] just ONE year.[/QUOTE] Not for lack of trying, it's just that Israeli's are more effective in their retaliation than the Militants are in their attempts.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34453078]Greater good. Intent augments actions. Killing an innocent for the sheer sake of seeing them bleed is more wrong than killing an innocent via collateral damage, which is more wrong than killing an innocent via honest mistake.[/quote] Hamas and the militant groups don't kill innocents through collateral damage or honest mistake. Their intention is to kill innocent people. [quote]Let's be honest, though, right now it seems like Israel's government considers letting the Palestinians have what little they do a concession. They've expressed zero belief that the Palestinians deserve [I]anything.[/I] And that's not changing for at least a political generation, if not longer.[/QUOTE] That's true, and it is another reason why both sides are absolutely despicable. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;34453399]As I've said, Hamas has already stated that it will cease all armed resistance once a Palestinian state is established under these conditions: 1. East Jerusalem is the capital 2. All of the West Bank, including the border with Jordan under Palestinian control and 3. Actual sovereignty Anything less is unacceptable, considering that greater fragmentation would be catastrophic for any Palestinian state, and conceding more land to Israel where their settlements are would be tantamount to giving legitimacy to those settlements.[/QUOTE] That is an unacceptable demand to stop killing civilians. That is equal to Hamas taking the Israeli people hostage until their demands are met. It is pure terrorism and is absolutely horrible.

As much as their demands are about right (despite Israel wanting to get a bigger share), coming from Hamas under threat of continued violence isn't the best way to go about it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34454625]That is an unacceptable demand to stop killing civilians. That is equal to Hamas taking the Israeli people hostage until their demands are met. It is pure terrorism and is absolutely horrible.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt Hamas' stated or actual intention is to kill civilians, Israeli or otherwise. If anything the rockets are a constant reminder that Israel is facing a force that opposes them as long as they oppress Palestinians, no matter how small. In this sense I would say that yes, civilians killed by them are collateral damage. Does that mean their deaths don't matter? Of course not. Does that mean they are justified as correct? Again, of course not. But, the reason that armed resistance exists is because these people do not have sovereignty.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34455330]I highly doubt Hamas' stated or actual intention is to kill civilians, Israeli or otherwise. If anything the rockets are a constant reminder that Israel is facing a force that opposes them as long as they oppress Palestinians, no matter how small. In this sense I would say that yes, civilians killed by them are collateral damage. Does that mean their deaths don't matter? Of course not. Does that mean they are justified as correct? Again, of course not. But, the reason that armed resistance exists is because these people do not have sovereignty.[/QUOTE] Now you're just being silly. Launching rockets and mortars at civilian areas to make a political statement is about as coherent as protesting Banks foreclosing homes by becoming a serial arsonist.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;34455385]Now you're just being silly. Launching rockets and mortars at civilian areas to make a political statement is about as coherent as protesting Banks foreclosing homes by becoming a serial arsonist.[/QUOTE] So any form of armed resistance exists not to make a political move or statement, but for the sole purpose of killing civilians? Yes, I suppose if every rocket they launched conveniently landed in designated 'IDF shits here' areas then it would be a more clear political statement. But outside of resistance of some kind, they have no ground to combat Israel's policy, as they (they being the Palestinian people) do not have a state, a direct result of Israel's actions.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34454625]Hamas and the militant groups don't kill innocents through collateral damage or honest mistake. Their intention is to kill innocent people. That's true, and it is another reason why both sides are absolutely despicable. That is an unacceptable demand to stop killing civilians. That is equal to Hamas taking the Israeli people hostage until their demands are met. It is pure terrorism and is absolutely horrible.[/QUOTE] Israel has basically taken the Palestinians hostage until their demands are met. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Gazaseablocade.png/320px-Gazaseablocade.png[/IMG] That's pretty much 'hostage'. They can't import shit without running it through the Israelites first. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;34455385]Now you're just being silly. Launching rockets and mortars at civilian areas to make a political statement is about as coherent as protesting Banks foreclosing homes by becoming a serial arsonist.[/QUOTE] It's called resistance. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_resistance_under_Nazi_rule[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid[/url] In all other instances where this has happened, there have been armed groups dedicated to antagonizing their oppressors. This is just another group doing the same thing, but since it's Israel oppressing, no one treats it the same.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34455469]So any form of armed resistance exists not to make a political move or statement, but for the sole purpose of killing civilians? Yes, I suppose if every rocket they launched conveniently landed in designated 'IDF shits here' areas then it would be a more clear political statement. But outside of resistance of some kind, they have no ground to combat Israel's policy, as they (they being the Palestinian people) do not have a state, a direct result of Israel's actions.[/QUOTE] The two are not mutually exclusive. Showing opposition is a motivation, killing civilians is the method, and probably a motivation too. They didn't sit around and intentionally make their weapons ineffective so they didn't kill too many civilians, it is their method and without doing some damage they're toothless. Killing is a core part of armed resistance, especially the kind that deliberately doesn't target military targets and goes for civilian targets. If they really believe that such a course of action is the only way to make themselves heard they're throwing rocks at a tank. If anything it just makes the Israeli population more militant and aggressive towards them, there's a reason most of Israel's population are staunch conservatives. It also poisons their public image; the PA is nice, they have protests, they make efforts to push forward and negotiate, Hamas is recognised as a terrorist group and a rogue state who people only support reluctantly. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sickle;34455486]It's called resistance. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_resistance_under_Nazi_rule[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid[/url] In all other instances where this has happened, there have been armed groups dedicated to antagonizing their oppressors. This is just another group doing the same thing, but since it's Israel oppressing, no one treats it the same.[/QUOTE] Well the Jewish resistance hardly did much now did they? The apartheid issue also proved better when they were doing more demonstrations than ethnic violence. Who is remembered more favourably, Martin Luther King Jr or Malcolm X? Violence only brings violence, even the PA has settled down and is making progress albeit slowly. That kind of resistance isn't going to work and has proven not to work, why support it?

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34445392]The British only owned it for a short while, that is until Israelis kicked them out by murdering their police force and bombing innocent people. [/QUOTE] So why is this wrong if the Jews did this to try to establish their own state and it was ok for the British troops and police occupying the land at that time to retaliate while according to Facepunch it's all fine for the Palestinians to do the same things for the exact same reason and Israel shouldn't be allowed to retaliate against it?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34455469]So any form of armed resistance exists not to make a political move or statement, but for the sole purpose of killing civilians? Yes, I suppose if every rocket they launched conveniently landed in designated 'IDF shits here' areas then it would be a more clear political statement. But outside of resistance of some kind, they have no ground to combat Israel's policy, as they (they being the Palestinian people) do not have a state, a direct result of Israel's actions.[/QUOTE] It would be understandable if they actually attacked military targets. If they were launching rockets at IDF checkpoints and outposts then you could count civilian deaths as collateral since they aren't the aim of the attack. These militants are not targeting IDF, they are targeting civilian populations with the aim of terrorizing innocent people. [QUOTE=Sickle;34455486]Israel has basically taken the Palestinians hostage until their demands are met. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Gazaseablocade.png/320px-Gazaseablocade.png[/IMG] That's pretty much 'hostage'. They can't import shit without running it through the Israelites first. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] It's called resistance. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_resistance_under_Nazi_rule[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid[/url] In all other instances where this has happened, there have been armed groups dedicated to antagonizing their oppressors. This is just another group doing the same thing, but since it's Israel oppressing, no one treats it the same.[/QUOTE] The blockade, no matter how wrong, is still done to try and curb the rocket attacks coming from Gaza. I think it would be an incredibly fair tradeoff if Hamas stepped up on preventing the rocket attacks in exchange for the blockade being lifted completely. For Hamas to say that they won't budge on any of the attacks unless all their demands are met is unreasonable, and not diplomatic. The reason that attacks are escalating is because of failed diplomacy on Israel's side, the reason the blockade persists is because of failed diplomacy on Hamas' side. If both sides realized this and actually started negotiating the blockade would have probably been over already. And when the blockade ends you can start moving in the direction of a reasonable border solution that is agreeable to both sides.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34457402]The blockade, no matter how wrong, is still done to try and curb the rocket attacks coming from Gaza. I think it would be an incredibly fair tradeoff if Hamas stepped up on preventing the rocket attacks in exchange for the blockade being lifted completely. For Hamas to say that they won't budge on any of the attacks unless all their demands are met is unreasonable, and not diplomatic. The reason that attacks are escalating is because of failed diplomacy on Israel's side, the reason the blockade persists is because of failed diplomacy on Hamas' side. If both sides realized this and actually started negotiating the blockade would have probably been over already.[/QUOTE] Hamas as of recently has already committed to ceasefires and reigning in of splinter groups, but Israel broke the ceasefire on more than one occasion with airstrikes. Even so, any resistance that still goes on does so because of things like the blockade. Having the blockade in place until the resistance stops is nonsensical.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34457429]Hamas as of recently has already committed to ceasefires and reigning in of splinter groups, but Israel broke the ceasefire on more than one occasion with airstrikes. Even so, any resistance that still goes on does so because of things like the blockade. Having the blockade in place until the resistance stops is nonsensical.[/QUOTE] Having the terrorism stop(it's not resistance when it's targeting innocent people, it's terrorism) when an unreasonable 1967 border demand is met is also nonsensical. At least this one is slightly more agreeable and has a better chance of being agreed upon and followed through with.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34457481]Having the terrorism stop(it's not resistance when it's targeting innocent people, it's terrorism) when an unreasonable 1967 border demand is met is also nonsensical. At least this one is slightly more agreeable and has a better chance of being agreed upon and followed through with.[/QUOTE]1967 borders are unreasonable?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34457481]Having the terrorism stop(it's not resistance when it's targeting innocent people, it's terrorism) when an unreasonable 1967 border demand is met is also nonsensical. At least this one is slightly more agreeable and has a better chance of being agreed upon and followed through with.[/QUOTE] The 1967 borders are an unreasonable demand? Where are you getting that from?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;34457503]1967 borders are unreasonable?[/QUOTE] To stop a campaign of terrorism, yea. You can't demand everything you want holding a gun to innocent people and expect the Israelis to just give in. They lose face, and it won't stop the violence(because Hamas will absolutely not stop the violence if Israel just gives in).

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34457713]To stop a campaign of terrorism, yea. You can't demand everything you want holding a gun to innocent people and expect the Israelis to just give in. They lose face, and it won't stop the violence(because Hamas will absolutely not stop the violence if Israel just gives in).[/QUOTE] What.

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;34455781]So why is this wrong if the Jews did this to try to establish their own state and it was ok for the British troops and police occupying the land at that time to retaliate while according to Facepunch it's all fine for the Palestinians to do the same things for the exact same reason and Israel shouldn't be allowed to retaliate against it?[/QUOTE] Because the British held that land before the Israeli's even showed up. The terrorist groups that built Israeli? Most of them were European jews who dropped right in and demanded the whole country to themselves and let free immigration of Jews from around the world. Two different circumstances. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;34457713](because Hamas will absolutely not stop the violence if Israel just gives in).[/QUOTE] lol, this is insanely wrong. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] "they're ONLY unreasonable because I'm ABSOLUTELY certain it won't stop terrorism" You should work in the Pentagon, yawmen

[QUOTE=Retardation;34460851][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2hZ6SlSqq0[/media] This is a bit sensationalist, but I believe it presents some valid points.[/QUOTE] Invalid right out of the starting gate by assuming it's under immediate danger from Jordan and Egypt. It's already been perfectly capable of maintaining itself despite wars with these larger countries, so defense is obviously not an issue.

[I]Can't we all just get along?[/I]

[QUOTE=Retardation;34462135]It's not an issue unless we do the whole 1967 borders thing again. It's explained right there in the video surely you've actually watched it in its entirety?[/QUOTE] Yes, thank you for posting a bias video of a radical Israeli. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] infallible proof.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460239] lol, this is insanely wrong. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] "they're ONLY unreasonable because I'm ABSOLUTELY certain it won't stop terrorism" You should work in the Pentagon, yawmen[/QUOTE] It's like paying a ransom. Once you do it, it will encourage more of the same. Also you forget Hamas is a terrorist organization with the stated goal of eradicating Israel, so violence is not going to stop unless you really twist their arm about it.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34455330]I highly doubt Hamas' stated or actual intention is to kill civilians, Israeli or otherwise. In this sense I would say that yes, civilians killed by them are collateral damage.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the laughs.

[QUOTE=Retardation;34460851]This is a bit sensationalist, but I believe it presents some valid points.[/QUOTE] Issue is it's full of bullshit. First off, it's entire justification for its points is broken by asserting 242 stated Israel had a right to "new, defensible borders." [URL="http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/UN%20Security%20Council%20Resolution%20242"]It didn't.[/URL] It called for: [QUOTE]...respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of [B]every State in the area[/B] and their right to live in peace within [B]secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force[/B][/QUOTE] To spin a resolution whose purpose was to tell a set of belligerents to chill the fuck out as a call for new borders is not only intellectually dishonest, but logically insane when considering the possibility of a Palestinian state. To start with, implying a right to a secure border is a right to a land grab is ridiculous when the resolution stated "guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area" would likely include "measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones". That's the exact opposite of a right to a new border. Even assuming it hadn't been calling for people to back the fuck off, where is this land going to come from, since taking it from another state would be impinging on their" sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence"? Oh, right, the one non-state in the area. And with that argument dies any possibility of a Palestinian state, because it asserts in a roundabout way Israel cannot defend itself without access to Palestinian territory (which it had be doing rather efficiently beforehand). Makes sense if you're crazy, since applying the same "all ethnically dissimilar states nearby are hostile states" logic to Palestine were it to become a state would then mean Palestine is entitled to defend itself from Israel, and that'd make a huge goddamn mess. The rest of it is just gibberish relying on this half-century old "everyone is out to get us" schtick, which simply isn't true. -Given the current threat of invasion through Jordan is nil, and Israel is a modern nation with a competent military intelligence network, a solid air force, and only a short distance to cover to get there, it's strange to suggest the rift valley could not just as easily be a DMZ. Of course, this relies on the principle people are going to be smuggling weapons into Palestine like mad, but to do what? Attack civilians for [I]fun?[/I] There's no evidence that if there was a Palestinian state with control over its own borders there would be a sudden influx of terrorist activity. -Similarly, to suggest anyone would be making terrorist strikes on a shared Jerusalem from the West Bank is asinine, and to imply the IDF couldn't mobilize to counter "more advanced weaponry" present in the mountains is absurd. Besides, if you're assuming open hostilities from anywhere, "any point in Israel" is currently capable of being struck by modern missiles (or even ancient ones, a goddamn SCUD-C could hit the Gulf of Aqaba from Lebanon) from all bordering states too, yet we don't assume Israel has the right to encroach on them. -The airspace thing is valid. Granted, that implies at least a bare minimum of military presence in the West Bank, but no one would mind a proper bare minimum presence. There's no reason for Palestine to mind since they couldn't defend their own airspace anyway were they a state, at least initially. Their issues are on the ground. -The transportation point again relies on assumptions of terror if the Palestinians weren't being shat on, which is dubious as hell, and that the IDF wouldn't be able to clear through barricades in the instance of an invasion, which is laughable. You can observe a transportation network without having a military presence on it, and it'd be difficult to set up any meaningful roadblocks in the time it would take for the IDF to roll through. [QUOTE=Retardation;34463879]I was referring to the facts that were stated in the video i.e pushing back the borders puts Israel at a huge disadvantage militarily speaking, allowing terrorist organization to fire upon Jerusalem directly. Or that we would not be able to intercept enemy jets without debris falling unto directly populated areas.[/QUOTE] I guess short form is you're [I]already[/I] at a military disadvantage (I mean, really, you can be hit at any point with cold war era weaponry) but have a technological advantage that's made up for it wonderfully, and assuming making concessions to the Palestinians is going to get you hit with more terror, not less, is somewhat goofy. [QUOTE=yawmwen;34463328]Also you forget Hamas is a terrorist organization with the stated goal of eradicating Israel, so violence is not going to stop unless you really twist their arm about it.[/QUOTE] Or if Israel gives the Palestinian populace something, proving they're not the scourge of the earth terrorist organizations make them out to be, they might be less likely to join organizations like that. You'd have a hard time recruiting people to fight yonder vague evil if yonder vague evil is giving people cookies and apologizing for having been a dick earlier.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34455330]I highly doubt Hamas' stated or actual intention is to kill civilians, Israeli or otherwise. If anything the rockets are a constant reminder that Israel is facing a force that opposes them as long as they oppress Palestinians, no matter how small. In this sense I would say that yes, civilians killed by them are collateral damage. Does that mean their deaths don't matter? Of course not. Does that mean they are justified as correct? Again, of course not. But, the reason that armed resistance exists is because these people do not have sovereignty.[/QUOTE] Stated or not, the Hamas is responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks against civilians, which were executed by Hamas activists.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34464100] Or if Israel gives the Palestinian populace something, proving they're not the scourge of the earth terrorist organizations make them out to be, they might be less likely to join organizations like that. You'd have a hard time recruiting people to fight yonder vague evil if yonder vague evil is giving people cookies and apologizing for having been a dick earlier.[/QUOTE] That isn't how it works at all. A simple apology won't just make all the bad blood go away. Even if Israel gave in to all of the demands the Palestinians would still hate the Israelis, and Israelis would resent the Palestinians. The only logical way to go about it is short term, small negotiation so that both sides can finally start working with each other instead of against each other.

[QUOTE=Retardation;34464478][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Israel.27s_cooperation_with_international_aid_programs[/url] [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] I'd say that's 2 billion pounds worth of "cookies".[/QUOTE] The fact of the matter is that Israel should not be blockading Gaza [I]at all.[/I] To point to an instance where the Israelis merely allowed goods into Gaza after searching it and saying "look aren't they being civil and nice" is completely nonsensical. Imagine if say, Germany was blockading the Netherlands' access to the sea, and then someone made the claim that the Germans were being good about it because they allowed goods in after inspection. It would be [I]ridiculous.[/I]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34465146]The fact of the matter is that Israel should not be blockading Gaza [I]at all.[/I] To point to an instance where the Israelis merely allowed goods into Gaza after searching it and saying "look aren't they being civil and nice" is completely nonsensical. Imagine if say, Germany was blockading the Netherlands' access to the sea, and then someone made the claim that the Germans were being good about it because they allowed goods in after inspection. It would be [I]ridiculous.[/I][/QUOTE] What if the Netherlands and Germany were at war and the government in charge of the Netherlands were firing rockets at civilian areas in Germany?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34465175]What if the Netherlands and Germany were at war and the government in charge of the Netherlands were firing rockets at civilian areas in Germany?[/QUOTE] And when the German Air Force is airstriking civilian areas as well? It would still be unjustified.

[QUOTE=Retardation;34465597]How can you NOT airstrike civilian areas when the enemy actively uses them as concealment? This is also a huge issue in Iraq and Afghanistan. But for NATO it is fairly easy to simply pack up and leave, the case with us though is we don't have anywhere else to retreat or pack up and leave because this is our homeland. It's not as black and white as you people make it seem. We aren't constantly monitoring Gaza because we just love teasing those silly Palestinians.[/QUOTE] And Gazan militants aren't launching rockets at Israel just because they want to spill civilian blood. Don't even try to act like Israel's borders are literally under threat, as if somehow the second you take your eyes off of the militant groups they'll ransack the country and you'll be pushed to a speck of land.