Palestinians win upgraded UN status by wide margin

[frigidmagi]

bbc

The UN General Assembly has voted to grant the Palestinians non-member observer state status - a move strongly opposed by Israel and the US.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the assembly the vote was the "last chance to save the two-state solution" with Israel.

Israel's envoy to the UN said the bid pushed peace process "backwards", while the US said the move was "unfortunate".

The assembly voted 138-9 in favour, with 41 nations abstaining.

Hundreds of Palestinians celebrated on the streets of Ramallah, in the West Bank, after the result was announced.

'Birth certificate'
"Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel," Mr Abbas said shortly before the vote in New York.

"The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine," he said.

The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, said "the only way to reach peace is through agreements" between the parties, not at the UN.

"No decision by the UN can break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel," he said.

Opponents of the bid say a Palestinian state should emerge only out of bilateral negotiations, as set out in the 1993 Oslo peace accords under which the Palestinian Authority was established.

Speaking after the vote, the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, urged the Palestinians and Israel to resume direct peace talks and warned against unilateral actions.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the vote "unfortunate and counter-productive", saying it put more obstacles on the path to peace.

"By going to the UN , the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel and Israel will act accordingly," said the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Twitter.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also called for more talks, saying the resolution underscored the need to resume meaningful peace negotiations.

The UK abstained from the vote, as did Germany. The Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands and Panama were among the nations voting with the US and Israel.

In the West Bank, crowds celebrated the vote by waving flags and chanting "God is great!"

"For the first time, there will be a state called Palestine, with the recognition of the entire world," Amir Hamdan was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

"Today the world will hear our voice," he added.

Symbolic milestone
The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, the lands Israel captured in 1967.

While the move is seen as a symbolic milestone in Palestinian ambitions for statehood, the "Yes" vote will also have a practical diplomatic effect, says the BBC's Barbara Plett, at the UN.

It would allow the Palestinians to participate in debates at the UN and improve their chances of joining UN agencies and bodies like the International Criminal Court.

Last year, Mr Abbas asked the UN Security Council to admit the Palestinians as a member state, but that was opposed by the US.

Mr Abbas was much criticised by many Palestinians for remaining on the sidelines of the conflict earlier this month in Gaza and efforts to achieve a ceasefire with Israel.

His Fatah movement, based in the West Bank, is deeply split from the militant Hamas movement which governs Gaza.

Gaza's Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh said in a statement sent to the BBC that Hamas' "support for the UN bid is based on the 'rule of non-recognition of the occupier'... and the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland".

[SirNitram]

Palestine is now on the same level as the Vatican.

I anticipate a fresh round of blockades, destruction of Palestinian built infrastructure, settlement expansion, and cutting off the infrastructure Israel uses to supply Palestine. This will be responded to with violence, which will beget more violence. And basically just further makes me beleive we need to erect impenetrable forcefields over the entire pair and wait. Either they will shape up, or die out.

[Charon]

I wonder when Israel will realize that they are starting to look like the bad guys in this whole mess? Really, the last few years have been one public relations disaster after another and the Arab Spring has, as proven in Egypt, completely changed the name of the game between Israel and Palestine.

But hey, maybe that's what we needed. The opponents to this mention the 1993 Oslo Accords. And for the basics I agree with them, Israel and Palestine need to sit down and discuss this like, you know, adults. But the fact that we are probably further from a peaceful two-state system than we were in '93 shows to me that the way we were going about trying to get peace simply wasn't working. We needed to change things up. Let's just hope that this change up makes things better instead of worse.

[Norseman]

There is only one way for there to be peace in Israel, and that is for someone to deliver cast iron guarantees as to the safety of the Jews in Israel. The only problem is that the price of such a guarantee, or rather the price of really making it cast iron, is much higher than anyone is willing to pay. I mean one way would be if the EU was willing (or able) to admit Israel, make the Palestinians EU citizens, and place boots on the ground as well as give economic aid.

Of course I'm sure the only reason you're not laughing is that you're too busy staring at the screen, blinking, and trying to decide if you actually read what you think you read. So yeah, actual solutions are rather thin on the ground.

I wonder when Israel will realize that they are starting to look like the bad guys in this whole mess?

The problem is that the relentless criticism against Israel has basically made them stop paying attention. It is quite understandable really, if you feel that nothing you do will make any difference why should you even try?

[Cynical Cat]

There is only one way for there to be peace in Israel, and that is for someone to deliver cast iron guarantees as to the safety of the Jews in Israel. The only problem is that the price of such a guarantee, or rather the price of really making it cast iron, is much higher than anyone is willing to pay.

Bullshit. It isn't 1967 anymore. Israel has pasted every enemy in a conventional war, has nuclear weapons, and the has the protection of the United States of America. It possesses overwhelming military superiority over its enemies, who are not strong enough to threaten the existence of the state of Israel. When there's fighting, the butcher's bill grossly favors Israel. There are no better guarantees except making a true peace.

There is no way not to take casualties when you're next to an unstable, fucked up country that hates you and that you helped fuck up and you are colonizing another hostile territory in a half-assed way. The US couldn't do it, the USSR couldn't do it, and Israel sure can't.

[SirNitram]

I wonder when Israel will realize that they are starting to look like the bad guys in this whole mess?

The problem is that the relentless criticism against Israel has basically made them stop paying attention. It is quite understandable really, if you feel that nothing you do will make any difference why should you even try?

I must object. The current position is POLITICAL. '96, right wing government forms under Netanyahu after making his campaign all about being against the peace efforts. '99, Ehud Barak tries to form a center government.. It fails very quickly. '01, Sharon tries to form a national unity party.. It falls apart like the center alliance, leading to the right-wing government formed in '03. This fell apart when he tried to withdrawl from the settlements as a move for peace, as the right wing of Israel is.. Extremely patriotic(Oscar WIlde's quote applies). Even Kadima, a liberal party, starts it's two state solution with 'dismantle terrorist organizations'. Which is akin to saying the first step of moving is picking up the house and putting it on your back. And then Net comes back, even more right wing.

Netanyahu, it should be noticed, is not a man who concerns himself with his critics.

THrow on the inherent racism of the Jewish state as laid down by it's Constitution, and you've got a political recipe for defiance of anyone trying to criticise them.

[General Havoc]

There are a couple of obstacles to peace on the Palestinian side as well, one might care to mention. Israel was unable to achieve peace under its current government, just as it was under the last seven. Even if the current Israeli government is not amenable to peace, why then did the previous dozen all fail to achieve it?

It's also worth noting that the current Israeli government is in no small part against the peace process because the Israeli people themselves are by and large against it. From their perspective, the peace process, and all of the accords signed over the years have resulted in nothing but more bombs on their busses and rockets in their kindergardens. Rightly or wrongly, they view most criticism from western sources as intensely hypocritical. How, for instance, would you expect the US to react if armed terror groups fired rockets from Tijuana into San Diego?

THrow on the inherent racism of the Jewish state as laid down by it's Constitution, and you've got a political recipe for defiance of anyone trying to criticise them.

The political recipe for defiance of anyone trying to criticize Israel stems in no small part from the fact that much such criticism starts with the premise that Israel is an illegitimate, evil, racist state. It's the same reason I don't listen to people who start their criticism of the Iraq War by positing that the United States is the most evil nation on earth and has been since its foundation. Even if the Iraq War, or Israel, has plenty to criticize, anyone who starts the discussion like that will be relegated as an axe-grinding bigot, and ignored by the majority of the population.

[SirNitram]

Israel is quite legal(It's laid out in the plans to divvy up the Palestinian Mandate), and the majority aren't evil. The state, however, is racist when it defines itself in the Basic Laws(Considered the constitution for a while now, legally) define along racial lines: That is, a Jewish State. We consider it racist when someone tries to assert America is a White nation. Observing their legal writings is not an 'axe to grind'. But this is a nation which claims defiance or criticism is racist(Anti-semitic).

[rhoenix]

It's also worth noting that the current Israeli government is in no small part against the peace process because the Israeli people themselves are by and large against it. From their perspective, the peace process, and all of the accords signed over the years have resulted in nothing but more bombs on their busses and rockets in their kindergardens. Rightly or wrongly, they view most criticism from western sources as intensely hypocritical. How, for instance, would you expect the US to react if armed terror groups fired rockets from Tijuana into San Diego?

Then I have to ask the awful question - if all of this is true, then why didn't Israel simply eradicate or deport the Palestinians entirely during the past several administrations?

If Palestinians are to be viewed universally (man, woman, and child) as nothing but "terrorists," then by that logic Israel should not leave any Palestinian alive to be a potential threat ever again. So, why didn't they do this? Why didn't the Israeli forces simply march through the West Bank, killing every man, woman, and child who was Palestinian or sympathized with Palestinians long ago?

I seriously want to know the answer to this question. If all the talk from those "in the know" about the Israel's situation in the Middle East is that Palestinians are a threat to Israeli security and ongoing existence, if that's true that every last Palestinian is a terrorist, why are they still alive and still an issue today?

[General Havoc]

Israel is quite legal(It's laid out in the plans to divvy up the Palestinian Mandate), and the majority aren't evil. The state, however, is racist when it defines itself in the Basic Laws(Considered the constitution for a while now, legally) define along racial lines: That is, a Jewish State. We consider it racist when someone tries to assert America is a White nation. Observing their legal writings is not an 'axe to grind'. But this is a nation which claims defiance or criticism is racist(Anti-semitic).

Forgive me if I sounded over-strident. I was not trying to claim that the criticism was illegitimate, merely that prefacing foreign policy critiques with claims of the inherent racism of the State of Israel is not a method that is calculated to warm Israeli hearts and minds. And since a great many such critiques omit the mention you made above of Israel being a legitimate nation, in favor of skipping right to the "Israel is an evil state" part, most Israelis roll their eyes when they hear what is, from their perspective, yet another westerner telling them that it is immoral for them to exist. Such prefaces do make the criticism wrong, but it does make it much harder to get a hearing.

Then I have to ask the awful question - if all of this is true, then why didn't Israel simply eradicate or deport the Palestinians entirely during the past several administrations?

If Palestinians are to be viewed universally (man, woman, and child) as nothing but "terrorists," then by that logic Israel should not leave any Palestinian alive to be a potential threat ever again. So, why didn't they do this? Why didn't the Israeli forces simply march through the West Bank, killing every man, woman, and child who was Palestinian or sympathized with Palestinians long ago?

I seriously want to know the answer to this question. If all the talk from those "in the know" about the Israel's situation in the Middle East is that Palestinians are a threat to Israeli security and ongoing existence, if that's true that every last Palestinian is a terrorist, why are they still alive and still an issue today?

The reason you do not know the answer to this question is because the question itself is loaded, and predicated on the fallacious, absurd, and frankly pernicious notion that Israelis believe every Palestinian man woman and child to be a terrorist deserving of death. What I stated was that the majority of Israelis have no faith in the Palestinian peace process and do not support it in its current form, and you interpreted that to be a claim that Israelis as a people are all insane, evil psychopaths who wish to murder Palestinians down to the last infant. And then you wonder why rational discussion of this topic is so difficult?

[SirNitram]

Israel is quite legal(It's laid out in the plans to divvy up the Palestinian Mandate), and the majority aren't evil. The state, however, is racist when it defines itself in the Basic Laws(Considered the constitution for a while now, legally) define along racial lines: That is, a Jewish State. We consider it racist when someone tries to assert America is a White nation. Observing their legal writings is not an 'axe to grind'. But this is a nation which claims defiance or criticism is racist(Anti-semitic).

Forgive me if I sounded over-strident. I was not trying to claim that the criticism was illegitimate, merely that prefacing foreign policy critiques with claims of the inherent racism of the State of Israel is not a method that is calculated to warm Israeli hearts and minds. And since a great many such critiques omit the mention you made above of Israel being a legitimate nation, in favor of skipping right to the "Israel is an evil state" part, most Israelis roll their eyes when they hear what is, from their perspective, yet another westerner telling them that it is immoral for them to exist. Such prefaces do make the criticism wrong, but it does make it much harder to get a hearing.

I know very well I can't change their minds or win hearts and minds. I'm British; I'm automatically going to be shut out because Britain and France are pulling ambassadors over the settlement of E-1, in violation of long standing agreement with the US. When a nation has reached the 'we'll punish you bastards for not doing what we told you to do' stage, it is time to simply be frank, honest, and insulting, in hopes of swaying intelligent people.

[rhoenix]

The reason you do not know the answer to this question is because the question itself is loaded, and predicated on the fallacious, absurd, and frankly pernicious notion that Israelis believe every Palestinian man woman and child to be a terrorist deserving of death.

It was formulated in the way that it was to highlight the absurdity of Israel's position in the most stark possible terms, and leads directly into my point. But I do thank you for spending several paragraphs talking about how offended you were.

Israel has utterly failed in "peace negotiations" with Palestinians for decades, and goes stomping in with an army 1000x more organized and well equipped (merely by virtue of actually being a state-sponsored military) whenever the Palestinians toss a rocket or two over the wall. This pattern has been on repeat for many years.

I sympathize with the people of both sides, but the leaders of this situation get no support or sympathy from me. Israel's leaders in regards to Palestinians have been so utterly incompetent for decades that they cannot negotiate a proper peace with the Palestinians, and since being a friend of America means they can't simply genocide the Palestinians, it means they need a third option.

And this possible third option has never been seriously explored in all the years I've been watching news.

All I ever see or hear about is how yet another half-assed peace talk failed, how more homemade rockets get tossed over a wall in anger, and how Israel goes stomping afterward. From my view, the fault isn't with the people slinging the rockets.

From my view, those with greater power have an obligation to exercise responsibility for the power they wield, and Israel has not visibly done this in regards to Palestinians in any appreciable way.

EDIT: Until now, that is. Onto the point of the OP, I think that the UN measure is a tremendous step along the path to peace.

[General Havoc]

I know very well I can't change their minds or win hearts and minds. I'm British; I'm automatically going to be shut out because Britain and France are pulling ambassadors over the settlement of E-1, in violation of long standing agreement with the US. When a nation has reached the 'we'll punish you bastards for not doing what we told you to do' stage, it is time to simply be frank, honest, and insulting, in hopes of swaying intelligent people.

The very point I was endeavoring to make is that the reason you have presumably failed to change minds by this method is not because you are British. It is because criticism leveled at someone's nation that is predicated on the notion that said nation is irredeemably corrupted, and evil is highly unlikely to produce understanding, even if the criticism is itself valid. This is true regardless of the nationality of the speaker or the listener.

If I, an American, go to a British person to criticize British policy vis-a-vis the Arab Spring, and begin the discussion with a posit that the British government is inherently evil, racist, imperialistic, and corrupt, and has always been these things since the time of William the Conqueror, and further posit that the only reason anyone would ever support the policies of any British government throughout history is because they themselves are evil, then if that British person rejects my criticism, I ask you the following question. Has he rejected my criticism because British people all suffer from a selective cognitive bias that makes them incapable of accepting the criticism of any Americans? Or has he rejected my criticism because I couched it in a method that was effectively calculated to cause him to do so?

And if the answer is the latter for a British person, why should it be different for an Israeli?

Believe me, there's plenty to criticize in Israel's policies, vis-a-vis Palestine in specific or Arabs in general. The characerization of their constitution as racialist, if not outright racist, is probably accurate. But you can't expect an Israeli to respond positively to criticism of Israel couched in a manner that would lead anybody to reject it if directed at themselves.

It was formulated in the way that it was to highlight the absurdity of Israel's position in the most stark possible terms, and leads directly into my point. But I do thank you for spending several paragraphs talking about how offended you were.

Israel has utterly failed in "peace negotiations" with Palestinians for decades, and goes stomping in with an army 1000x more organized and well equipped (merely by virtue of actually being a state-sponsored military) whenever the Palestinians toss a rocket or two over the wall. This pattern has been on repeat for many years.

I sympathize with the people of both sides, but the leaders of this situation get no support or sympathy from me. Israel's leaders in regards to Palestinians have been so utterly incompetent for decades that they cannot negotiate a proper peace with the Palestinians, and since being a friend of America means they can't simply genocide the Palestinians, it means they need a third option.

And this possible third option has never been seriously explored in all the years I've been watching news.

All I ever see or hear about is how yet another half-assed peace talk failed, how more homemade rockets get tossed over a wall in anger, and how Israel goes stomping afterward. From my view, the fault isn't with the people slinging the rockets.

From my view, those with greater power have an obligation to exercise responsibility for the power they wield, and Israel has not visibly done this in regards to Palestinians in any appreciable way.

It was formulated in such a way as to characterize Israel as a nation of people itching to commit genocide. And those who make such formulations had best avoid starting discussions over who has the right to be offended by what. Turning this into a personal attack against me does not make the point less pernicious, nor does your decision to mock anyone who would be offended by the characterization. And incidentally, one paragraph that you did not even finish reading does not equal 'several' paragraphs.

But then if that is actually your analysis of the situation between Israel and Palestine, then I officially apologize, and rescind my offended sensibilities, because you are quite obviously too ignorant to knowingly offend anyone. Are you actually basing an analysis of the Middle East upon the predicate that the fault for firing rockets is not with those who fire rockets? I will be certain to transmit that sentiment to the parents of the eight year old child whose leg was blown off by a Palestinian rocket that blaming Hamas for such actions is wrong. I will also transmit it to the Palestinian doctor whose 11-month old girl was killed in an Israeli air strike. After all, an Israeli fired that particular rocket or bomb, and by your logic we shouldn't necessarily blame Israel for it. We should instead unilaterally blame one side for everything that happens regardless of circumstance because of your instinctive reaction that Israel, having an organized military, is obviously evil.

You say that "Israel has utterly failed in "peace negotiations" with Palestinians for decades." A claim I find fascinating in the wake of approximately eighteen different negotiation rounds, some of which they unquestionably did fail in, and some of which they unquestionably did not. Just to take a single example, I would like you to explain to me how Israel utterly failed in the negotiations for the 2000 Camp David Accords, or the 2002 Road Map for Peace negotiations. Because they definitely made mistakes in those negotiations. But to interpret the history of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and the failure of such negotiations in the manner that you have speaks to your own blinders, not to reality.

[rhoenix]

Ok, so if this is about interpretation, then all the insults, personal attacks, and everything else aside, here's a hypothetical situation for you:

If the US said to Israel "get this Palestinian problem fixed within 60 days, or you'll be cut off from all further funding, aid, or support for the existence of either of our nations," what would happen? Do you honestly think the situation would be unresolved sixty days later?

This, everything else aside, is my point. You can cite many instances in which peace talks were attempted, but the very fact that those peace talks have been tried off and on for decades is what tells me something is obviously not working right.

[frigidmagi]

I gotta jump in here and ask a blunt question.

What does anyone honestly expect a nation state to do when it's people get attacked? For God Sake's, when 911 happened our response was to invade nations, overthrow governments and send flying robot assassins into other nation's territory to kill our enemies!

Russia's reaction? They leveled The Chechen Republic! Grozny was a pile of rubble when they were done.

The only time people don't shoot back is because they can't. Either because the enemy is to mixed in with a civilian population that is considered friendly or neutral or because the other side is to powerful to confront. To be blunt this is why Pakistan hasn't started a war with us.

Should we, of all the peoples on the earth, be surprised that Israel's response to being shot at is to shoot back? Now, Israel is certainly not a blameless lost little lamb in this situation. There's the settlements, there's various Israeli government positions that only serve to inflame the Palestinians and on it goes. But HAMAS (as a distinct and separate entity from the West Bank Government) is response for throwing rockets into Israel and starting these fights. Not Israel. The fact that HAMAS does so from Gaza only underlines some of the irony here, the only reason they have Gaza to fling these rockets from is because Israel pulled out of Gaza. The fact that those rockets have failed to kill to many people isn't because of some restraint being shown by HAMAS, it's because the Israelis have had decades to work out the proper way to defend themselves and they have the resources to put those tactics into play. But telling them "hey don't you shoot back now, you're more powerful so you must hold back" is not a realistic position to tell any nation!

Now frankly I supported the Gaza pull out. It was the right thing to do. But so far it hasn't really worked out for anyone, has it? It hasn't worked out for the Palestinians, it hasn't worked out for the Israelis, it hasn't worked out for anyone interested in peace (which HAMAS certainly is not). To be short, I think we screwed the pooch on how it was handled.

Now in regards to peace. It doesn't fucking matter if Israel is a racist state or not. It doesn't matter if the PA is corrupt or not. The goal of the peace process is not to force these societies into a approved mold or model. If your goal is to bring enlightenment and goodness then check out now. The goal is to get two groups of people who have been slugging it out for decades TO STOP KILLING EACH OTHER! NOTHING ELSE CAN HAPPEN UNTIL THIS IS DONE!

So this? This is non-constructive. Instead we need to consider, what do the Israelis need and what do the Palestinians need to stop blowing each other up? It doesn't matter what you think of those needs. Your opinion, right, wrong or outright looney, isn't gonna get us a peace treaty. That's the goal. A peace treaty that will hold. Because if these nations get peace, then... ONLY THEN! Can they really consider making in-depth changes.

The Palestinians need both an economically viable state, where there are options other then blow yourself up or slowly rot. They also need to feel like they aren't a protectorate of Israel. They don't want Israel, or to be more blunt, the jews, to have a veto in their affairs.

The Israelis need security. Rightly or wrongly they believe they are surrounded and nearly alone in a hostile universe where vast amounts of people want them dead. They need to feel that a Palestinian state isn't gonna be dagger pointed at their nut sack.

Now I put this out because, I don't have a solution that satisfies both. Maybe some of you do. So start problem solving and stop blaming or talking about why you don't like X. Because like is irrelevant and blame? When you've been fighting this long you can always something to blame on the other guy. Instead, of doing that, how about we look at the problem and see if there is a solution besides eternal this.

[Batman]

Yes, it would, because a) nobody would believe you're serious and b) even if they did half a century of pretty much everybody involved trying their level best to make a mess of things isn't going to be unraveled in two months.

[General Havoc]

Ok, so if this is about interpretation, then all the insults, personal attacks, and everything else aside, here's a hypothetical situation for you:

If the US said to Israel "get this Palestinian problem fixed within 60 days, or you'll be cut off from all further funding, aid, or support for the existence of either of our nations," what would happen? Do you honestly think the situation would be unresolved sixty days later?

This, everything else aside, is my point. You can cite many instances in which peace talks were attempted, but the very fact that those peace talks have been tried off and on for decades is what tells me something is obviously not working right.

*Sigh*

I sense this was a more reasonable response than I deserve right now, Rhoenix. So for that I thank you.

To answer your question, if the US made that demand right now, I can only guess as to what would happen, but my assumption would be that Israel would unilaterally declare the West Bank and Gaza to be independent, close their border with Palestine, and speak no more on the subject. Outlying settlements would be evacuated by force, larger ones would be incorporated within the territory of "Israel", again unilaterally. Israel would then turn to the US and say "We have resolved the situation."

Unfortunately, that result would satisfy literally nobody. The Palestinians would resent, and quite rightfully so, the unilateral abrogation of the portions of West Bank territory occupied by settlers. They would resent East Jerusalem and the Old City's continued incorporation within Israel. They would very strongly resent the continued economic difficulties that the severance of Israel from Palestine would impose on them. Groups like Hamas, whose very reason for existing is the continued fight with Israel, would, in conjunction with the more militant elements of the other Palestinian groups, act upon their frustrations by firing rockets of any sort they could acquire into Israel.

On the Israeli side, Israelis would resent the US insisting on peace without disbanding Hamas or forcing a recognition from the PLO of Israel's fundamental right to exist. The settler lobby would scream bloody murder over settlements being demolished (as they have before), and whoever had to go into shelters to dodge Palestinian rockets would quite reasonably begin resenting the hell out of whoever was firing them. If the barrage continued, which it would, Israel's government would be placed under intense pressure to retaliate against the rockets with air strikes and further violence. Even if the US tied their political and economic support to not retaliating, how long do you expect a nation to ignore the demands of its own citizens being shelled to counterattack those shelling them? If the present government of Israel refused to bomb Hamas' rockets, they would be voted out and replaced by one who was.

As to the rest of the world, they would also be unsatisfied, more or less because of the fact that the scenario I just described to you above bears no relationship with 'peace', a fact I'm sure you would agree with. That's the ultimate tragedy of the Israel-Palestine thing, or at least one of them. No unilateral action can force peace, not by Israel nor by Palestine. And neither side trusts the other enough to forge a real one. They both have excellent reasons for not trusting one another, perhaps, but they simply don't. And without the trust necessary to force peace through the fanatics on either side who don't want it, peace remains elusive, and Israelis and Palestinians continue to die in their lopsided numbers.

[rhoenix]

No stress, man. I may enjoy trolling to make a point, but I'd like to think I'm no bigot, especially regarding something important to a friend.

Beyond all else, I recognize that this is not an easy situation for either Palestinians or Israeli to be in. I sympathize for the sorts of lives the average person of either faction has to have, and call normal. I recognize that getting the two sides to talk peacably is about as straightforward as giving twenty cats PCP, tying them into a burlap sack, and expecting to hear the makings of a Vienna choir.

But even so, I just look at the long-standing rivalries of the world, such as this one - and feel very tired.

[General Havoc]

Well if it makes you feel better, the last time I heard a Vienna choir, they actually sounded very much like twenty cats on PCP in a burlap sack.

I don't think the situation in insuperable. I do think it cannot be resolved via the methods presently at the disposal of the interested parties. Long-standing rivalries of this sort do not die quickly, but they can die.

[Charon]

I gotta jump in here and ask a blunt question.

What does anyone honestly expect a nation state to do when it's people get attacked? For God Sake's, when 911 happened our response was to invade nations, overthrow governments and send flying robot assassins into other nation's territory to kill our enemies!

Russia's reaction? They leveled The Chechen Republic! Grozny was a pile of rubble when they were done.

The only time people don't shoot back is because they can't. Either because the enemy is to mixed in with a civilian population that is considered friendly or neutral or because the other side is to powerful to confront. To be blunt this is why Pakistan hasn't started a war with us.

Should we, of all the peoples on the earth, be surprised that Israel's response to being shot at is to shoot back? Now, Israel is certainly not a blameless lost little lamb in this situation. There's the settlements, there's various Israeli government positions that only serve to inflame the Palestinians and on it goes. But HAMAS (as a distinct and separate entity from the West Bank Government) is response for throwing rockets into Israel and starting these fights. Not Israel. The fact that HAMAS does so from Gaza only underlines some of the irony here, the only reason they have Gaza to fling these rockets from is because Israel pulled out of Gaza. The fact that those rockets have failed to kill to many people isn't because of some restraint being shown by HAMAS, it's because the Israelis have had decades to work out the proper way to defend themselves and they have the resources to put those tactics into play. But telling them "hey don't you shoot back now, you're more powerful so you must hold back" is not a realistic position to tell any nation!

I should point out that my own contention is less Israel doing what they need to to stop rockets being fired on them (Though I think the civilian casualties from such retaliations are rather high, most of that blame can probably be placed squarely on HAMAS's shoulders). My issue is what happens after the rockets stop, namely that Israel keeps doing what they were doing blithely as though nothing were wrong.

To specify Havoc's example of if Tijuana terrorists were launching rockets on San Diego. I would hope that our government would, after the eighth or ninth time that this happened, figured out that "Hey, maybe we're doing something that is directly pissing these people off and making them want to bomb us." When I see the Israeli government pushing for *more* settlements after such attacks it makes me wonder if they even realize what it is they are doing that is pissing them off or they are simply assuming that Palestininians hate them and will always hate them just because.

Now frankly I supported the Gaza pull out. It was the right thing to do. But so far it hasn't really worked out for anyone, has it? It hasn't worked out for the Palestinians, it hasn't worked out for the Israelis, it hasn't worked out for anyone interested in peace (which HAMAS certainly is not). To be short, I think we screwed the pooch on how it was handled.

Now in regards to peace. It doesn't fucking matter if Israel is a racist state or not. It doesn't matter if the PA is corrupt or not. The goal of the peace process is not to force these societies into a approved mold or model. If your goal is to bring enlightenment and goodness then check out now. The goal is to get two groups of people who have been slugging it out for decades TO STOP KILLING EACH OTHER! NOTHING ELSE CAN HAPPEN UNTIL THIS IS DONE!

So this? This is non-constructive. Instead we need to consider, what do the Israelis need and what do the Palestinians need to stop blowing each other up? It doesn't matter what you think of those needs. Your opinion, right, wrong or outright looney, isn't gonna get us a peace treaty. That's the goal. A peace treaty that will hold. Because if these nations get peace, then... ONLY THEN! Can they really consider making in-depth changes.

The Palestinians need both an economically viable state, where there are options other then blow yourself up or slowly rot. They also need to feel like they aren't a protectorate of Israel. They don't want Israel, or to be more blunt, the jews, to have a veto in their affairs.

The Israelis need security. Rightly or wrongly they believe they are surrounded and nearly alone in a hostile universe where vast amounts of people want them dead. They need to feel that a Palestinian state isn't gonna be dagger pointed at their nut sack.

Now I put this out because, I don't have a solution that satisfies both. Maybe some of you do. So start problem solving and stop blaming or talking about why you don't like X. Because like is irrelevant and blame? When you've been fighting this long you can always something to blame on the other guy. Instead, of doing that, how about we look at the problem and see if there is a solution besides eternal this.

I think the first and easiest step on such a matter is for Israel to stop building settlements. Oh it will piss a ton of Israeli's off, but it is a step that I think would kill a fair amount of anger at Israel from Palestine. After that Palestine needs to get HAMAS out of there and stop sending rockets into Israel... Which is a very very tall order. They need some government that can reasonably defeat HAMAS in an election (Or we could just go back on the election thing. Hate to say it but a lack of democracy might be the best way to solve that). They need to be willing to stop rocketing Israel, and they need to have the infrastructure to be able to police themselves and stop people who are going to want to rocket Israel because, like HAMAS, they don't want peace (another tall order). The problem being, they aren't going to get that infrastructure to do so until Israel stops their embargo on all goods into Palestine, which Israel isn't going to do, and rightly so, due to aforementioned rockets.

That is, I believe, the big problem we've run into. Palestine can't really get out of the rut they are in while they are under such a strict embargo, but Israel isn't going to lift that embargo because they know that if they do even more rockets will be flying into Israel, and I don't know anyway to break that circle that doesn't involve the death of a lot of people.

This is just the opinion of someone who is only vaguely knowledgeable on matters of Israel though. I admit my opinions could be very wrong, they are only based off of what I know.