h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wish someone could explain to me how the UN had the 'right' to create the state of Israel. And how Israel had the 'right' to abduct and try Nazi war criminals like Eichman. The holocaust was a blot on humanity, but it didn't happen in Palestine.

Afternoon F B

You're probably right, but that is a 'solution' which cannot and will not occur.

The creation of Palestine , and the subsequent wars, and thus the extreme Arab position is exacerbated by Israel's continued construction of settlements on land 'won' in battle.

It must be clear to the realists on both sides that this conflict will go on for ever, fuelling the likes of Al/ Q - or at least creating a breeding ground - until or unless Israel withdraws to the 1967(?) boundaries.

Until relatively recently it may have been in the interest of the West in general to keep the Arab nations relatively weak, the oil being of such strategic importance. IMHO that is what has led to the support by the West for families or regimes which didn't threaten oil stability.

But that situation is changing. Hamas' success cannot be ignored or undone. Add that to the need to look at the reasons behind Muslim extremism and Al Q etcetera , and we have a new scenario in which Israel and it's US supporters may have to rethink their positions.

Novo

<>

No one had complained about being attacked *here* had they? The complaint was more about the political climate in the US which makes it difficult to discuss the issue there. Which, given <> is actually quite important.

Does anyone here think that anything other than a two state solution is actually viable? If so, what?

Noggin

How can a two state solution work when both sides want it all? We are talking about a very small land mass. And about people with very long memories.

No one is complaining about being attacked here, tis true, but here, they are complaining about being attacked [elsewhere]. I'm just suggesting a subject change.

Who is going to enforce the peace? The UN?

simulpost. I don't think both sides want it all Hypatia. Israel's been withdrawing, most recently. It is the political party in power in Palestine, *right now*, that doesn't accept the existence of Israel.

Still Deqaler there is no suggestion that Israel will withdraw to the '67 borders.

In fact the "wall" seems primarily designed to legitimise Israels abhorrant "landgrab".

However on a note of optimism how many people thought there owuld *ever* be an end to the torubles in N. Ireland in say 1989? People owuld probably have said that that will go on forever.

I am not meaning to say everything is peachy now but heck huge progress has been made and they are on the way, maybe in time conditions will change in such a way that one day leaves at least the possibility of peace.

Wonders what would have happened in Rabin had not been shot.

Arnie, I think you need to have another look at the question of land and who wants what.

Just the partition wall alone intrudes on accepted Gaza land. *Some* of the settlers are leaving, mostly forcibly. A lot of land is still disputed. There is a real inequity in the political and military clout. I am not saying the Palestinians have a right to 'annihilate' Israel, but those displaced are surely entitled to live somewhere - other than refugee camps for the last 58 years?

Wilma, Ferret, those are all fine arguments, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a large disparity between what the Paletinians want (all of it) and what the Israeli's want. And equating the too is simply untrue.

Fine, Israel probably won't ever withdraw to its pre-1967 border. Fine the wall intrudes on Gaza land - land that the Palestinians should have. The palestinians should have their own country, and it should be reasonable. Accepted, no arguments here. Still doesn't change the fact that the *elected* Palestinian government doesn't recognize the right of *existence* of the state of Israel.


"*Some* of the settlers are leaving, mostly forcibly. "

The fact that the gov't of Israel is willing to forcibly remove settlers I would take as a positive sign. It's an improvement over the previous situation.

Hell yeah Delaer!

But....

Isreal had *no* plans to withdraw to the 1967 border before Hamas was elected, and its policy has remained effectivly the same since. Had the Israeli poicly manifestly changed form one of negotiation and engagement before Hamas to its current stand after Hamas then I think your argument might have some more merit.

The simple fact insofar as I can see is that the ruling elite and class within Israel just are not that commited to solving the problems. Given how many top Israeli politicians have a military background I often wonder if perpetual conflict is not some sort of aim.

The truth is if there is *ever* going to be peace then politicians on *both* sides have to be prepared to take and follow through with difficult choices. Somewhere someone has to say of "an eye for an eye..."

ENOUGH!

Until such a time as this starts there wont ever be peace.

And part of that process Dealer is your government *has* (if it is serious about middle eastern peace) to eventually either withdraw or at least qualify its "carte blanche" to Israel over its policies and *crucially* its tactics.

"Robert Fisk, a Middle East journalist in our Independent wrote a very hard hitting article on Mearsheimer amd Walt who maintain US foreign policy is driven by Israeli issues."

Why does the USA keep disagreeing with the way Israel conducts itself these days then and urging restraint? Since the USA is pushing for a two-state solution does this mean this is what Israel has been pushing for too, in which case why doesn't it dismantle the West Bank settlements more quickly?

Or is Fisk on his hobby horse again.

"It always seems to lead back to Israel."

If you read nothing but Fisk, then yes, it does seem that way.

If, on the other hand, you see the US-Israeli relationship as having it's basis in coldwar politics (France and Britain were Israel's original backers, I've no idea how the "Jewish lobby" fits into that) and being more about the US maintaining good relations with important regional allies which has lead to difficult situations (such as the current one vis a vis Israel/Palestine) that makes the US uncomfortable (if you've bothered following recent events in Israel/Palestine you'll know there's a few Israeli actions the Americans have vocally disapproved of) then you might think he's just a journalist with an axe to grind.

>>>> urging restraint <<<

The USA urging Israel to show restraint? Can you see the irony here? One nation abducts individuals from another 'nation', bombs it, bulldozes civilian homes and it is urged to show restraint? It breaks the sound barrier regularly in another nation's airspace, bombs it's northern economic installations and noone so much as peeps, ever.

How can any arab equate this behaviour by the US and its pet creature in the MidEast with the behaviour of the US and its other pet creatures in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Gah!

"The USA urging Israel to show restraint? Can you see the irony here? One nation abducts individuals from another 'nation', bombs it, bulldozes civilian homes and it is urged to show restraint?"

Don't forget that Israeli civilians are often killed by terrorist groups and missiles have been fired into Israel from neighbouring countries. Obviously, much of what Israel done is wrong, self-defeating and should be condemned but your attempt to paint a simple "aggressor and victims" picture is simply blinkered nonsense.

"It breaks the sound barrier regularly in another nation's airspace,"

Oh no!

" bombs it's northern economic installations and noone so much as peeps, ever."

Actually, people do "peep" regularly. It's just that Israel tends to ignore them since it regards (rightly or wrongly) much of what it does as necessary. Of course, most of the countries who criticise either value good relations with Israel too much to take action or fear Israeli retaliation too much to take action. It is utterly wrong, however, to pretend that the world quakes at tiny little (lest we forget) Israel.

>>> the world quakes at tiny little (lest we forget) Israel. <<<

The Middle East does quake, Zagreb, Israel is the only nuclear power there, you may care to remember. It also is the most powerful military presence there *and* it has a carte blanche fromt he most powerful nattions in the world. Do you suggest the Palestinians try to get 'justice' (as they perceive it) through political means? With what representation, exactly?

Israel has allies in the Middle East. Not least among them the Christian right in Lebanon. Why then does Israel regularly bomb the Bsalim substation in the Maronite mountain heartland? (that's a rhetoric question, btw, I don't expect you to know the answer to that one). Why do they hijack boats in northern Lebanon? How many of you guys knew this was a regular occurrence?

Please don't tell me I exaggerate. I live the reality - and my reality is *nothing* compared to the realities on the ground for generations of Palestinians.

"The Middle East does quake, Zagreb, Israel is the only nuclear power there, you may care to remember. It also is the most powerful military presence there *and* it has a carte blanche fromt he most powerful nattions in the world."

It does not have "carte blanche". Stop being silly.

" Do you suggest the Palestinians try to get 'justice' (as they perceive it) through political means? With what representation, exactly?"

Yes, I think they should keep trying to get what they want through political means. They've certainly been more successful that way (Palestinian authority, Israeli withdrawal of settlers and military from Gaza) than through violent means. What do you think they should do?

" Why then does Israel regularly bomb the Bsalim substation in the Maronite mountain heartland? (that's a rhetoric question, btw, I don't expect you to know the answer to that one). Why do they hijack boats in northern Lebanon?"

Can you provide links from a *credible* source? (the BBC or suchlike). I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just interested and would like a neutral take on it.

"Please don't tell me I exaggerate."

You do, as I've said.

"is *nothing* compared to the realities on the ground for generations of Palestinians."

I agree the situation for many Palestinians is largely intolerable, but I don't understand why you're seemingly opposed to a political settlement through political means. Terrorism by some Palestinian groups has brought nothing but misery to their own people and I find the fact that people utterly disconnected from the situation and with their own axes to grind make excuses for it and cheerlead it.

Zagreb>

I think that Israel does have a "kinda" carte blanche form the US, particularly in times where there is a hawkish administration.

That is not to say that the US does not activly prtessure Israel (as demonstrated by Israel coming around to a "two state solution") but to say that despite such pressure the US effectivly condones at least publically what Israel do.

AMerica consitantly blocks motions within the security ocuncil on issues such as Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders, despite this bieng consistant with international law. Why?

I agree that painting this as a one sided "Israel bad- Palenstinians good" issue is unhelpful and does not understand the complexity of the problem.

However given the dynamics of the power balance between them I personally am always going to feel that a greater emphasis surely *has* to be placed on the rich and powerful democracy in the region over the impoversihed palestinians to make first moves and to deliver peace.

My anyhow

"I think that Israel does have a "kinda" carte blanche form the US, particularly in times where there is a hawkish administration."

I think most US administrations for the last few decades have been too soft on Israel but that's not the same as "carte blanche". I think things have changed in the last fifteen years or so because of the realities of the post-Coldwar world (US policy towards Israel having been informed by cold war politics until then).

"AMerica consitantly blocks motions within the security ocuncil on issues such as Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders, despite this bieng consistant with international law. Why?"

Recently, though, the US has been pushing for the "two state solution" which implicitly means that Israel must withdraw to those borders. The use of the veto was wrong and demonstrates (to me anyway) why the current UN system is a joke and nothing more than a talking-shop.

"I agree that painting this as a one sided "Israel bad- Palenstinians good" issue is unhelpful and does not understand the complexity of the problem."

No, it's a very complex issue with a lot of people making swooping generalisations about it (especially on the internet).

"However given the dynamics of the power balance between them I personally am always going to feel that a greater emphasis surely *has* to be placed on the rich and powerful democracy in the region over the impoversihed palestinians to make first moves and to deliver peace."

I don't think that's the case. I think both sides need to make huge concessions - Palestine needs to drop terrorism completely and recognise the state of Israel. Israel has to dismantle the settler programme (which costs ordinary Israelis a fortune in taxation) and form a lasting peace with Palestine leading to a total Israeli withrawal to her pre-1967 borders. Both countries need to stop wallowing in a victim complex too. Both sides *have* been subjected to the inexcusable but that's no justification for keeping fighting. I don't think either side has the *obligation* to make any first moves, I just think the one that does is to be applauded. So far there have been several positive steps (Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Fatah recognising Israel, even Hamas grudgingly recognising Israel).