How about another Mandate? (A solutions thread)

[Humanity]

However, I am sure you can see that Gaza and Palestine are special cases and should be dealt with as such... Sure, if, for example, Syria wants a piece of Israel, got get 'em...

I see what you mean here. I think you could make a good case for the West Bank: the border is fluid and permeable, the sovereignty is not contiguous, there are Palestinian citizens on Israeli-controlled land, Palestinians entering Israel every day for work, etc. Its complicated.

But I don't think you can make that case for Gaza. There is a clearly defined border, not in dispute. There is a contiguous area of sovereignty. There is an effective government (being a terrorist organization doesn't mean you aren't effective in your governmental control). There are only Gazan citizens to consider.

Gaza has sovereignty, in all but the formal sense, in her own territory. So, there is nothing special about her. She is a sovereign entity attacking another sovereign's territory. Clear cut case. AS clear as if Syria or Jordan or Lebanon started lobbing rockets over to Israel.

I think we have already agreed that Gaza doesn't have sovereignty... Israel still has control of air, land and sea...

There IS a government for sure.... At this time I would call it an 'unelected' government! Effective? Debatable!

Gaza is not attacking Israel... Terrorists are attacking Israel... Not Gaza!

Let's look at what the Gazan military force looks like in comparison to Israels...

That is why there needs to be regime change in Gaza and why Israel cannot/chould not send in ground troops or indiscriminately bomb Gaza for regime change...

 

[Shusha]

I'm not sure that I am suggesting an "invasion", though I would have NO issue in a military force removing a terrorist organisation! And I don't even see it as "military extreme"... Its a terrorist organisation... There IS no "extreme" in dealing with terrorists!

But surely you mean to replace it with someone who can prevent another terrorist government from forming. Maybe a Mandate Power?

 

[Shusha]

If you are happy for worldwide condemnation of Israel AND Jews then go for it...

Of course, I'm not happy for it. I'm only pointing out that it is objectively unreasonable. Therefore, its source is not in Israel's actions, but in a false perception. The solution, then, is to correct the perception and not to continue to be objectively unreasonable.

 

[Shusha]

I think we have already agreed that Gaza doesn't have sovereignty... Israel still has control of air, land and sea...

There IS a government for sure.... At this time I would call it an 'unelected' government! Effective? Debatable!

Gaza is not attacking Israel... Terrorists are attacking Israel... Not Gaza!

Let's look at what the Gazan military force looks like in comparison to Israels...

That is why there needs to be regime change in Gaza and why Israel cannot/chould not send in ground troops or indiscriminately bomb Gaza for regime change...

Israel does not control Gaza's land. It only controls its own border, which we agreed should be treated like an international border. Israel does somewhat control Gaza's sovereign interactions (for good cause) with other international players. Not the same as Gaza not having sovereignty.

We do agree that the government of Gaza, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, right. The government is complicit in the terrorist actions against Israel, don't you agree? That is WHY Hamas should be removed.

And so you are saying that Israel can not force a regime change in Gaza because she is too powerful in comparison to Gaza? So your intent is to send in a less powerful international force because it is less powerful?

 

[louie888]

Israel does not control Gaza's land. It only controls its own border...

You are sick. They locked the Palestinians behind a wall, they then proceed to bomb them as they are trapped behind this wall, and the best part? EVERY TIME THE PALESTINIANS REBUILD, THEY BOMB THEM AGAIN.

Hitler never even did that shit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We do agree that the government of Gaza, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, right.

Piddly shit compared to Israel's terrorism.

But keep playing that terrorist card.

 

[Hollie]

We do agree that the government of Gaza, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, right.

Piddly shit compared to Israel's terrorism.

But keep playing that terrorist card.

Acts of Islamic terrorism including thousands of islamo-rockets fired at Israel, Islamist attacks against isrealis with knives, guns and automobiles is not "piddly shit", you silly little muhammedan.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We do agree that the government of Gaza, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, right.

Piddly shit compared to Israel's terrorism.

But keep playing that terrorist card.

Acts of Islamic terrorism including thousands of islamo-rockets fired at Israel, Islamist attacks against isrealis with knives, guns and automobiles is not "piddly shit", you silly little muhammedan.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

Are Israeli talking points all you have?

 

[montelatici]

I think we have already agreed that Gaza doesn't have sovereignty... Israel still has control of air, land and sea...

There IS a government for sure.... At this time I would call it an 'unelected' government! Effective? Debatable!

Gaza is not attacking Israel... Terrorists are attacking Israel... Not Gaza!

Let's look at what the Gazan military force looks like in comparison to Israels...

That is why there needs to be regime change in Gaza and why Israel cannot/chould not send in ground troops or indiscriminately bomb Gaza for regime change...

Israel does not control Gaza's land. It only controls its own border, which we agreed should be treated like an international border. Israel does somewhat control Gaza's sovereign interactions (for good cause) with other international players. Not the same as Gaza not having sovereignty.

We do agree that the government of Gaza, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, right. The government is complicit in the terrorist actions against Israel, don't you agree? That is WHY Hamas should be removed.

And so you are saying that Israel can not force a regime change in Gaza because she is too powerful in comparison to Gaza? So your intent is to send in a less powerful international force because it is less powerful?

It's just a big concentration camp, a Warsaw Ghetto. The Jews learned well from their oppressors.

 

[Humanity]

I think we have already agreed that Gaza doesn't have sovereignty... Israel still has control of air, land and sea...

There IS a government for sure.... At this time I would call it an 'unelected' government! Effective? Debatable!

Gaza is not attacking Israel... Terrorists are attacking Israel... Not Gaza!

Let's look at what the Gazan military force looks like in comparison to Israels...

That is why there needs to be regime change in Gaza and why Israel cannot/chould not send in ground troops or indiscriminately bomb Gaza for regime change...

Israel does not control Gaza's land. It only controls its own border, which we agreed should be treated like an international border. Israel does somewhat control Gaza's sovereign interactions (for good cause) with other international players. Not the same as Gaza not having sovereignty.

We do agree that the government of Gaza, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, right. The government is complicit in the terrorist actions against Israel, don't you agree? That is WHY Hamas should be removed.

And so you are saying that Israel can not force a regime change in Gaza because she is too powerful in comparison to Gaza? So your intent is to send in a less powerful international force because it is less powerful?

That's quite funny, sorry...

"Israel does somewhat control Gaza's sovereign interaction"

"Not the same as Gaza not having sovereignty."

Let's put the border control aside for one moment... For any country to have "sovereignty" then surely you would agree that the country would have full control of land, air and sea?

No, I am not saying that Israel cannot force regime change because she is too powerful...

I have given you reasons in virtually every post where you have asked about Israel and 'defence' in this thread...

 

[Challenger]

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Palestine is a large area. Within it is Israel, the Occupied Territories of West Bank and Gaza.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in that area?

That isn't the question.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in the US?

Jews were indigenous to Palestine.

Why not there?

The indigenous Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.

This is a deception.
Such broad lies are the last resort of Your cult to justify the dissonance in the reasoning.

On the contrary, any indigenous jewish person that dared speak out against the Zionist project was either terrorised into silence or murdered by the Zionist terror gangs.

 

[Challenger]

Only a few percent of Palestinians were Jews and they were opposed to creating a Jewish state.

Does that negate their right?

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

At least as early as 1922 the Palestinians have demanded independence as Palestinians. Stop with the propaganda, liar.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Give me a break it's written black on white:

1 . "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

3. "In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection."

First Palestinian Arab Congress

The later congresses saw to fuse the area into another Arab state, the independence of Palestine was not a separate issuse in itself, but the Arab goal of unifying the whole ME under their rule.



The fairytale of 'Palestinian independece'

In 1919 all the recently "liberated" Arabic areas of the Ottoman Empire wanted to form one Arabic state, but as this ran contrary to European Imperial interests (i.e. Sykes-Picot) this was never going to happen. To use 1919 aspirations as an argument that Palestinians never wanted a seperate state is both ridiculous and disingenuous. As the postwar Middle East evolved, so did Palestinian aspirations.

 

[rylah]

Palestine is a large area. Within it is Israel, the Occupied Territories of West Bank and Gaza.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in that area?

That isn't the question.

Is there no room for a Jewish state in the US?

Jews were indigenous to Palestine.

Why not there?

The indigenous Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.

This is a deception.
Such broad lies are the last resort of Your cult to justify the dissonance in the reasoning.

On the contrary, any indigenous jewish person that dared speak out against the Zionist project was either terrorised into silence or murdered by the Zionist terror gangs.

Who are You talking about?

 

[rylah]

Does that negate their right?

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

At least as early as 1922 the Palestinians have demanded independence as Palestinians. Stop with the propaganda, liar.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Give me a break it's written black on white:

1 . "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

3. "In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection."

First Palestinian Arab Congress

The later congresses saw to fuse the area into another Arab state, the independence of Palestine was not a separate issuse in itself, but the Arab goal of unifying the whole ME under their rule.



The fairytale of 'Palestinian independece'

In 1919 all the recently "liberated" Arabic areas of the Ottoman Empire wanted to form one Arabic state, but as this ran contrary to European Imperial interests (i.e. Sykes-Picot) this was never going to happen. To use 1919 aspirations as an argument that Palestinians never wanted a seperate state is both ridiculous and disingenuous. As the postwar Middle East evolved, so did Palestinian aspirations.

1919- 1st Palestine Congress - official proclamation that 'Palestine is Syria'
1920 - after French took Syria, official proclamation that Palestine should be a Part of a bigger Arab state.
1981 - The minister of public affairs of All-Palestine govt. confirms publicly that there's no division between Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
1982- Arafat talking about 'One Arab state from Morocco to Yemen'.

The way Westerners understand Palestinian nationalism as something 'separate' is not the way Arabs themselves view it - as a tool for a unified Arab rule in the whole region..

How much would Palestine be 'independent' once incorporated into a bigger Arab empire?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is one BIG practical difference.... I would want an international force on the ground... Not indiscriminately bombing Gaza... Yes, of course Israel COULD do the same but it would NOT be welcomed by the rest of the world!

Well, I'd argue that aerial bombardment is not indiscriminate. It is prone to error and collateral damage, but that is not the same thing. It may seem to be a minor difference, but it is actually important when considering the perception of Israel in the international community.

And I'd have no problem whatsoever if you argue that aerial bombardment should be made illegal.

But if a ground operation to remove Hamas is the right thing to do, why wouldn't it be the right thing to do with Israel involved? I agree it would not be welcomed by the rest of the world. But I think the reason that it would not be welcomed by the rest of the world is because the rest of the world has spent so much time demonizing Israel, they have a hard time seeing her as anything but.

By your own admission, its a perception problem and not an objective problem.

The way to correct that problem is to support Israel.

Well, I'd argue that aerial bombardment is not indiscriminate. It is prone to error and collateral damage,

Battlefield weapons used in urban settings are inherently indiscriminate.

 

[Humanity]

I'm not sure that I am suggesting an "invasion", though I would have NO issue in a military force removing a terrorist organisation! And I don't even see it as "military extreme"... Its a terrorist organisation... There IS no "extreme" in dealing with terrorists!

But surely you mean to replace it with someone who can prevent another terrorist government from forming. Maybe a Mandate Power?

Exactly!

 

[rylah]

Israel negated their right. They did not want a Jewish state.

Again You repeat the same dissonance.
The Palestinian Jews, the former Ottoman citizens worked closely with the new Yishuv.
The only problem they had was that they saw the new Yishuv as not being religious enough.
That doesn't mean they didn't want a Jewish state, quiet the opposite.

The Arabs on the other hand didn't want a separate Palestine, they wanted to remain in Greater Syria. They still do and identify with it openly.

At least as early as 1922 the Palestinians have demanded independence as Palestinians. Stop with the propaganda, liar.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.


No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.


HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Give me a break it's written black on white:

1 . "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

3. "In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection."

First Palestinian Arab Congress

The later congresses saw to fuse the area into another Arab state, the independence of Palestine was not a separate issuse in itself, but the Arab goal of unifying the whole ME under their rule.



The fairytale of 'Palestinian independece'

In 1919 all the recently "liberated" Arabic areas of the Ottoman Empire wanted to form one Arabic state, but as this ran contrary to European Imperial interests (i.e. Sykes-Picot) this was never going to happen. To use 1919 aspirations as an argument that Palestinians never wanted a seperate state is both ridiculous and disingenuous. As the postwar Middle East evolved, so did Palestinian aspirations.

1919- 1st Palestine Congress - official proclamation that 'Palestine is Syria'
1920 - after French took Syria, official proclamation that Palestine should be a Part of a bigger Arab state.
1981 - The minister of public affairs of All-Palestine govt. confirms publicly that there's no division between Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
1982- Arafat talking about 'One Arab state from Morocco to Yemen'.

The way Westerners understand Palestinian nationalism as something 'separate' is not the way Arabs themselves view it - as a tool for a unified Arab rule in the whole region..

How much would Palestine be 'independent' once incorporated into a bigger Arab empire?

Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress

Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from earliest times. The creation of one political entity in East Jordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity.

(R. Hamid (ed.) Muqararat al-majlis al-watani al-filastini 1964 Resolutions of the PNCs 1964-1974, Beirut, PLO Research Centre, 1975, p178 Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress)


How about a Jordanian mandate?

Poll: Palestinians Prefer Federation With Jordan

 

[Humanity]

If you are happy for worldwide condemnation of Israel AND Jews then go for it...

Of course, I'm not happy for it. I'm only pointing out that it is objectively unreasonable. Therefore, its source is not in Israel's actions, but in a false perception. The solution, then, is to correct the perception and not to continue to be objectively unreasonable.

Whatever you want to call it "perception" if you like, I don't really care much for 'word games' particularly...

You think that it would be acceptable for Israel to carry out what you suggested in your post #302 and be 'acceptable' to the rest of the world?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm not sure that I am suggesting an "invasion", though I would have NO issue in a military force removing a terrorist organisation! And I don't even see it as "military extreme"... Its a terrorist organisation... There IS no "extreme" in dealing with terrorists!

But surely you mean to replace it with someone who can prevent another terrorist government from forming. Maybe a Mandate Power?

Are you wanting to eliminate the symptoms without correcting the problems?

 

[Humanity]

I'm not sure that I am suggesting an "invasion", though I would have NO issue in a military force removing a terrorist organisation! And I don't even see it as "military extreme"... Its a terrorist organisation... There IS no "extreme" in dealing with terrorists!

But surely you mean to replace it with someone who can prevent another terrorist government from forming. Maybe a Mandate Power?

Are you wanting to eliminate the symptoms without correcting the problems?

Not sure I am understanding your question...

Care to elaborate?