Israel Thread

[spmetla]

It's all okay though, since this was all pre WW1, we got it "in under teh lock" so we cool.

Not sure why the West thinks that the rules changed, the rules remain the same, just because Western Europe and the US doesn't partake doesn't make conquest any less true or legitimate than it has in the past. Tibet was forcefully 'repatriated' by the PRC. North Vietnam did forcibly 'reunify' the South. The current PRC policy in the South China Sea and the de facto annexation of Crimea show that hasn't changed. The Iraq War and subsequent Syrian/ISIS crisis has an ongoing genocide on both sides that will award territory to the 'victors' again. If Argentina had won the Falklands War the UN wouldn't give two licks about the 'illegal imperial britons' that would be evicted. If the US and Coalition nations hadn't forced Saddam out of Kuwait no amount of sanctions and harmless condemning declarations would have returned Kuwaiti sovereignty.

Why is Israel somehow the bad guy for doing what everyone else has done and continues to do except a lot more light-handedly. If Israel had been wiped out in '48, '67, or '73 no one would be forcing the Palestinians to allow Jewish communities to exist just like no one cried over the forced expulsion of Jews throughout the middle east following the establishment of Israel. I actually agree with Greyblades wholeheartedly on this and wish that the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza were relocated to Egypt/Jordan and compensated for loss of homes in land or money.

The forced expulsion of ethnic germans from Czechoslovakia certainly ended any issues over the Sudetenlands. The exchange of Turks and Greeks between the two countries in '23 and after has certainly made it far less likely for war between the two again (unless Cyprus throws us another loop).

The two state solution will always fail seeing as Israel will see it's neighbor as a knife to its throat while the other sees no right for Israel to exist.

[rory_20_uk]

The rules haven't changed, the window dressing has. We now "liberate" rather than invade, or "proactively defend" rather than invade. We have the rules of law and then we ensure that they don't really apply when we are doing what we want. Hell, even the EU manages to gobble up countries since the leaders decide to let it. No guns, no bullets but somehow the final sovereign power has shifted. The Ottomans / Romans / Chinese would understand the process.

The two state solution will always fail seeing as Israel will see it's neighbour as a knife to its throat while the other sees no right for Israel to exist.

So they are the only country on earth that has a neighbour that wants them dead? Hardly. But they are one of the few who have nukes and the other side don't.

[LittleGrizzly]

spmelta If a group of Chinese moved to a different continent and started taking the natives land, one they owned a kingdom in thousands of years previously, they'd probably get criticised just as strongly as Israel does, if not more so.

Less sure regarding Falklands but most of the examples you mention the countries had some legitimate claim to, or at least a far more legitimate claim on the we had a kingdom here thousands of years ago. If Britain decided to forcefully take back some of its previous holdings, say Canada or India, in the same way Israel is doing, so we don't just take charge, we actually displace the locals to replace them with our own people, the criticism would be far stronger than anything Israel receives.

[spmetla]

The chinese are essentially doing what you mention in their semi-autonomous regions to the Uighurs, Tibetans, and Mongols. Instead of removing the natives though they oppress them and have a policy for han-ization which brings in lots of Han chinese and essentially makes the former natives an insignificant minority through the passage of time. When they conduct crack downs no one can protest because media is just not allowed in these regions.

I'm not defending the creation of Israel, it was a very stupid idea and shouldn't have happened. Fact of the matter though is that Israel does exist now, it has defended and expanded it's borders against all its neighbors and still managed to establish the most modern, liberal, safe and progression country in the region. There hadn't been an independent Palestinian arab state in all of history either, it was always a part of another country such as the Ottomans or the Mamluks. Point being the creation of a Palestine is just as much fabrication as that of Israel or even Kosovo. The local arabs were there of course in 1948, there were also a lot of jews there at the time too. The difference is that when the nation of Israel was created the Palestinians attacked it together with every other arab nation around it. Israel won, in 1967 it pre-emptively attacked and expanded it's borders, in 73 it was attacked and again expanded its borders and then gave the Sinai away in exchange for peace with Egypt.

We can't wind the clock back to 1948 and undo it's creation unless you are willing to remove all the Jews as well. Creating a Palestinian state based on the '67 borders will not work. They will of course reserve the right to attack Israel and Israel will then counter attack and occupy again. If Gaza were given to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan then there could be peace because those countries would certainly stamp out the terrorist elements that constantly fire rockets and commit attacks within Israel. As an independent county with no natural resources, no industry, infrastructure, and sharing half it's capital city and with its employment dependent on its neighbor means it would not be a feasible country.

Do you really think that the 2-state solution will work? Peace in the region requires the cycle violence to stop, the tit for tat needs to end. Israel won't stop its occupation so long as the PLO and Hamas encourage and orchestrate attacks. In my mind either Israel should formally take the West Bank and Gaza and implement its settler program making the arabs a minority in their own land as in China, and the US or those two regions should be annexed by Egypt and Jordan.
As for Jerusalem, I say no matter what let the Israelis have it. They actually tolerate and keep safe muslim worship, the modern arab States typically don't show the tolerance (outside tourist zones) that they demand and get (Copts, Jews, Maronites, Shia/Sunni infighting, Druze, pagans/shaminists).

[Montmorency]

We can't wind the clock back to 1948 and undo it's creation unless you are willing to remove all the Jews as well. Creating a Palestinian state based on the '67 borders will not work. They will of course reserve the right to attack Israel and Israel will then counter attack and occupy again. If Gaza were given to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan then there could be peace because those countries would certainly stamp out the terrorist elements that constantly fire rockets and commit attacks within Israel. As an independent county with no natural resources, no industry, infrastructure, and sharing half it's capital city and with its employment dependent on its neighbor means it would not be a feasible country.

That is why Israel would more readily permit a sovereign Palestinian state forming from Gaza and the West Bank over having Jerusalem and half the country surrounded by the established powers - however cooperative or non-threatening they may presently be - of Egypt and Jordan. Regardless, any state within Israeli borders is untenable unless it holds the west bank of the Jordan river. Think Danzig between Brandenburg and Prussia.