How about another Mandate? (A solutions thread)

[Humanity]

The belligerents are European fake jews who stole Palestine, dumb one, but we already know that they don't teach history at your temple.

Humanity and I are having a reasonable and intelligent conversation about challenging ideas, without resorting to name calling (Dumb one? Really?).

Feel free to join in if you are capable of holding a discussion at that level. The point on the table at the moment assumes a State of Gaza and a State of Israel with an international border between them. It assumes Gaza's ability to freely operate as a functional state including an elected government, a port, an airport, trade agreements, etc. It assumes Gaza then uses these opportunities to import weapons with which to attack Israel and Israel's civilian population and that it, in fact, does so. It assumes a response to that belligerency is appropriate.

The question is whether the response should come from Israel or from an international force. And why.

If you have an intelligent response to that scenario, please provide.

If you don't agree with the premise, then state your case. Go through the premise and identify where you part from it. If you part from it in the first sentence, and claim that Israel has no right to exist as a state, say so.

Shusha there's always at least one ;-)

I will quickly deal with the reason why I feel international rather than Israeli forces should intervene in any belligerent attacks from Gaza...

You are looking at this from a very pro Israeli stand point... And not really seeing that IF Israel were outside of any conflict resulting from belligerent attacks from Gaza it would be project a far more sympathetic view of Israel...

Sure, Israel has a right to protect herself... That is a given but, just look at history, Israel receives one hell of a bag full of condemnation for it...

I am suggesting an international force so that Israel does not receive that condemnation and COULD actually receive some 'love' from the rest of the world!

Also, and a little out there but... Israel could NOT 'invade' Gaza and take control without feeling the wrath of SOME international states... However, if Hamas were to remain in power AND there be continued attacks on Israel BY Hamas... Then I would welcome an 'invasion' by an international force... As has happened in other countries in recent history!

It's just about changing the way you look at this... I am working on the positives for Israel in doing this!

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

It is not up to Israel to choose either.

 

[Lipush]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties.

The settlers called "scorched earth" in 2005. I bet many Israelis will do the same before your scenatio happens.

 

[Humanity]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

I must admit to having issues with the 'right of return'...

On the one hand I feel that it is absolutely right to allow the 'right of return'...

But the practical side is far more complex than would ever make it 100% viable and, as you say, maybe a generous compensation package would be more acceptable...

Looking at other 'right to return' issues, Cyprus and TRNC being one, it just will never happen, simply because of time passed and NEITHER side really wanting it! Yes, there are Greek and Turkish Cypriots who DEMAND the 'right to return' but in reality it will never happen... Not in the way that they wish it!

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

I must admit to having issues with the 'right of return'...

On the one hand I feel that it is absolutely right to allow the 'right of return'...

But the practical side is far more complex than would ever make it 100% viable and, as you say, maybe a generous compensation package would be more acceptable...

Looking at other 'right to return' issues, Cyprus and TRNC being one, it just will never happen, simply because of time passed and NEITHER side really wanting it! Yes, there are Greek and Turkish Cypriots who DEMAND the 'right to return' but in reality it will never happen... Not in the way that they wish it!

Why should the Palestinians give up their rights?

 

[Lipush]

There are thousands of Israeli babies born every day. Why are their rights less important?

 

[louie888]

There are thousands of Israeli babies born every day. Why are their rights less important?

BECAUSE THEY ARE BORN ON STOLEN LAND WHICH BEGAN WITH THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE?

 

[montelatici]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

I must admit to having issues with the 'right of return'...

On the one hand I feel that it is absolutely right to allow the 'right of return'...

But the practical side is far more complex than would ever make it 100% viable and, as you say, maybe a generous compensation package would be more acceptable...

Looking at other 'right to return' issues, Cyprus and TRNC being one, it just will never happen, simply because of time passed and NEITHER side really wanting it! Yes, there are Greek and Turkish Cypriots who DEMAND the 'right to return' but in reality it will never happen... Not in the way that they wish it!

With respect to Cyprus, the right of return of the Greek Cypriots to their land has not been the stumbling block. The problem is that the Turks insist on maintaining a military force on Cyprus. With Turkish forces on a united Cyprus, would mean that Cyprus would not be a sovereign state, so the talks broke down just a few days ago. It would be the same thing in Palestine, if the Israelis insist on maintaining a military presence and/or control of the borders, territorial sea, air space etc. Palestine would have no sovreignty, so what's the point?

 

[Humanity]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

I must admit to having issues with the 'right of return'...

On the one hand I feel that it is absolutely right to allow the 'right of return'...

But the practical side is far more complex than would ever make it 100% viable and, as you say, maybe a generous compensation package would be more acceptable...

Looking at other 'right to return' issues, Cyprus and TRNC being one, it just will never happen, simply because of time passed and NEITHER side really wanting it! Yes, there are Greek and Turkish Cypriots who DEMAND the 'right to return' but in reality it will never happen... Not in the way that they wish it!

Why should the Palestinians give up their rights?

To give up a "right" you have to be given a "right" in the first place...

I'm not sure that Palestinians have been given a "right" in this case... I think it was mentioned in a UN General Assembly resolution but that's about it...

The 'right of return', whilst I believe it to be the correct thing is as impractical as it is contentious!

Take a good compensation package and leave it!

 

[Humanity]

There are a couple problems. Israel will continue its attacks on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. in the West Bank provoking a response.

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Also, 2/3 of the people in Gaza are refugees. That problem would have to be addressed.

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

I must admit to having issues with the 'right of return'...

On the one hand I feel that it is absolutely right to allow the 'right of return'...

But the practical side is far more complex than would ever make it 100% viable and, as you say, maybe a generous compensation package would be more acceptable...

Looking at other 'right to return' issues, Cyprus and TRNC being one, it just will never happen, simply because of time passed and NEITHER side really wanting it! Yes, there are Greek and Turkish Cypriots who DEMAND the 'right to return' but in reality it will never happen... Not in the way that they wish it!

With respect to Cyprus, the right of return of the Greek Cypriots to their land has not been the stumbling block. The problem is that the Turks insist on maintaining a military force on Cyprus. With Turkish forces on a united Cyprus, would mean that Cyprus would not be a sovereign state, so the talks broke down just a few days ago. It would be the same thing in Palestine, if the Israelis insist on maintaining a military presence and/or control of the borders, territorial sea, air space etc. Palestine would have no sovreignty, so what's the point?

Right of return not a stumbling block? Seriously?

Have you been to Cyprus? TRNC?

Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots want a right of return! It is simply impractical and will never happen!

Yes, things have moved on and, I believe, that Turkish forces in Cyprus is as right as Greek forces in Cyprus....

Afterall, Turkish forces entered Cyprus to protect and defend the Turkish Cypriots from genocide!

However, we aren't talking about maintaining forces, we are talking about right of return... Which, as I have stated in other posts, is simply impractical and contentious!

 

[montelatici]

Sure. I'll play. What sort of 'attacks' do you mean? And what do you think should be the appropriate response to those attacks?

Well, a different conversation, but if they have citizenship (and they would) and a home, they are no longer refugees.

I can recall two incidences. One was the day after a ceasefire Israel arrested 6 Hamas leaders. Another was the day after a ceasefire Israel killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad. And, of course, Israel expects them to sit on heir hands.

Refugees are to return to their homes and properties. Those are not in Gaza.

They are to return if those "refugees" (if they can be called that after so many generations--I don't consider myself to be one) CHOOSE to return. They might choose generous compensation instead. Since you're not Palestinian yourself, it's not up to you to choose for them.

I must admit to having issues with the 'right of return'...

On the one hand I feel that it is absolutely right to allow the 'right of return'...

But the practical side is far more complex than would ever make it 100% viable and, as you say, maybe a generous compensation package would be more acceptable...

Looking at other 'right to return' issues, Cyprus and TRNC being one, it just will never happen, simply because of time passed and NEITHER side really wanting it! Yes, there are Greek and Turkish Cypriots who DEMAND the 'right to return' but in reality it will never happen... Not in the way that they wish it!

With respect to Cyprus, the right of return of the Greek Cypriots to their land has not been the stumbling block. The problem is that the Turks insist on maintaining a military force on Cyprus. With Turkish forces on a united Cyprus, would mean that Cyprus would not be a sovereign state, so the talks broke down just a few days ago. It would be the same thing in Palestine, if the Israelis insist on maintaining a military presence and/or control of the borders, territorial sea, air space etc. Palestine would have no sovreignty, so what's the point?

Right of return not a stumbling block? Seriously?

Have you been to Cyprus? TRNC?

Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots want a right of return! It is simply impractical and will never happen!

Yes, things have moved on and, I believe, that Turkish forces in Cyprus is as right as Greek forces in Cyprus....

Afterall, Turkish forces entered Cyprus to protect and defend the Turkish Cypriots from genocide!

However, we aren't talking about maintaining forces, we are talking about right of return... Which, as I have stated in other posts, is simply impractical and contentious!

I have been to Cyprus many times and have many Greek Cypriot friends/acquaintances as we sold several radar systems to the civil aviation authority a few years ago. As I said, in the current negotiations, which were ended without success a few days ago, were ended as a result of the Turks insisting on the permanence of their troops on the island. The right of return had been agreed to. Greece has about 1,000 soldiers on Cyprus and had agreed to remove them subject to Turkey removing their 35,000 troop contingent. The Turks declined and the talks/agreement failed.

The right of return should not be a problem if the troop presence and military control by one party can be eliminated.

"..............the deal breaker was a clash over what would happen to the more than 35,000 troops that Turkey has kept in the island’s breakaway Turkish Cypriot north since 1974, when it invaded after a coup mounted by supporters of union with Greece....."

Cyprus Reunification Talks, ‘Close, but Not Close Enough,’ Fail

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 'right of return', whilst I believe it to be the correct thing is as impractical as it is contentious!

Why is it impractical for the Palestinians to receive their rights?

 

[Shusha]

The 'right of return', whilst I believe it to be the correct thing is as impractical as it is contentious!

Why is it impractical for the Palestinians to receive their rights?

Its a case of competing rights. Both peoples have rights. The problem is that the application of rights for one group removes or restricts the rights of the other. Therefore, there needs to be compromise on both sides.

 

[Shusha]

While a two-state solution is not in the cards, if it were, without a deterent, the Palestinians will always be under threat from the Israelis. Just consider if there were off-shore gas deposits within Palestinian territorial waters. How long do you think it would be before the Israelis sink wells to exploit the gas for themselves? Not to mention water that the Israelis would monopolize for themselves and prevent the Palestinians from building infrastructure to exploit water in the West Bank. It would never work.

Its not morally acceptable to punish people for crimes they haven't committed, just because you think they might commit them. Just so, it is not morally acceptable to create a deterrent (whatever you mean by that) for Israel because of your projection that they will do something illegal in the future.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The 'right of return', whilst I believe it to be the correct thing is as impractical as it is contentious!

Why is it impractical for the Palestinians to receive their rights?

Its a case of competing rights. Both peoples have rights. The problem is that the application of rights for one group removes or restricts the rights of the other. Therefore, there needs to be compromise on both sides.

According to Tinmore, the narrative of two peoples competing for the same land, and both having rights, is a false one. It is a vile ideology.

 

[Shusha]

I will quickly deal with the reason why I feel international rather than Israeli forces should intervene in any belligerent attacks from Gaza...

You are looking at this from a very pro Israeli stand point... And not really seeing that IF Israel were outside of any conflict resulting from belligerent attacks from Gaza it would be project a far more sympathetic view of Israel...

Sure, Israel has a right to protect herself... That is a given but, just look at history, Israel receives one hell of a bag full of condemnation for it...

I am suggesting an international force so that Israel does not receive that condemnation and COULD actually receive some 'love' from the rest of the world!

Yes, I think I understand where you are coming from on this. Here's my problem:

You seem to be apparently admitting there would be no practical differences between a military engagement by an international force and one by Israel. (Indeed, it appears you advocate a MUCH harsher stance against Hamas than many here. I'm a little surprised). The purpose of the international force is strictly to take the heat of Israel. I understand that. And I understand all the reasons for it.

BUT, its problematic, morally, for me, because at its core it supports the idea that Israel, alone, should not be permitted to defend its own nation and citizens. It supports the idea of a double standard for Israel. It supports the idea that Israel is somehow incapable of conducting itself with restraint and humanity. And I think that perception is damaging to Israel (and the Jewish people).

If the international community removes the right of self-defense from Israel, its sending the message that Israel doesn't warrant the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Shusha]

According to Tinmore, the narrative of two peoples competing for the same land, and both having rights, is a false one. It is a vile ideology.

Of course. His position, and it is shared by many, is that the Jewish people have no rights. Obviously, that is a vile ideology.

 

[montelatici]

While a two-state solution is not in the cards, if it were, without a deterent, the Palestinians will always be under threat from the Israelis. Just consider if there were off-shore gas deposits within Palestinian territorial waters. How long do you think it would be before the Israelis sink wells to exploit the gas for themselves? Not to mention water that the Israelis would monopolize for themselves and prevent the Palestinians from building infrastructure to exploit water in the West Bank. It would never work.

Its not morally acceptable to punish people for crimes they haven't committed, just because you think they might commit them. Just so, it is not morally acceptable to create a deterrent (whatever you mean by that) for Israel because of your projection that they will do something illegal in the future.

It is morally unacceptable for a nation not to have a deterent against potential attacks.