Political Crossfire Forums

[Plato & Socrates]

I have always believed the Palestinians, have been playing the wrong game. They don't engage the state of Israel, in a battle of the mind. They don't usurp Israeli political strategy, and use those same strategies on Israel herself.
The Palestinians have on so many occasions, been able to politically outflank the state of Israel, but miss the opportunity to do so, because they fall back to there default mode of terrorism. When it comes to legitimizing the Arab state of Palestine, The Arab Palestinians have been completely hopeless, in playing the game the Israeli's play.

I think a major part to this conflict is obvious. Why don't the Palestinians just declare themselves a state?
Catching the West totally off guard, the Palestinians should send a delegation to the U.N, backed by the Arab league. They should call an emergency session, and declare from the 67/Green-line boarders, the new Palestinian state will be born.

If they coupled this with a statement along the lines of "We Hamas et al, in the search for a lasting peace in the Holy Land, have agreed and except a 2 state solution. We have forever given up our goal, for a united Palestine, unless achieved by diplomatic means. We fully recognise and except the state of Israel. Not only to co-exist in peace with its neighbours, but has a Jewish state, for all the Jewish peoples of the world. Hamas et al, will also forever leave behind the use of armed resistance, in favour of dialog with our new neighbours.
All the peoples of Palestine, will be granted equal citizenship, irrespective of there faiths. For the sake of future generations, past bitterness and injustices must be left behind, if the region is to have the foresight to step back from the edge of disaster. Hamas will make it there political goal, to encourage other Palestinian resistance movements, to exchange the bullet and bomb for the ballot box. Engagement through dialog is the only way forward, for a sustainable and lasting peace.
Hamas asks for U.N support, in recognising the new Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem has its capital. A state for the Palestinian people, for the Palestinians without a state."

Just imagine if the did that? What could the stance of the west be? Would America deny the Palestinians the right to declare there own state like the Jews did? What would Israel do, against a unarmed civilian population, who also declared a state like they did?

Apart from the thorny issue of Jerusalem, Israel could'nt morally get away with not recognising a new Palestinian state, especially considering how she came into being herself. Yes we all know that Israel will make some song and dance regarding the status of the 250,000 settlers. But that by itself can be no-excuse for Israel to keep her fingers in the Palestinian state pie. The counter argument would be, "there are 1 million+ Arab Israel minority citizens in Israel, and for the sake of peace, would never ask for those areas inhabited by Arabs, to be incorporated into the new Palestinian state" So likewise, Israels stance of wanting to keep some sort of control of Jewish areas in the new Palestinian state, must be shown in that light, as utterly unworkable and unreasonable. Especially if Israel wants to be seen, as a nation wh also strives for peace.

If I was advising Hamas, that would be what I would advise them to do. It would be a mixture of the South African, Northern Ireland and Jewish experience, to get there homeland. Israel must be shown to the world for what she really is. Israels Zionist project works best whilst under the cloud of violence, and Israel will kill to achieve this aim IMO. Under the cloud of peaceful non-violent resistance, I believe Israel will still kill to achieve its Zionist goals, but this time she cannot hide behind self defense or terrorism.

The Palestinians IMO, are going to lose many of their citizens, to the hands of Israeli ordinance anyway. The hardnosed choice they should make, is how they are going to lose them. The Palestinians going about the process of building there new state, will force Israels hand. Either to give up what they have been fighting for, for almost the last 40years, or their last hoorah land theft. Could you imagine the world view of unarmed/non-violent Palestinians, being stopped from building homes, and going about there daily lives in there new state, by armed Israeli personnel?

Under the conditions of no Palestinian violence, Israels Zionism in the occupied territory's hits the buffers. I have always said and still believe, that a non-violent Palestinian movement leaves the Zionist project in those area's in tatters. If only the Palestinians realised this, Israel would have been forced to broker peace a long time ago.

[slitedeviance]

[quote="Plato & Socrates"]"We Hamas et al, in the search for a lasting peace in the Holy Land, have agreed and except a 2 state solution. We have forever given up our goal, for a united Palestine, unless achieved by diplomatic means. We fully recognise and except the state of Israel. Not only to co-exist in peace with its neighbours, but has a Jewish state, for all the Jewish peoples of the world. Hamas et al, will also forever leave behind the use of armed resistance, in favour of dialog with our new neighbours.
All the peoples of Palestine, will be granted equal citizenship, irrespective of there faiths. For the sake of future generations, past bitterness and injustices must be left behind, if the region is to have the foresight to step back from the edge of disaster. Hamas will make it there political goal, to encourage other Palestinian resistance movements, to exchange the bullet and bomb for the ballot box. Engagement through dialog is the only way forward, for a sustainable and lasting peace.
Hamas asks for U.N support, in recognising the new Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem has its capital. A state for the Palestinian people, for the Palestinians without a state."

That would be goddam beautiful. One quick thought though...

Last time the Palestinians used the Ballot Box instead of the bomb all they got was a Government robbed of it's powers by infighting, and a politically motivated economic embargo, leading to the current state that they find themselves in.

[programmusic]

they used the ballot box to elect the bomb.

They went from this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqFLNJEiclM

to Hamas. The only reasonable leader they've had, Abbas (though he was a "revisionist", doesn't affect politics) was only in power for a short time. And during that time was being marginalized by Arafat or Hamas. so they haven't really had the best leaders.

Most Israeli's would be very happy if the Palestinian leaders agreed to live side by side with Israel.

[slitedeviance]

programmusic wrote: they used the ballot box to elect the bomb.

See I'd disagree based on the fact that they already had the bomb as such (if'n you get me). By voting Hamas into power on a mandate of social reform they actually gave everyone the chance to turn this around.

I'd agree with the lack of recognition of the Hamas government if they were elected based on their call for the ultimate destruction of Israel, but they weren't. As far as I can tell the Goverment was elected because the majority of Palestinians were sick of the alleged corruption in the Fatah governance and the lack of care shown to the citizens of Palestine.

Given the background behind the election I can't help but think that real progress was lost by the international community once the decision to undermine the Hamas government was made.

[superskippy]

Quote: I think a major part to this conflict is obvious. Why don't the Palestinians just declare themselves a state? Catching the West totally off guard

You need to do more research, A declaration of a "State of Palestine" was approved on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Out of the 202 nations of the world, less than 90 recognized Palestine, of them few have gone beyond anything more than a Palestine "mission" in the countries in question, and occasionally a consulate or embassy mostly in geographically closer nations. Recognition has done nothing for them, nor has declaring their state. The recongition was at the time a symbolic gesture but since then with the intifadah's and radicalization everything has halted and recognition is really only on a piece of paper. There is no commerce, no diplomacy, nothing. Just old papers of recognition that were thought to be needed heading into peace talks, embassies and missions have shrunk and dissappeared and they are hardly used. As it turned out it did not matter.

[cap'n queasy]

The last thing the Palestinians want is a state.

[to_frankie]

cap'n queasy wrote: The last thing the Palestinians want is a state.

right now, they probably be happy with electricity, and fresh water supply. but, hey lets not spoil the Muslims right cap?

[programmusic]

to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: The last thing the Palestinians want is a state.

right now, they probably be happy with electricity, and fresh water supply. but, hey lets not spoil the Muslims right cap?

When my dad was in the I.D.F. the army wanted to install running water, sewage systems and electricity to the nearby refugee camp. There was a huge outcry that they were trying to "take over" So they didn't do it.

[to_frankie]

programmusic wrote: to_frankie wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: The last thing the Palestinians want is a state.

right now, they probably be happy with electricity, and fresh water supply. but, hey lets not spoil the Muslims right cap?

When my dad was in the I.D.F. the army wanted to install running water, sewage systems and electricity to the nearby refugee camp. There was a huge outcry that they were trying to "take over" So they didn't do it.

yeah. I can appreciate that. Your dad was caught in the middle. The sharing of resources equally has to be done at higher levels.

[programmusic]

no, the army wanted to do it. high up. but there was a huge outcry from the residents of the refugee camp that they were trying to take over. SO they didn't

[to_frankie]

programmusic wrote: no, the army wanted to do it. high up. but there was a huge outcry from the residents of the refugee camp that they were trying to take over. SO they didn't

yes. I understood. I mean it should come as a result of a political decision.

[Zoot]

Would this state include the land recently annexed by the Israeli security wall?

[Pareve]

1. This is a terrible idea.
2. The chances of anything along these lines ever happening is zero to none.

The US would just veto whatever, and the Arab League forfeited their right to the 1967 border when they attacked Israel in 1967.

[Plato & Socrates]

superskippy wrote: Quote: I think a major part to this conflict is obvious. Why don't the Palestinians just declare themselves a state? Catching the West totally off guard

You need to do more research, A declaration of a "State of Palestine" was approved on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Out of the 202 nations of the world, less than 90 recognized Palestine, of them few have gone beyond anything more than a Palestine "mission" in the countries in question, and occasionally a consulate or embassy mostly in geographically closer nations. Recognition has done nothing for them, nor has declaring their state. The recongition was at the time a symbolic gesture but since then with the intifadah's and radicalization everything has halted and recognition is really only on a piece of paper. There is no commerce, no diplomacy, nothing. Just old papers of recognition that were thought to be needed heading into peace talks, embassies and missions have shrunk and dissappeared and they are hardly used. As it turned out it did not matter.

My recollection of past invents is just fine enough skips. This is a matter of taking opportunity of events in today's world. The war on terror is a mess. The war in Iraq is a mess, and most importantly in 88, the Americans did'nt genuinely recognise a 2 state solution. Almost 20 years on, things have change drastically. It would have to go to go hand in hand, with a complete cessation of violence. The recognition of the state of Israel etc, etc.
With the U.S push of finding a solution to the war on terror, and the true democracy of the Middle East, the West could'nt reject that. not in today's climate. Especially with the whole world claiming the Israel-Palestine conflict is at the heart of the grievances. Could any U.S administration been seen to pass up a opportunity like that?

With the Israeli government killing a non-violent unarmed civilians, how long could that last for? The Palestinians demand and declaring, only what the Jews got for themselves. Secondly especially in Europe, the Muslims are a much more formidable lobby force. With a non-violent Palestine, the U.S would find it political suicide to back Israeli aggression in you preventing the Palestinians building state apparatchik's.

Don't you think skippy it is inevitable, that the Israel state, will use force of arms to prevent a Palestinian state from coming to being? A non violent peace movement would be Israels worse nightmare. Deny a group of people, the very same thing you demanded yourself and took for yourself. I personally don't see how Israel could ever win P.R wise. Israel taking up and using state violence to suppress a people, especially after decades of Israel deploring the using of violence, instead of the use of dialog?

Why would I encourage the Palestinians to take this stance? Well its quite simple. via a armed resistance the Israeli's will kill your people, make know mistake about that. Via a non-violent resistance, to continue the Zionist goals, they will still have to use violent means and will still kill you. This would show Israel for what she really is.
How could Israel in today's world, not the one almost 20 years ago, deny the Palestinians there own state? Don't forget that the Palestinian Hardliners would have renounced violence and fully recognise the state of Israel and all the trimmings. Its just my own thoughts skip.

Zoot wrote: Would this state include the land recently annexed by the Israeli security wall?
Everything from the 67 greenline, the only negotiations would be the status of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem would be Palestinian, and full autonomy for the rest of it In Israel control.

Pareve wrote: 1. This is a terrible idea.
2. The chances of anything along these lines ever happening is zero to none.

The US would just veto whatever, and the Arab League forfeited their right to the 1967 border when they attacked Israel in 1967.
I would'nt expect any other type of reply from you, than the one you just gave. :roll:

[mr_happy]

if the Palestinians did this the Israelis would be the first to accept the conditions. Israel never wanted Gaza or the West Bank and would be happy enough to get rid of them if they were assured of a permanent peace. The right might pose a problem, but The moderates and leftist would outdo them in the Knesset. The biggest problem for this comes from the Palestinians. Even if Hamas did do this, the Islamic Council/militia/army/ etc. would continue to attack ISrael for whatever reason. If Hamas could control its own people, then this would be a beautiful possibility.

[superskippy]

Quote: y recollection of past invents is just fine enough skips. This is a matter of taking opportunity of events in today's world. The war on terror is a mess. The war in Iraq is a mess, and most importantly in 88, the Americans did'nt genuinely recognise a 2 state solution. Almost 20 years on, things have change drastically. It would have to go to go hand in hand, with a complete cessation of violence.

Obviously there must be some flaw to your memory as you failed to make even one mention of the fact that they are already a declared state. They cant "redeclare" that they are a state, it's kind of a one time deal. Also as they still profess they are a state and stand strongly by that what exactly are they going to be declaring?

I wasnt going to answer the rest because it does nothing to address the point, that their state is declared, they have made the effort at recognition, they themselves firmly beleive they are a state, they have not wavered from that stance. Your making an argument that even the Palestinians would be outraged at, they say they have their state and in their view they have spilled their blood for it and made the effort on the world stage. Your talking about declaring something that has already been declared for no purpose other than scoring a very ridiculous political point.

Then you spend the rest of the post in a tirade against both the US and Israel, failing to reconnect to their my point or your own original point. Are we talking about the "State of Palestine" or are we talking about the declared faults of Israel and it's crimes. And dont say both we both know that wasnt the intent and your redirecting.

Perhaps in another thread I will address the points you have made, but you have made very clear from the entire length of your opening post that this was to be about declaring a state of Palestine, and quite frankly from reading it, it definatly does seem like you had either completely forgotten or did not know that the "State of Palestine" was already declared and a recognized entity by some nations.

Quote: I think a major part to this conflict is obvious. Why don't the Palestinians just declare themselves a state?
Catching the West totally off guard, the Palestinians should send a delegation to the U.N, backed by the Arab league. They should call an emergency session, and declare from the 67/Green-line boarders, the new Palestinian state will be born.

Your opening point only reinforces my beleif that you did not know that, since what your stating happened save for a move by the UN since the UN in the end rejected recognition. Everything happened to the letter, save the UN denied to recognize them, as they have always done. The Palestinians still however managed to gain an observor seat.

Dont try and redirect to a point about Israeli aggression, non violent resistence, stolen land, etc. You made a thread about declaring a state of Palestine, you cannot redeclare a recognized entity nor would it be advisable to do so if it was possible. Taking that into account the point for this thread seems to be useless. A "State of Palestine" was declared, just about everything you said should happen, has in fact already happened. It happened 18 years ago, thus the point for this thread is moot.

Do you want their founding documents? Your asking a what if to something that already happened. As for what if it happened today, the world would laugh and say your memory is shoddy, you did this already and you got your response. Now it's time to move forward to actually creating your state and making peace. It is what has been repeated for 18 years by all sides. The question is how to go about the latter, after that the former is a by product

Now if you want to discuss how the control of that State and all it's "claimed" territory should be brought under control which is what you have designated in the latter disconnected post from the original point, then I would be glad to oblidge you. But either make that change to the topic or perhaps put it in a different thread.

[Shuya Nanahara]

Plato & Socrates wrote: superskippy wrote: Quote: I think a major part to this conflict is obvious. Why don't the Palestinians just declare themselves a state? Catching the West totally off guard

You need to do more research, A declaration of a "State of Palestine" was approved on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Out of the 202 nations of the world, less than 90 recognized Palestine, of them few have gone beyond anything more than a Palestine "mission" in the countries in question, and occasionally a consulate or embassy mostly in geographically closer nations. Recognition has done nothing for them, nor has declaring their state. The recongition was at the time a symbolic gesture but since then with the intifadah's and radicalization everything has halted and recognition is really only on a piece of paper. There is no commerce, no diplomacy, nothing. Just old papers of recognition that were thought to be needed heading into peace talks, embassies and missions have shrunk and dissappeared and they are hardly used. As it turned out it did not matter.

My recollection of past invents is just fine enough skips. This is a matter of taking opportunity of events in today's world. The war on terror is a mess. The war in Iraq is a mess, and most importantly in 88, the Americans did'nt genuinely recognise a 2 state solution. Almost 20 years on, things have change drastically. It would have to go to go hand in hand, with a complete cessation of violence. The recognition of the state of Israel etc, etc.
With the U.S push of finding a solution to the war on terror, and the true democracy of the Middle East, the West could'nt reject that. not in today's climate. Especially with the whole world claiming the Israel-Palestine conflict is at the heart of the grievances. Could any U.S administration been seen to pass up a opportunity like that?

With the Israeli government killing a non-violent unarmed civilians, how long could that last for? The Palestinians demand and declaring, only what the Jews got for themselves. Secondly especially in Europe, the Muslims are a much more formidable lobby force. With a non-violent Palestine, the U.S would find it political suicide to back Israeli aggression in you preventing the Palestinians building state apparatchik's.

Don't you think skippy it is inevitable, that the Israel state, will use force of arms to prevent a Palestinian state from coming to being? A non violent peace movement would be Israels worse nightmare. Deny a group of people, the very same thing you demanded yourself and took for yourself. I personally don't see how Israel could ever win P.R wise. Israel taking up and using state violence to suppress a people, especially after decades of Israel deploring the using of violence, instead of the use of dialog?

Why would I encourage the Palestinians to take this stance? Well its quite simple. via a armed resistance the Israeli's will kill your people, make know mistake about that. Via a non-violent resistance, to continue the Zionist goals, they will still have to use violent means and will still kill you. This would show Israel for what she really is.
How could Israel in today's world, not the one almost 20 years ago, deny the Palestinians there own state? Don't forget that the Palestinian Hardliners would have renounced violence and fully recognise the state of Israel and all the trimmings. Its just my own thoughts skip.

Zoot wrote: Would this state include the land recently annexed by the Israeli security wall?
Everything from the 67 greenline, the only negotiations would be the status of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem would be Palestinian, and full autonomy for the rest of it In Israel control.

Pareve wrote: 1. This is a terrible idea.
2. The chances of anything along these lines ever happening is zero to none.

The US would just veto whatever, and the Arab League forfeited their right to the 1967 border when they attacked Israel in 1967.
I would'nt expect any other type of reply from you, than the one you just gave. :roll:

mind you he did say one thing that made sense....

"The US would just veto whatever"

[Tepic]

I don't know if it could have the desired effect of solving everything unilaterally ... but as a preface to immediate, final peace talks it could be brilliant.

[Shuya Nanahara]

Tepic wrote: I don't know if it could have the desired effect of solving everything unilaterally ... but as a preface to immediate, final peace talks it could be brilliant.

X2.........there must be hope if we can agree on something... :woo: :tu:

[Tepic]

Shuya Nanahara wrote: Tepic wrote: I don't know if it could have the desired effect of solving everything unilaterally ... but as a preface to immediate, final peace talks it could be brilliant.

X2.........there must be hope if we can agree on something... :woo: :tu:
:lol: you flatter me. Yes, there is always hope. I'm not Olmert and you're not Haniyeh, but hopefully both populations will decide that peace is the only way, and their leaders will listen to them.