Israel (now broader Mid East discussion) (3 Viewers)

[Dago]

Why do you think I think only one side is interested in the eradication of the other? Ie, I don't and never said that or even hinted at that.

I for one would have a major issue making citizens out of people who want to eradicate me

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I for one would have a major issue making citizens out of people who want to eradicate me

Sure, but then maybe go back to your original borders after you defeat them militarily. You can't just keep people in military occupation for 70+ years and expect to be safe. And that's the issue, Israel believes it needs the expanded borders to protect itself -- but it doesn't want the people on the land they conquered to be citizens... hence the ethnic cleansing discussion that members of Israel's government have openly discussed.

 

[Dago]

Sure, but then maybe go back to your original borders after you defeat them militarily. You can't just keep people in military occupation for 70+ years and expect to be safe. And that's the issue, Israel believes it needs the expanded borders to protect itself -- but it doesn't want the people on the land they conquered to be citizens... hence the ethnic cleansing discussion that members of Israel's government have openly discussed.

Your answer to everything is that the Israelis are the ones who must capitulate

I have no issue with any country keeping territory they gained after being attacked by 4 or 5 nations...considering how the United States was formed I would find it hypocritical for anybody who enjoys the fruits of that process to tell another country that they are not allowed to do so. I would have no issue with a 2 state system with the borders being where they ended up after the Arab-Israeli War and would expect either side to be dealt with if they violated that.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Your answer to everything is that the Israelis are the ones who must capitulate

No it isn't. The very first post I made on this thread is that any US support of Palestinians be contingent on acknowledging Israel's right to exist and abandoning all terrorism and getting rid of the martyr fund and things like that. Is there something else you think I should be advocating for? No one argued with my point there, so I assume everyone agrees with that... meaning everyone agrees with Palestinian obligations here. The only point of disagreement is Israel's obligations.

I have no issue with any country keeping territory they gained after being attacked by 4 or 5 nations...considering how the United States was formed I would find it hypocritical for anybody who enjoys the fruits of that process to tell another country that they are not allowed to do so. I would have no issue with a 2 state system with the borders being where they ended up after the Arab-Israeli War and would expect either side to be dealt with if they violated that.

As I said 3 times now, I don't object to Israel keeping any territory either, but you have to make the people in the conquered territory citizens if you want my support and funding. I don't care what borders they pick... it just needs to be negotiated and accepted by everyone, otherwise no US support to any side.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

oops.. it was on the campus protest thread that I talked about Palestinian obligations and why I couldn't support the protests either.

 

[Dago]

No it isn't. The very first post I made on this thread is that any US support of Palestinians be contingent on acknowledging Israel's right to exist and abandoning all terrorism and getting rid of the martyr fund and things like that. Is there something else you think I should be advocating for? No one argued with my point there, so I assume everyone agrees with that... meaning everyone agrees with Palestinian obligations here. The only point of disagreement is Israel's obligations.




As I said 3 times now, I don't object to Israel keeping any territory either, but you have to make the people in the conquered territory citizens if you want my support and funding. I don't care what borders they pick... it just needs to be negotiated and accepted by everyone, otherwise no US support to any side.

I know you didn't object to them keeping the territory.

The problem with your idea is that we have leverage on Israel that we can use....we have none with Palestine or the Palestinian people. Negotiate the borders and split them up.

 

[Dago]

oops.. it was on the campus protest thread that I talked about Palestinian obligations and why I couldn't support the protests either.

Regardless I couldn't say with certainty that I had seen every one of your posts in here either so I was just assuming I missed it

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Regardless I couldn't say with certainty that I had seen every one of your posts in here either so I was just assuming I missed it

Nope, it was my mistake.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I know you didn't object to them keeping the territory.

The problem with your idea is that we have leverage on Israel that we can use....we have none with Palestine or the Palestinian people. Negotiate the borders and split them up.

We have sticks and carrots with all parties... but in general, my idea is the US stop backing anyone until they agree to the most basic of human rights principles.

 

[Dago]

We have sticks and carrots with all parties... but in general, my idea is the US stop backing anyone until they agree to the most basic of human rights principles.

What sticks or carrots do we have with the Palestinians?

Again I don't have issue with your approach....I just don't see where we have any kind of real leverage on Palestine that couldn't easily be overcome by outside players (if we are talking financially)

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

What sticks or carrots do we have with the Palestinians?

Again I don't have issue with your approach....I just don't see where we have any kind of real leverage on Palestine that couldn't easily be overcome by outside players (if we are talking financially)

We have a lot of leverage with any Arab state that funds them. We give a fair amount of funding as well.

The Palestinians have less to lose, that's kind of the issue, so there is less we can do to hurt them. But they have aspirations like anyone else. And if Israel makes serious moves to indicate that there is a viable solution for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians don't accept, we keep funding Israel and allow Palestine to continue to be squeezed. If Palestine does accept basic Israeli rights, then we stop Israel from squeezing.

It's a long term strategy based on game theory. Basically, the strategy that generally leads to best outcomes for everyone is:
1. Generally nice - ie, it starts off with cooperation, not defection
2. Is retaliatory - it responds to defection with immediate punishment
3. Is forgiving - punishment is limited and short duration, and allows the other party to start again

If Israel offers a viable Palestinian state, and Palestine rejects without offering an alternative that is also viable for an Israeli state, immediate pressure is applied (restriction of goods and money coming from the US and Arab allies, Iran is unlikely to be able to make up the difference). If both Israel and Palestine accept, money comes in. If one party defects, they get immediately punished, and then you reset and play the next round.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Ultimately it may all still fail, there are reasons why Israel or Palestine may not accept anything, and the likely outcome is total annexation and ethnic cleansing (well that or continued refugee camps and expansion of the settlements).... but we don't have to participate or back it. We can just walk away.

 

[Dago]

We have a lot of leverage with any Arab state that funds them. We give a fair amount of funding as well.

The Palestinians have less to lose, that's kind of the issue, so there is less we can do to hurt them. But they have aspirations like anyone else. And if Israel makes serious moves to indicate that there is a viable solution for the Palestinians, and the Palestinians don't accept, we keep funding Israel and allow Palestine to continue to be squeezed. If Palestine does accept basic Israeli rights, then we stop Israel from squeezing.

It's a long term strategy based on game theory. Basically, the strategy that generally leads to best outcomes for everyone is:
1. Generally nice - ie, it starts off with cooperation, not defection
2. Is retaliatory - it responds to defection with immediate punishment
3. Is forgiving - punishment is limited and short duration, and allows the other party to start again

If Israel offers a viable Palestinian state, and Palestine rejects without offering an alternative that is also viable for an Israeli state, immediate pressure is applied (restriction of goods and money coming from the US and Arab allies, Iran is unlikely to be able to make up the difference). If both Israel and Palestine accept, money comes in. If one party defects, they get immediately punished, and then you reset and play the next round.

I don't think our 'leverage' on the Arab states would filter down like that but it's still one of the better ideas I have seen

I still think they would need to be divided into 2 separate states and live apart, but your plan could still be utilized in that situation

 

[SamAndreas]

Ultimately it may all still fail, there are reasons why Israel or Palestine may not accept anything, and the likely outcome is total annexation and ethnic cleansing (well that or continued refugee camps and expansion of the settlements).... but we don't have to participate or back it. We can just walk away.

No, we can't just walk away. We have way too many dual citizens situated in both camps.

 

[SamAndreas]