Palestine - US Double Standards or Cautious Diplomacy?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BaldBleep, Sep 21, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. After American pressure during the Palestinan troubles (Post Second World War) for the establishment of a Jewish state, is the threatened use of the US vetoe against state recognition, a wise move based on pragmatic diplomacy with a view to long term peace, or just pro Israeli US hypocrisy?
  2. Well, you can't really recognise a state until everyone's agreed what its borders are, can you?
  3. Really? it was a close thing that the USA recognized Israel in 48, since the State Department was all Arab friendly. where was that pressure from the USA? I was under the impression this all started with the British saying it could be a Jewish homeland back in the 1920's.

    What are the "Palestinian" states Borders? or should we wait on that? Would the Palestinian State accept Israels right to exist, or as has been the case, run their suck with " drive the Israelis into the sea and take their women and farms" so typical of the Arab?

    Palestinians lost in 48, the Israelis asked them to stay, their brother Arabs told them they could take the izzys stuff and womenfolk after the great arab army drove them into the med.

    They chose unwisely .....

    Too Bad

    However lets say they get statehood and the rockets continue. Israel then has the right to declare war, and do as they see fit against attacks by a Nation. What are the chances the Palestinians will be intelligent enough to understand that they bit off more than they could chew?

    1 in a 100,000?
  4. I think that actually we (the us) are actually right in this one. As much as I defend my country, I would admit that we do a lot of dumb stuff. This isn't one of them.

    Palestinians are trying to force the issue with the UN instead of working with the people they have a dispute with. I don't think that overriding Israel in this case will result in more peace, I think it will result in more conflict. As much as it pains me to say, I think Barry-O is taking the right approach here.
  5. Where to begin. Beth- hal Homar. Might be a good starting point. The lone olive farmer sat in his enclave refusing to back down and sell up. I bet he feels like the little fella in the film 'Up'
    I see it as a perception thing. I think people view' Palestine' as an abstract notion. Being Palestinian is like, to paraphrase Billy Joel, being in a 'New York State of mind'
    The Israelis have the big psychological advantage of definable state borders, something tangible, that they feel at liberty to protect
    to the death.
    To get back to the point. Barack O'Bearmaigh (he's got Oirish roots t'be sure) seems to swing in the wind in a desperate effort to garner votes. Yeah, he's a hypocrite for sure.
  6. I've been itching to start a thread on this.

    Can somebody in the know tell me where the damage is in giving the Palestinians their own state? Let's say they extended the borders to the pre-1960s line and became a state called 'Palestine'. Why would that be such a bad move?

    I understand that there are Israelis living in the territory and I also understand that, hey, this country is Israel and Palestinians tend to support bad things such as terrorism. I can grasp that there are a lot of political difficulties. But it's not really that big a patch of land? Why can't we give the Palestinians what they want?

    What's the point in preventing it and WHY do the US and UK choose to do so?
  7. Well what you say could happen and as Goldbricker states the usual suspects will start lobbing rockets over the border into Israel whats to stop them declaring war against them?
  8. The palestinians should have their own country consisting of the Gaza and the west Bank.


    Whilst one of the main parties throws it's opposition colleagues off high buildings having kneecapped them first, when it sends the family of one of its victims that victims body cut into steaks and when it has the charter it has - that country cannot be allowed to be constituted.

    Hamas needs to get a grip of its terrorists, change it's charter (as it promised to do) and get into meaningful peace talks with Israel alongside the PLO.
  9. is it not the case that the usual suspects are lobbing things over the border because they believe that they have no other option?
    I may be wrong (and I usually am!) but was there not an agreement between all sides that, and here I reduce a very complex problem down to a few nuggets;
    a, the Arab side acknowledged Israel's right to exist and was here to stay.
    b, the Israeli side acknowledged that the Palastinians had a right to statehood also, and could live on the west bank and in Gaza.
    c, both sides agreed to revert to the 1967(?) borders, and everyone would live happily ever after, but, almost immediately Israel reneged on the deal and has to date not moved everyone home.

    If so, it would appear that the Israeli's have tried almost every solution to this problem except maybe the one they agreed to!

    Now, I know the usual answers about returning the Golan heights would give unrestricted target practice to Palestinian rockets and so forth, but as we all know Israel took that area and others with little or no problems and as they still have the best armed forces in the region probably would have little trouble in retaking them should it be necessary to do so.

    So what have they got to lose, at the moment they have almost everyone knocking them for their actions, the Arab world can keep calling them dealbreakers and baby killers etc, and they are on a continuous war footing.

    If they actually put into practice that agreement then they would turn the spotlight on the palestinians and force those to step up and keep to their side of the deal, and if it all went tits up then its not their fault and its back to the status quo, but if it works........
  10. Rifleair

    "a, the Arab side acknowledged Israel's right to exist and was here to stay."

    One set (the PLO) did, but Hamas still has the destruction of Israel as part of its charter
    and a string of Hamas leaders have vocalised this relatively recently.

    "b, the Israeli side acknowledged that the Palastinians had a right to statehood also, and could live on the west bank and in Gaza."

    It did, in the peace accords in France, with additionally offering arab areas of Jerusalem to be part of Palestine - including the Al Aksa?? mosque!! Arafat however (after agreeing verbally to the conclusions of the accords), went scuttling off to the french president (who had played no part in the accords) who then held a press conference with Arafat stood next to him and said that no agreement had been reached.

    "c, both sides agreed to revert to the 1967(?) borders, and everyone would live happily ever after, but, almost immediately Israel reneged on the deal and has to date not moved everyone home."

    It wasn't Baraks government who reneged but Arafat (although, to be strictly acccurate, he only agreed verbally)
  11. ok fair enough, I did say that I was often wrong, however, Arafat is dead and Hamas has said that it will recognise the 1967 border, and as such it maybe doesn't have to actually recognise Israel as long as they renounce violence.

    And as Israel did agree to the borders thing maybe if they brought back all the settlers on the wrong side of the border, who knows?
  12. What are the chances Hamas rejects violence, realistically?
  13. And this is exactly why the US is the most loved country in the world...
  14. Thanks for the insightful input. You always have a way of articulating your wisdom with such eloquence.
  15. Someones ring is burning, is it manlove thursday already?

    Frankly we should let the pallys have a state. then when the sand people launch rockets again the Izzys can declare war on the Pally state and destroy it. Job done