NEWS: Israeli-Palestinian Truce! Intafada Over?

Just read this thread and watch it dissolve into a israel vs palestine debate as to who is to blame and who will screw it up first. LMAO

We started all pleased and hopeful for BOTH places future, and devolved into a blame game...now ask yourself how long peace between these 2 can last.

Yes Im hopeful...it would be great for all involved as well as for general regional peace,
BUT
i cant see those radical elements of the palestinians actually behaiving themselves and refraining from giving in to the urge to make attacks

BEFORE we all speculate more, mabey we better hear what comes from the announcment later today. Then we can see what is and isnt declared from both sides to use as a scale of success.

Originally posted by General Zapata
The original blow was struck by the Israelis. The original Zionist settlers, over a hundred years ago, are the first and therefore most blameworthy aggressors in this terrible situation.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the Jews have been in Israel since about 1000BC and have maintained a continuous presence until today, despite having their numbers severely weakened by war and rebellion with occupiers and the attendant famines, as well as forced exile at the hands of Arab invaders.
I was also under the impression that true "palestinians" were a 'semetic' culture which predated the Jews but was likely related to them closely. They were attacked by the Jews and no longer even existed by the time Israel fell under Babylonian control if I remember correctly. Their name was not officially resurrected until Rome named the area Palestine in memory of the ancient Phillistine enemies of the Jewish people who were rebelling against Rome.
So what is the difference between modern Israelis and Arab Palestinians?
Not much really. Both groups invaded the area while it was under control of a third party and took control later.

Last but not least, there would have been peace almost 60 years ago if the Arabs hadn't tried to anhilate the Israelis, who were willing to accept only partial ownership of the nation of their ancestors, and even shared ownership of their holiest city.
There could have been peace after that war too in fact, because Israel didn't anhilate Palestine. Palestine ceased to exist because Jordan seized the West Bank.
All the same though, they had statehood in the West Bank under Muslim rulers, and they could have worked for independence from Jordan. They didn't want to fight Jordan. They wanted to fight Israel.
They got their chance... several times over. Most notably in the Six Day Smackdown.

Jewish fundamentalism IS running high. They think Sharon is a panzy for caving in to people who kill Israeli children. They're lucky as hell Sharon is keeping his people in check. How long do you think America would spend at the bargaining table with people who killed innocent civilians?
We didn't have a roadmap to peace when Pancho Villa attacked our people!

marg6043
Yes they were at peace before the Arabs move to the region

There was peace after the arabs moved in. There was peace under the caliphate and other sets of arab rule. As far as I understand it, there were only real problems around the time that the british ran it, and this correpsonds to israeli nationalism and arab nationalism movements. Besides, the palestinians might possibly be more closely related to the israeli natives than the other arabs.

There was at least a genetic study that suggested this a few years ago, however, it caused such a stir, that the editors of the journal it was published in removed it, and sent notices to libraries and such, requesting that they cut the paper out.

james the lesser
Yes they were at peace before the Arabs move to the region

The brits didn't purchase the land, they took it as part, from what I understand, as part of a post ottoman settlement, with some 'internationalist' approval.

and finally Israel takes over the middle east

The US has a tight enough chain on Israel to prevent that from happening.

centurion1211
There those phony, hypocritical libs go again

You do realize that at least at that point in the thread this infact hadn't happened right? That it was only a hypothetical situation you had come up with?

lazarusthelong
...I dont remember Bush being the one signing the peace accord...

In a short term the right leaning people bush, sharon, have been able to precipitate a truce to the four year intafada. Many on the left had suggested that israel not be allowed to undergo unilateral withdrawl, which certainly had somethign to do with this.

general zapata
Abu Mazen was mahmoud abbas's code name in the resistance

Doh! Yes, you are correct sir.

the vagabond
I was under the impression that the Jews have been in Israel since about 1000BC and have maintained a continuous presence until today

Not strictly true. There were native israelis, but the bulk of the population seems to, effectively, be refugees from europe/russia in a post holocaust setting. Either way, the British Mandate of Palestine became the ethnic jewish state of Israel and the Palestinians were booted out.

But that issue should technically be over, the israelis and an arab alliance went to war with israel over it, that war ended, and what one has now is an occupied palestine that refuses to halt the resistance, and no palestinian government that seems to be willing to sign anything resembling a peace treaty.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not signed a formal cease-fire agreement and Israel has emphasized it is dealing only with the Palestinian Authority and not the militants behind attacks.

But the first talks Sharon and Abbas held since meeting at Aqaba in June 2003 is a step to work together seriously:


Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas:

"We have agreed with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
to cease all acts of violence against the Israelis and the Palestinians wherever they are"


PM Ariel Sharon

"Today, in my meeting with Chairman Abbas, we agreed that all Palestinians will stop all acts of violence against all Israelis everywhere, and, at the same time, Israel will cease all its military activity against all Palestinians everywhere,"



Rebekka

Zapata, just about everyone here is sticking to facts, I wish you would as well. The Jenin farce has been so thoroughly disproven that even those who fabricated it have been caught admitting it was a good bit of P.R. and nothing more after UN investigators found as much truth in it as they did in the claims of leprechauns robbing fort knox with large kettles.

I wish everyone here would stop focusing on themselves and their opinions and egos and instead focus on what is important here.

What's important is that if there are less incidents due to this truce, lives will be saved. That's all I care to hear about right now. Period. The bottom line. The bottom line is that every day that goes by without a violent attack is a day that lives did not come to an end on both sides.

Focus on what's important. The people who live there. If the truce allows them to maybe live normal lives without constant threat of violence, then it is a good one. It's not about any of us or our opinions or who we like or hate. It's about them. Stand back, think about that, and be hopeful with the citizens, Israeli and Palestinian, that their governments may FINALLY be looking out for them.

What makes the conflict over Palestine so strange is that the Israelis have managed to do something that almost nobody has ever done before. They maintained their identity in exile and eventually came back to fight the invaders.
There is really no dispute that the first blow was struck several thousand years ago by Arabs. Several third parties did their part, most noteably the Romans and Ottomans, and each time the rebellion of the remaining Israeli population managed to dig its own grave deeper while Arabs managed to further entrench themselves.
Bottom line though, the arabs were invaders and the Israelis were a native people fighting for freedom.

The problem that arises is that most of the Israelis were successfully exiled and also genetically thinned out by the time Zionism took hold. Never the less, Israelis managed to maintain their cultural identity in exile, and when they came back they culturally represented the native population and could be argued to ahve been just in their uprising to reclaim that land.
ARABS more than Palestinians (who have actually become Arabized) triggered the wars with Israel and this only increases the legitimacy of the Zionist movement.
The messy part is the Palestinians themselves- they are distant cousins of the Israelis. Normally when you drive out an invader he goes home. The Palestinians are invaders culturally speaking because they have adopted Islam and become fairly Arabized, but they already are home- there is nowhere to drive them out to. They are basically loyalists of Israel's war of independence. So what happens to loyalists when a war of independence succeeds? They're screwed.

In terms of what little historical precedent there is for the strange occurance of the Israelis managing to come back and reclaim independence after some 2000+ years, the Palestinians basically have to either return to the land still controlled by those they are loyal to (Muslims/Arabs- probably Jordan) or they have to assimilate into their new nation as the issues of the revolution fall out of date (except that religion isn't going to fall out of date, so that's not really an option.)
In so many words, the Palestinians would be getting one hell of a good deal if they got a state in the West Bank. The historical precedent says that Israel would probably be best to drive them across the Jordan and make them somebody else's problem. I don't see how anyone can blame the Israelis for this situation what was born of Arab invasion and Muslim extremism against the original inhabitants of that land.

Over a hundred years ago??? General, when did this happen, over a hundred years ago, that Israel attacked and killed civillians?

Anyways, those damn jews, killing terrorists for killing the Israel kids and women. How dare they live on the land they had for over 3,000 years, on and off due to people invading and taking the land. Also, there were no "palestinians" until israel was formed. I use quotation marks because yes, there were palestinians, but they didn't pop up until Israel was created. Before then no palestinians wanting their own country, they didn't do anything, they were nothing. But then Israel is formed again and the arab nations use the palestinians as pawns in a ever lasting war. Who attack Israel first? Arabs. What happened? Israel won, got more land. Then attacked again, and they won again. They are attacked, they win, arabs cry and bitch over the land they lost in a war they started.

Did anyone notice that the legacy of the former British empire is at heart of most conficts we still have today: Israel, iraq, Kashmir.... Thats what happens if a bunch of colonials draw maps with straight rulers

OIh and ind biblical times, the palestines were there, they were called "filistines" , the jewish tribes actually started out in the hills and the filistines leaved more near the coast, such a city was Jericho, we all know what happened to it ....so actually 1948 is the second time in history that Filistine land was overrun by Jews

The zionist legal argument, the Belfourt Accords...
what value has the British Belfourt accords,its like me giving away the sigars that i stole from Fidel Castro and those i gave it to say that it was "honestly given to them"

Now I firmly believe that jews also have historically a place in that part of the world, but so do the palestines, lets hope both parties can shuffle aside the religious nutters that want to claim 100 percent of the land and work out a practicle and respectfull peace.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

Originally posted by Countermeasures
OIh and ind biblical times, the palestines were there, they were called "filistines" , the jewish tribes actually started out in the hills and the filistines leaved more near the coast, such a city was Jericho, we all know what happened to it ....so actually 1948 is the second time in history that Filistine land was overrun by Jews

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

It can be argued however that those phillistines don't exist anymore, except perhaps in Greece (According to an article in Wikipedia the Philistines are believed to have been "Sea People" related to Myceneans, not to be confused with semetic groups which entered the area just before the Hebrews.)
The long and short of it is that Israel was never originally inhabited by Arabized Muslims. Modern Palestinians have very little connection to the people semetic cultures which predated the Hebrews in that area.
Also, as has been pointed out, they are essentially a political tool of Arab Islam. Everybody who has heard of a Palestinian uprising against Rome, raise your hand. Everybody who has heard of the Babylonians forcing Palestinians to leave the area, raise your hand. They all but ceased to be a people long ago- they assimilated and became alligned to the invaders who have been driven out by the Israelis now.

Originally posted by Countermeasures

lets hope both parties can shuffle aside the religious nutters that want to claim 100 percent of the land and work out a practicle and respectfull peace.

Hamas are no religious nutters - they are Terorists.

Here you can see The British Alteration of the Mandate - 1923



The state of Israel never claimed 100 % of that land.


Rebekka

For those who are interested in what happens in 2005:

Transcript of Mahmoud Abbas' speech at Egypt summit

Statement by PM Ariel Sharon at the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit

Pundits will carefully analyze the differing nuances of Sharon and Abu Mazen's speeches, and will split hairs over who meant what.

But there is no mistaking the basics: these two old warriors, sworn enemies for dozens of years, have put down their guns and switched to dialogue



Rebekka


[edit on 9-2-2005 by Riwka]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Bottom line though, the arabs were invaders and the Israelis were a native people fighting for freedom.

The 'arabs' in palestin/israel are very closely related to the 'israeli' people in palestine/israel. To be sure, there were outside arabs that invaded and took over, but they probably so thoroughly mixed with the various locals, and there were already numerous arabs native to area, that an 'invasion' might not be the best way to look at it. Besides, the hebrews and arabs are both semitic peoples anyway. Its sort of like catholic bavarians and some protestant austrians getting all uptight over who was in the area first.

In so many words, the Palestinians would be getting one hell of a good deal if they got a state in the West Bank.

Indeed, but I don't think the 'traditional claims' are even necessary. THe international community supported the creation of the Israeli state for jews in british mandated palestine. The palestinians had their own state, and used it to fight a war with the israelis. They lost. Thats the end of the palestinian state.

The historical precedent says that Israel would probably be best to drive them across the Jordan and make them somebody else's problem.

The palestinians have as much claim to israel as the hebrews, more so especially if the palestinians were to include native cannanites, as opposed to 'invading' urukian hebrews.

I don't see how anyone can blame the Israelis for this situation what was born of Arab invasion and Muslim extremism against the original inhabitants of that land.

I don't see how anyone can say that a people who lost a war and refuse to fight a new one should be given anything.

It can be argued however that those phillistines don't exist anymore, except perhaps in Greece (According to an article in Wikipedia the Philistines are believed to have been "Sea People" related to Myceneans

I'd be wary of those ideas. The actual Sea Peoples are rather unknown. Its hypothesized that refugees from the general dark age collapse of the meditereanean world took to piracy and banditry, and that the some of the people associated with 'the sea peoples', particularly because of their helmets, might've been greekish. But, either way, even the jews maintain that they are not from israel.

The long and short of it is that Israel was never originally inhabited by Arabized Muslims.

But it was never originally inhabited by jewishized hebrews either. The israeli and palestinian populations are effectively native to the region. There are also large imports of european jews into israel, and, in paralell, large imports of non-palestinain arabs into the west bank.

Everybody who has heard of the Babylonians forcing Palestinians to leave the area, raise your hand.

The babylonians moved everyone out and conquered all the tribes, not only the jews. The same with the romans. By the time of the romans the Jews were dominant and roughly similar to the antecedent to modern judaism (tho not, strictly speaking, the same as modern jews). But there have allways been other peoples.

james the lesser
Before then no palestinians wanting their own country

What? The area was palestine, the palestinians were working for independance from the brits just like the jews.

Who attack Israel first? Arabs. What happened? Israel won

It should, really, be as simple as that. Of course, the arabs were 'right' to attack israel, since it forced palestinian muslims out of their country. Its really irrelevant as to 'who started it'.

countermeasures
Did anyone notice that the legacy of the former British empire is at heart of most conficts we still have today: Israel, iraq, Kashmir

Please do not draw attention to this, people might start looking at history.

what value has the British Belfourt accords

Balfour. Its legitimacy comes from the UN, which regelated administration of the british territory to the british, as sort of experiment in globally approved patronizing colonialism. The existence of israel is utterly legitimate because of the UN vote on it.

rikwa
But there is no mistaking the basics: these two old warriors, sworn enemies for dozens of years, have put down their guns and switched to dialogue

Indeed, it cannot be over looked. The old arguements will never go away. Perhaps one day israelis and palestinians will joke about it 'you old bastard, you're people aren't from here anyway' 'oh, not so yehudi, you are are more german than israeli. I have three cousins who are native israelis, yours are protestant!' and the like.

Israel has long accused Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran and Syria, of bankrolling the Palestinian uprising.

But this is also new:

Palestinian political and security officials say the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah is trying to recruit Palestinian militants for attacks on Israelis in order to sabotage Middle East peace efforts to disrupt cease-fire.

They are investigating Hezbollah funding for militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; clear links had been identified.

"We know that Hezbollah has been trying to recruit suicide bombers in the name of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades to carry out attacks which would sabotage the truce," said one official, referring to a militant offshoot of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction.

Another official said intercepted e-mail communications and bank transactions suggested Hezbollah has raised its cash offers to militants, but it is unclear if this reflected a heightened desire to see violence flare up or a dearth of recruits.

"Now they are willing to pay $100,000 for a whole operation whereas in the past they paid $20,000, then raised it to $50,000," the second official told Reuters.

PA officials say Hezbollah is trying to disrupt cease-fire

Rebekka

Originally posted by Riwka
Palestinian political and security officials say the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah is trying to recruit Palestinian militants for attacks on Israelis in order to sabotage Middle East peace efforts to disrupt cease-fire

Man, abbas is certainly looking real promising. I just hope its not all a spectacular let down.

I really don't see how he's going to do it tho, hows he going to stop internal militias from attacking israel? Although, i suppose he can make into a nationalist thing, ie 'the syrians have their own interests and are manipulating us'.

The Erez crossing (Israel to Gaza) has been reopened today. About 1,000 Gazans have been granted work permits and will be able to go through the crossing into Israel starting tomorrow. Another 400 Palestinians who work for international relief agencies will be allowed to travel freely between the West Bank and gaza Strip.

In the coming three weeks, Israel is to hand over security control in the towns of Jericho, Tul Karm, Qalqilyah, Bethlehem and Ramallah, and furthermore Israel will leave checkpoints. Palestinian security forces will replace them at these checkpoints.

Today has not been quiet; despite the mutual cease-fire declarations there were several isolated violent incidents in the territories. Militants open fire on Israeli vehicle near settlement of Brakha (west of Nablus in the Westbank)

The body of a Hamas militant was found near the Khan Yunis refugee camp (Gazastrip) ; his body was discovered with his arms blown off and bad burns on his face and chest. Hamas officials said Alami was killed in a "work accident," meaning he was either building a bomb or trying to plant one.


(source: haaretz and Israeli radio station Galej Zahal)



[edit on 9-2-2005 by Riwka]

The PLO needs to get the radical-muslim monkey off of its back and start looking out for itself.

The PLO has to come out and say that their goal is statehood and security. To that end they can enter into a mutual defense pact with Israel. If their true goals are legitimate (statehood) then they need to make it clear that the Jihad isn't important to them.
I know this is a pretty idealist and unlikely sollution, but my idea would be that the Palestine be freed and acknowledged, and that Israel and Palestine should enter a defensive alliance. Abbas should come out and say that anyone who engages in terrorism in Israel is endangering the peace and security of Palestine and as such will be targeted for retaliation by Palestinian forces.
What sort of a message would it send if Palestinian commandos captured Hezbollah leaders, took them back to Palestine and publically executed them for trying to endanger Palestinian statehood?

Of course the problems are that
1. Most Palestinians would probably not be satisfied. These people are used to leaders who condemn terrorism in English but say death to Israel in Arabic. They loved Arafat.
2. Non-palestinian Muslims would call them puppets and take the Jihad to them as well. It is almost certain that if Palestine ever started acting responsibly enough to attain statehood that Syria would see their possession of Al Aqsa as blasphemy and would invade them.

I would like to be hopeful, but things seem rather hopeless. It is likely that the only peace can be and enforced peace, and that means that sooner or later Israel is going to get sick of let-downs and come unglued on its neighbors.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

I would like to be hopeful, but things seem rather hopeless.

Why? The Sharm el-Sheikh summit is the beginning of a stabilization process.

Rebekka

Will the Sharm el-Sheikh summit control those terrorist factions within Palestine?
Hamas says it's not bound by ceasefire




seekerof

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I would like to be hopeful, but things seem rather hopeless.

Why? The Sharm el-Sheikh summit is the beginning of a stabilization process.
Rebekka

Stabilization can be achieved, but do you think that final peace and security for both nations can be achieved? I think the best that could be achieved would be for Palestine to acheive statehood and to declare itself an enemy of the terrorists eventually. The terrorism will continue though, not just against Israelis but against any Palestinians who ever seek peace with Israel.
I'd love to see this summit bring about a process which leads to peace between Israel and Palestine. At least then they'll have a sense of getting something out of their constant fighting, but there will be constant fighting to maintain both Israeli and Palestinian statehood.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Will the Sharm el-Sheikh summit control those terrorist factions within Palestine?
Hamas says it's not bound by ceasefire

This has been the night in Gush Katif settlement blocs (Gazastrip):

02:30 The Gush Katif settlement comes under heavy mortar fire
05:27 Palestinians fire Qassam rockets at Gush Katif settlements
07:08 Palestinians fire 17 mortar shells at Neve Dekalim settlement
08:29 Hamas claims responsibility for Gaza mortar barrage

No wounded have been reported.

The salvo, which caused no casualties, was one of the heaviest mortar barrages since Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas reached an accord on January 22.

All the mortars were fired from western Khan Yunis (Palestinian Authority security officers are deployed there) , which is not far from Neveh Dekalim.

More: Palestinians fire mortars at Gaza settlements



Rebekka