The Glade 4.0

I think you're swinging the pendulum way too far in the other direction, Xeq. It's true that the Palestinians have been played as pawns and dupes by every power in the region, but for the most part, they've been willing pawns and dupes when it comes to opposing Israel. And 1967 was very much a legitimate preemption by Israel, as DE said. At the end of the day, what it comes down to is that none of the players in the region is much interested in an equitable peace; they all just want to "win" by getting everything they want - for the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab Street, that's Israel being driven into the sea; for the Arab governments, that's Israel and the Palestinians locked in a never-ending fight so they can distract their own people from domestic issues; and for the Israelis, that's increasingly a de facto apartheid state with permanent Israeli control of the occupied territories.

The land in question belonging to Jordan or Egypt beforehand. So, the Palestinians never had it in the first place; all they did was exchange one government for another, and that exchange happened because the original government wanted to go to war with a nation they lacked the military proficiency to defeat. The Palestinians could have had their land "back" had the Arab governments not been totally intractable, but they were.. and oh wait, then it would just be the arab nations controlling it anyhow, not the Palestinians, and we wouldn't even hear about this issue. At least by having Israel in control of it the 2-state solution at least gets international discussion.

And so it's somehow more of a problem if Israel takes it away from Jordan? Palestinian resistance of that occupation was pretty unworthy of mention. The fact is that Jordan was in control of it, and Israel took control in an attempt to deal with Jordan. This has nothing to do with anything at all, except "whaaa Palestinians!" They could have had the land as an independent state in the first place, except they bet on the Arabs to win, which just got it occupied by the Arabs, then the Israelis, in turn. Had Israel managed to get a peace treaty out of the Jordanians, it would most likely still be held by Jordan, except no one would give a ****.



Gee, do you think that has anything to do with the fact that their enemies have acted precisely like that in the past? Ever heard of the United Arab Republic, or pan-Arabism? How about the fact that states like Iran that aren't Arabic, and have no meaningful interest whatsoever in the particulars of land distribution in that area constantly send aid to their enemies and engage in annihilationist rhetoric towards them for no reason other than "Because Islam!.. and we need to distract our own population."

When it comes to Israel, their enemies pretty much ARE completely united, and have been for a long time, even if they aren't united on anything else. Talk to someone who worked in a joint HQ with Saudis during Desert Storm. they were cheering at every SCUD landing in Israel, despite being at war with the country shooting the SCUDs. Israelis are "the" enemy for a very very large portion of the Arab/muslim world.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A lot of it does come down to whether you hold the current generation of Palestinians as "responsible" for the actions of the Palestinians in 1948 when they rejected the UN agreement. However, the First Intifada started in 1987. In my opinion, violent resistance after 40 years of occupation isn't exactly unjustified or barbaric, and constantly referring to the 1948 war is essentially arguing, "Well, they lost to Israel in 1948 so they should shut up, do whatever Israel says whenever they say it for all eternity or until Israel decides to free them, and be glad they aren't all dead."

Honestly, the two-state solution is perfect. The thing is, right now, the territories are part of Israel, which means Israel is responsible for their well-being and they are failing at that responsibility spectacularly. If Palestine were its own state, its peoples' welfare would be its responsibility, and more importantly, so would keeping its own people under control. If Palestine can't keep its people in line and Israel has to move in there, then any "collateral damage" becomes a lot more acceptable because those people are no longer Israel's responsibility. Right now if they shoot through Palestinian civillians to hit a suicide bomber, they might as well let him go blow up his bomb because the end result is the same, X number of innocent Israeli civilians and the bomber are dead.

Every time Israel makes concessions in that regard, some jackasses immediately take it upon themselves to start launching explosives at neighboring israeli citizens from within Palestinian territory.

The current generation of palestinians is responsible for those actions. They have no interest in concessions from Israel, or a free state granted by israel. Their only interest is in wiping Israel off the map.

Personally, I believe Israel has shown incredible restraint in how they've handled Palestine, because the rational response toward an entire population that will kill your men, women and children at every opportunity...who hates you so much they'll blow themselves up to get to you, is to wipe them out first. Ultimately, it doesn't matter who started what, or who is responsible for what.

What it comes down to is the obligation you have to your own people. One of your own people is worth more than ALL of theirs. that's how it has to be. That's a government's job - to protect its own citizens. Personally, I think they should grant Palestine complete autonomy and separation, so that the very next day, the rocket attacks become acts of war rather than domestic terrorism. At that point, a response involving air bombers is warranted.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

What concessions would they have to make other than giving up direct control of the Palestinian government and controlling its borders with the other Arab nations? The much-maligned security wall becomes a border fence, and there's nothing wrong with those. They can still send the army or air force in if there are rocket attacks, and now it's not really a human rights/war crimes issue if Palestinian civilians get killed because their welfare is Palestine's responsibility and it's Palestine's fault for not keeping them in line. They're also no longer obligated to supply Palestine with water and power, and can just shut that off if Palestine wants to start **** because again, their welfare is longer Israel's problem. Making Palestine independent is IMHO the best way to stop them from attacking Israel.

I think I said something similar, above.

However, I don't think it would make Palestine stop attacking israel until Palestine no longer existed. Palestine's independance wouldn't last a week.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm not so sure about that one. The West Bank hasn't been a problem in awhile, it's been pretty quiet ever since Israel moved settlers out of the area and stopped with the house demolitions. In contrast, Israel's policies towards Palestinians leading up to the First Intifada in the 80s were exceptionally reprehensible. Israel had a ridiculous "Iron Fist" policy where stuff like nonpayment of taxes would lead to all your property and the property of your entire family being confiscated or destroyed, and they used Palestinians as essentially slave labor. When Palestinians refused to go to work on Israeli settlements, they sent the army to crack down on them. Yitzhak Rabin also ran a "10 for 1" policy as Minister of Defense where he literally promised he would kill 10 Palestinians for every Israeli killed. Not 10 militants, but just 10 Palestinians. Hell, one of the major incidents that sparked the Intifada was when, in response to an Israeli being stabbed to death, they sent a tank to crush 11 Palestinians commuting home from work.

Can anyone think of a semi-modern example (say, post-WWI) of an occupying foreign power successfully/lastingly defeating a domestic resistance movement? That's not a rhetorical question; honestly can't think of anything at the moment, and I'm curious if I'm missing something. The Brits failed in India/Pakistan. The US failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The French failed in Vietnam and Algeria. The Soviets failed in Afghanistan. I suppose the Soviets sort of succeeded in the Baltics and the Eastern Bloc, but even there, as soon as their power waned, the occupied/dominated areas reasserted themselves.

You cannot 'successfully' defeat a resistance movement in the modern age.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Northern Ireland.

Also, England's "occupation" of India didn't "fail." India and Pakistan are both still happy and willing members of the British Commonwealth. The USA is one of the few countries England lost to insurgency. The rest England divested themselves of direct management. Empire is expensive to maintain.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The U.S. did not fail to defeat the local resistance movement in Viet Nam. The Viet Cong were essentially obliterated well before we left. We failed to defeat an enemy combatant nation in the form of North Viet Nam that fought using a mix of conventional and guerilla tactics, and we lost because we were unwilling to defeat them - we did not seriously try to destroy their capacity to make war.

In Iraq, the organized resistance movement was essentially defeated as well, and Afghanistan remains an open question. The fact that there is ongoing violence in Iraq doesn't avoid the fact that resistance movements there have no serious hope of accomplishing their objectives.

A resistance movement does not "win" by reappearing later when the enemy is no longer relevant, unless there's some demonstrable continuity between the 2. Part of the reason you can't think of any unsuccessful resistance movements is that for the most part, they never were successful enough to be noteworthy in the first place, or else they never were that relevant, or faded to obscurity because of their failures. A lot simply can't be distinguished from common criminals.

Merely continuing to commit acts of violence doesn't mean a resistance movement hasn't been defeated, or has won. They win when they actually achieve their stated objectives. The vast majority have no chance, and many won't even rise above the level of a violent criminal in terms of threat. The FARC is one example of a resistance movement falling apart despite a continued capacity for violence. Shining Path is another; it lost its leader 20 years ago and has declined in relevance and shifted into being just another cocaine organization. Yeah, they blow people up and shoot things, but neither organization has even a slight chance of actually prevailing in what they supposedly want. Che Guevara, for all the attention he gets from high school kids thinking they are all rebellious with a T-shirt, didn't do too well in Africa (got his *** kicked by some "contractors") and then went on to get caught and summarily executed in Bolivia.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The problem with your opinion is that "occupation" is a result of them betting on the Arab states and then being "occupied" by them, then getting "occupied" by the Israelis because they bet on the wrong horse. They have no legitimate cause of resistance in the first place. They don't have to be "not responsible" for the actions of the Palestinians in 1948; the Israelis aren't any more responsible for what happened back then, nor the Arabs, but the Palestinians don't get a free pass to ignore the past when everyone else can't.



Yeah.. I'm sure Israeli "collateral damage" defending themselves from militants would suddenly become politically acceptable.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It really depends. What do you consider successfully defeating a domestic resistance movement?

If your standard is that everyone now loves being part of the country, then of course that's impossible. That still hasn't been done in the US following the civil war.

If it's some "reasonable peace" standard, there's some examples. Tibet, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Iran, Bahrain?

We absolutely did fail to defeat the Vietnamese resistance movement.

We failed because a modern social and media conscious public doesn't have the stomachs for the type of warfare necessary to "win".

Revise however you wish, you're still wrong.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, I'm not.

The winner of the conflict was the North Vietnamese Army, representing the state of North Viet Nam. The resistance in South Viet Nam had been essentially crushed by the end of the Tet Offensive.

When you understand history in an objective sense, you can talk to me. Right now, you understand it in terms of revising it, specifically by revising victory conditions, into terms that support the ideas you want. You WANT resistance movements to be undefeatable because you WANT isolationism to be the policy of choice.

You don't actually understand what a victory condition is, and so you cannot tell me I'm wrong. Stop having an ideology. It's stupid.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."