6 ms·

That's only partially true. Parts that already existed at Oslo's time (Maaleh Adumim) were covered by the agreement. The flip side is that land was also promis

by cik 6y ago

That's only partially true. Parts that already existed at Oslo's time (Maaleh Adumim) were covered by the agreement. The flip side is that land was also promised in return - a promise never kept either. There isn't a lot of value for that land, other than it's relative proximity to central region. Israel would be better served, and it would be cheaper to simply build up in the north - very much one of the two national strategies in place. It sucks - but the reality is that Israel doesn't have anyone to negotiate with. The West Bank had a leader until recently, and Gaza is very much not an option. Making peace elsewhere is what's left, and it'll leave the PA behind eventually.

Udik 6y ago
Sorry but I don't get it. The legitimate borders of Israel were established after the 1948 war, the famous "green line". Israel doesn't need any agreement with anyone else to just withdraw inside those borders. Once it will have done it, it will be able to speak from a position of legitimacy. At the moment it's like a bag snatcher who keeps asking for "agreements" but doesn't want to give the bag back.
- cik 6y ago
  There are so many different issues at play here. Firstly, the original 1948 borders existing for less than 6 hours - the time after which Israel was attacked. Secondly, that Palestinian State was actually Jordan (well, Transjordan). Both King Abdullah and King Abudllah II of Jordan are on record as saying they want nothing to do with that border. When Israel launched a counterattack against the Arab armies within its border, it then secured land from the then Transjordan borders. A similar event happened in the war with Syria. Similarly, Israel's learned from its own history. In only one case (1976, Egypt) has peace been achieved by giving back land. This isn't a door Israel is willing to open again, having been burned (and yes, part of the burning) repeatedly.
  - Udik 6y ago
    > There are so many different issues at play here No, there aren't. When someone has appropriated something he doesn't have a legitimate right to, the first, rightful thing to do is to give it back. It doesn't matter to whom, there is no need for agreements, and there's nothing that can be asked in return, because the fault is on the one who has misappropriated that something. Period. It is really that simple, and the reality is that Israel has no intention of giving back anything, otherwise it wouldn't have built cities on it. This, without even going into the fact that you cannot ask for peace as a precondition for repairing the situation that is causing a large part of the conflict.
    - cik 6y ago
      Interesting - but I don't think anyone actually believes that. Whether it's right or not, we want to believe it or not, might has always become rite. Is Texas rejoining Mexico? Was Alaska's really Russia's to sell? What about... well all of North America? Should Jordan return to the non-Hashemites? When are all Australians leaving to their Aboriginees? When is Russia returning Siberia? How about Finland to the Nenets? Or the Samy receiving Norway, Sweden, and parts of Russia? This is the problem with going down this path.
      - Udik 6y ago
        > Whether it's right or not, we want to believe it or not, might has always become rite Ah, ok, if might is right then we're fine. Of course you cannot complain if someone else exercises this rule in a more local way: I might explode a bus, then I'm right to do it. I might throw rockets, then I'm right in doing so. I might get into your house and shoot you without being caught, so I'm right. I might think that my nation has the means to exterminate entire populations to establish some "vital space", then I'm right (and this was exactly H's reasoning). Of course since a long time people have concerned themselves with devising rules that reduce as much as possible the occasions for conflict and disagreement. The law is nothing else than a system of rules designed to minimize grievances, starting from the observation that whoever has being wronged tends to seek satisfaction in every possible way, usually exercising violence.

by cik 6y ago

Udik 6y ago

Sorry but I don't get it. The legitimate borders of Israel were established after the 1948 war, the famous "green line". Israel doesn't need any agreement with anyone else to just withdraw inside those borders. Once it will have done it, it will be able to speak from a position of legitimacy. At the moment it's like a bag snatcher who keeps asking for "agreements" but doesn't want to give the bag back.

cik 6y ago
There are so many different issues at play here. Firstly, the original 1948 borders existing for less than 6 hours - the time after which Israel was attacked. Secondly, that Palestinian State was actually Jordan (well, Transjordan). Both King Abdullah and King Abudllah II of Jordan are on record as saying they want nothing to do with that border. When Israel launched a counterattack against the Arab armies within its border, it then secured land from the then Transjordan borders. A similar event happened in the war with Syria. Similarly, Israel's learned from its own history. In only one case (1976, Egypt) has peace been achieved by giving back land. This isn't a door Israel is willing to open again, having been burned (and yes, part of the burning) repeatedly.
- Udik 6y ago
  > There are so many different issues at play here No, there aren't. When someone has appropriated something he doesn't have a legitimate right to, the first, rightful thing to do is to give it back. It doesn't matter to whom, there is no need for agreements, and there's nothing that can be asked in return, because the fault is on the one who has misappropriated that something. Period. It is really that simple, and the reality is that Israel has no intention of giving back anything, otherwise it wouldn't have built cities on it. This, without even going into the fact that you cannot ask for peace as a precondition for repairing the situation that is causing a large part of the conflict.
  - cik 6y ago
    Interesting - but I don't think anyone actually believes that. Whether it's right or not, we want to believe it or not, might has always become rite. Is Texas rejoining Mexico? Was Alaska's really Russia's to sell? What about... well all of North America? Should Jordan return to the non-Hashemites? When are all Australians leaving to their Aboriginees? When is Russia returning Siberia? How about Finland to the Nenets? Or the Samy receiving Norway, Sweden, and parts of Russia? This is the problem with going down this path.
    - Udik 6y ago
      > Whether it's right or not, we want to believe it or not, might has always become rite Ah, ok, if might is right then we're fine. Of course you cannot complain if someone else exercises this rule in a more local way: I might explode a bus, then I'm right to do it. I might throw rockets, then I'm right in doing so. I might get into your house and shoot you without being caught, so I'm right. I might think that my nation has the means to exterminate entire populations to establish some "vital space", then I'm right (and this was exactly H's reasoning). Of course since a long time people have concerned themselves with devising rules that reduce as much as possible the occasions for conflict and disagreement. The law is nothing else than a system of rules designed to minimize grievances, starting from the observation that whoever has being wronged tends to seek satisfaction in every possible way, usually exercising violence.