Right. Given the high quality of discussion on OTC about other issues, it would be nice to have some Troper input on this thorniest of Middle Eastern issues. Tropers wanting a brief overview of Israel should check out its Useful Notes page, or Israel
and Palestine's country profiles on the BBC.
At the outset, however, I want to make something very clear: This thread will be about sharing and discussing news. Discussions about whether the existence of Israel is justified would be off-topic, as would any extended argument or analysis about the countries' history.
So, let's start off:
At the moment, the two countries, prodded by the United States, are currently attempting to negotiate peace. A previous round of talks collapsed in 2010 after Israel refused to order a halt to settlement building on Palestinian land. US mediators will be present.
The aim of the talks is to end the conflict based on the "two state solution" - where independent Palestinian and Israeli states exist alongside each other. Both sides have expressed cynicism, although the US government has said it is "cautiously optimistic".
Key issues of the talks:
- Jerusalem: The city is holy to both Islam and Judaism. Both Palestine and Israel claim it as their capital. Israel has de facto control over most of it, a situation its Prime Minister has said will persist for "eternity". Some campaigners hope it can become an international city under UN or joint Israeli/Palestinian administration.
- Borders and settlements: The Palestinian Authority claims that the land conquered by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) is illegally occupied, and must be vacated by Israel in the event of a future Palestinian state. However, there are over 500,000 Israeli citizens living in settlements across the "Green line". Israel claims that a future Palestinian government would oppress or ethnically cleanse them, whilst many settlers claim that the land is rightfully theirs, as they have an ethno-religious link to it as part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.
- Palestinian refugees: In 1948, around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs left the territory of the new Israeli state. The reasons why are still debated - preferably elsewhere. The Palestinian negotiators wish for them and their descendants to have a right of return to Israel. The Israeli government considers only those who were actually forced away all those years ago to have a legitimate claim (if that). The US government considers them all refugees, to Republican fury.
So you can see why its never been fixed. The religious dimension in particular has a lot of people vexed - asking Muslims or Jews to abandon Jerusalem has been likened to asking Catholics to skip communion.
Still, there's hope. Somewhere. The latest developments in the region:
- Israel has released 26 imprisoned Palestinian prisoners convicted of attacks on Israeli civilians and agreed to release another 78 in the future.
- Israel has OK'ed development of 900 new homes east of the "Green Line" in a controversial move ahead of the talks.
- Hamas is to execute publicly two prisoners in Gaza
- The new Palestinian government will not reunite the feuding Gazan and Transjordanian (West Bank) elements of Hamas and Fatah.
edited 15th Aug '13 2:10:49 PM by Achaemenid
I hate being the guy who refuses to adress counterarguments, but as Marq FJA this discussion isn't really allowed and I shouldn't even have made that first post. Sorry
Most of what I mentioned is current, ongoing events. But if the examples in the first paragraph are not recent enough, here's one from this month.
edited 31st Oct '13 10:27:46 AM by ManInGray
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
The reason we want to keep this thread strictly on current events is that past threads about this subject have tended to become flame-wars, mostly consisting of both sides accusing the other of murdering babies, bombing civilians, and so on.
Let's just not go there.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
@Man in Gray
"We've offered almost all of Judea&Samaria, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem"
What? Israel is doing no such thing. The West Bank is mostly being diced up for Jewish settlers as we speak and Israel has outright annexed East Jerusalem. Only Gaza is really guaranteed as 'safely' Palestinian, and, surprise, surprise, they've had to fight for even that little scrap.
edited 2nd Nov '13 9:05:43 PM by stripes-the-zebra
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Can we get back on topic? Or did we exhaust everything on-topic that we have for now?
We oughta stop until we have some relevant news.
Wandering Jew
Israel Says 1500 Units to Be Added in Settlement.
Palestinian UN envoy: Settlement construction proves Israel prefers to stay an occupying power.
Turkish Foreign Minister: We would never cooperate with Israel against a Muslim country.
edited 2nd Nov '13 9:41:15 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
I.e. more obstacles from Israel's side in the path of a peaceful two-state solution. Nothing new.
edited 2nd Nov '13 9:43:57 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I ask again, what is the problem here? Should we build nothing in ~half of Jerusalem? Or should we not allow Jews to build or move there, and stop regulating construction by non-Jews? Or perhaps keep that whole area frozen in '67 until there is peace?
edited 3rd Nov '13 4:22:44 AM by ManInGray
How about not doing the whole colonisation bit on land that is technically not yours until or if you've sat around a table and totally thrashed things out and got signatures on binding documents that aren't dodgy land-deals under duress? Too much to ask? 
The whole "put enough buildings and people of ours on there and it's a fait accompli" bit is not fooling anybody. <_<
edited 3rd Nov '13 5:07:18 AM by Euodiachloris
How is it not ours? We annexed it. There is no other authority here.
I'd be rather careful before I took that assertion, MIG. Asserting that "right of conquest" is a thing means that you're throwing anything but realpolitik out the window; as in, that Arab states (or Palestinian suicide bombers) have an equal right to attack Israel.
If that's what you want to say, fine, but that's a necessary implication of your premise.
You should read up on the Fourth Geneva Convention, though most people who give unconditional support to Israel (Of course the government itself is part of it) are very busy explaining why it doesn't apply at all. (As far as I could see mostly trying to rule lawyer around it, while not even bothering to refute that it violates the spirit of the convention).
Part of this is arguing that they are not occupied territories, while calling it occupied territories on official websites (have not verified this, but so far I have no reason to disbelieve it)
Preventing this
When they claim the right to conquer Israel regardless, we might as well pay them in kind. We wouldn't have otherwise. My main point is that in this case, as well as in the Golan's, there is no claim even remotely strong enough to top ours.
Our people were the majority there until Jordan removed them. And then they returned. We've made it more free and prosperous than ever before, and you have not even begun to convince me that it was a mistake.
edited 3rd Nov '13 6:49:28 AM by ManInGray
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
This thread is for sharing news. Let's stick to that.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I doubt we can discuss the meaning of news without going to the past.
To an extent. However, I agree that detailed analysis of the casi belli involved is probably off-topic; suffice to say that Jordan, Egypt and Syria do not and have not recognized Israel's right to the land it has occupied.
Hasn't Egypt recognized Israel?
Recognized Israel, yes, recognized Israeli Gaza, no.
Frankly, by doing that, they're just recognizing reality. Israel doesn't control Gaza. Well, not militarily, anyways. I suppose being able to cripple their economy extremely at any time with an invasion and crippling it normally, constantly, with absurd sanctions counts as control.
edited 3rd Nov '13 7:32:11 AM by stripes-the-zebra
The Egypt-Israel and Jordan-Israel peace treaties both dodge the issue. AFAIK, there's no recognition of Israeli control of either occupied area; the Jordan treaty in particular is "without prejudice" to the West Bank issue (which is legalese for "we're taking a punt on this").
edited 3rd Nov '13 7:30:39 AM by Ramidel
OK, got it.
edited 3rd Nov '13 7:33:05 AM by stripes-the-zebra
They are not fighting for peace. Most of that is not even fighting, just murder. Their goals are killing Jews, and destroying
Israel. The PLO only make the most minimal efforts to make it appear otherwise while talking to foreigners. They do it while demonizing Jews, slandering us,
and denying that we were ever here before the 20th century or so. The idea is to get what they can now and take everything else later. They show absolutely no sign of being appeased. Meanwhile, one of the Israeli actions considered detrimental for peace is construction in Jerusalem; A fully annexed territory, where a resident can become a citizen any time he wants. Not building anything in ~half the city and not allowing Jews to build anything there themselves, while forgoing all urban planning for Arab-initiated construction is supposed to help... How? And why? Because Jordan conquered it 19 years before we did? We are not "driving them out of ever larger areas" either. In Jerusalem, for example, the percentage of the Muslim population has been steadily increasing since '67.