Why does America 'care' about Syria, but not Palestine?

It is accurate. The best known example is the Camp David summit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

The Israelis offered 100% of the Gaza Strip and ultimately 92% of the West Bank, also offering to withdraw from 63 settlements. And Arafat turned around and demanded right of return, which would of course have the effect of ending the State of Israel within a few election cycles. And predictably, the talks collapsed.

Since then, who can keep track of all of the broken cease fires, almost invariably broken by Palestinian rocket fire into Israeli territory?

Any time the Palestinians decide that they no longer require a Holy Land free of Jews they can come back to the table and have their state. The Israelis have shown willingness time after time to give up land and allow a Palestinian state in exchange for peace. The offer is there, has been for a long time now.

The Palestinians aren't interested.

 

I think that both sides have broken agreements and cease fires numerous times. Both sides are guilty of not keeping their agreements. To pretend like it's only one side isn't being honest.

The Israelis have never shown a willingness to give the Palestinians an agreement that would allow them to have a sustainable independent land. That offer has never been there. A lot of it is about water and having the right amount of wells and drilling rights.

 

So what's the difference between hundreds of people dying due to gunfire and hundreds of people dying due to chemical weapons? Why after chemical weapons do we need to intervene? Is the end result... Death from guns and death from chemical warfare any different?

 

The terms Israel gave at the Camp David Summit were laughable at best.

Israel wanted to use and control Palestinian airspace. Israel wanted to the right to deploy troops on Palestinian territory at any time they wanted. Israel demanded the Palestinian state be demilitarized and it could not make treaties without Israeli approval. They basically wanted to subjugate Palestinians to the point where they were incapable of responding to any intrusions on its sovereignty. Also, Israel made no concessions on East Jerusalem. All the while they violated the Oslo Accords by continuously building past the Green Line in East Jerusalem.

Their offer was not a Palestinian state. It was more of a Palestinian administrative unit subject to the whims of whatever Israel decided.

 

The Palestinians are no angels and haven't done all they could for peace but it is straight out ignorance or willful blindness to pretend that the Israelis have. Neither side has a moral high ground.

 

Palestine needs to stop the terrorist attacks on Israel

 

They were actually pretty freaking magnanimous. You may not have noticed, but the Israelis are holding the upper hand here. The victors dictate the terms, not the losers. Boo-freaking-hoo, cry me a river - beggars can't be choosers.

It was the best deal they'd ever gotten and would have gotten them closer to freedom and autonomy than they had been since '48. And the Palestinians sh^t all over it. They never had any intention of agreeing to it - they have NEVER had any intention of peacefully coexisting with the Israelis. The Israelis understand this, which is why they have not simply granted the Palestinians complete autonomy. When given any freedom the Palestinians have always used it to attempt to kill Jews. It's what they do. It's what they're bred to do.

Had they taken that deal and stopped attacking Israel they'd have their own state right now. The Israelis are willing. But they are not freaking morons, they are not going to trust the Palestinians to be on their best behavior.

I will guarantee you that the Palestinians will never get their state if they don't stop attacking Israel. THAT is the starting point for negotiations.

 

You are a sick individual.

 

Why does oldfanoftmac care about palestine, but not every other islamic country that oppresses it's own people?

 

Palestines are animals. No wonder why other arab countries don't let them in.

 

Because the media thoroughly sold Americans on the perception that all Palestinians are ruthless terrorists, natural born killers.

While the same media is now showing Syrians to be victims of government oppression and mass murder.

 

And here I thought you were interested in an honest discussion that didn't involve dehumanization and timid generalizations.

But then again, that would require you to not say entirely false things like 'Hamas rules in the West Bank'. Hamas won a majority of seats in the legislative council. Israel's response is to collectively punish the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. Despite the stupidity of such actions, it is also a laugh in the face for democracy. People voted and you just happened to not like the outcome.

As for it being the 'best deal': you're oblivious to your stupidity. No country would agree to any of the Israeli propositions in the Camp David Accords. Especially when they didn't even follow the agreements set forth in the Oslo Accords. They said they'd stop settlement building. 20 years later and they're doing the same stuff.

 

Blah blah blah, don't sit there and rationalize the Palestinians' terrorism and talk to me about an honest discussion. Being a school-age kid and having your school bus blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber is pretty dehumanizing, too, I think.

Hamas rules Gaza. Excuse the hell out of me for making a typo, and I'll excuse the hell out of you for making a disingenuous argument.

Israel doesn't "punish" the Gaza strip, it responds to attacks that are continually launched from the Gaza Strip. Odd, but it seems that the Palestinians in Gaza have more rockets than their kin in the West Bank under nominal PA rule. Perhaps that's because with their access to the sea it's easier to receive shipments of rockets from Iran, Syria, and Lebanon? Or perhaps it's just by virtue of their leadership?

When people are STUPID enough to vote for terrorists, then someone else has to step in and take control. See Egypt for a more current example.

It WAS the best deal. It's the best offer they've ever had. And then they sh^t on it with a ridiculous right of return demand that they knew would collapse the negotiations.

What a powerful argument you make here. How can I debate someone who uses such logical skills?

Er, no, a country that had been defeated repeatedly on the battlefield and who actually wanted peace and freedom *would* agree to such terms. They were quite generous, and the potential for improvement of their situation was there. Instead, being the jihadist morons that they are, they rejected it in favor of several decades' worth of more war. And idiotic lapdogs like yourself bought in with them, somehow thinking that more war would bring peace.

There will be no peace until the Palestinians accept the existence of Israel. THAT has always been the catch. It's something they've never really agreed upon. Hamas still won't accept it. What is there to negotiate with someone who doesn't acknowledge your right to exist?

Nothing. Enjoy your future of war, poverty, and misery.

 

Without getting into the whole Palestine vs Israel discussion (which has just been a general mess for decades), the difference between chemical weapons and conventional weapons is the issue of proliferation.

Unlike conventional weapons, chemical weapons are indiscriminate and the impact can not be controlled by the party that uses them. One shift of the wind and chemical weapons are killing people that aren't anywhere near the target area. Additionally, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons can contaminate large areas for significant periods of time, rendering those areas near uninhabitable.

It is not an accident that the use of those weapons is severely frowned upon.

Personally, I suspect the real security issue is less about the Syrians using those weapons (though that is terrible), it is more about the chaotic environment that the active use of such weapons creates. Once chemical weapons are wheeled onto the battlefield, it is almost impossible to ensure that those weapons remain in control. Sooner or later both sides will acquire those weapons, either through scrounging on the battlefield or through reverse engineering of the technology. Similarly, it is almost impossible to ensure that those weapons do not fall into the hands of 3rd parties.

Having a nutjob with an arsenal of chemical weapons is a bad thing, however in general those nutjobs have fairly tight systems of central control. This tends to mean that at least there is a focal point of control and restraint in their use. In a war theater, that control disappears and the opportunity for the proliferation of those weapons beyond the theater of conflict increases dramatically.

The security risk is less about Syria using those weapons in an active theater of war (though I have no doubt that's a consideration), but more about the possibility of those weapons falling into the hands of those parties that are actively hostile to other nations not involved in the conflict.

Prior to 9/11 I doubt the west would have done much more than a shake of the fist and press releases. In today's post 9/11 world, the proliferation of chemical, biological or nuclear agents is one of the greatest fears of security organizations.

 

I guess that means you are OK with indiscriminate shelling in neighborhoods, purposefully targeting civilians, and Jewish doctors walking into a religious establishment equipped with an assault rifle. You act as if one side is completely innocent of anything, despite the fact that same side has killed more civilians since the start of this conflict.

I suggest looking up the definition of disingenuous instead of spewing it as if you understand it. Messing up the two Palestinian territories and who rules in them is not a typo, it's plain ignorance. It's a display of your lack of knowledge on this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-2007_economic_sanctions_against_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
The 2006–2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority were economic sanctions imposed by Israel and the Quartet on the Middle East against the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian territories following the January 2006 legislative elections that brought Hamas to power.
The international sanctions were terminated in June 2007 following the Battle of Gaza, while at the same time a new and more severe blockade was initiated by Israel against Gaza.

Again, Israel disagreed with the outcome of a democratic process and decided to collectively punish all Gazans for it.

What right does Israel have to determine who can participate in elections? Why is it only democracy on their terms? And where was this stepping in when Israel elects terrorists into the Knesset? They have even had a Prime Minister who was CONVICTED for plotting the murder of a UN envoy (the same person who saved thousands of Jewish people from the Holocaust).

It was a stupid deal that no reasonable person would accept. The right of return is a principle within international law. Israel has it's on Law of Return that is only specific to Jewish people, despite being 20% Arab. Your acceptance of this racist law only highlights your own bigotry.

What you call generous, every reasonable person considers laughable. Agreement to those terms didn't offer any autonomy and gave more power for Israel to continuously abuse the Palestinians.

They accepted it in 1993:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_–_Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition

Hamas offered the same thing if Israel ended the occupation and accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. They even forswore violence last year.

Israel continuously adds preconditions to negotiations. "We'll recognize Palestine once that they recognize our right to exist". That gets done. Now it's changed to "we'll recognize Palestine once they recognize our right to exist as a Jewish state". Israel continuously creates situations that gives them incentives to blame Palestinians. During Operation Cast Lead, they bombed a Gazan Police academy ceremony, killing hundreds of officers whose duty it is to maintain order, not engage in war. Then they blame Palestinians for not being able to stop rocket attacks from other groups like Islamic Jihad. And when repeatedly being offered a truce with Hamas, Israel chose to reject it. Why? Because peace means they cannot build more settlements, which means they cannot steal more land.

 

America got tired of dealing with Palestine.

 

I thought you were talking about the Palestinians until the last part...

Indiscriminate shelling in neighborhoods? WTF do you think a rocket attack is? You want to talk about purposefully targeting civilians? It's the Palestinian M.O. They can't get at the IDF so they go for busses, pizzerias, cafes, schools, hospitals, hotels, etc.

The IDF, like the US military, goes to great pains to avoid civilian casualties, although they are not as fanatical as we are about it. If some Hamas bigwig has his family in the house at the time the JDAM drops, oh well...

Blah blah blah. I know the goddamned difference and you know it. It's a flimsy attempt to discredit me. I am a well known serial-rapist when it comes to my keyboard. So, whatever.

Eh, what? Why is Hamas still ruling the Gaza Strip, then? The IDF could roll in any time they wanted and remove Hamas from power. They don't. You may not have noticed, but they are the only actual democracy in the region, and they have more respect for the democratic process than anyone else there.

Gazans get "punished" because they elected a terrorist organization to run their territory. They get punished because that organization has been waging war against the Israelis for decades now and shows no intentions of ever letting up. They get punished because THEY are the ones responsible for that.

You wanna talk about the democratic process? How about accepting responsibility for the consequences that ensue from your electoral choices?

Again, the Palestinians brought it on themselves. Had they elected a body whose charter did not include language about killing the Jews and whose goals included peaceful coexistence with Israel and a cooperative establishment of a Palestinian state, then we would not be talking about this right now.

But they didn't.

The Palestinians are free to elect whoever they want - as they have. And the Israelis have every right to kill the motherfu^kers they elect when they decide to wage war against israelis.

No, it was the best deal ever offered and it was a very good starting point if the Palestinians were serious about peaceful coexistence and Palestinian statehood. They weren't.

OMFG, are you freaking serious? Do you actually NOT understand why right of return is a complete dealbreaker?

The theoretical right of return allows Palestinian "refugees" who have never lived or set foot in Israel to move "back" to Israel at a given rate per year. It also allows for participation in the political process. What it means is that Palestinians would within a few election cycles be allowed to overtake the political process and claim control of the Israeli government. You wanna see the first state in human history vote to disband itself? Allow right of return in negotiations.

It is and always will be an immediate dealbreaker. The Palestinians know this, which is why every time they bring it up it beckons for a gigantic eyeroll, and an acknowledgement that the negotiations were a farce the whole time.

No, only tools of terrorists such yourself think it is laughable. The Israelis offered to give them control of almost all of the territory they demanded. You think it's laughable because they didn't offer 100%, and because they reserved some strategic portions for themselves? LOL, OK.

As for not offering autonomy, that is simply a lie. In fact the Gaza withdrawal plan that Sharon implemented was essentially a portion of the deal being negotiated at the summit which the Israelis undertook unilaterally - they GAVE the Palestinians autonomy over Gaza. And Arafat didn't even have to tell any lies for it.

LOL at the 1967 borders. Why would the Israelis go back to those borders? THey offered NO defensive depth. They will not return to the '67 borders, period. They are surrounded by people who want to murder them all and they need buffers in certain areas in order to be able to prevent attacks against themselves.

Hamas knows that the Israelis will never go back to the '67 borders, which is why they are willing to claim acceptance if Israel returns to them. It's a de facto admission that they will never accept Israel's existence.

As for forswearing violence... Have you ever heard the term "hudna"? Google it, and ask yourself why Hamas has been so busy importing weapons from Iran (mostly via Egypt lately, thanks MB) and developing their own homegrown capacity to manufacture rockets.

The Israelis aren't stupid. Hamas hasn't forsworn anything. The next attack is a matter if when, not if.

Oh yes, how silly, to insist that their right to exist as a Jewish state be acknowledged. It's ISRAEL, dude. It's the Jewish state. And it's not too much to ask that it be acknowledged that they have a right to exist.

You are a terrorist-apologist. You are defending Hamas.

When do we get to the part where you defend Al Qaeda as simply responding to oppressive US hegemony?

 

Well, I guess that settles it. Israelis build buildings where they shouldn't, Palestinians murder civilians with rockets launched from next to Palestinian schools and hospitals to maximize civilian casualties if Israel tries to stop them.

Totally equivalent.

 

So because a terrorist group does something, it is somehow OK for a state's army to do the same? Terrorists do not operate within the law. Israel is a signatory to these international laws that they repeatedly violate. Your disregard for this again highlights your ignorance on the subject.

If you think it is only Hamas family members who are killed then you are sadly misinformed (which again displays your ignorance). As for going to great pains to avoid civilian casualties, HA you really are oblivious. Look at the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. He was a blind, quadriplegic since the age of 12. They killed him when he was being wheeled out of a mosque during prayers. 9 civilians were killed, 12 civilians were severely injured. The IDF knew his exact route and instead of waiting till he was clear of the mosque, they went ahead and fired missiles knowing full well he was in close proximity to dozens of civilians.

If you knew the difference you wouldn't be spewing half the ignorant bull**** you are in this thread.

Um, they tried to remove Hamas from power. It never worked. During Cast Lead, they didn't even target militant installations. They targeted the infrastructure in Gaza. They targeted UN buildings. They targeted mosques. They targeted farms. They destroyed whole neighborhoods. Having respect for the democratic process does not include collectively punishing an entire population because you disregard with who won a few seats in a democracy.

Thank you for agreeing that it is collective punishment. Thank you for agreeing that Israel is committing a war crime.

They have every right to kill those who intend them harm. They have no right to punish those who are not taking part in any hostilities (ie-collective punishment). You can ignore this all you want. It only displays how inept you really are.

It was a crappy deal. It offered little to nothing to the Palestinians besides superficial recognition.

How dumb are you? So it is perfectly acceptable for any Jewish person to emigrate to Israel under the Law of Return? Knowing full well these people are recruited for the sole purpose of occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank? It is somehow OK for people who have never set foot in the West Bank to "return" to a land their country doesn't even own and occupies militarily? Besides displaying your bigotry you have now shown you are perfectly fine with hypocrisy.

As for taking over the political process. When the land was split by the British, the Palestinians would still have been a majority in the new state of Israel. They caused this issue by forcibly evicting and transferring whole populations. I guess that is OK with you too.

How wrong you are. They offered less than 70% of the Palestinian territories as defined by UNSC242. The West Bank would have been split in half, with Israel in complete control of the road that split it in half. The land swamps that were proposed were incredibly stupid. Palestinians would lose fertile West Bank land for a sandy, non-fertile region near the Gaza Strip. Palestinians would have no control over their borders or airspace. They would have no standing army. Only an idiot would think that's a great deal, which probably explains why you like it so much.

Again, incorrect. The Gaza disengagement plan had nothing to do with the Camp David Summit. They withdrew from the Gaza Strip because they no longer wanted to be legally responsible as the Occupying Power in that territory. Unfortunately for them, the ICRC, HRW, and hundreds of legal experts maintain that they still occupy the Gaza Strip. Israel still controls Gaza's borders, airspace, coastline, infrastructure, power, and imports/exports.

Exactly how do they not offer any defensive depth? Israel has the military capability to take every rocket fired into its airspace down. They somehow have the military capability to control every single one of Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace, yet you somehow want people to believe they cannot control their own borders along the 1967 line? You really are delusional.

Hudna is truce. Hudna is not the term used when they forswore violence. It has even been acknowledged by the PA and elements within Israel (which is why the IDF is not targeting Hamas infrastructure when groups like Islamic Jihad launch a rocket). Your failure to know this again highlights your ignorance.

They acknowledged the state of Israel to exist. Why change that? Oh, that's right! To stall negotiations with preconditions all the while stealing Palestinian lands. And since you somehow think this is appropriate: they asked the United States to do the same. You know what we did? We crossed out the word Jewish from that formal letter of recognition.

You are a war crime apologist. You believe it is OK to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Look how stupid you sound.

The beginnings of Al Qaeda and Hamas are very similar. Since you are extremely ignorant on the subject, America supported Al Qaeda to counter Soviet support in Afghanistan. Israel supported (and even at one point, funded) Hamas around the same time to counter Palestinian support for the PLO.