@Ikomi,

Just to help you out even further, here's more list of sovereign states without a standing army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

So Isreal is not asking Palestine for anything new at all.  Palestine will probably be the 20th State without a standing army.

Ikomi:

Isreal does not have to occupy Palestine and run its military that is what the people have been against, there could be some neutral forces that would help train and equip Palestinian army, and ensure no Isreali army is within the relinquished territory. Otherwise this is exactly what disrupted the first peace agreement, an Isreali soldier took it upon himself to walk into a mosque and massacre 48 Palestinians, it was later revealed there was no immediate other to stop Isreali soldiers from such attempt.

The purpose of Israel's insistence on demilitarisation is to safeguard Israel's security. Israel can no more entrust its safety to some neutral force than America would entrust its' in post-war Germany.

Which neutral forces? You mean like the UN forces who were supposed to keep an eye on Hezbollah?

4 Play:

Costa Rica is not a sovereign state because it has no army.

Dont stoop too low now otherwise you will loose me, I hate it when people argue for the sake of it.

Costa Rica, which translates literally as "Rich Coast", was the first country in the world to constitutionally abolish its army

Now that is a choice.

I gave you an example, every state has a police, but still an individual has the right to a door, either for safety or privacy, if you decide to bring it down, I dont think the police would arrest you for that, and if you decide to raise it up again its still your choice.

What we are saying here is that Isreal has no right to dictate to this people.

@Ikomi,

From show me a State without a standing Army to show me a State which abolished its standing Army by its choice.  The goal posts just keep changing. One wonders why the peace process will never move forward then.

Consider the other 19 States without a sanding military. None of them has the same reason for doing without one. Every circumstance is differnet and must be treated uniquely. Is the non-existence of a Palestinian Army enough reason to truncate the peace process?

Ikomi:

Dont stoop too low now otherwise you will loose me, I hate it when people argue for the sake of it.

That is ironic as you have been yapping about broker states and neutral states when shown that history is littered with examples of states, whether voluntarily or otherwise, whose independent military capability has been severely restricted or non-existent.

The absence of an army is not incompatible with statehood.

Tayo-D:

@Ikomi,

From show me a State without a standing Army to show me a State which abolished its standing Army by its choice. The goal posts just keep changing. One wonders why the peace process will never move forward then.

Your case now seems pathethic, must you gain my attention.  

4 Play:

That is ironic as you have been yapping about broker states and neutral states when shown that history is littered with examples of states, whether voluntarily or otherwise, whose independent military capability has been severely restricted or non-existent.

The absence of an army is not incompatible with statehood.

But the absence of reasonable choice does.

@4 Play,

The absence of an army is not incompatible with statehood.

Well put. And we have many examples to prove the point.

Ikomi:

Your case now seems pathethic, must you gain my attention.

Hey its's not my fault.  I hate to see you waste the potential you have to look at issues more objectively  

Ikomi:

But the absence of reasonable choice does.

Japan had a choice?

What do you mean?

Ikomi:

What do you mean?

Did Japan or Germany have a choice in their defence capabilities after WWII?

Look a war just ended the institutions of these nations have been left in total disarray, someone had to come in and help, but the basic fact was that this nations had a choice, what was there choice, that they would adhere to the rule of nations and there countries would be rebuilt with all the help required, and in building nothing neccessary was denied them.

Now what is wrong with that?

Ikomi:

Look a war just ended the institutions of these nations have been left in total disarray, someone had to come in and help, but the basic fact was that this nations had a choice, what was there choice, that they would adhere to the rule of nations and there countries would be rebuilt with all the help required, and in building nothing neccessary was denied them.

Now what is wrong with that?

You are arguing blindly and trying to pass rubbish as meaningful commentary. If the above is the extent of the choice held by Japan, that too is clearly available to a Palestinian state. The Palestinians, who already are the recipients of astonishing levels of aid, will receive all the help they desire provided they renounce a military capability.

Point out the blind and rubbish commentary. And if what makes it rubbish or blind is that you think Japan and Germany had no choice, than state why you think they did not. Dont just throw away a comment in other to sound right.

Ikomi:

Point out the blind and rubbish commentary. And if what makes it rubbish or blind is that you think Japan and Germany had no choice, than state why you think they did not. Dont just throw away a comment in other to sound right.

They had no choice over the presence of occupational troops on their land, no choice over military policy, no choice over the extent of their territory. Like I have said, if you are comfortable with this then you shouldn't mind Palestine having Israeli occupational troops or determining what weapons the Palestinian Govt can buy.

4 Play:

They had no choice over the presence of occupational troops on their land, no choice over military policy, no choice over the extent of their territory. Like I have said, if you are comfortable with this then you shouldn't mind Palestine having Israeli occupational troops or determining what weapons the Palestinian Govt can buy.

They had a choice, and mind you it was war, if the allied forces had stayed longer than required there would have been repraisals, and the alllied forces knew this. So dont say they had no choice, its very wrong. And as I keep saying it was a war which was lost at that point in time. And a war brought about by Germany and Japan on others.

The Middle East peace is quite different, the palestinians pay a price for the injustice commited by others. It was Germans not arabs that committed the crime of Holocaust, not arabs and not the Palestianians, why should there land be used in appeasing the Jews. Well good and fine all that is History, but now the same people are saying give us back at least the potion you promised in 1993 and your saying, we will give you half of it, only if you do as we please. That is very wrong.

Mind you Anti-Semitism is not an arabic word.

He just proposed something he knew that is not achievable. Demilitarisation of Palestine will be a decision of state of palestine and not Israel.

Tayo-D
You cant compare Palestine with Vatican, the less than 1000 population of Vatican is made of Rev fathers and sisters moreover Vatican has no foreign policy of her own coupled with their catholic donation economy. Irrespective of that not having an army is their choice.

Benjamin Netanyahu simply want to throw a clog in the wheel without being seen to do so. Dimilitarised State does not mean anything. Being a state and an independed sovereignty includes having a free army to protect your boarders.
Except Netanyahu is willing to accept a situation where both Isreal and Palestine are demilitarized and jointly secured by International forces. Otherwise that argument wont get any traction.

But I don't know whether to blame him because with the Palestinians you never seem to know. You make one concession they demand for 3 more. Aerial Sharon forced his own people from some parts of Gaza and all Israel got was violence.

I dont think Palestine and Isreal are ready for peace, Obama will do well to ignore this people to continue to lead their life the way they want.

This comparison with Axis Powers in WWII (Germany and Japan) is silly!

1. When did the Palestinian people invade another nation?
2. When did they begin a campaigning to usurp the lands of others?
3. They've been fighting against the harsh Apartheid policies of Israel; how does that make them belligerent?
4. Was it the Palestinian people that fought against Israel in 1967 and 1973?
5. What have the Palestinian people done to be meted treatment comparably worse than those meted out to the Axis Powers?
6. Is this a case of a hammerer (Israel) seeing every problem (a sovereign Palestinian State) as a nail (WWII atrocities)?

mikeansy:

Benjamin Netanyahu simply want to throw a clog in the wheel without being seen to do so. Dimilitarised State does not mean anything. Being a state and an independed sovereignty includes having a free army to protect your boarders.
Except Netanyahu is willing to accept a situation where both Isreal and Palestine are demilitarized and jointly secured by International forces. Otherwise that argument wont get any traction.

But I don't know whether to blame him because with the Palestinians you never seem to know. You make one concession they demand for 3 more. Aerial Sharon forced his own people from some parts of Gaza and all Israel got was violence.

I dont think Palestine and Isreal are ready for peace, Obama will do well to ignore this people to continue to lead their life the way they want.

I think the Palestinians want peace; they've suffered under the harsh and brutal occupation of Israel for so long. However, the Israelis do not want peace. George Bush, for eight years, told them "whatever you do to 'em Parasitian people is coll with us Taxans, hehehe". Now, Obama needs to make it clear to them that those days are over!

presido1:

He just proposed something he knew that is not achievable. Demilitarisation of Palestine will be a decision of state of palestine and not Israel.

Tayo-D
You cant compare Palestine with Vatican, the less than 1000 population of Vatican is made of Rev fathers and sisters moreover Vatican has no foreign policy of her own coupled with their catholic donation economy. Irrespective of that not having an army is their choice.

Zionist extremists will support anything spewed by their leaders.

presido1:

He just proposed something he knew that is not achievable. Demilitarisation of Palestine will be a decision of state of palestine and not Israel.

That is the crux of the matter - it is not for Israel to decide for the Palestinians.

Japan surrendered to the Allies, so did the Germans - the Palestinians have not surrendered, and since there was no war between the Palestinian state and the Israeli state, comparisons with WWII are wide of the mark.

I don't think thats the Palestinians decision. Remember they are currently "invaded" and "blockaded" by the Israel. How do you, then, think they have any "space" to make such a decision?

muhsin:

I don't think thats the Palestinians decision. Remember they are currently "invaded" and "blockaded" by the Israel. How do you, then, think they have any "space" to make such a decision?

Each time i ask any of you to substantiate your lies you all run like cowards.

Pls show me where Israel has INVADED "palestinians".

Egypt also has borders with Gaza, Jordan has an even larger border with the West Bank . . . why are you angry ONLY at Israel? lol you'd think the muslim brothers of these "palestinians" (Jordan is 50% palestinian) would be more willing to allow them "space".

debosky:

That is the crux of the matter - it is not for Israel to decide for the Palestinians.

Japan surrendered to the Allies, so did the Germans - the Palestinians have not surrendered, and since there was no war between the Palestinian state and the Israeli state, comparisons with WWII are wide of the mark.

But it is for palestinians to decide on ROR for Israel? The subtle anti-semitism on this board bothers me a bit. But when i realise that Israel has enough firepower to destroy the arabs 100 times over, i just chill and laugh at the stupidity that passes for commentary here.

debosky:

That is the crux of the matter - it is not for Israel to decide for the Palestinians.

Japan surrendered to the Allies, so did the Germans - the Palestinians have not surrendered, and since there was no war between the Palestinian state and the Israeli state, comparisons with WWII are wide of the mark.

This is a stupid point. We have established that in principle states can be established subject to the military control of an occupying power.

Your point about Palestinians not surrendering is ridiculous. The proposed Palestinian state is to be made up of Gaza and the West Bank. Did Egypt and Jordan, which held sovereignty over these territories, not surrender?

4 Play:

This is a stupid point. We have established that in principle states can be established subject to the military control of an occupying power.

Your point about Palestinians not surrendering is ridiculous. The proposed Palestinian state is to be made up of Gaza and the West Bank. Did Egypt and Jordan, which held sovereignty over these territories, not surrender?

First let me point out it out to you that you estabished nothing.

A state still must have the choice to agree to what power controls its territory until its able keep control.

He said he has established, where are you located.

Ikomi:

First let me point out it out to you that you estabished nothing.

A state still must have the choice to agree to what power controls its territory until its able keep control.

He said he has established, where are you located.

The undeniable evidence from history confirms the above as ignorant

There is no Palestinian state nor has there ever been one. The condition for creating one is that it be demilitarised. If Palestinians find that condition unacceptable, there will be no state.

4 Play:

The undeniable evidence from history confirms the above as ignorant

There is no Palestinian state nor has there ever been one. The condition for creating one is that it be demilitarised. If Palestinians find that condition unacceptable, there will be no state.

Stop saying things you cant proof, its a move from ignorance to stupidity. Which is actually a real estate you might as well keep it.

What history have you got to back your argument, that a state should not have the right to defend itself?

I think your problem is because you see a state as a big picture which you could could only see in Cinemas. Maybe you should bring it down to the level of an individual, which is the smallest unit of state, and tell me why he/she does not have the right to defend (him/her)self

Ikomi:

Stop saying things you cant proof, its a move from ignorance to stupidity. Which is actually a real estate you might as well keep it.

What history have you got to back your argument, that a state should not have the right to defend itself?

I have asked this numbnut this question several times. What choice did the states of Germany and Japan have?

Answer the question and stop sounding like a blithering idiot.

4 Play:

This is a stupid point. We have established that in principle states can be established subject to the military control of an occupying power.

Your point about Palestinians not surrendering is ridiculous. The proposed Palestinian state is to be made up of Gaza and the West Bank. Did Egypt and Jordan, which held sovereignty over these territories, not surrender?

Your assertion is equally ridiculous - since Gaza and the West Bank are no longer territorially contiguous with Jordan and Egypt, why should they be treated as the vanquished in a fight with an opponent that has long withrdawn (Egyptian and Jordanian forces)?

This is not the same case as the Sinai peninsula which was returned to Egypt, so again, comparisons with Germany are wide of the mark.

Going by your assertion, there was no 'state' of Palestine, so why would they be treated the way a losing opponent would be treated? This situation is more akin to a section of a country, different either linguistically or ethnically deciding to break out on it's own. There is no 'occupying power' as such in this situation.

4 Play:

I have asked this numbnut this question several times. What choice did the states of Germany and Japan have?

Answer the question and stop sounding like a blithering idiot.

If only you could read, I have mentioned to you that Germany and Japan were at war, they invaded other states and an agreement had to be exhumed from them that they would not and never invade other nations, which involved written there constitution by ailied forces. Still you agree that these same allied forces allowed them to have there own army at the time of writing this constitution, so what are you doing a round about for?

My friend go and sit down if you dont have anything to say, I should have agreed with richy when he said your view was shameless, but i gave you a chance based on the fact that you did not point at Mo like your other comrades.