The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:07 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:My solution is: both sides agree to peace.

Good job.


It’s official. You’ve finally exhausted my patience.

Bye, bobo. On ignore you go. I don’t have to put up with your stupid BS.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:10 am

Exactly. And I don't even have any land or compensation demands. Ha, ha.

Your solution amounts to just what I posted: wishing the problem away.

The parties CAN'T AGREE/WON'T AGREE to peace. THATS THE ISSUE.

Ignore me. I'm not the issue.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:12 am

Right bobbo,
glad to see you enjoy that mess...
I concede that a Ruler does not to have to be decent or honest - while it helps - but should at least be realistic and - to please you, pragmatic, that he is only the ruler of a small tiny country of 7 millions, with a GDP of less than 300 billions, confronted with a lot of internal social issue, and that despite the courage of his army, it will be no match long term.

Now, we are talking of the future of people, and i will leave you with your sarcasms that i think are really inappropriate in this debate. Now if you want to have your "pragmatic fun" that will be without me.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:23 am

Well............thanks Balsamo. You constantly surprise me........in both directions.

I don't enjoy the misery that national politics brings. WAR is hell. Innocent people are injured/killed. Lives disrupted. Limbs blown off.....etc.

I think you have to severely twist the meaning of decent or honest to get to an effective leader. Perhaps..... the impression of one so motivated? The exceptions to be counted on one hand, the general rule, all the rest???

Sparta was on military footing. Lasted several centuries...died out when non-Spartans (Helots?) within their territory became too numerous. Lots of fine parallels.

The analysis has to avoid "long term" diversions. What are the options we are dealing with "today." Deal with today...and the long term will come as it always does.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:As it fell out of my answer: there is no forever in human affairs. I set the context already: both sides will fight each other until one or both get tired of it. Not forever. Not next week.

My solution: in older days.......one side would have to "annihilate" the other bringing them into complete submission or death or expulsion. A very popular approach still being used today. Just look......around the world.

Today...the farther North and West you go, the solution is now more likely to be settled upon borders. The UN will NOT ENFORCE contested borders or get between waring factions. So...a strong/convinced POL and a strong Israel might settle on set borders....for ever of the "time being" time span. Then, Israel will continue its strong economic growth while the PLO continues to get butt raped from its fellow Arabs leading to its disintegration and its blaming Israel for it all over again. a cycle.

Isn't History mostly a cycle?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:14 am

Sparta? LOL, that was before 1945, right?

"Long term" is not a diversion, it is the reality that any should Ruler should be focus on for the sake of his people. Granted, the long term will come, but how will it looks like is the issue. It is a concept that the Palestinians will have to understand too.

{!#%@} your old times: if we ever get back to this logic, then we'll be all doomed.
Bye

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:49 am

Bals: Yes, Sparta. //// I'll put you down as a Helot.

{!#%@} my old times? //// Read again. This whole thread is ABOUT this very logic. The PLO wants to erase Israel from the Map. How is this not exactly what you fail to recognize?

Are we all doomed? /// Of course. To different fates as the Sisters may weave. Fate is like that.

Amusing you reject history AND current events.........etc.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Oozy_Substance » Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:42 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Well, I think the settlers won. More or less. And I don't really mind, to be honest.
There are about 550k to 700k settlers and I am OK with that. Actually, even the Jewish residents of neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are considered as settlers. Personally I am not a settler.
The settlers have a larger fertility rate than the Jews living in Israel-proper. While the fertility rate in Israel is high, compared to the West, the fertility rate among the settlers is even higher. Also, there are more religious/haredi people among the settlers, so they tend to have more children.

I expect the number of settlers to grow more and more. Maybe they will cross the 1 million bar. Who knows. By now they are almost 20% of the population in the West Bank. I believe it cannot be undone.

Most Israelis agree that the Settlement Blocs should stay intact, by the way. The Settlement Blocs are areas in West Bank where there is a massive amount of settlers and/or many settlements are concentrated.


I think therein lies the rub, Oozy. I don’t look at it as a positive that the settlers “won.” The fact they are there and that more settlement units are being planned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/middle_east/israel-approves-plans-for-thousands-of-new-settlement-units-in-the-west-bank/2017/10/10/a3fd5058-ad29-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html

Only complicate matters. IMO Netanyahu is caving to settler demands in doing this but I understand the political pressure he is facing. Naturally this doesn’t change my really low opinion of him, I think he is a ginormous ass hat.


Well, my attitude toward the settlements changed over the years. In the past I was indifferent about them, at some point I was even sort of against them, now you may describe me as something "somewhat supportive."
First of all, it's important to point out that I am not a settler, and I hardly visit the settlements. This is pretty much the case for many many Israelis. Regardless of that, I can see the mountains of Samaria, located in the West Bank, when I am driving along Highway 4 in Central Israel, where I live. You see, Israel is tiny. It's at the size of the state of New Jersey, but unlike New Jersey it has a really narrow part at its middle, that is Central Israel, where most Israelis live.

So you can drive along Highway 4, and you can see the mountains of Samaria, where the settlers and Palestinians live, and you remember what happened when we got out of Gaza - we got rockets. And you remember what happened when we got out of Lebanon - we got rockets. And you're asking yourself - what would happen when we will get out of the West Bank? Will the rocket launchers now be set upon these mountains? Giving them the ability to strike the heavily-populated Central Israel with hundreds of rockets per hour? And they do have these capabilities.

So if I think Israel should have a presence in the West Bank. Now the question is, should the presence be only a military presence, or do we need the settlers too? Now that's a pretty big question.

But regardless of this question, I do acknowledge that the settlers are already there right now, and in big numbers. Facts on the ground, as you say. And I don't think I wish to see the settlements being destroyed. It's pretty much like "ethnic cleansing", to my opinion. So I think the settlements should stay intact, at least most of them. Maybe some of the settlers can even live in a Palestinian State,

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:05 am

Oozy: My understanding is that to date, all the "two state solutions" have included a unique Israeli control/oversight/involvement in the governing authority of what would be the Palestinian State? You touch on this with a military presence in their country and in the notion of Israeli's/Jews living in settlements in the Palestine State. Is this agreed to "at all" by the PLO or is it a sticking point as well? Any related non-standard understandings/obligations part of the generally conceived relationship? I assume NO such involvment of the Arabs in the operation of Israel?

Two State......... a fraud even in initial conception?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:37 pm

Oozy_Substance wrote:You see, Israel is tiny. It's at the size of the state of New Jersey, but unlike New Jersey it has a really narrow part at its middle, that is Central Israel, where most Israelis live.


I think it would be helpful to include some maps at this point.
This one shows changing borders:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/population_settlements.stm

Good color map:



So you can drive along Highway 4, and you can see the mountains of Samaria, where the settlers and Palestinians live, and you remember what happened when we got out of Gaza - we got rockets. And you remember what happened when we got out of Lebanon - we got rockets. And you're asking yourself - what would happen when we will get out of the West Bank? Will the rocket launchers now be set upon these mountains? Giving them the ability to strike the heavily-populated Central Israel with hundreds of rockets per hour? And they do have these capabilities.


Therein lies the biggest issue, that of Israeli security.
This is something I completely understand and I’ve argued this point on other sites. It does no good to withdraw....only to have to occupy the area again when attacks increase. It’s beyond insanity to think the Israelis would tolerate attacks on their people or infrastructure.

So if I think Israel should have a presence in the West Bank. Now the question is, should the presence be only a military presence, or do we need the settlers too? Now that's a pretty big question.


Either way it will still feel like an occupation.

But regardless of this question, I do acknowledge that the settlers are already there right now, and in big numbers. Facts on the ground, as you say. And I don't think I wish to see the settlements being destroyed. It's pretty much like "ethnic cleansing", to my opinion. So I think the settlements should stay intact, at least most of them. Maybe some of the settlers can even live in a Palestinian State,


I don’t think there is any sentiment of leaving Israelis behind to become small minorities, they run an extreme risk of persecution.

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:31 pm

If the Arabs/Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no Israel tomorrow.


But even some teenagers with a good rifle can cause damage

- 'The Perils of «Palestine» in Pictures', 13/01/2017
https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/01/13/t ... -pictures/

- Highway 6, just 70 meters away: See the video at 1.02':
https://youtu.be/ok8TAcmlITs?t=1m2s

He was surprised to learn how small Israel is, which prompted some thoughts about the proximity and threat of Israel’s enemies. “I learned that Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Suddenly I thought, what if I was living in Trenton and Hezbollah had its capital in Philadelphia, the PLO was based on the Jersey Shore, and Hamas was based in Princeton – so close they could dig a tunnel to where I was living. How would I feel then?”
“Suddenly, I began to see Israel not as a powerful Goliath but as a tiny, vulnerable island in a sea of 300 million Arabs,” he said.
https://unitedwithisrael.org/world-rewa ... list-says/


«If [a Palestinian state] is established, it will be armed to the teeth. Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passers-by, but every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the coastal plain. The frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence, to impede the freedom of action of the Israeli air-force in the skies over Israel, and to cause bloodshed among the population, in areas adjacent to the frontier-line» [Shimon Peres, 'Tomorrow is Now', Keter publishers, σσ. 232, 255]
«Israel, small and exposed, will neither be able to exist nor to prosper if its urban centers, its vulnerable airport and its narrow winding roads, are shelled. This is the fundamental difference between them and us, this is the terrible danger involved in the establishment of a third independent sovereign state between us and the Jordan River» [Amnon Rubinstein, 'The Pitfall of a Third State', Haartez, 08/08/1976].
According to experts and scholars, the 10 stages of every genocide are
Classification Symbolization Discrimination Dehumanization Organization Polarization Preparation Persecution Extermination
... and finally the 10th stage:
Denial
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/t ... ocide.html

XYZ Contagion (‘Because the truth is contagious‘), an investigative/research political and historical website, deals also with the Srebrenica Genocide
https://xyzcontagion.wordpress.com/about/#English

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:42 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Israelis are aware to the conditions in the Gaza Strip but place most blame on Hamas, and I quite agree with it. Israel also supplies goods to Gaza on a daily basis.

Egypt also enforces a blockade of the Gaza Strip for some of the same reasons, terrorist attacks originating from Gaza also took Egyptian lives.


Did anyone noticed this case?

A Hamas security man was killed and others were wounded Thursday August 17th, when a suicide bomber blew himself up with a security force belonging to the Hamas-run interior ministry in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah.

- Palestinian calls to confront extremist ideology and fight terrorism, Hamas media, 17/08/2017
http://x2t.com/hamas-hit-by-isis

- Islamic Jihad condemned the bombing in Rafah as "outside religion, culture and morality."
- The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine stressed that it is "against the use of weapons, abuse and assault" describing the suicide attack as a "dangerous violation."
- Fatah called it a "terrorist act."
- The Popular Struggle Front called this a "dark act that must be combatted"
http://x2t.com/bombing-Rafah


Big question here: Which one took the 72 virgins.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:49 pm

Then, Kleon, Oozy and Nathan, with all the dangers that Kleon listed, would you be prepared, with a one-state, to grant Palestinians full and equal rights to vote and worship in a one-state Israel?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:50 pm

Or are we simply talking about a modern day Apartheid?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:10 pm

I have outlined the problem posed by Jerusalem,
There is another one worth noticing: Whatever the future borders, Israel will always be a multi confessional and multi ethnic State.
The Arab minority will keep growing in percentage., the larger the borders, the larger this minority will be.

The recent will - at least it is more openly affirmed - to turn a State for the Jews into a Jewish State should be discussed.
this objective is somewhat anachronic, as European history showed that complete democracy, and equality between all the citizens whatever their religion, is only possible in a State where Religion and civil administration a clearly separated.
The Government should be a-religious, neutral so it can ensure Religious freedom for all.

Bobbo earlier wrote the the OPL wants the destruction of the State of Israel, which is not completely true. The Palestinian authority has officially recognized the State of Israel, although only in its 1948 borders. It is not enough, but it is a first step.

Of course, it will be even harder to make the Arabs accept this tiny territory cannot also become a "Land of Islam" or "Muslim state".

So there are no reasons to be optimistic short term.

Nevertheless, the ONE STATE solution can only be conceived under this condition, that the constitution affirms the multicultural, multi confessional and multi ethnic character of the State, guaranteeing freedom of religion with equal rights to all its component.

But this prospect seems so improbable that i lean to the two States solution.

Nevertheless, concessions will have to made by both parties.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:22 pm

Agreed, Balsamo. If the Israelis (and others) want a single state then there has to be an acceptance of the full rights of Muslims and Palestinians....or be prepared for the denunciation of the world over an Apartheid State.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:24 pm

BTW, I shouldn’t have to do this but just so it’s clear, I’m not anti-Israel. I fully support an independent Israel but that doesn’t mean I’m not critical where I feel it’s warranted. Hell, I’m critical of my own country.

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Agreed, Balsamo. If the Israelis (and others) want a single state then there has to be an acceptance of the full rights of Muslims and Palestinians....or be prepared for the denunciation of the world over an Apartheid State.


I'm not sure I'm following you, Jeff.

When you talk about a 'separate Palestinian State', as it was your question to Oozy, you're talking about a two-state solution, that is two states for the two people, side by side, isn't it?

In your today's questions and comments, about a 'one-state solution', I'm not sure we are on the same page. Usually 'one-state' solution means all Palestinians refugees granted their 'right to return', and that means demographic destruction of Israel. I don't think the majority of Israelis want this, except a tiny minority of extreme 'Jews who are proud to be ashamed to be Jews' (some called them 'self-hating Jews').

And my guess is that neither Palestinians want really this. As a stage in their 'phased plan', that's possible, but not let's say in a case when with no other adjustments, suddenly Israel's borders open for the Palestinians and they all will run to become Israeli citizens.

Other than that, in today's Israel's population a 20% percentage, near two millions are Arabs with (seems to be) full rights, they vote, they become ministers, MPs, judges etc (see here for more) and conditions of life that all 380 millions Arabs in 22 muslim countries can't even dream of, so the term 'apartheid' for today Israel is probably a smear [EDIT: Maybe the word is wrong: I mean 'smear' as a word that means 'slander' or something].

Here's a book:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/wp-content/uplo ... _FINAL.pdf

- Meet the "phased plan" (to destroy Israel), that was spelled out by the PLO in 1974, and has never been rescinded.
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=10494
Last edited by Kleon_I XYZ Contagion on Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:49 pm

As for the question 'Do the Palestinians really recognize Israel?':

The Palestinian long-term goal is to establish a state for the Palestinian people in all of what was mandatory Palestine. To that purpose, they seek the demise of Zionism and the state of Israel. The Palestinians are well aware that Israel is too strong to be destroyed in the near future. They are also cognizant that this ideology cannot get international support since Israel is a member state of the UN and enjoys Western support as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people within (more or less) the 1967 lines. That is why after the Yom-Kippur war the Palestinian National Council adopted a policy (of deception) called “the Phases Theory,” which led eventually to the Palestinian declaration of independence by the PNC in 1988 and to the Oslo agreements in 1993.

- Yasser Arafat and the Lies (From 'Relentless Struggle for Peace in the Middle East', 2003):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSNEwSoV9zE

- Efraim Karsh, Arafat's Grand Strategy, Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2004
http://www.meforum.org/605/arafats-grand-strategy

- Khaled Abu Toameh, The Palestinians' Real Strategy, 22/06/2015
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6021 ... s-strategy

- 'The Palestinian Authority Repudiates Oslo, and No One Reports or Cares', 29/02/2016
https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/02/29/t ... -or-cares/

Are the settlements the main obstacle for peace?

Let's look at some other settlements, for a moment.
Gaza: In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, after destroying 21 Jewish settlements and expelling more than 8,000 Jews from their homes there. In the Palestinian eyes, however, the "liberation" of Israel from the Gaza Strip was anything but an olive branch of peace. The withdrawal came after five years of the bloody Second Intifada when the Palestinians carried out a massive campaign of suicide bombers and rocket attacks against the Israelis. So, for the Palestinians, Israel has retreated once again against unceasing bloodshed.

Here is what is said on the Palestinian Road: Israel is now running away from the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, tomorrow Israel will escape from Ashkelon, then from Tel Aviv and from there to the sea. and we have achieved our goal of destroying Israel, the great aim. Therefore, we must continue to attack Israel.

Moreover, it was precisely the Israeli pullout from Gaza that launched Hamas to its current peak today among the Palestinians. Hamas has taken the credit for expelling the Jews from the Gaza Strip through terrorism. A few months later, Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections because the Palestinians gave Hamas full credit for Israel's exit from the Gaza Strip.
Israeli withdrawal told the Palestinians in uncertain terms: Why deal with the negotiation when terror will do the trick?
Five years earlier, Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon had the same result: it encouraged the Hezbollah terrorist group backed by Iran. As with the Gaza Strip, leaving Lebanon taught the Palestinians that terrorism could lead the Israelis out of their country. In recent years, additional gestures of goodwill from Israel, such as the removal of security points and the relaxation of travel restrictions on the West Bank, have led to even greater violence, claiming the lives of more Israeli people.

Truth is, Abbas and his top officials have always responded with cynical movements to Israel's gestures. They have never given Israel credit for the steps of her goodwill. Instead, they come up against these movements and describe them as "cosmetic changes aimed at grooming the ugly face of Israel" or as stunts for public relations.

For the sake of clarity: the delivery of the West Bank areas to the Palestinian Authority and the release of the convicted murderers will not contribute to any kind of "peace process", without a total agreement. It contributes only to the death of more Israelis. The Palestinian line is that Israeli steps are always "insufficient" and "do not help". Israel's concessions are considered gestures of a terrified people and a justified reward for terrorism. Far from satiating the appetite of terrorists, these steps are pushing them to step up their attacks on the Israelis. The next time the Americans and Europeans think of asking Israel to give it even more to the Palestinians, let them think of what Israel can receive in return, except for the spilling of more Jewish blood. These are the facts, until now.

It is time to acknowledge the unpalatable fact that the enmity of Arabs towards the Jews and the Jewish state is:
- not about borders but about existence;
- not about what the Jewish people do but about what the Jewish people are;
- not about the Jewish state’s policies but about the Jewish state per se; and
- not about Jewish military 'occupation' of Arab land but about Jewish political existence on any land.
Israel must internalize these truths and undertake a policy to convey them -with conviction and vigor- to the world. Otherwise it may well be 'liberated.'

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Oozy_Substance » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:15 pm

Well the thing is that Israel never annexed West Bank (with the exception of East Jerusalem, which was annexed in 1980). West Bank is not Israel even according to Israel itself. Yet Israel defines it as a "disputed territory" whose fate should be determined in negotiations. Since West Bank is not officially a part of Israel, Israel is not obligated to grant citizenship to the Palestinians over there. As for the West Bank itself, according to the Oslo Accords it is divided into three areas : A,B and C, which are as follows :

A - Full Palestinian control
B - Mixed Palestinian and Israeli control (Palestinian - civil, Israel - military)
C - Full Israeli control

The vast majority of Palestinians live in Areas A & B as all settlers live in Area C, with a few Palestinians living there too. Some politicians in the Israeli right suggest the annexation of Area C. That will include giving citizenship to the Palestinians living there. But there aren't many Palestinians living there, so they would not endanger the Jewish majority of Israel. Yet this is pretty problematic because Areas A and B are like islands within Area C, so I am not sure it's practically doable. Of course, Israel can try to annex parts of Area C. Yet Israel has yet to do so. When Trump got into the White House there were attempts by several rightist Israeli politicians to annex Gush Etzion, which is one of the settlement Blocs. It is located near Jerusalem and has about 70,000 residents. But I think that Bibi rejected it. It seems Israel, or maybe, Bibi, isn't very fond of the idea of annexation. Such annexation would also not be recognized by the world. And maybe Israel keeps the annexation card as a response to a Palestinian move that will cross a red line, or something.

As for what bobbo asked earlier, the Palestinians will see every military Israeli presence in the West Bank as occupation, afaik.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:54 pm

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
I'm not sure I'm following you, Jeff.

When you talk about a 'separate Palestinian State', as it was your question to Oozy, you're talking about a two-state solution, that is two states for the two people, side by side, isn't it?


Essentially, yes.
There is no going back to 1948, those borders no longer exist, the Arabs made sure of that when they attacked....and lost.
A two-state solution is exactly that but divided along either a North-South axis or an East-West one. In that scenario both sides will have to give up something.

In your today's questions and comments, about a 'one-state solution', I'm not sure we are on the same page. Usually 'one-state' solution means all Palestinians refugees granted their 'right to return', and that means demographic destruction of Israel. I don't think the majority of Israelis want this, except a tiny minority of extreme 'Jews who are proud to be ashamed to be Jews' (some called them 'self-hating Jews').


The way I see it, Kleon, is there are really only three options left at this point, all are problematic in their own way:

1) A Two-State Solution-This would require both sides, the Palestinian and Israeli, to give up land to compensate each other. The main issue I see here is Israeli security and Palestinian willingness to agree to an Israeli State. There also has to be buy-in by Israeli allies and Arab backers of the Palestinians. There is also a problem of extremists on both sides who will continue to fight for an advantage.
To me this is the best solution, both sides walk away with gains and losses.
To me this is the optimum solution, the problem is getting buy-in on both sides and willingness to compromise.

2) A Single State, Either Israeli or Palestinian-I don’t see this as an optimum solution. You run the risk of the minority being persecuted unless the minority has full civil rights. Right now the Israelis are the majority and powerful but there is no guarantee that this will continue. There is also the issue that any rights guaranteed to the minority are dependent on the whim of the political party in power, I can’t see either side agreeing to that.

3) The Status Quo-This is the worst of all possibilities. I can’t see any way it can continue, atrocities on both sides will continue to mount.

And my guess is that neither Palestinians want really this.


I agree.

Other than that, in today's Israel's population a 20% percentage, near two millions are Arabs with (seems to be) full rights, they vote, they become ministers, MPs, judges etc (see here for more)


I looked it up, Arabs do have full voting rights as citizens. During a recent poll about 17% said they faced some forms of discrimination but that’s hardly unusual for any minority, in the United States in particular.

and conditions of life that all 380 millions Arabs in 22 muslim countries can't even dream of, so the term 'apartheid' for today Israel is probably a smear [EDIT: Maybe the word is wrong: I mean 'smear' as a word that means 'slander' or something].


Israel is not an Apartheid State right now. But, you spelled out the risk above, the possibility of the Israelis becoming a minority. If a single state becomes a reality then what happens to the Palestinians and the Palestinian refugees? The choice is to give them full rights and risk becoming a minority or deny them rights, turning them into second class citizens. If you separate a state into first and second class citizens then you are no longer democracy, turning Israel into a de facto Apartheid State.

Here's a book:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/wp-content/uplo ... _FINAL.pdf

- Meet the "phased plan" (to destroy Israel), that was spelled out by the PLO in 1974, and has never been rescinded.
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=10494


Just to be clear, Israel is not an Apartheid State. Arab citizens do enjoy full rights.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:09 pm

Oozy_Substance wrote:Well the thing is that Israel never annexed West Bank (with the exception of East Jerusalem, which was annexed in 1980). West Bank is not Israel even according to Israel itself. Yet Israel defines it as a "disputed territory" whose fate should be determined in negotiations. Since West Bank is not officially a part of Israel, Israel is not obligated to grant citizenship to the Palestinians over there. As for the West Bank itself, according to the Oslo Accords it is divided into three areas : A,B and C, which are as follows :

A - Full Palestinian control
B - Mixed Palestinian and Israeli control (Palestinian - civil, Israel - military)
C - Full Israeli control

The vast majority of Palestinians live in Areas A & B as all settlers live in Area C, with a few Palestinians living there too. Some politicians in the Israeli right suggest the annexation of Area C. That will include giving citizenship to the Palestinians living there. But there aren't many Palestinians living there, so they would not endanger the Jewish majority of Israel. Yet this is pretty problematic because Areas A and B are like islands within Area C, so I am not sure it's practically doable. Of course, Israel can try to annex parts of Area C. Yet Israel has yet to do so. When Trump got into the White House there were attempts by several rightist Israeli politicians to annex Gush Etzion, which is one of the settlement Blocs. It is located near Jerusalem and has about 70,000 residents. But I think that Bibi rejected it. It seems Israel, or maybe, Bibi, isn't very fond of the idea of annexation. Such annexation would also not be recognized by the world. And maybe Israel keeps the annexation card as a response to a Palestinian move that will cross a red line, or something.

As for what bobbo asked earlier, the Palestinians will see every military Israeli presence in the West Bank as occupation, afaik.



Thanks, Oozy. This information is very valuable, I really do want to get a better understanding of this.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:14 pm

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
It is time to acknowledge the unpalatable fact that the enmity of Arabs towards the Jews and the Jewish state is:
- not about borders but about existence;
- not about what the Jewish people do but about what the Jewish people are;
- not about the Jewish state’s policies but about the Jewish state per se; and
- not about Jewish military 'occupation' of Arab land but about Jewish political existence on any land.
Israel must internalize these truths and undertake a policy to convey them -with conviction and vigor- to the world. Otherwise it may well be 'liberated.'


I agree the above is a major consideration, Israel’s security is her paramount issue. As long as the stated goal of Arab states and terrorist groups is the destruction of Israel then this will all be a non-starter.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:02 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote: As long as the stated goal of Arab states and terrorist groups is the destruction of Israel then this will all be a non-starter.

Its been their policy since 1948 with no change on the horizon. We are back to Sparta aka: Israel will exist for as long as they keep the Helots subjugated. Its not nice. Reality is often like that.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:48 am

Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Agreed, Balsamo. If the Israelis (and others) want a single state then there has to be an acceptance of the full rights of Muslims and Palestinians....or be prepared for the denunciation of the world over an Apartheid State.


I'm not sure I'm following you, Jeff.

When you talk about a 'separate Palestinian State', as it was your question to Oozy, you're talking about a two-state solution, that is two states for the two people, side by side, isn't it?

In your today's questions and comments, about a 'one-state solution', I'm not sure we are on the same page. Usually 'one-state' solution means all Palestinians refugees granted their 'right to return', and that means demographic destruction of Israel. I don't think the majority of Israelis want this, except a tiny minority of extreme 'Jews who are proud to be ashamed to be Jews' (some called them 'self-hating Jews').

And my guess is that neither Palestinians want really this. As a stage in their 'phased plan', that's possible, but not let's say in a case when with no other adjustments, suddenly Israel's borders open for the Palestinians and they all will run to become Israeli citizens.

Other than that, in today's Israel's population a 20% percentage, near two millions are Arabs with (seems to be) full rights, they vote, they become ministers, MPs, judges etc (see here for more) and conditions of life that all 380 millions Arabs in 22 muslim countries can't even dream of, so the term 'apartheid' for today Israel is probably a smear [EDIT: Maybe the word is wrong: I mean 'smear' as a word that means 'slander' or something].

Here's a book:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/wp-content/uplo ... _FINAL.pdf

- Meet the "phased plan" (to destroy Israel), that was spelled out by the PLO in 1974, and has never been rescinded.
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=10494



Kleon, i understand what you saying until a certain point.
Israel does have a Arab national minority of 20% in the current borders. This will rise with the time even without a "right of return".
But then comes the future of the occupied territories, which logically cannot just stayed "occupied" for ever and ever...If Israel annexed those territories officially. the percentage will rise faster.

In both case the will to establish a "Jewish State" - that i do not confuse with a "State for the Jews" - is unfortunately absurd.

For example, in most European countries, we have a substantial presence of Muslim population, imagine the reaction, even of the international community, if one of those country would want to re establish a "Catholic" or "Christian" State.. It would be absurd as it took centuries to achieve the full separation of the State and Religion.
Of course, as i said, Muslim are even less prepared for this. Therefore, they are stuck in the same "dead-end".

But i am not sure to fully understand when you talk about a "demographic destruction of Israel".
It is well known that demographic changes happen all over the world. The USA is demographically not the same as it was 50 years ago. Just as is Europe, especially now when confronted with a very important migrant crisis, and no longer spare by terrorism.
Every European countries face the same problem, the "local" making less babies than the "foreigners"...Should we all fear of a demographic destruction of our counties? Should those European States also take some action to prevent it form happening?

Of course, the argument of the so called "most free" Arab in the middle east is also kind of silly. Sorry but it is just like saying to a Black American who just had been beaten by white cops...Hey you know, you could be Denzel Washington or Barak Obama...when it would be insane to pretend that because some Black Americans indeed succeeds, there is no discrimination against the Afro-American...
Now would you say to those who feel discrimination on a daily basis, as a "black" you are better here than in Africa?

Sorry if i misunderstood you, but it is the feeling i had reading your post. But you said that you wording was maybe wrong, and i myself am not a english speaker...so if you could explain, i will be grateful.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:07 am

Every European countries face the same problem, the "local" making less babies than the "foreigners"...Should we all fear of a demographic destruction of our counties?
Yes. That is the issue. If you don't care..... then welcome the expansion of fundamental Islam into Europe and the taking down of all non-Islamic cultural/historical symbols and philosophies.

Of course, the argument of the so called "most free" Arab in the middle east is also kind of silly.
No...not at all. When the PLO complains heartily about human rights abuses against the Israeli's but is silent when worse abuses are heaped on them by fellow arabs......one can get the whif that its not abuses at all that is at issue. It shows the disconnect and its only uniformed world opinion that is being appealed to. Those worse abuses?===>not allowing Arabs in the Gaza Strip to migrate out of Gaza to other Arab lands. Gaza is a cesspool MOSTLY because of Arab interests.

Speaking in generalities has a great danger: you mismatch the ambiguities and it sounds real bad. Get the issues more parallel, and you see more clearly. Still.....always a choice. give up your own identity because others clamor for theirs, or fight for it...........its the way its always been...........and always will be.

Mind the gap.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:52 am

Balsamo wrote:But i am not sure to fully understand when you talk about a "demographic destruction of Israel".
[...]
Of course, the argument of the so called "most free" Arab in the middle east is also kind of silly. Sorry but it is just like saying to a Black American who just had been beaten by white cops...Hey you know, you could be Denzel Washington or Barak Obama...when it would be insane to pretend that because some Black Americans indeed succeeds, there is no discrimination against the Afro-American...
Now would you say to those who feel discrimination on a daily basis, as a "black" you are better here than in Africa?

Sorry if i misunderstood you, but it is the feeling i had reading your post. But you said that you wording was maybe wrong, and i myself am not a english speaker...so if you could explain, i will be grateful.



Don't worry, I'm not an am not a English speaker either, so it's naturally logical some misunderstandings.

Israel was made as a safe haven for every Jew and a state where the most persecuted people on earth can protect itself from genocide. It was meant to be mainly a 'state for the Jews' but as a fully operated democracy with equal rights for the minorities. Because it wants to remain the only Jewish haven, it has to have Jewish majority inside it. This is not racist. Many countries-ethnostates have similar 'Laws of return' for their people, like Ireland, Greece etc. When I said 'demographic destruction' I mean Israel can't afford Jews to be a minority in their country because their state could be taken over by friends of sharia law, and then it will stop being Jewish and it will stop be a democracy.

But when the Palestinians speak about the two-state solution, they mean a Palestinian state (Palestine), and a state without an ethnic identity (Israel).

Some necessary History first:

- During the 1948 War of Independence, the Arab side ensured that not a single Jew was left on the Arab side of the 1949 armistice lines, West Bank and Gaza was Judenrei.
Jews lived throughout what would later be called the West Bank for centuries until its conquest by Jordan in 1949. The Jordanians expelled every single Jew from the area they controlled. Unlike the flight of Arabs from Israel, the purge was clearly coercive, by the fact that not one Jew was left in the Jordanian occupied territory. This expulsion was clearly ethnic cleansing, and indeed it left the area clean.

But a large number of Arabs were allowed by Jews to remain on the Israeli side. Today those Arabs constitute 20% of the Israeli population.
Israel's respect for the human rights of Arabs living in Israel has been used by Arabs against Israel. The idea of any Jews on the Arab side is demonized and any "normalization" with Jews is aggressively discouraged.
By contrast, Arabs living in Israel have consistently elected Arab parliamentarians, even anti-Zionist ones who openly support Palestinian terrorists. If Israel expels those politicians from the Knesset -as there is a proposed law to do- it will be accused by the West of being undemocratic, but if it does not expel them it is seen by Arabs as weak.
During the defensive Six-Day War, Israel moved into large swaths of Arab land, including the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank and Gaza. Israel immediately offered to give land back in exchange for recognition and peace. Less than three months later, on September 1, 1967, the answer came back in the form of the famous "Three Nos" of the Khartoum Conference: No peace with Israel, no recognition no negotiations.
Israel could have played by Arab rules and deported all Arabs in the land it occupied, but it did not. Precisely because Israel respected the human rights of Arabs, and despite its own self-interest, Israel gave the Palestinians a platform from which to seek the destruction of Israel.

Comparing to these:
- Oren Dorell, 'PLO ambassador says Palestinian state should be free of Jews,' USA TODAY (September 18, 2011).
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... 50394882/1

- Noah Browning, 'Abbas wants ‘not a single Israeli’ in future Palestinian state,' Reuters (July 29, 2013).
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pales ... 0920130730

- Khaled Abu Toameh, 'Abbas Vows: No Room for Israelis in Palestinian state,' The Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2010.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas- ... nian-state


Now, everybody speaks about the two-state solution.

When Israel says two-state solution, it means two states for two peoples. One of them is the state of the Palestinian people, and the other is the nation state of the Jewish people, side by side. With mutual recognition, so that the Palestinians accept Jews as the nation state of the Jewish people.

But this is not the case with the Palestinians: They remain committed to the idea that eventually they will return to Haifa and Jaffa and Tel-Aviv and everything.

When the Palestinians speak about the two-state solution, they mean a Palestinian state (Palestine), and a state without an ethnic identity (Israel). Or, if they are pushed, they say Israel will be the state of the ‘Israeli people,’ a term they have invented which includes all the people, be they Jews or Arabs. Palestinians don't spell 'Israel' for no reason, it will be a recognition.

See:
- Palestine Papers, The PLO refuses to recognize the existence of the Jewish people: Negotiations Support Unit Memo: Talking Points to Palestinian Drafting Team on «Recogntion of Jewish State, Memorandum from NSU to Palestinian Drafting Team regarding Talking points entitled 'Strategy and Talking Points for Responding to the Precondition of Recognizing Israel as a 'Jewish State'», 16/11/2007.
http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/projec ... 15476.html

- A recent article in the Institute for Palestine Studies by former PLO negotiator Ahmad Samih Khalidi takes an even more hardline approach to the topic, and is in some ways even more cynical. It is entitled 'Why Can’t the Palestinians Recognize the Jewish State?'
Ahmad Samih Khalidi, Why Can't the Palestinians Recognize the Jewish state?, Institute for Palestine Studies, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 40, no. 4 (Summer 2011), p. 78
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20140731 ... =1&iid=160



In short, for Palestinians, nor the state of the Jewish people, neither a Jewish homeland with full civil rights for minorities is a good idea, because according to them there is no Jewish people. When they say two-state solution this is what they mean, some temporary solution, because Muslims always chased away enemies.

Because their final aim is that they want a single Arab state to replace Israel. They are counting on the assumption that sooner or later, Israel will be forced to annex the West Bank and give Israeli citizenship to all its residents. After this, the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state would be just a matter of time.

The international community is vague on this issue. It speaks about a two-state solution without really going into the question of what the two states will be. For the international community it is obvious that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people, so the mantra is that ‘there is no need to clarify and repeat this’. But it has to be said, or the Palestinians will continue to believe they have successfully misled the world on this.

If the Arabs/Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no Israel tomorrow.

The reason that there is no peace plan that works is because Westerners try to think logically about the issue and to see what each side wants.
This is a mistake, and all fresh international mediators learn this lesson only after years of involvement in the case.
In Arabic honor/shame societies there's no compromising, no concessions.
It's always a zero-sum game. All or nothing, the zero-sum game mentality, a situation can be considered either honorable or shameful.
The land isn't people's land. The land belongs to God. God doesn't make mistakes. So, for we Arabs, it's impossible to be wrong.
Any Jewish control over what we Arabs and Muslims consider our and God's land is the ultimate humiliation and that shame cannot be erased no matter how many concessions Israel gives. The shame will go away only when Jews will leave and no Israel exists.
This is the same reason when Arabs kill their raped sister or daughter, instead of killing the rapist, for example.
Killing the rapist, the shame still exists.
Killing the girl makes the shame go away.

The former 'dhimmis' Jews have humiliated us Arabs in 4 or 5 big wars. No Palestinian negotiator can come out of a room with an agreement in his hands. The next minute he will be dead. No way, in Arabs' mentality there's no 'win-win' concept that can please both parties.

There is no logic. Arabs generally don't work in a logical world but in an emotional one, where the exact same event can be considered either honorable or shameful based on external factors or even their their mindset that day.


The dominant sentiment on the Zionist side today is that the solution most Jews since the 1940s have accepted as ethical -the two-state solution- is simply not working. The vast majority of Zionists blame this on the unrelenting Arab refusal to accept such a solution and on the fact that when, in what negotiations have taken place, the Palestinians never suggested so much as a reasonable counter-offer. Even Abbas, supposedly the most moderate leader of the Palestinians, has never accepted a two-state solution unless it included a Palestinian "right of return," which would result in a fully Arab state next to a majority Arab state -yet another way of making the Jewish state extinct.
With Israel's back to the wall, it will sooner or later have to choose between giving up the Jewish state and lowering its human rights standards for the Palestinians. It seems increasingly clear that Israelis will not choose the first. In their place, I wouldn't either. One sign is a proposed law that would deport the families of terrorists. Another is a proposed law that would expel Knesset members who openly support terrorists.

For Palestinians, the war against Zionism is against all expressions of Zionism. Not only in the 1967 lines, but also the 1948 lines. The Palestinians are still fighting the 1948 war. The Palestinians realise now that they cannot get the 1948 territories, and this is why they say to the international community that they are ready to negotiate for the 1967 territories. However, they want these territories without indicating any readiness to give up their claim to the 1948 territories. That’s why they continue to speak of the right of return.
All these aspects of the Palestinian narrative are integrated with the view that Palestinians are the only victims in this conflict, and Jews do not constitute victims even if they are killed in terrorist attacks. The Jews cannot be victims and cannot complain about being attacked because they insist on living here; that’s the attitude.

Some scholars have repeatedly warned that this PA tactic is destroying the prospect for a negotiated two-state solution, by making Palestinian leaders believe that they do not need to make any compromises. Helped by BDS movement, continuing on this track, the obvious prediction would be leading to more wars, more death and more suffering.
If this Arab-BDS tactic continues, Israel may well move to the right of its current right PM Netanyahu, and elect a government for which respect of Palestinian human rights is a lower priority. Such a government would be far less reluctant than Netanyahu in expanding settlements across the West Bank and in responding with overwhelming force to terrorist attacks, thereby making the lives of Palestinians much more difficult and seriously harming dreams of Palestinian statehood.

- As for your second question:

Israeli Arabs not only have equal rights with the country’s Jewish majority, they have far greater rights than Palestinian Arabs under the control of the Islamic theocracy of Hamas in the Gaza Strip or the corrupt and thuggish Fatah in the West Bank, both of which prevent free and fair elections. As the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights has noted, human rights conditions for Palestinian Arabs living under the rule of Hamas and Fatah are at their “worst” in recent years with violations having “increased in volume.” Despite their purported concern for Palestinians, BDS people fail to condemn or call for a boycott of these groups.

Take a look:

Image


Palestinians need a state where they can promote the well-being of their peoples, just as Jews need a state where they can promote the well-being of their peoples. It is not that Israel did nothing for the Palestinians during the decades of land administration. Palestinian life expectancy increased by 50% under Israeli sovereignty, infant mortality fell by more than two-thirds, literacy rates and living standards skyrocketed, and so on. Indeed, every hospital and university in the West Bank was built by Israel, like most of them in Gaza. Nevertheless, there are many things that Israel did not do, and the refugee camps are the first of them
Israel has left the camps intact, mainly because its attempt to offer refugees better shelter back in the seventies has caused such a tough opposition from the PLO -which threatened to kill refugees who accepted the offer- that he compensated. But regardless of the reason, refugee camps are precisely the kind of openness that the Palestinian state government is supposed to solve theoretically. In fact, however, the Palestinian Authority did nothing for refugees. More than two decades after the founding of the PA, refugee schooling, health care and social care benefits are still provided, and are funded entirely by UNRWA, the UN agency specifically created for this purpose. Or, to be more precise, from the western countries that fund most of UNRWA's budget. Neither the Palestinian Authority has moved a single refugee to better housing. And this is not because Israel has somehow prevented it. most of the refugee camps are located in area A, the West Bank section under full control of Palestine. It is because PA. he is not interested in doing so. Reuters writes that President Abbas has not visited once these camps, despite being in the 13th year of his four-year term.

The PA doesn’t see the refugees as citizens to be served, but as a weapon aimed at Israel. They are kept in miserable conditions for the express purpose of creating sympathy for the Palestinian demand that they all be relocated to Israel, thereby eradicating its Jewish majority.

From the moment Israel declared its independence, one of the main Arab tactics has been to exploit the Jews' Achilles heel - their highly developed culture, which respects and values life, and their support for human rights.
The Arab 'stereotype' of the Westerns and the Jews and Israel is that they are weak because they care about the lives of their own people and they are eager to respect the human rights of their enemies. Remember Golda Meir reported to have said, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children."
Until now, Israel has confirmed to that Arab 'stereotype' -such as with "knocks on the roof" in Gaza to warn residents to leave buildings being used for military purposes before they are targeted- but in conversations with Zionists, it seems that this attitude is changing. While Jews will always value life, their determination to minimize enemy casualties and to respect their human rights at almost all costs might be unraveling, and it is the Palestinians who are likely to pay the price.

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:19 am

Balsamo wrote:Of course, the argument of the so called "most free" Arab in the middle east is also kind of silly. Sorry but it is just like saying to a Black American who just had been beaten by white cops...Hey you know, you could be Denzel Washington or Barak Obama...when it would be insane to pretend that because some Black Americans indeed succeeds, there is no discrimination against the Afro-American...
Now would you say to those who feel discrimination on a daily basis, as a "black" you are better here than in Africa?


No, it's not silly, because it's based on data. You can check some, even Palestinians admitting to the truth:

- Facts relating to various facets of life that have been enhanced since “Israeli occupation” began.
https://unitedwithisrael.org/the-facts- ... estinians/

- Poll: 77% of the State of Israel's Arab citizens say won't replace Israel, would rather live in the Jewish state than in any other country in the world, according to a new study conducted by Harvard University titled 'Coexistence in Israel', Ynetnews, 23/06/2008
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 45,00.html

- 'When offered a choice after Oslo between receiving Palestinian passports or Israeli identity cards, over 90% of Arabs in Jerusalem-a hotbed of Muslim fervor and Arab nationalism-chose the Israeli option'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/non-solut ... le/2004361

- Breaking taboo, Jerusalem Palestinians seek Israeli citizenship
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israe ... HP20150803

- 'Official PA daily lauds Israel's treatment of Palestinian workers', PMW, 23/09/2014
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12696

- East Jerusalem Muktar Ramadan Dabbash had this to say: 'We Want to be Under Israel, Not PA', Israel's Channel 20, 06/10/2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRpDGA_ZAtM

- Drive thru a Muslim Village, 24/07/2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reM6e9pBiNE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:35 pm

Kleon: given your review.......why is there anything but an irrelevant minority of Jews who contest the settlements and advocate an "independent" Palestinian state?

...........and what do you think when it is said that the Palestinians already have a "homeland" in the 22 Arab states already on the map?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Kleon: given your review.......why is there anything but an irrelevant minority of Jews who contest the settlements and advocate an "independent" Palestinian state?

...........and what do you think when it is said that the Palestinians already have a "homeland" in the 22 Arab states already on the map?


Well, I want, and probably I can, answer any question on the subject, since it's something that I deal with for almost two decades now. I have to say that once I was more or less anti-Israel, because I thought back then that I was supportive for the Palestinians. In fact, I was adopting without facts-checking every anti-jewish slander. I thought I was an anti-zionist but in fact I was an antisemite, painting Israel with every possible colour in negative tropes and myths.

Keep in mind, please, that it is very difficult for me to express all these political thoughts in English -in fact, some previous comments took me hours. So, I have to use some notes, occasionally.

For your second question, I think what Jabotinsky gave in 1937 in a stunningly eloquent testimony before the British Peel Commission on Palestine, it says it all:

«It is quite understandable that the Arabs of Palestine also prefer to be the Arab state No. 4, or No. 6 -- that I understand. But when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite versus the claims of starvation».
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... c65c80680/


Let us see what the Arabs took from the former Ottoman Empire:

Image

It was so difficult for them to give some 0,16% of the land for some 600.000 Jews, mostly Holocaust survivors?

Let me add some points:

- If 'historic Palestine' includes parts of Jordan, why don't Palestinian Arabs claim that area?

- Why didn't the PLO claim the West Bank and Gaza before 1967?
The 1964 PLO Charter says nothing about statehood and nothing about 'liberating' Gaza and West Bank. In fact the PLO Charter explicitly excludes those areas!

- Has anyone noticed that their claims are always congruent with what Jews control?
Check their demands as time goes by. The Arabs always want what the Jews own, and they demand it only AFTER Jews got it.

- How many Jews remained in the West Bank from 1949-1967?
Exactly zero.

- How many Jews remained in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, S. Arabia, Lebanon, Morocco etc?
Now, that's ethnic cleansing

Watch it in a 'gif':

Image

In numbers:

Image

By country:

Image


Now, for the 'Jews Against Israel'.

Of course, they are proof that Israel is a well-functioning democracy.

We have to keep in mind that '90% of Israeli Jews call themselves Zionists', Herzl Day poll finds, Jerusalem Post, 19/05/2016
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/90-per ... nds-454347

What I don't like is when these people (that lawyer Anthony Julius describes as people 'who are proud to be ashamed to be Jews') are used by antisemites as 'Human-shielded' Jew-baiting built-in protection against accusations for antisemitism.
If a Jewish person is around me, I can claim I can’t possibly be antisemitic. Hiding behind a Jewish person is not a good thing.
It's like antisemites having joy when they were being given permission by a Jew to hate the collective Jew in the State of Israel.

This disproportionate influence of Jewish accusers depends in large part on the fact that they demonize Israel precisely as Jews; In fact, since religion and tradition count for little in most of them, it is the demonization of Israel that makes them like 'pop-stars' Jews all around the antizionist universe.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Antisemiti ... rty-506271


- Manfred Gerstenfeld, Jews against Israel + The Academic Boycott + Noam Chomsky etc, JCPA, 01/03/2005
http://www.acpr.org.il/English-Nativ/08 ... feld-8.htm

- Paul Bogdanor - Jews Who Hate the Jewish State, JewishPress, 04/09/2006
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArt ... ARTID=2777

- Using the 5%:
But for places like SOAS these Jews are useful. I want you to consider this: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses represent Christianity? Could they be fairly used to represent Christianity? What if I said Jehovah’s Witnesses were the only true Christians? If I negated everything mainstream Christians said and did, rejecting them because Jehovah’s Witnesses, the ‘real Christians’, gave me cover. This is *exactly* what is occurring with Jews. A tiny fringe minority, completely unrepresentative of the mainstream, are taken and placed in front of crowds, denouncing mainstream Jews as ‘fake’.
The use of Jehovah’s Witnesses to attack mainstream Christian thought would be seen as a direct attack on Christians. The use of the Jewish 5% should be viewed in the same way. As a strategy, it is inherently antisemitic. Yet almost no university will hold an event today without first ensuring their ‘good Jews’ will be present. Last night at SOAS they had several.
http://david-collier.com/shouldnt-shrug-shoulders-soas/

- An assault on Jews, Jewish Voice for Labour are today's Yevsektsiya
http://david-collier.com/jewish-voice-l ... vsektsiya/

- Self-hating Jews
http://david-collier.com/mondoweiss-fre ... it-gutter/
The anti-Zionist Jews today are ‘destructors’, not ‘constructors’. Sitting in the comfort of London, New York or Copenhagen, they seek to fight a nation that they want no part of. Oddly they claim it is not a ‘Jewish state’, whilst at the same time they attack it because they are Jews. An odd bunch who for the most part have left ‘being Jewish’ behind, yet for some reason cling to an obsessive hatred of a Jewish state that has no part of their lives. If you want confirmation that Israel is the nation state of the Jews, look at what nation the anti-Zionist Jews target.


- Real Jews vs Real Palestinians, Israellycool, 15/06/2017
http://www.israellycool.com/2017/06/15/ ... estinians/

- The term 'asaJew':
https://ukmediawatch.org/2011/06/23/as-a-jew-explained/
They claim that their Jewish identity is authentic in some way that most Jews’ identities are inauthentic. So the anti-Zionist 'asaJew' may be in a tiny minority but she is claiming that she, nevertheless, is the real Jew. The ethical Jew. The critical Jew. The anti-nationalist Jew. The courageous Jew. The far-sighted Jew. And the other Jews, the herd, are actually not such real Jews; their Jewishness has been subverted by Zionism and Islamophobia and a secular unconcern with Jewish ethics.
The term 'asaJew' is a marker of identity politics. It says that I, the speaker, have some special authority to say what I’m going to say because of my identity. Usually identity politics is adopted by people who claim to speak for their collectivity. The 'asaJew' says that non-Jews should pay special attention because they are raising an issue which is more easily seen from a Jewish point of view. So an 'asa Jew' might say that Jews are able to sense or sniff antisemitism when a non-Jew might have been unaware. Jews might be sensitive to certain attitudes, figures of speech, images, to which a non-Jew might not be.
Jewish anti-Zionists give their identity politics a strange twist. Instead of claiming to represent the opinion of most of their fellow Jews, they mobilize their identity 'asaJew' in order to give their oppositional view more legitimacy. They are saying to non-Jews that this or that might seem to them as though it was Antisemitic, but I, the Jew, am happy to reassure you that it isn’t.
But if the thing which the anti-Zionist asa Jew is trying to inoculate against is a thing which most Jews do find troublesome, then they employ another little twist. They claim that their Jewish identity is authentic in some way that most Jews’ identities are inauthentic. So the anti-Zionist 'asaJew' may be in a tiny minority but she is claiming that she, nevertheless, is the real Jew. The ethical Jew. The critical Jew. The anti-nationalist Jew. The courageous Jew. The far-sighted Jew. And the other Jews, the herd, are actually not such real Jews; their Jewishness has been subverted by Zionism and Islamophobia and a secular unconcern with Jewish ethics.


As for threats:

Image

Image
Last edited by Kleon_I XYZ Contagion on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:08 pm

Kleon....nope.....still doesn't make any sense. Its a well known tendency of people to band together and put differences aside when attacked by "outsiders." Self Hating Jew describes what is happening, but not the why of it.

I can see people taking an anti-Zionist position just to run counter to the herd and to make oneself seem important and smart by disagreeing with the majority view........but it appears the exception is close to becoming the rule?

Most empires/nations fall from within before the outside gets a chance and takes credit for it.

Your explanations/links are superb. consider making them not so good if it would save you some time?????? :-)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6452
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:35 pm

Kleon, those are very good points you’ve made.

I agree that a great deal of trouble exists due to the stated desire of Muslim countries and terrorist groups to wipe Israel off the map. I include among these Palestinians who persist in wanting a single state in which they dominate.

So, basically, this will simply continue into eternity with no solution.

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:27 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Kleon, those are very good points you’ve made.

I agree that a great deal of trouble exists due to the stated desire of Muslim countries and terrorist groups to wipe Israel off the map. I include among these Palestinians who persist in wanting a single state in which they dominate.

So, basically, this will simply continue into eternity with no solution.



I'm always learning, Jeff.
Maybe it seems I know some stuff, but the truth is different: There are so many aspects and dimensions on this story, that every single day I stay speechless by new stuff I learn, usually things I couldn't imagine before.
And, just like I feel grateful for people who helped me set the record straight and learn the facts (the first and most urgent anyone has to do), the same way I feel happy helping friends and other people go deep inside this mess.

If someone educates himself to a point that he can distinguish truth from lies and facts from myths, then, if someone asks the right questions, then the case can be much easier to understand.

- Efraim Karsh, 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians: Annotated Text, An exhaustive review of the archival evidence, Commentary, 07/05/2008
https://archive.is/WkL8c


Of course, my main concern is antisemitism and rising of fascism and racism, and I'm against all these, as I've said before, quoting Prof. David Hirsh who wrote:

- The struggles against Islamophobia, antisemitism and anti-Arab racism, the struggle against the occupation of the West Bank and the struggle against the project to smash the State of Israel -these are all potentially democratic struggles, and, although they are distinct, they can be understood in a cosmopolitan way as belonging to the same family.

That is pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, pro-peace, but I have to say, it's time we must go ahead on solutions, not sides.
We should not stop supporting Palestinian statehood. Two-states for two peoples is the only solution to the conflict. We have to support in both sides the rational ones and those who are willing to engage in serious conversations.

In order to do this, we must make Palestinians understand that, for example, this behavior is unacceptable:

- Promoting child Martyrdom
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=846

- Promoting violence for children
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=339

And then we end up here: It's all in PA's elite's education vision. What will the next generation of Palestinians would look like.
This?

- Palestinian children commit terror attacks to enhance their status in society
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=24167

It is understandable that most people around us today fail to understand the Palestinian ideology and strategy.
Most people see the conflict as a typical 'good guy-bad guy' story, little hero David against huge satanic Goliath, and as the last anti-colonialist struggle.

But in this dangerous confluence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, though the two concepts are not always identical, I can see that Anti-Zionism is often used as euphemism to hide the hatred of Jews. Israel has become the pretext for anti-Semitism. All the unsayable things, all they know they can not say about the Jews in a liberal post-Holocaust society, they can now say them again, because of Israel. Israel's existence has clarified the subject, it is a place where everything is allowed.

When I hear 'Smash apartheid state Israel', I feel chills from the 30s again. Many left-wing anti-Semites don't understand it, but this slogan marks an end to the political entity that expresses the national identity of Jewish Israelis, and they go along with this program. To put it violently, what they say is this:
- Zionism is only the ideology of the Israeli state,
- It can also not be the expression of a Jewish national identity or identity with the idea of Israel as opposed to politics of its successive governments;
- All Zionist Jews express the ideology of the Israeli state.
- All Zionists are therefore collectively responsible for what this state is doing.
- Therefore, all Zionists are fascists
- And what are we doing with the fascists? Certainly, we eliminate them. Well, then, it's OK to extinct Jews.


This is really a funny but thoughtful reading:

- That's Funny, You Don't Look Anti-Semitic: Left Anti-Semitism
http://you-dont-look-anti-semitic.blogs ... itism.html

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:38 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion wrote:
It is time to acknowledge the unpalatable fact that the enmity of Arabs towards the Jews and the Jewish state is:
- not about borders but about existence;
- not about what the Jewish people do but about what the Jewish people are;
- not about the Jewish state’s policies but about the Jewish state per se; and
- not about Jewish military 'occupation' of Arab land but about Jewish political existence on any land.
Israel must internalize these truths and undertake a policy to convey them -with conviction and vigor- to the world. Otherwise it may well be 'liberated.'


I agree the above is a major consideration, Israel’s security is her paramount issue. As long as the stated goal of Arab states and terrorist groups is the destruction of Israel then this will all be a non-starter.


Kleon,

Thank you for your detailed explanation. Unfortunately, it is nothing new to me, but you made it much clear and objective than many others i have seen. I cannot and will not address it point by point of course, actually i do not even want to because you are right in your perspective. That is i can 100% understand why you think this way as it is the result of 70 years of struggle.

My perspective is completely different. It is how can we get FROM the current situation, as i share the opinion that the current "status quo" leads to nowhere, or at least nowhere pretty for the Israelis as well as for the Palestinians.

And the problem is that your 4 points (which i consider as a nice summary) just leads to nowhere. Even if all those points were right, the imperative would still be HOW DO WE CHANGE THE CURRENT SITUATION? Because, in the end, it is all that matters.

Of course, and it has to be understood, it would be stupid to consider - as unfortunately more and more people believe - that Israel holds the key of a peace settlement all by itself. The challenge is of course that the two parties (including all those Arabs States) has to realize that the current situation is not viable.

1./ - not about borders but about existence;

That was true, but again things can change. And if i am not miskaten, most Arab States were ready to recognized Israel within the frame of a "peace treaty".
The Statement has long been true, but the solution would be that it changes. I think it is achievable. Of course, in the end, it would have to be about borders.

2./ not about what the Jewish people do but about what the Jewish people are

Well...i would say a bit of both, unfortunately. But indeed, that is an issue. No one ever said it would be easy. To reestablish a trust between enemies is always a challenge. It is nevertheless possible...just look at France and Germany...or even a tolerance like between the whites and the Blacks in South Afrika. If those are managing to live together somehow, nothing is impossible, don't you think.

3./ - not about the Jewish state’s policies but about the Jewish state per se; and

The second proposition unfortunately does not replace the first one. That the Arabs have something about the Jewish State does not mean that Jewish State's policies have no influence. And even if not with the Arabs, the rest of the world tend to focus on the Jewish State's policy. It is foolish to think that Israel can isolate itself from the International Community. As one of later illustration shows, "How can 6.000.000 Jews fight against 1.7 billion Muslims?" all by itself? Today, it enjoys the protection of the USA, its billions of dollars of military aids, but, but...what if ? if that changes in the future?

You posted a link that shows that 77% of the Israeli "arab" would chose to stay in Israel no matter what. Which is proof that public opinion CAN change.

4./ - not about Jewish military 'occupation' of Arab land but about Jewish political existence on any land.

Like the above.
May sounds nice, may even be true - although again it is almost a caricature - but such a "state of mind" again leads to nowhere. This is unfortunately an "Spirit" that the Israelis will have to overcome, even if it seems impossible under those circumstances.

Actually, those points shows that the situation could only be solved through an international settlement.

Unfortunately, there are no Palestinian or even "pro-palestinian" activists participating to this debate, so i might give the impression that i consider that everything is within Israel's hands. It is of course absurd.
Great pressures and explanation, up to diplomatic threats, will be needed to make the Arab world realize that their current positions ALSO leads to an undesired future.
This is in my humble opinion also achievable. We'll what the new policies of Saudi Arabia's new prince will leads to. If he'll survived his "coup".

What is certain, is that BOTH SIDES will have to reconsider a lot of things and make concessions.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:39 pm

strange double post

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:23 pm

Lots of bad........or incomplete.... thinking going on. Not that correcting it provides any answers, but it is man's nature to ask why and to seek/find the best answers even if not solutions.

1. "So, basically, this will simply continue into eternity with no solution." //// No. History does not show a single example of this. Everything changes. History/Nations/People ebb and flow. Now, I don't know how many "evers" your eternity holds but a couple of hundred years on the world stage is "Short" for many issues. A couple of hundred years down the road is unknowable as to what the status then will be. all we do know is that a couple of hundred years down the road WILL occur. Then what? No one knows. As stated, this restatement doesn't provide any answers, but its more accurate. THE SOLUTION that HISTORY provides OVER AND OVER AGAIN: is the annihilation of one people by another. Look at the maps/links provided above: the Jewish people have been annihilated in Arab country after Arab country. It is the solution most likely here as well.

2. "- The struggles against Islamophobia, antisemitism and anti-Arab racism, the struggle against the occupation of the West Bank and the struggle against the project to smash the State of Israel -these are all potentially democratic struggles, and, although they are distinct, they can be understood in a cosmopolitan way as belonging to the same family." //// There is nothing in this statement that makes any sense at all. I suppose it is quoted because it mentions issues of concern? WITHIN the Middle East, is there a struggle against Islamaphobia? or Anti-Arab racism that is relevant except as a footnote? There is no struggle against occupation of the West Bank except as it is part of the struggle against the Existence of Israel. A distinction that may not have much use, but it expresses my country bumpkin way in the family I belong to.

3. "We should not stop supporting Palestinian statehood. Two-states for two peoples is the only solution to the conflict. We have to support in both sides the rational ones and those who are willing to engage in serious conversations." /// As I think we were close to recognizing, the Palestinians have a homeland in the other 22 Arab states. In a real sense, the Arabs only want Israeli land because the Jews are there. An appeal to Statehood "sounds" nice................BUT LOOK AT THE MAP. Bad thinking is the accepted context.

4. "Most people see the conflict as a typical 'good guy-bad guy' story, little hero David against huge satanic Goliath, ===correct. And it is isn't it?

".... and as the last anti-colonialist struggle." /// What? There is no colonization going on. An error on the import of a typo?

5. Zionism and Semitism are very different concepts as are their anti's. Zionism is about the formation and maintenace of a Nation State while Semitism formally includes many arab groups but is often meant as synonymous with Jew. Using the terms without defining them cannot be helpful.

6. "Of course, and it has to be understood, it would be stupid to consider - as unfortunately more and more people believe - that Israel holds the key of a peace settlement all by itself. " /// thats an important recognition as it is calling for Israel to give up its security interest in the face of promised extinction. Who would do that voluntarily? ((Ha, ha....well the Jews as a matter of fact?--Thinking of Masada. BUT each time and place stands on its own. I've just never agreed to giving up....better to die fighting.))

7. "The challenge is of course that the two parties (including all those Arabs States) has to realize that the current situation is not viable." /// Define viable. The situation could easily last for hundreds of years. We've got North Korea in a similar state. Then there was Myanmar that was similar but for reasons off topic changed on its own with all its conflict still being resolved. History in action. Change is constant over time periods longer than lives in being.

blah, blah.

As I blah, it occurs to me that "Reality" is always a good construct. I'm thinking "a solution" is for Israel to Declare its current borders FIRM and NOT SUBJECT to negotiation. If war is brought to Israel, any land captured will be retained. The Palestinians have a homeland: its called the Middle East.

Don't like it?........................... No one ever does.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Kleon_I XYZ Contagion
Poster
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:06 pm
Contact:

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Kleon_I XYZ Contagion » Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:47 pm

Following the news:

Back in June, there was a scoop, in my opinion the biggest Israel-related story of the decade:

- Exclusive: Obama’s Detailed Plans for Mideast Peace Revealed - and How Everything Fell Apart - Documents obtained by Haaretz detail where Netanyahu was willing to compromise on borders, and how the U.S. failed to get Abbas on board over Jerusalem in 2014, Haaretz, 08/06/2017
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.794292

If it's locked, many details here:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/fore ... ion-state/

When Kerry met Abbas in Paris on February 19, 2014 and presented him with this version of the framework accord, the Palestinian president responded with anger and disappointment. Former U.S. officials say his biggest concern was with how the document addressed Jerusalem. The weak wording on this paramount issue was a nonstarter for him.
As a result of Abbas’ reaction, the U.S. team realized that in order to get a “yes” from the Palestinian president, they would have to change some parts of the framework document. The challenge was how to do it without losing Netanyahu, who had verbally expressed his openness toward the February version of the document (although he never accepted it in writing).
Abbas was scheduled to meet President Barack Obama in the White House on March 16, 2014 – less than a month after his dinner with Kerry in Paris. Ahead of that meeting, the U.S. peace team crafted an updated version of the framework, which, unlike the February document, was not pre-negotiated with the Israelis. The result was a different document, one that on a number of issues was tilted more toward the Palestinians.
After failing to first negotiate a document with Netanyahu and then get a “yes” from Abbas, the Americans now wanted to test the opposite option: Getting the Palestinian leader to agree to a document on the core issues, and then take it back to Netanyahu. But Abbas didn’t accept Obama’s framework document. He didn’t reject it, though – he simply didn’t respond.The Obama administration was disappointed and frustrated by his reaction. Obama asked Abbas to “see the big picture” instead of squabbling with “this or that detail” – to no avail. A month later, Kerry’s peace talks collapsed.


These reports show that Netanyahu has approved a framework created by John Kerry and his team, which would have led to a Palestinian state based on land exchanges in 1967 borders. When the plan was presented to Mahmoud Abbas, he strongly rejected it. When Kerry returned with a nicer offer that concerned Abbas's objections -without consulting the Israelis- Abbas never answered and finally let the talks die again. This story, published in a leftist newspaper, is the biggest story of the year for Israel. It demonstrates that Netanyahu is much more versatile for a two-state solution than any journalist has ever written. He demonstrates that Abbas is more unceasing and is not interested in peace than any journalist is willing to admit. It fully competes (and completes) conventional wisdom for Israel and the Palestinians. And no one wants to talk about it. The media and world diplomats do not want to overthrow the carefully crafted mythology of an intransigent Israeli government and a modest Palestinian Authority. This story ruins this narrative. Even worse, the Israeli government does not want to mention this story either, because Netanyahu has to portray himself as someone who defends Israel's interests against the most prominent coalition partners. So, result is, no one, right or left, wants to touch the most important story of the year.

Image
Source: 2017-06-08-Haaretz - How peace talks failed A timeline - Details two American initiatives to forge a peace plan under the Obama administration [from late 2013 to April 2014] - Peace Plan

The fact is that Israeli leaders, left and right, proposed and accepted peace agreements throughout the five decades that would put an end to Israeli sovereignty over disputed territories and the Palestinians rejected every one directly or indirectly. 1937, 1947, 1967, 2000, 2001, 2008, and now 2014. How many times does this need to happen before we can see what's going on here? John Kerry knew the truth, perhaps more than anyone -and yet in December 2015 he gave a speech that only accused Israel of the failure of peace in the Middle East.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/us/p ... peace.html

But this week, there was another scoop:

- Released John Kerry Recordings on Middle East Peace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xERetquoRQg

In recording, John Kerry says Israeli government doesn’t want peace: Ex-secretary of state says Israel ignoring threat posed by diplomatic stalemate, warns of future Palestinian violence, 07/11/2017
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-record ... ant-peace/


Sorry to say it, but these comments demonstrate kind of dangerous ignorance from John Kerry.

Now, please read some excerpts from President Bill Clinton's autobiography, 'My Life', published in 2005, over what happened in 2000 Camp David Summit talks, and probably we can get the bigger picture here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pre ... vid-summit

Palestinians 'never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity':

- Israel’s Quest For Peace - Timeline of Israel’s Peace Overtures
http://www.stopbds.com/?page_id=64

- 'Over 100 Years of Chronic Arab Rejectionism'
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/6 ... ism.htm#A2

- What Has Israel Ever Done For Peace?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc1kDE4jeHc

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11148
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:00 pm

"Sorry to say it, but these comments demonstrate kind of dangerous ignorance from John Kerry." //// Lying is not ignorance. Something doesn't add up.

...........and while I have never paid any real attention, it was my impression that the PLO has been overdemanding and unrealistic at every point in time. Where has the claimed "mythology" grown up????
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:43 pm

Thanks Kleon,

Unfortunately it is not unknown for those with real knowledge about the issue, that is those who do not depend on what the news papers write about it.

You won't be surprised that i have another reading of this story.
So what do we have:
- The Obama administration was indeed the most accommodating toward the Palestinians since the Clinton's one.
- There was a first plan UNOFFICIALLY accepted by Bibi - so i guess it included Jerusalem being officially transfered to Israel - which is of course unacceptable to the PA.
- Then they tried the other way round, a new more favorable plan that might give East Jerusalem as capital to the PA, probably in exchange of the "settled" territories and the Jewish character of Israel, which would have been rejected by both parties.

Given the political nature of both parties, this cannot work.
Israel is a democracy where politicians are elected. None of the political parties has a majority, so a government is formed by a coalition of political parties.
Under those circumstances, whatever plan officially or unofficially accepted by the Israeli PM, will have to first be accepted by all Parties of the current coalition (given its current members, any concession is highly improbable), then by the majority of the Knesset, and that would supposed of course that the plan would have the support of the Israeli Public Opinion otherwise it would be a political suicide for the signatories. And sometimes - like Rabin - they would put their own life at risk.

On the other side, the Palestinian Authority is no longer what it used to be. Abbas does not have a quarter of the prestige and personal authority that Arafat had. The Fatah has to compose with its own extremists, a radicalized population - which is the one aspect i fear the most - a youth who had known nothing but military occupation, just like their parents, with no other prospect at all. Given the lack of strength of the PA, it is not bad election that is to fear, but insurgency and civil war (like with the Hamas in 2006 or so).

Within the frame of bilateral negotiations, none of the Parties has the authority and the possibility to make the indispensable concessions.

This is why, and i said it in my first post i think, peace cannot be achieved through bilateral negotiation. Simple at that, unfortunately.

Can anyone imagine the creation of Israel if it had only depended of negotiation between Jewish and Arab organizations ONLY?


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest