Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 7:54 am

Freeman:
to push the Palestinians into accepting no nation


The Israelis aren't pushing the Palestinians to accept no nation. The Palestinians have refused to negotiate with Israel for about a decade now since the Palestinians view negotiating as a concession, and have not accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish country, and have not accepted any offer, and have insisted on all of the occupied territories, and a right of return, and Jerusalem, etc..

The reality is that by feeding a false narrative, the world has emboldened the Palestinians to make unreasonable demands. However, in no other conflict is the victor in war expected to sue for peace. I think the reason we don't have a deal is that the Palestinian and Arab governments don't really want one, because to them propaganda is more important than the lives of their people.

However, if they do want one, then they have to be realistic about their circumstances and what happens when one group loses in a military conflict. For there to be a deal, they must acknowledge that: 1. Israel won, 2. the Palestinians have to take what they can get, 3. it has to be done on Israel's terms. There's no reason that Israel has to jeopardize its security and uproot its citizenry as it did in Gaza without confidence that the Palestinians will deliver. The Israelis are giving up historic land (e.g. Hebron) which also happens to be land that they do need since they are a small country. They are also taking security risks. Sure several years ago that may have made sense. But the Palestinians and Arab governments have shown years of bad faith, including terrorism that continues to day, and rhetoric that is over the top.

The Palestinians can have a nation, but only if they give in to the Israelis. That's the reality of losing many wars. I don't see the Tibetans or the Kurds making unreasonable demands such as no Chinese or Arabs can live in our territory. We need to stop providing the Palestinians with false hope that it is reasonable to believe that there is a great deal waiting for them. Because even if the UN and the majority of the other countries feel that way, Israel is a nation state and a democracy. What matters is how the Israelis perceive the situation and they will continue to vote in their self interest.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 10:39 am

rayjay
However, if they do want one, then they have to be realistic about their circumstances and what happens when one group loses in a military conflict. For there to be a deal, they must acknowledge that: 1. Israel won, 2. the Palestinians have to take what they can get, 3. it has to be done on Israel's terms.

And you call this compromise or capitulation?

The point of resistance to an oppressive occupation is to continue to make the occupiers suffer.
If the Palestinians won't completely capitulate as you seem to think they should, they aren't the only one's suffering.
Many French people, and Dutch and others didn't accept the occupation of their nations in WII. We portray them as "The Resistance" and celebrate their courage and perseverance.
The Vietnamese didn't accept the occupation of their nation by the French, Japanese or Americans. eventually they won.
Many South Africans didn't accept the establishment of an apartheid regime occupying South Africa.

In each case a determined and persistent resistance eventually won out.
Perhaps the Palestinian Arabs see these and other examples as models and will refuse capitulation.
Might does not make right. Winning does not result in a just solution and peace without the winners raising up the losers and offering a humane peace.
Apart from committing a genocide, an occupying nation can find it impossible to submit a populace that is determined and persistent.
Its one reason modern nations states avoid war, and even more occupation. You can no longer seize and steal from the incumbent people with impunity.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 21 Dec 2016, 10:42 am

Ok, that's fine. I don't expect there this a chance for peace as long as Palestinians (and othef Arabs) hope that while they might agree to some interim agreement that they will always seek to get back control of all of the land that Israel currently occupies. So if there is no real peace why should Israel do it? But it's quite a different thing for some of Israel's right-wing to say that they will not accept a Palestininian state under any circumstances. And for that segment of Israel to seemingly be emboldened by the Trump presidency concerns me. Because then if they are relying on US power to take steps with regard to the Palestinians then it isn't just about Israel's interests but how the US views its interests in the region, as well.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 11:07 am

rickyp wrote:rayjay
However, if they do want one, then they have to be realistic about their circumstances and what happens when one group loses in a military conflict. For there to be a deal, they must acknowledge that: 1. Israel won, 2. the Palestinians have to take what they can get, 3. it has to be done on Israel's terms.

And you call this compromise or capitulation?

The point of resistance to an oppressive occupation is to continue to make the occupiers suffer.
If the Palestinians won't completely capitulate as you seem to think they should, they aren't the only one's suffering.
Many French people, and Dutch and others didn't accept the occupation of their nations in WII. We portray them as "The Resistance" and celebrate their courage and perseverance.
The Vietnamese didn't accept the occupation of their nation by the French, Japanese or Americans. eventually they won.
Many South Africans didn't accept the establishment of an apartheid regime occupying South Africa.

In each case a determined and persistent resistance eventually won out.
Perhaps the Palestinian Arabs see these and other examples as models and will refuse capitulation.
Might does not make right. Winning does not result in a just solution and peace without the winners raising up the losers and offering a humane peace.
Apart from committing a genocide, an occupying nation can find it impossible to submit a populace that is determined and persistent.
Its one reason modern nations states avoid war, and even more occupation. You can no longer seize and steal from the incumbent people with impunity.

The French capitulated to German demands in 1871 and the Germans capitulated to French (and other) demands in 1918. In 1918 the Germans didn't demand that France give up Paris as its capital and allow Germans to return to settle in parts of France that their ancestors lived in 70 years ago..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 11:13 am

freeman3 wrote:Ok, that's fine. I don't expect there this a chance for peace as long as Palestinians (and othef Arabs) hope that while they might agree to some interim agreement that they will always seek to get back control of all of the land that Israel currently occupies. So if there is no real peace why should Israel do it? But it's quite a different thing for some of Israel's right-wing to say that they will not accept a Palestininian state under any circumstances. And for that segment of Israel to seemingly be emboldened by the Trump presidency concerns me. Because then if they are relying on US power to take steps with regard to the Palestinians then it isn't just about Israel's interests but how the US views its interests in the region, as well.


Yes, I fully agree. I am in favor of a 2 state solution, but I think it is incumbent on the Palestinians to do the compromising for the reasons that I've mentioned. If not, their loss.

Regarding U.S. interests, it's more complicated. Whereas the Europeans will wag their tongues if the U.S. overly supports Israel's current government, I don't know how the Arabs and other Middle easterners will view it. Obama, and by extension the U.S., is not respected and we are seeing the results of that in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.. Jawing your allies (which is what the US has done with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) does not seem to be a workable foreign policy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 11:20 am

Ricky:
Perhaps the Palestinian Arabs see these and other examples as models and will refuse capitulation.


That's exactly what they are doing. Because the Palestinians perceive the Zionists as foreign occupiers. (Stop enabling them.) But unlike the French in Vietnam, there is no other place for the Israelis to go. BTW, I don't recall the French being in Vietnam in 1,000 BCE.

Ricky:
Winning does not result in a just solution and peace without the winners raising up the losers and offering a humane peace.


The Israelis have offered a humane peace several times. Not ideal, but certainly humane. The Palestinians haven't accepted it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 11:58 am

That's exactly what they are doing. Because the Palestinians perceive the Zionists as foreign occupiers. (Stop enabling them.) But unlike the French in Vietnam, there is no other place for the Israelis to go. BTW, I don't recall the French being in Vietnam in 1,000 BCE.
What if many of the Palestinians are themselves descendents of people living in Israel thousands of years ago?

Ricky:
Winning does not result in a just solution and peace without the winners raising up the losers and offering a humane peace.


The Israelis have offered a humane peace several times. Not ideal, but certainly humane. The Palestinians haven't accepted it.
And the Israelis have reneged on some of their offers, too.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 12:34 pm

danivon wrote:What if many of the Palestinians are themselves descendents of people living in Israel thousands of years ago?.


Like billions of other people on the planet they have to live in a country that is different than the country of their ancestors.

And the Israelis have reneged on some of their offers, too.
Yes, Intifadas have consequences.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 2:47 pm

the Germans capitulated to French (and other) demands in 1918

and the capitulation resulted in a peace that didn't hold... So what good was that?
Thats the problem with one side dictating ... resentment that builds to an explosive reaction.
On the other hand at the end of WWII the occupiers helped build the modern German nation.

rayjay
Yes, Intifadas have consequences.

The Intifadas are themselves the consequence of a humiliating occupation.
If the spiral is ever to be stopped it will rely upon the stronger party to offfer terms that are generous, and a situation offering living conditions that is respectful and tolerable.

I don't see how the US recognizing Jerusalem aids in finding workable peace. Nor does it do anything in the region except cede influence to Iran, and Russia.
But hey, I'm sure when Trump send his son-in-law over he'll work things out.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 21 Dec 2016, 7:28 pm

rickyp wrote:
the Germans capitulated to French (and other) demands in 1918

and the capitulation resulted in a peace that didn't hold... So what good was that?
Thats the problem with one side dictating ... resentment that builds to an explosive reaction.
On the other hand at the end of WWII the occupiers helped build the modern German nation.

rayjay
Yes, Intifadas have consequences.

The Intifadas are themselves the consequence of a humiliating occupation.
If the spiral is ever to be stopped it will rely upon the stronger party to offfer terms that are generous, and a situation offering living conditions that is respectful and tolerable.

I don't see how the US recognizing Jerusalem aids in finding workable peace. Nor does it do anything in the region except cede influence to Iran, and Russia.
But hey, I'm sure when Trump send his son-in-law over he'll work things out.


I get it ... cause he's Jewish.

Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since 1948. There is no credible scenario that it will not be Israel's capital, so why the mind game? Russia and Iran have extended their influence over the last several years. It's because the U.S. has been a patsy regarding Damascus and has nothing to do with Jerusalem.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Dec 2016, 7:38 am

ray
I get it ... cause he's Jewish.

That may be how Trump thinks...

Donald Trump says his son-in-law Jared Kushner could broker peace in Middle East

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33086.html

Ray
Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since 1948. There is no credible scenario that it will not be Israel's capital, so why the mind game?

Why not? By not recognizing Jerusalem nations make it plain that the solution offered by the UN in 48 is what they support. Thats signals to all parties that the unilateral occupation of Jerusalem is unacceptable. Period.[/quote]

Ray
Russia and Iran have extended their influence over the last several years. It's because the U.S. has been a patsy regarding Damascus and has nothing to do with Jerusalem.

Ah. So you would have favored a full scale military intervention in Syria to topple Assad? Would that have come before or after ISIS and Al Queda had become entrenched? Before or after the Russians sent bombers and the Iranians sent their "volunteers"?
How many troops to occupy Syria?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 22 Dec 2016, 7:39 pm

Ricky:
Ah. So you would have favored a full scale military intervention in Syria to topple Assad?


It's a shame that they passed a law that all foreign policy decisions are now binary.

Ricky
Why not? By not recognizing Jerusalem nations make it plain that the solution offered by the UN in 48 is what they support.


They are entitled to their opinion, but the view of the vast majority of Israelis and the US Congress is that West Jerusalem is part of Israel, and should be its capital. Presidents have campaigned on this very subject, and then reneged. Perhaps Trump will stand by his statements. The U.S. should stand behind its view and not worry about silly views of other countries.

By the way, here are some other things that the U.N. has done relative to Israel this year. It's the reason they have such low creditability in both the U.S. and Israel.

http://www.unwatch.org/top-ten-egregiou ... ions-2016/

The ones I think are most egregious:

7. Canadian law professor Michael Lynk was appointed as the UN’s “impartial” investigator of alleged Israeli human rights violations—even though his application deceptively failed to disclose his long record of anti-Israel lobbying, or his board membership on three pro-Palestinian organizations including Friends of Sabeel and the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations.
6. The UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) singled out Israel as the only violator in the world of “mental, physical and environmental health.”
5. The UN’s ILO effectively singled out Israel as the world’s only violator of labor rights, through its production and debate of a massive report—to which no other country is subject—on “the situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories, including the occupied Syrian Golan.” Meanwhile, the plight of Syrians suffering in Syria was ignored.
4. When Palestinian men beat their wives, it’s Israel’s fault, argued UN expert Dubravka Simonovic, in a statement summing up her September visit to the Palestinian territories.
3. In its ritual scapegoating of the Jewish state each year, the UN General Assembly just adopted 20 one-sided resolutions against Israel, and only 4 resolutions on the rest of the world combined.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Dec 2016, 8:57 am

rayjay
It's a shame that they passed a law that all foreign policy decisions are now binary.

I asked a rhetorical question. If you think something short of a full military intervention would have had an affect, what?
I think that unless the US was willing to commit to a full military intervention ..... Assad was going to move with impunity.
And he has... WHat makes you thi k less would have had effect?

rayjay
Perhaps Trump will stand by his statements. The U.S. should stand behind its view and not worry about silly views of other countries.

I guess it will depend on who Trump talks to last. Here's what his nominee for secretary of defence thinks...
“I paid a military-security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel,” Mattis said then of his job, which involves interactions with America’s Arab allies.
He also warned that the United States urgently needed to press the Israelis and the Palestinians to advance to a two-state solution.
“Either it ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don’t get to vote — apartheid. That didn’t work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country,” Mattis said.

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/3 ... apartheid/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 25 Dec 2016, 7:23 am

Ricky:
rayjay
It's a shame that they passed a law that all foreign policy decisions are now binary.

I asked a rhetorical question. If you think something short of a full military intervention would have had an affect, what?
I think that unless the US was willing to commit to a full military intervention ..... Assad was going to move with impunity.
And he has... WHat makes you thi k less would have had effect?


After Assad used chemical weapons most of Obama's foreign policy team including Clinton, Powers, and the Secretary of Defense advocated a more forceful line including stepped up aerial bombings. Obama rejected it even though he had said it was a red line and our entire establishment said that Assad must leave office.. At that point Assad, Russia, and Iran moved with impunity. None of us knows what would have happened, but 430,000 dead and millions of refugees is a stain on Obama's legacy. You said that Russia entering was creating a quagmire, but you certainly got that wrong.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Dec 2016, 8:57 am

Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:What if many of the Palestinians are themselves descendents of people living in Israel thousands of years ago?.


Like billions of other people on the planet they have to live in a country that is different than the country of their ancestors.
hmmm. But apparently there have to be exceptions based on 2000+ year old history.

And the Israelis have reneged on some of their offers, too.
Yes, Intifadas have consequences.[/quote]So do illegal settlement expansions. Illegal under Israeli law at one point.