freeman

The Palestinians will not accept Israel;

bbauska

You seem to be saying that Israel should support a two-state solution, but do Palestinians?

Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

His Excellency: Johan Jorgen Holst
Foreign Minister of Norway.
Dear Minister Holst,
I would like to confirm to you that, upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

This was in 1993.

RayJay

Barghouti of the PLO Exec Committee said after Kerry's speech: “First, you cannot make the issue of Palestinian refugees only an issue of compensation; you cannot deny people their right to return to their home,” Second, he said that Israel cannot be recognized as a Jewish state. In the past the Palestinians said that all Jewish settlers would have to leave the West Bank. In other words, one state (Israel) would have an additional 1,000,000 + Palestinian residents whereas the other state would be the Palestinian state, presumably Jewish free. They also denounced Kerry's formulation for Jerusalem.

Isn't it strange that a fundamental law of Israel is The Law of return, but when the Palestinians claim a right of return .... that's unacceptable?
I ask you to read the two and parse for me why they are so fundamentally different or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestini ... _of_return

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

There is a significant difference between recognizing the State of Israel and recognizing Israel as a Jewish State.
It provides a recognition for a state in which Arab citizens will be less than equal.
Essentially it would be an approval of apartheid.
At least that is the legitimate concern of Palestinians, who after all have been experiencing an apartheid like occupation for 50 years.
Nethanyahu is moving the goal posts and playing for time, until such time as the world tires of the Palestinian problem and decides to abandon them completely to the whims of Israel.
Please read the descriptions of Arab life in the West bank. The settlements will bring more and the use of limited resources (like water) in systems that favor Israel will continue. I don't in any way approve of the use of terror. However, one can understand how the way they are being expected to exist would cause frustration to boil over and breed radicals and terrorists...
Nethanyahu and Trump will get along fine. They both recognize a fellow BS artist.
Will their collaboration bring peace.? No.
(Although couriers should see a steep rise in business since Trump eschews computer communication..other than twitter.)

Seriously, Ricky you are being seriously naive or purposefully ingenuous. The distinction between the recognizing Israel as being a Jewish state and recognizing Israel is vital. The Right of Return and not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state all have to do with the idea of the Palestinians gaining political control of Israel. One of the reasons Israel was formed was that as a minority in Europe they could not protect themselves from discrimination, with the most extreme example being Nazi Germany. Israel is a safe haven for Jews and expecting them to give up eventual political control of their country to Palestinians is antithetical to that idea (especially given the enmity between the two groups). Looking at it the way you are doing actually hurts the Palestinian cause. They have to understand that they will NEVER get political control of Israel unless they are militarily more powerful than Israel (with American assistance) and that will NEVER happen. Buying their bs on this does not help.

rickyp wrote:freeman

The Palestinians will not accept Israel;

bbauska

You seem to be saying that Israel should support a two-state solution, but do Palestinians?

Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

His Excellency: Johan Jorgen Holst
Foreign Minister of Norway.
Dear Minister Holst,
I would like to confirm to you that, upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic development and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.

This was in 1993.

It's still not Feb. 29th.

and yet he rejected a peace offer in 2000 and a wave of Arab terrorism followed..

Ricky:

Isn't it strange that a fundamental law of Israel is The Law of return, but when the Palestinians claim a right of return .... that's unacceptable?
I ask you to read the two and parse for me why they are so fundamentally different or similar.

You are saying the same thing. You are saying that the Palestinians have legal rights to all of the west bank, including the dismantling of settlements AND they have rights to return to Israel proper in the millions. There is every reason to believe that in such a scenario the West Bank would be Judenfrei, as is the vast majority of the Arab world.

In any case, as I've explained, the Israeli/Jewish right is more solid based on the historical facts and circumstances. There are over 20 Arab and Muslim countries, and there is only 1 Jewish country. In fact, Jordan is already majority Palestinian. And assuming there is a negotiated agreement they would have the West Bank and Gaza. Contrary to your misinformed (at best) assertions about apartheid, Palestinians in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the world, especially if they are female or gay, or want to speak freely, or want to serve in government, etc.

freeman3

Seriously, Ricky you are being seriously naive or purposefully ingenuous. The distinction between the recognizing Israel as being a Jewish state and recognizing Israel is vital. The Right of Return and not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state all have to do with the idea of the Palestinians gaining political control of Israel.

I'm presenting the arguments from the Arabs POV.
I don't agree with all of them, nor do I agree with all the Israelis POV.
Both sides have their own narratives, and they are not compatible.

Defending the Jewish right of return while denying Palestinians a right to return to homelands their families were forced to leave, is one incongruity.
Being both a "Jewish" state and a democracy...is another.
The population math says that you can't have a Palestinian right of return and a democratic Jewish State. That is a reality.
The only solution is 2 states, including a viable state of Palestine. One that isn't carved up into Bantu like "security zones" and controlled by an armed Israelis security force. A proper state with control over resources ad borders, and which provides Palestinians in camps a future that has some hope and dignity.
Settlement expansion is simply a signal that Israel is not in any way willing to provide that solution.

rayjay

In any case, as I've explained, the Israeli/Jewish right is more solid based on the historical facts and circumstances.

The Israelis right is based on a narrative that recognizes historical "facts" and "circumstances" that Jews believe. It ignores those of Arabs indigenous to the region.
Israel cannot win security by continuing to insist that it has a morally superior narrative. It doesn't.
So, somehow Israel must not just accommodate the aspirations of Palestinian Arabs, but actually help them become reality. And the Palestinians have to recognize that a sound viable state on the west bank is their best hope for their children.

Ricky:

The Israelis right is based on a narrative that recognizes historical "facts" and "circumstances" that Jews believe. It ignores those of Arabs indigenous to the region.

"facts" such as that many Arabs call for removing all Jews from Palestine... that they elected Hamas which calls for all of Israel and Palestine as their territory and killing all Jews ... "facts" such as the funding of terrorism by the Palestinian authority ... "facts" such as years of terrorism as an official policy ... "facts" such as the Arabs tried to wipe Jews off the map in 1947 ... "facts" that they said the would do the same prior to the 6-day war ... "facts" such as Jews were restricted from all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter) from 48 - 67 ... "facts" such as the Palestinians have not developed democracy in Gaza and the West Bank and have horrendous human rights records vis-à-vis their own people ... "facts" such as other Arab governments such as Syria and Iraq and Egypt.

Ricky

Israel cannot win security by continuing to insist that it has a morally superior narrative.

Don't you understand: the only way Israel can win security is by staying strong militarily including a strong security apparatus. Yes, there are excesses. No argument. Yes, the settlements are unhelpful. However, the bottom line is Arab and Palestinian behavior. It doesn't matter what gestures the Israelis make or have made. They cannot accommodate the Palestinians' desires and protect their own citizens.

What if Abbas made the following announcement: the Palestininians want their own state controlled by them as a sovereign state and in return they will agree that (1) Israel in its currently recognized borders is a Jewish state, (2) Right of Return will be largely a financial settlement and not actual return, and (3) renouncement of terrorism. There would be enormous pressure on Israel to make a deal. Instead, the Palestinians are thinking that they can use world opinion to somehow sway Israel to give in to their demands. Meanwhile Israel is figuring that as long as Palestinians are never going to be realistic about peace they might as well grab that nice land on the West Bank...

The Palestinians need to change the narrative. The ball is in their court. Right now, they are playing into the hands of Israel's right-wing who want to control Judea and Samaria and Netanyahu who I think wants settlements to be so extensive that Israel will be able to convince the US that they have to have security/military forces throughout the West Bank regardless of a nominal Palestinian state.

What if Israel announced that they were freezing expansion of settlements or even that they were getting rid of most of the settlements? What would happen? Nothing. Nothing would change with regard to peace.

freeman3

Instead, the Palestinians are thinking that they can use world opinion to somehow sway Israel to give in to their demands.

Are they wrong in this? World opinion was essential to the end of apartheid in South Africa. The US was pretty late to the table in the battle against apartheid, and is largely out of step with most of the worlds concerns over the plight of the Palestinians.

freema3

Meanwhile Israel is figuring that as long as Palestinians are never going to be realistic about peace they might as well grab that nice land on the West Bank...

What you say is "not being realistic", they see as not capitulating to Israelis demands.
And that land grab just reinforces to the Arabs that they are being abused. Their land being further annexed.

I do think Abbas making the declarations you state would be fair, but would depend upon the borders of the two states, the form of the settlement for those giving up their rights to land in Israel, and the general acceptance by the world that it is possible to be both a Jewish state and democratic. I think there is some disagreement about this, but perhaps it could only be settled by widening the Israel Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty , to include freedom of religion and the principle of equality. It currently doesn't include these, which becomes problematic when you start to define a nation by religion... which essentially means you are setting up inequality between peoples of the select faith and everyone else. Unless you offer very specific constitutional guarantees. (And then I wonder what the point of the State religion is, if it doesn't matter if a citizen is of the faith...? )

Ray, The Palestinians have their facts too. One for every one you offer. The moral argument is impossible to win when the day to day behaviour of Israel is at odds with that of a moral people. As long as the Palestinians can demonstrate to anyone who visits what life is like in the Occupied west bank and they come away making comparisons to apartheid .... the arguments about the past mean nothing. Its just one parade of facts versus another.

rayjay

Don't you understand: the only way Israel can win security is by staying strong militarily including a strong security apparatus.

The only way to win security is to have neighbors who are happy with their lot. Give them a real state, with genuine control over resources, and a fair settlement of past grievances . Give them a nation where they have the ability to build an economy and a future for their children.
If Israel invested in Palestine itself, and in the Palestinians themselves, they will become more secure.
At the moment all that happens is increasing provocations and demands for capitulation on dictated terms that are much less than generous.

Freeman:

Instead, the Palestinians are thinking that they can use world opinion to somehow sway Israel to give in to their demands. Meanwhile Israel is figuring that as long as Palestinians are never going to be realistic about peace they might as well grab that nice land on the West Bank...

This is Freeman's operative paragraph, well stated and spot on.

Ricky responds:

Are they wrong in this? World opinion was essential to the end of apartheid in South Africa. The US was pretty late to the table in the battle against apartheid, and is largely out of step with most of the worlds concerns over the plight of the Palestinians.

Yes they are wrong in this. Here's why. They continue to sabotage and lob bombs at Israel. Therefore they are hypocrites at best. You can't expect Israel to take them seriously while they are attempting to annihilate them.

Then Ricky responds:

What you say is "not being realistic", they see as not capitulating to Israelis demands.

Not capitulating to Israelis demands? That's a good one. It seems to me that lobbing a bomb on someone's head is a little different than "not capitulating to Israelis demands." But maybe that's just me.

The Israelis are opportunists in that they relish the chance to expand their territory and long term population goals under the unfortunate and very real threat of continual attack. They use their very real plight to point to themselves as the victims when all the while they are making the Machiavellian best of it.

The moral argument is impossible to win when the day to day behaviour of Israel is at odds with that of a moral people

"With that of a moral people?" Again, since when is lobbing bombs on to a man's family considered moral? Neither side is moral. In fact, it's best to keep morality out of the conversation when covering these two groups. Both are as Machiavellian as they get. Their leadership or lack of it that is.

dag

You can't expect Israel to take them seriously while they are attempting to annihilate them.

Not capitulating to Israelis demands? That's a good one. It seems to me that lobbing a bomb on someone's head is a little different than "not capitulating to Israelis demands." But maybe that's just me

.
With these acts they are offering resistance are they not?
Guerrilla tactics have been the choice of resistance movements since the Spanish in 1809.
As for being taken seriously?
Here's what you said ...

The Israelis are opportunists in that they relish the chance to expand their territory and long term population goals under the unfortunate and very real threat of continual attack. They use their very real plight to point to themselves as the victims when all the while they are making the Machiavellian best of it.

Seems like you think the Israelis aren't taking them seriously...
I think they lob the bombs because they aren't being taken seriously otherwise...and so they are lashing out in anger and resentment. I think it is counter productive. But I can see that peaceful resistance hasn't worked all that well either...

dag

Neither side is moral. In fact, it's best to keep morality out of the conversation when covering these two groups. Both are as Machiavellian as they get. Their leadership or lack of it that is.

I agree. I'm not the one arguing that one side has a morally superior position. Those who seek to justify Israels behaviors are the one's trotting out their narratives of superior morality. I only offer the Palestinian narratives to demonstrate that there are two sides...who both think they have THE moral narrative.

I am arguing, however, that the Israelis are the occupying power, who are in control. They can choose to change the way they approach this situation and actually change the conditions.
Palestinians have only two tools : moral suasion (which is working with much of the world, just not the US) and fruitless terror. After 50 years they feel that they are losing any hope, and the expansion of Israelis "settlements" is a pretty clear signal that Israel feels it can act with impunity.
Faced with these facts, that Palestinians lash out is at least understandable ... if not moral. Faced with only complete capitulation and life as a second class people in a Bantu like State .... why shouldn't they continue to resist ... ?
Nethanyahu is campaigning for another election. He's playing the Palestinians and the US for votes in the next election. By stoking the Palestinians and forcing a "show down" with the US he's playing to his domestic audience for votes... Peace, and a just solution, ....he could care more ..but doesn't.
An actual 2 state solution will never win him elections he thinks.

Ricky

But I can see that peaceful resistance hasn't worked all that well either...

responding to Dag:

dag
Neither side is moral. In fact, it's best to keep morality out of the conversation when covering these two groups. Both are as Machiavellian as they get. Their leadership or lack of it that is.


I agree. I'm not the one arguing that one side has a morally superior position. Those who seek to justify Israel's behaviors are the one's trotting out their narratives of superior morality. I only offer the Palestinian narratives to demonstrate that there are two sides...who both think they have THE moral narrative.

This is just ridiculous. Ricky, you keep going because you don't fully read what others are saying. And no doubt you will respond to this not fully understanding what I am saying. Learn to read -- you would save us both a lot of time. I'm comfortable with Dag and Freeman's posts which I mostly agree with, with just minor quibbles, but yours are over the line.

Contrary to your assertions, the Palestinians have not tried peace. They have said that at times, and some of there representatives and many of their people have espoused that at times. But overall, they have not tried peace given who they've elected and what those elected representative preach, and what they tell their children, and the funding they provide terrorists. If they truly wanted peace they would get it.

I've never said that the Israelis are perfectly moral. I have said that their cause is more moral than the Palestinians, and their actions are much more moral than the countries that surround them. Case in point: the only force in the conflict that does not use its full force tor its own benefit is Israeli. If they wanted to they could take more land, build more settlements, expel more Palestinians, etc. They could allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount and restrict Muslim activities. But they don't. They are showing some moral principles. But like most countries in difficult situations they do act Machiavellian. So does the US and Russia and China and every country in the Middle East and Asia.

There is an element of absurdity in the Palestininan position, Ricky which is also manifest in Arab terrorism. At the end of the day, they want an Arab state to take the place of Israel. That being the case this moral suasion case will not work. The world is not going to agree that Israel should allow itself to be controlled by an Arab majority. There was a partition plan accepted by Jews , there was an Arab invasion to take all of Palestine that failed and Israel was formed. The world is not going to force Israel to allow itself to be ruled by Arabs that hate them. Democracy does not work when two groups cannot abide each other.

Apartheid in South Africa was clearly wrong in that a white majority discriminated against a black majority and treated them as second-class citizens. The blacks were not treated this way because they tried to drive the whites out of the country and lost. They had not expressed the view that the white majority should be annihilated and that is why they were treated as being inferior. They were treated that way because the whites wanted to keep political control over a black majority they deemed inferior. Eventually, the world--aghast at this appalling treatment and stigmatizing of another racial group--imposed sanctions which helped to create change.

The situation here is quite different. Israel in the West Bank is ruling over a people that wants to take back all of the land that is controlled by Israel. Certainly, Palestinians do not have full political rights, and Israel favors its own interests over Palestinians to be sure, but they are not treated as being inferior. What's more, they hold the key to getting out of their plight which is to get rid of tha absurd notion they are going to kick the Jews out of Palestine and accept the reality of a separate Jewish and Palestinian state. Since they refuse to do that the moral suasion of the argument that they are being mistreated is vastly lessened. Of course two groups that dislike each other are not going to treat each other the same. Overheated and inaccurate language like comparing the Palestinian situation to apartheid does not serve the Palestinian cause because it is not accurate and just serves to perpetuate Palestinian belief in a fantasy that will not happen (i.e, getting back all of Palestine).

Yes, the world as a whole is concerned about Jewish settlements in the West Bank but it's not enough to put crippling sanctions on Israel to give up political control of their country. It's not going to happen and it's absurd for the Palestinians to continue to believe in it. Just like it is absurd for Al Qaeda and ISIS to continue terrorism against the West. What is the rational goal? The West giving in and accepting the Muslim religion? There is no rational goal. The Arab world (some of it) is trading a lot in absurd notions right now.

As to the notion that Israel as a Jewish state is inherently undemocratic and discriminatory. Yes it is. But there is a strong case for Israel to be treated in a sui generis matter. 2000 years of discrimination, the Holocaust, continued world-wide anti-semitism, and the enmity of many Arabs against Jews makes it necessary for there to be a separate nation for a group that has a continuous history for 2,500-3000 years on land they have ancestral ties to. And their Arab citizens have full and equal rights at least de jure (except for being in the military.) Moreover, there is not a universal standard that governments must be ruled by a democracy composed of atomistic individuals, irrespective of membership of any group.

rayjay

Contrary to your assertions, the Palestinians have not tried peace. They have said that at times, and some of there representatives and many of their people have espoused that at times. But overall, they have not tried peace given who they've elected and what those elected representative preach, and what they tell their children, and the funding they provide terrorists. If they truly wanted peace they would get it.

Please quote me saying that they have "tried peace".

rayjay

If they truly wanted peace they would get it

On terms that are acceptable?

Rayjay

I've never said that the Israelis are perfectly moral. I have said that their cause is more moral than the Palestinians, and their actions are much more moral than the countries that surround them

I've said you argued the Israelis moral superiority... That's is what you admit here.
Whatever their superiority .... they have enough blood on their hands, and are guilty of enough
abusive behavior in the occupation that their moral superiority over Arabs is akin to being the tallest midget in the room.

freeman3

There is an element of absurdity in the Palestininan position, Ricky which is also manifest in Arab terrorism. At the end of the day, they want an Arab state to take the place of Israel. That being the case this moral suasion case will not work. The world is not going to agree that Israel should allow itself to be controlled by an Arab majority. There was a partition plan accepted by Jews , there was an Arab invasion to take all of Palestine that failed and Israel was formed. The world is not going to force Israel to allow itself to be ruled by Arabs that hate them. Democracy does not work when two groups cannot abide each other.

All true.

freeman3

Apartheid in South Africa was clearly wrong in that a white majority discriminated against a black majority and treated them as second-class citizens. The blacks were not treated this way because they tried to drive the whites out of the country and lost. They had not expressed the view that the white majority should be annihilated and that is why they were treated as being inferior. They were treated that way because the whites wanted to keep political control over a black majority they deemed inferior. Eventually, the world--aghast at this appalling treatment and stigmatizing of another racial group--imposed sanctions which helped to create change

.
All true. Please also acknowledge that some of the south African minorities resorted to violence in their struggle against the oppression.
Also acknowledge that what the whites did was fence off the blacks . They kept the best parts of the land for themselves and forced millions of blacks into reserves.
A black man could walk freely and safely in a white area. A white man could not be safe in a black zone, unless their were white activists working to end apartheid.
Similarly in Israel, Arabs with passes are safe in the occupied west bank. Israelis are unsafe in Palestinian sections. Similarly Israel manages to keep water resources and land for its settlers .... and on and on.

freeman3

The situation here is quite different. Israel in the West Bank is ruling over a people that wants to take back all of the land that is controlled by Israel. Certainly, Palestinians do not have full political rights, and Israel favors its own interests over Palestinians to be sure, but they are not treated as being inferior. What's more, they hold the key to getting out of their plight which is to get rid of tha absurd notion they are going to kick the Jews out of Palestine and accept the reality of a separate Jewish and Palestinian state. Since they refuse to do that the moral suasion of the argument that they are being mistreated is vastly lessened. Of course two groups that dislike each other are not going to treat each other the same. Overheated and inaccurate language like comparing the Palestinian situation to apartheid does not serve the Palestinian cause because it is not accurate and just serves to perpetuate Palestinian belief in a fantasy that will not happen (i.e, getting back all of Palestine

Did you ever wonder why Israel was so comfortable with South African Apartheid? 1975 Israel–South Africa Agreement made Israel SA's sole strategic partner. Including nuclear collaboration... (Somewhat of a non-sequitar)

Freeman, Its really not that different. If a class of people is treated "differently", does not enjoy the same rights and suffers from discriminatory treatment - its the same. When people familiar with life in apartheid SA visit the occupied west bank, they make the comparisons.. (Desmond Tutu and others)

Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the ID system, Israeli settlements, separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens around many of these settlements, military checkpoints, marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheaper labour, Palestinian West Bank exclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories, resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, contrary to international law.[4] Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.[12]

The most recent American to use this analogy is General Mattis. He of the blunt talk.

It does no real good to quibble about the scope, or intensity, or the grade of the inequity and oppression . Its like your saying this is "apartheid lite", or something. The real life experience of Arabs in the West bank is of second class peoples, enduring daily humiliations. When that ends perhaps the violence will end. If your country was occupied in this fashion would you encourage your fellow citizens to resist, perhaps violently, or would you acquiesce and accept the second rate status?
Was it okay for revolutionary citizens in France and the US to rebel violently against second rate treatment? But not some Arabs in the west bank? Should Arabs who live in ISIS occupied areas, simply accept their fate or would you applaud them if they made an effort to resist ISIS?

Oppression is in the eye of one) the oppressed 2) the beholder and never those in control. If you asked a SAfrican white in 65, or 75 or 85, they had every reason to say the blacks had it pretty good compared to before, and that for their own security they needed the walls and the fences and the armed guards...


freeman3

Yes, the world as a whole is concerned about Jewish settlements in the West Bank but it's not enough to put crippling sanctions on Israel to give up political control of their country. It's not going to happen and it's absurd for the Palestinians to continue to believe in it

If Israel has nothing much to lose by continuing its occupation (as described above), why will they ever change it?
I suspect that many of the sanctions from Europe are having some effect on Israel. If not economically in a great fashion, the analogies to apartheid must grate on a portion of the populace.
It has to be noted again that the recent UN sanction was voted on by the UK, New Zealand and a lot of other nations that Israel would like to have friendly relations with...

freeman3

As to the notion that Israel as a Jewish state is inherently undemocratic and discriminatory. Yes it is

And yet their political leaders and their defenders (especially in the US) state over and over again that they are the middle east's only democratic nation. And fail to acknowledge that it does discriminate...

freeman3

. But there is a strong case for Israel to be treated in a sui generis matter. 2000 years of discrimination, the Holocaust, continued world-wide anti-semitism, and the enmity of many Arabs against Jews makes it necessary for there to be a separate nation for a group that has a continuous history for 2,500-3000 years on land they have ancestral ties to.

The Israel Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty , does not include freedom of religion and the principle of equality. I don't see how this strong case could extend to justify setting up a part of its citizenry as a second class or justify the type of occupation that occurs in the west bank.

The key to any solution in the west bank is Israel adopting an entirely generous policy with Palestine and helping it to grow and prosper... Night and day from the current occupation.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

If they truly wanted peace they would get it

On terms that are acceptable?

This is funny. You question whether peace would come on terms "acceptable" to the Palestinians, but are all in favor of dictating terms to Israel.

Given that the Palestinians will not accept a Jewish State, what is "acceptable?"

Arafat was offered everything he could reasonably want and he said "No." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Rayjay

I've never said that the Israelis are perfectly moral. I have said that their cause is more moral than the Palestinians, and their actions are much more moral than the countries that surround them

I've said you argued the Israelis moral superiority... That's is what you admit here.
Whatever their superiority .... they have enough blood on their hands, and are guilty of enough
abusive behavior in the occupation that their moral superiority over Arabs is akin to being the tallest midget in the room.

Foolishness.

The Palestinians celebrate Israeli deaths and honor terrorists. Israel does all it can to preserve life--even that of terrorists wounded during their terror attacks.

There is a chasm of difference, but it doesn't suit you to acknowledge it.

If you had your way, Israel would not exist. You just can't bring yourself to admit it publicly.