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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Jan 2017, 1:03 pm

There are different causal factors with regard to apartheid and the West Bank. The only causal factor in apartheid in South Africa was a white minority wanting to control a black majority population. So the causal factor for the inequitable treatment was 100% on the whites there. So it was easy to attribute blame.

With regard to the West Bank Israel's less than stellar treatment of Palestinians has a much more complicated origin: (1) the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the Partitiion Plan, (2) the military aggression by Jordan which resulted in Israel seizing the West Bank and keeping it for justifiable security reasons, (3) long history of terrorism by Palestinians against Israel, (4) all of the above factors resulting in antipathy between the two groups, Israel favoring their own interests over that of the Palestinians including putting security concerns paramount with sometimes harsh results on the Palestinians.

The causal reasons for Israel's treatment of Palestinians on the West Bank are complex and don't lend themselves to the kind of black and white analysis in South Africa (literally). The reality is that most fair-minded people are going to think (if they were honest) that they would not treat the Palestinians any better if they were in Israel's position. Moreover, the Palestinians have the key to likely get to a better life unavailable to blacks in South Africa--give up the war for Palestine. They lost. Time to face reality.

And if Israel decided, well, let's ease up on the Palestinians--let's listen to Ricky in Canada far from suicide bombers. What would happen? More terrorism because weakness would be sensed, the dream of getting everything back reignited. It won't work that way--the impetus for peace has to come from the Palestinians.

Now, I have been critical as to what I interpret as a potential plan by Netanyahu to foreclose a real Palestinian state in the country. But of course that criticism does not have much of a bite to it if the Palestinians are never going to agree to a two state solution, anyway. Who knows? Maybe that will incentivize Palestinians to come to the peace table prior to the possibility of having their own nation foreclosed. Having said that, if Palestinians were denied a real state at that point then I could see the apartheid argument making sense AT THAT POINT IN TIME. But if the Palestinisns are never going to give up their dream of controlling all of Palestine, that's a moot criticism.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 04 Jan 2017, 8:48 pm

Guerrilla tactics have been the choice of resistance movements since the Spanish in 1809


Apples and oranges.

Guerrilla tactics that engage military targets is one thing. Lobbing bombs at civilians indiscriminately is terrorism.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Jan 2017, 6:48 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:
Guerrilla tactics have been the choice of resistance movements since the Spanish in 1809


Apples and oranges.

Guerrilla tactics that engage military targets is one thing. Lobbing bombs at civilians indiscriminately is terrorism.


Yes, very well put.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Jan 2017, 2:41 pm

Fate
Arafat was offered everything he could reasonably want and he said "No


Was he offered what he could reasonably want? Here's what the agreement offered.
The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert–about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex–including a former toxic waste dump.
Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
Israel was also to have kept “security control” for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt–putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an “end-of-conflict” agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

The agreement also gave Israel 15 years to comply, even though they had already agreed to most of it 7 years before.
The Camp David agreement is a Clintonian myth... I'm surprised a hater of Clinton like you falls for it Fate.

http://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jan 2017, 2:51 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Arafat was offered everything he could reasonably want and he said "No


Was he offered what he could reasonably want? Here's what the agreement offered.
The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert–about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex–including a former toxic waste dump.
Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
Israel was also to have kept “security control” for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt–putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an “end-of-conflict” agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

The agreement also gave Israel 15 years to comply, even though they had already agreed to most of it 7 years before.
The Camp David agreement is a Clintonian myth... I'm surprised a hater of Clinton like you falls for it Fate.

http://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/


When you want to go to a reasonable source, please feel free to post again. I'm not responding to this garbage, other than to call it garbage.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Jan 2017, 2:54 pm

freeman3
The reality is that most fair-minded people are going to think (if they were honest) that they would not treat the Palestinians any better if they were in Israel's position.


If that were true then why is public opinion favoring Palestine in Europe generally?
Why does (did) Israel require the US to protect it from sanction in the UN Security council with its veto?
Are the governments that voted to sanction Israel on the settlement issue not fair minded? (New Zealand and the UK ? ).
I think you are projecting and not listening often to the other side. In the US it isn't often you hear the Palestinian side.
Here's how its expressed in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -diplomacy

freeman3
They lost. Time to face reality.

Ah, the might makes right argument.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Jan 2017, 3:00 pm

fate
I'm not responding to this garbage, other than to call it garbage.

Well, you could have chosen to compare any one of the points made to determine the veracity of the claims.
And attempt to prove its garbage. Instead ... smear.
Why do you participate when you haven't the intellectual curiosity to test your preconceptions?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Jan 2017, 6:31 pm

You cite as an example of the international community supporting the Palestininan view of thing an article in a British newspaper...from a member of Fatah who has been imprisoned for the past 13 years! ( I do find it is a tad ironic that he was allowed to write a newspaper article).

The fact that a good many people in Europe support the Palestinian cause without considering all of the facts is not surprising given Europe's dependence on oil, the history of anti-semitism there which might be mostly latent there now but almost certainly still has an influence in the culture, and the fact that yes the Palestisns are underfoot in the West Bank and it natural to be sympathetic to human suffering. But for the reasons cited above there will not be similar pressure on Israel comparable to South Africa. And of course the Palestinians want to emphasize every misdeed of Israelis without admitting their culpability for the plight they are in and their own unwillingness to do anything reasonable to get out of it.

And I am sure pretty I never said might makes right. I did say the Palestinians should face reality. As in it is not realistic to think that they are going to win by negotiation what they (and other Arab countries) failed to accomplish through terrorism or by military force in 1947-1948, 1967 and 1973. They are not going to get political control of Palestine. That is their ultimate goal which they refuse to give up. It is unobtainable. And it would not be morally right either, even if they had the might to do it.

Somehow, they think the rest of the world is really stupid and they can get pressure on Israel by misrepresenting Palestinian goals. They apparently think they can get what they want by getting South Africa like sanctions by saying look how bad they are being treated and Israel will not agree to peace. But the truth is plain enough.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Jan 2017, 8:42 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
I'm not responding to this garbage, other than to call it garbage.

Well, you could have chosen to compare any one of the points made to determine the veracity of the claims.
And attempt to prove its garbage. Instead ... smear.
Why do you participate when you haven't the intellectual curiosity to test your preconceptions?


Reading propaganda is not a test of my preconceptions. It is a waste of time. If you'd care to post a more neutral story, I'll do as you suggest.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Jan 2017, 10:54 am

freeman3
You cite as an example of the international community supporting the Palestininan view of thing an article in a British newspaper...from a member of Fatah who has been imprisoned for the past 13 years! ( I do find it is a tad ironic that he was allowed to write a newspaper article).

I cited the article as an example of the kind of coverage that you see frequently in Europe...and which will necessarily impact public opinion in Europe. Your other reasons have validity as well. But the frequency of exposure to the competing narratives is far greater in Europe than in the US.

But for the reasons cited above there will not be similar pressure on Israel comparable to South Africa
.
There is a great deal of unease in Israel over the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement targeting Israel .
B.D.S. victories may also contribute to an atmosphere in which economic and cultural ties with Israel have become vaguely disturbing to much of Western European intelligentsia—which, after all, is as central to Phillips as to the Maastricht University. Israeli exports are mostly software, components, and devices that depend on building relationships with European product-development teams. If one person on a Dutch team resists working with or travelling to Israel, that may be that. As one venture capitalist I know put it, Israel can be “too much trouble” for foreign companies. Edouard Cukierman, the chairman of a Tel Aviv investment house that once specialized in Europe, told Yediot Aharonot that he’s refocussing on Chinese investors. “During general meetings of the leading [European] companies, even if they did examine investing in Israeli companies, it will be off the agenda immediately because of the impact of B.D.S.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... -sanctions

I suspect in an increasingly interconnected world, difficulties that create isolation are more greatly felt.

freeman3
And I am sure pretty I never said might makes right

here's what you said ...
They lost. Time to face reality.

That's pretty much the same.
Palestinians should accept their fate and whatever terms that are dictated to them . Because they lost ...


freeman3
They are not going to get political control of Palestine. That is their ultimate goal which they refuse to give up. It is unobtainable. And it would not be morally right either, even if they had the might to do it.

The two state solution promised that there would be a Palestine. That Palestinians would have their own nation.
If you're arguing that the two state solution is not viable.... then you're arguing for what?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Jan 2017, 10:56 am

fate
Reading propaganda

How do you know its propaganda if you haven't read it?

And if you have read it what makes you think its propaganda?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Jan 2017, 11:31 am

Anybody supporting South Africa-like sanctions against Israel has to be willfully ignorant of the fact that what the Palestinians want to do is regain control of all of Palestine. Therefore, they are unwilling to come to a peace agreement. There are no such hard lines on the Israel's side other than, yeah, if you want your own country you have to stop trying to conquer our country, whether militarily or demographically.And I doubt very much that Europe wants a trade war with the US. For example, Holland has 500 billion in exports to the US. They are going to risk that for Palestinians/Arabs that are causing so much trouble in the world?

The rational response when a culture comes into contact with the West is to adapt, adopt some things from western culture while keeping a cultural identity. South Korea, Japan, China, etc are examples of that. The Arab response has been more like the Boxer Rebellion or Wounded Knee where religion is going to magically enable them to prevail over the West. The Palestinian thinking that they will get all of Palestine is another sign of magical thinking. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has to walk on eggshells for fear what they will do next and heaven forbid that they get nuclear weapons. Time for the culture to grow up and figure out how to succeed in the modern world. Here's a hint: suicide bombers are not the answer.

As for the two state solution I am all for that and I support the Palestinians having a fully sovereign state but the Palestinians must accept the permanence of the two state solution--one controlled by Arabs and one controlled by Jews. And for whatever reason Ricky you refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have never been willing to accept a two state solution on that basis.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Jan 2017, 12:07 pm

Ricky:
There is a great deal of unease in Israel over the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement targeting Israel .
B.D.S. victories may also contribute to an atmosphere in which economic and cultural ties with Israel have become vaguely disturbing to much of Western European intelligentsia—which, after all, is as central to Phillips as to the Maastricht University. Israeli exports are mostly software, components, and devices that depend on building relationships with European product-development teams. If one person on a Dutch team resists working with or travelling to Israel, that may be that. As one venture capitalist I know put it, Israel can be “too much trouble” for foreign companies. Edouard Cukierman, the chairman of a Tel Aviv investment house that once specialized in Europe, told Yediot Aharonot that he’s refocussing on Chinese investors. “During general meetings of the leading [European] companies, even if they did examine investing in Israeli companies, it will be off the agenda immediately because of the impact of B.D.S.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... -sanctions
I suspect in an increasingly interconnected world, difficulties that create isolation are more greatly felt


I think you are correct that it is felt and there is unease in Israel both for commercial and world citizenship reasons. (It is also felt amongst World Jewry as our collective soul wants Israel to be a light onto other nations.) That unease plays itself out in Israeli politics and softens the Israeli response. However, there are bigger issues at work, such as national pride and security. Since the Yom Kippur War and especially since the waves of terrorisms including the Intifadas and Gaza's indiscriminate bombing, and the election of Hamas a sworn terrorist group with desires for the whole enchilada, the issues of national pride and security have obviously been more important to the Israeli electorate. This goes in the category of respecting a democracy that is on the front lines. So, in the scheme of things, I think European and American approbations are important (Happy Feb. 29th); however, they are not more important that the other factors that have gone into Israeli politics.

It is a shame that the Palestinians (and others like yourself) are not correctly reading the situation. As clearly the Palestinians are the biggest victim to their not understanding their neighbors' perspective.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Jan 2017, 1:44 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Reading propaganda

How do you know its propaganda if you haven't read it?

And if you have read it what makes you think its propaganda?


Source.

And, I started to read it. It is a diatribe, not an analysis. If you read it, you'd know that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Jan 2017, 1:45 pm

freeman3 wrote:As for the two state solution I am all for that and I support the Palestinians having a fully sovereign state but the Palestinians must accept the permanence of the two state solution--one controlled by Arabs and one controlled by Jews. And for whatever reason Ricky you refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have never been willing to accept a two state solution on that basis.


^This.