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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Jan 2017, 3:02 pm

Freeman3
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

Some factions do.
However, you are willfully ignoring this ....

The Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 15 November 1988, which referenced the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and "UN resolutions since 1947" in general, was interpreted as an indirect recognition of the State of Israel, and support for a two-state solution. The Partition Plan was invoked to provide legitimacy to Palestinian statehood. Subsequent clarifications were taken to amount to the first explicit Palestinian recognition of Israel


I think there is sufficient good will in Palestine for a 2 state solution except ... there is deep suspicion of any settlement when the Camp David Accords were shown to be less than advertised. And perhaps an attempt at a con .

Most Palestinians also feel (and many outsiders) that the criteria and preconditions for a Palestinian State, as enunciated by the Israelis PM, is not going to create a genuine nation. He knows this and knows that he won't get agreement on it.... So while he stalls he incrementally seizes more of Palestine in order to demonstrate control. And he'll later remonstrate that it is impossible to remove settlers who'd lived on the land for "so many years".

This commentator, (linked) an Arab, agrees with you that a 2 state solution is not now possible. Mostly because the political will to move 300,000 Israelis settlers from what is supposed to be Palestine does not exist. Anywhere. Which means, according to him, one state, with two classes of people.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 44351.html

If he's right ... and you are right ... this will be an apartheid state. I hope that he isn't right.
Israelis will not feel safe, nor be safe in Palestinian majority areas. Arabs will be safe but 2nd class in Israelis majority areas. And for the next hundred years trucks will be running over soldiers and innocents as aggrieved Palestinians take out their frustrations in acts of massive madness. (A major motivation for fast acceptance of self driving vehicles in Israel iIsuppose)

There will not be a Mandela arising in Palestine. None of the fanatics on the Arab side, nor the hardliners supporting Nethanyahu would allow him to operate.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Jan 2017, 3:37 pm

Would a two state solution be possible if all the Jews were relocated back to Israel and all the Arabs were relocated back to outside of Israel?

The classism rationale would be nullified.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Jan 2017, 4:37 pm

I am not willfully ignoring anything. The kind of recognition of Israel by the Palestinians you are citing was necessary to get Israel to the peace table. But I think it eventually dawned on Israel with the insistence on a full-scale Right of Return that the Palestinians were not recognizing Israel as being a permanent Jewish State---that Arabs wanted the possibility of eventually gaining control of Israel. Hence the demand nowadays that the Palestinians recognize Israel as being a Jewish state. The Palestinians refuse to do that. This is what I mean by facing reality, the reality of Israel's border after 1948. If Palestinians will not recognize that then peace is not possible. The other stuff you cite are just red herrings being put out to confuse people

Here's thing the thing: if the Palestinians are willing to recognize Israel then the pressure swing back against Israel. Now they would have act reasonably with regard to a Palestinian country. But instead they continue to have faith in this futile attempt to have outside pressure force Israel to allow a massive return of Palestinians without any recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

We can continue in circles about this but Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the Right of return are the two main obstacles of peace. The settlements issues lags behind those. If the Palestinians agree to this they will have a lot of leverage with regard to settlements and everything else once it is agreed that Israel is a permament Jewish state and that the Right of Return will primarily be a financial settlement.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jan 2017, 7:41 am

freeman3
But I think it eventually dawned on Israel with the insistence on a full-scale Right of Return that the Palestinians were not recognizing Israel as being a permanent Jewish State---that Arabs wanted the possibility of eventually gaining control of Israel.

Well, if Israel were a democratic state - that would be possible.
Since, Israel as a Jewish State won't allow full democracy, your solution leads to apartheid Freeman. And apartheid will not lead to peace. Ever. There are always angry truck drivers.
And it would lead to the continuing and increasing isolation of Israel as world opinion will not support an apartheid state.

If Israel decides to generously support the establishment of a genuine Palestine, reconciliation will be possible. And eventually peace would prevail. Demographics might still be a problem for Israel as a Jewish State, however, if Palestine is a genuine state nurtured by Israel to be prosperous - I suspect may ethnic Arabs might find both Palestine more attractive as a residence than Israel or feel far better towards Israel and their own citizenship.


bbauska
Would a two state solution be possible if all the Jews were relocated back to Israel and all the Arabs were relocated back to outside of Israel?

Arabs (Muslim, Druze or Christian) make up some 21% of Israels population. (That is Israel pre 1967)
There are more living on the Golan heights and in East Jerusalum who are "permanent residents" but not citizens.
The scope of the relocation you are wondering about is enormous. Probably impossible. And it directly contradicts the Geneva Conventions.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2017, 8:41 am

rickyp wrote:freeman3
But I think it eventually dawned on Israel with the insistence on a full-scale Right of Return that the Palestinians were not recognizing Israel as being a permanent Jewish State---that Arabs wanted the possibility of eventually gaining control of Israel.

Well, if Israel were a democratic state - that would be possible.
Since, Israel as a Jewish State won't allow full democracy, your solution leads to apartheid Freeman. And apartheid will not lead to peace. Ever. There are always angry truck drivers.
And it would lead to the continuing and increasing isolation of Israel as world opinion will not support an apartheid state.

If Israel decides to generously support the establishment of a genuine Palestine, reconciliation will be possible. And eventually peace would prevail. Demographics might still be a problem for Israel as a Jewish State, however, if Palestine is a genuine state nurtured by Israel to be prosperous - I suspect may ethnic Arabs might find both Palestine more attractive as a residence than Israel or feel far better towards Israel and their own citizenship.


bbauska
Would a two state solution be possible if all the Jews were relocated back to Israel and all the Arabs were relocated back to outside of Israel?

Arabs (Muslim, Druze or Christian) make up some 21% of Israels population. (That is Israel pre 1967)
There are more living on the Golan heights and in East Jerusalum who are "permanent residents" but not citizens.
The scope of the relocation you are wondering about is enormous. Probably impossible. And it directly contradicts the Geneva Conventions.


So, is there any way Israel can exist AND not violate the Geneva conventions?

Hint: they would be fools to give back sovereign (including military) control of the Golan Heights; they would be fools to agree to a peace agreement until/unless a Palestinian State is willing to guarantee its continuing existence, etc.

Btw, do you have any evidence the Palestinians are willing to have peace if it means Israel exists and has some say over the Temple Mount? If not, then there is no hope for peace.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Jan 2017, 9:29 am

You see RickyP, there you go again.

You want Israel to generously support a Palestine.
Should Palestinians generously support Israel?

You want 300,000 Israeli settlers moved from what you think Palestine should be.
Do you want Palestinians moved from what Israel is?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jan 2017, 10:11 am

bbauska
You want Israel to generously support a Palestine.
Should Palestinians generously support Israel?

I think the only way Arabs will support Israel is if Israel generously supports a genuine Palestinian state.
And I think that if Israel did change their behaviour towards Palestinians, which today is extractive and oppressive as occupiers and/or colonizers, that they could change Palestinian attitudes. Imagine if they and western allies decided to unleash a Marshall Plan for Palestine and Palestinians?

Continuing what Israel is doing will just mean several more generations of an occupied /colonized people lashing out violently. Constantly. And maybe more than several generations...


You want 300,000 Israeli settlers moved from what you think Palestine should be.
Do you want Palestinians moved from what Israel is?

Its not what I think Palestine should be, Its what pretty much the whole world thinks it should be including the US. And indeed what the Israelis supreme court says too.
If they want to renegotiate some borders, okay. But the last time this was tried it was something of a con. Israel gets all the water, and the nation of Palestine is carved up into areas that are non-contiguous.

And I don't think they have to move. I suppose they could choose to stay and live as a minority in Palestine.
I doubt they would. White people in South Africa normally felt unsafe in black areas. I'm sure the settlers would feel unsafe. In fact, without enormous security and army presence they don't feel secure now. If they weren't political pawns, supported by the Israelis government they wouldn't be where they are now would they?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2017, 10:35 am

rickyp wrote:bbauska
You want Israel to generously support a Palestine.
Should Palestinians generously support Israel?

I think the only way Arabs will support Israel is if Israel generously supports a genuine Palestinian state.
And I think that if Israel did change their behaviour towards Palestinians, which today is extractive and oppressive as occupiers and/or colonizers, that they could change Palestinian attitudes. Imagine if they and western allies decided to unleash a Marshall Plan for Palestine and Palestinians?


This is bizarre.

The oil-rich kingdoms do not support the Palestinians financially. Why? To keep the tension high between the Arabs and the Jews.

So, you would suggest the Israelis do it? Yeah. Right.

The "oppressive" behavior is by Arabs against other Arabs. They want this struggle to continue.

Continuing what Israel is doing will just mean several more generations of an occupied /colonized people lashing out violently. Constantly. And maybe more than several generations...


Why is that?

Oh, maybe because Palestinian children are taught from birth to hate the Jews--that Jews are the enemy who must be defeated?

If they want to renegotiate some borders, okay. But the last time this was tried it was something of a con. Israel gets all the water, and the nation of Palestine is carved up into areas that are non-contiguous.


But, it's fine if Israel gets the non-defensible pre-67 borders?

Palestine hasn't existed as a nation--ever. No one is threatening to eradicate the Arabs. No one has suggested throwing them into the Sea, as the Arabs tried in 1967.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6868
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Jan 2017, 10:50 am

Why do you think the 300,000 Jewish Settlers be removed to make a nation, but not the Arabs from Israel?

That is a dichotomy...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jan 2017, 11:10 am

So basically Ricky you're opposed to this idea of a Jewish state because any Arabs living in it are not full citizens. And you expect that Israel should concede on this point, presumably also give in to as many Palestinians coming back to Israel as can trace their relatives as leaving Palestine in 1947-1948. And if they don't do that then there will be heavy sanctions on them to do that.

That's a point of view I guess. It's wrong and it's not going to work. There might be European pressure to slow down building settlements but that's about it. The morality of the Palestinian's position is absent. Arab countries tried to destroy Israel by conventional military means for almost 30 years until 1973; Israel seized territory adjacent to it in 1967 including the West Bank they deemed necessary to its defense. Palestinians have tried terrorism off and on for the past 50 years to see if that would work. Meanwhile they tried to elicit sympathy at how they're being treated on the West Bank as they continue to use terrorism against Israel and allow groups like Hamas to thrive who want the complete destruction of Israel. The war against Israel has continued from 1947-1948, the Arabs lost, and you want Israel to capitulate or face world pressure because Israel is not treating that well those who want to destroy it and continue to attack it. And by the way you have the causal relationship of Palestinian terrorism all wrong--it is not due to frustration with Israel's occupation of West Bank. This is obvious because there have been attempts to destroy Israel since 1948. If Israel loosened their control there would be more attacks, not fewer. So the Palestinians hold no moral advantage here. The Arabs have been the aggressors for the most part--that is why Americans generally support Israel (and no it's just because evangelicals see it as some kind of end times or because of the Jewish lobby--it's based on a sense of fairness).

Peace comes when the aggressor gives up the fight. Here, the Arabs have been the aggressor since 1947. It is up to them to say they accept that Israel will be a permanent Jewish state. I have made the argument why Israel has a sui generis reason for being allowed to be a Jewish state, but it's 20 percent Arab population is treated pretty well, there is no indication that Jews and Arabs could co-exist in a full democracy and there really is not a functioning democracy in the Middle East so saying Jews have to submit to Arab rule is not realistic or fair. In fact, Palestinians are the majority in Jordan and that could be their country...except for the fact that Jordan is not a democracy. In fact, why is Jordan not apartheid--there is a much better argument for that in Jordan than there is with regard to Israel.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jan 2017, 12:36 pm

freeman3
So basically Ricky you're opposed to this idea of a Jewish state because any Arabs living in it are not full citizens.
.
Is there a way for Israel to be a Jewish State and provide equal rights and equal access to all protections under law to everyone?

freeman3
And you expect that Israel should concede on this point, presumably also give in to as many Palestinians coming back to Israel as can trace their relatives as leaving Palestine in 1947-1948

I don't know about the "right of return". But the alternative being offered to Palestinians is to stay where they are, in non- contiguous nation deprived of access to resources (primarily water), and with little help in creating industry or educational opportunities . Its an unattractive alternative.
With a "Marshall Plan" young Palestinians would be given a reason to stay and try to grow their own miracle in the Desert.

freeman3
And if they don't do that then there will be heavy sanctions on them to do that
.
Its already happening.

freeman3
The morality of the Palestinian's position is absent.

Arguing about who's moral position is more moral is pointless.
Give the Palestinians a reason to want to live in Palestine that recognizes their dignity, their right to opportunity, and hope for their future prosperity and maybe they'll be prepared to give up violence and focus on a new life.

freeeman3
Peace comes when the aggressor gives up the fight.

Bullshit.
Peace comes when the reasons for war are taken away. When the reasons to make peace outweigh the injustices (perceived and real) and injuries of the past.
You assume that the Arabs are the aggressors.... If you examine closely the way they force Palestinians to live in the occupied west bank, (the security fences, check points, daily humiliations) I think you can easily describe this as "aggressive behavior". The growth of settlements is itself aggression...

Peace did not come to South Africans penned into Batu states and segregated neighborhoods. Peace did not come to those who's civil rights were denied in Jim Crow USA. Daily humiliations and denial of equality .... is NOT peace. It is continuous aggression and daily humiliation of a class of people.
These people didn't settle. Should they have? Because history shows that a continued struggle eventually brought them success.
Last edited by rickyp on 10 Jan 2017, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jan 2017, 12:42 pm

bbauska
Why do you think the 300,000 Jewish Settlers be removed to make a nation, but not the Arabs from Israel?

I didn't say that did I?
I just said that given a choice they would probably leave rather than stay in an Arab Palestine.

Fate
The oil-rich kingdoms do not support the Palestinians financially. Why? To keep the tension high between the Arabs and the Jews

So you see then, that if someone supported the Palestinians to the extent that the Marshall Plan resurrected Europe.... that the tensions would decrease?

There are few better places to actually invest in genuine development and nation building, with a chance of making the world more peaceful. If the Arabs won't, the West and Israel should. In fact Israel should lead this project. And been seen to lead the project. if not in execution (because of initial distrust) at least in conceptualizing and attracting funding.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jan 2017, 12:53 pm

I'm not going to continue to debate this issue when there are these ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow and South Africa. You ignore my arguments and just continue your narrative that Palestinians are being horribly mistreated and Israel is basically mostly at fault, which goes against what I understand of the history over the past 70 years. Not that Israel has been perfect, far from it but fairness is bring proportional and here the predominant portion of the blame is on the Palestinians/Arabs. You can't complain about the Occupational jail cell you're in when you kick the key out of the jail cell...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 7:03 am

freeman3
I'm not going to continue to debate this issue when there are these ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow and South Africa.

When respected Israelis politicians make the comparisons, are they ridiculous?

Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt ­warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish ­majority or an "apartheid" regime
.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/ ... are_btn_tw

And I compared the struggle against Jim Crow and Apartheid, with the struggle of the Palestinians.

freeman3
You ignore my arguments and just continue your narrative that Palestinians are being horribly mistreated and Israel is basically mostly at fault, which goes against what I understand of the history over the past 70 years

I ignore your arguments about the morality of the Israelis position because they don't matter.
Claiming moral superiority won't bring a solution or peace.
Palestinians, and increasingly people around the world, won't change their minds over night and say "You over the years the Israelis are nicer people. Lets do exactly what they want".

Besides Freeman. If world opinion is a guage of the superiority of the moral position .... then you should heed Barak as well ...
The pendulum of legitimacy is going to move gradually towards the other pole," he said.

It already has moved and continues to move further.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jan 2017, 8:18 am

it comes down to this: is it reasonable for Israel to demand as a precondition to peace that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state in perpetuity? I say yes, apparently you say no (I say apparently because you refuse to be drawn in any linear argument, a confession of the weakness of your position). My position is that if the Palestinians refuse to do this the rest of the world has no moral obligation to pressure Israel to make a non-existent peace (non-existent because the Palestinians would not have agreed to a real peace.). In fact, it would be immoral for the world to pressure Israel to make this non-existent peace. Your response to this I suspect will be a non-linear response about the unjustness of the Palestinian situation and of inevitability of the world going around to Ricky's position. Of course you have no proof of this. You're the one that essentially say that might makes right because you say that we must force Israel to give in to a dangerous country on its border when said country will not give up its attempt to make Israel Arab controlled.

And by the way, the Palestinians just frittered away 8 years where they had a US president more sympathetic to their position than most.