Throwing a million people from their homes isn't "best". Swapping territories which will see the lagest possible number of people ending up in their independent national home is a far better solution than adhering to artificial armistice lines from 1949 at the price of massive-scale ethnic cleansing.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Throwing a million people from their homes isn't "best". Swapping territories which will see the lagest possible number of people ending up in their independent national home is a far better solution than adhering to artificial armistice lines from 1949 at the price of massive-scale ethnic cleansing.
Jersusalem should really be turned into an international city, belonging to neither side and administered by the UN.
If all Israeli's are on the Israeli side and all Palestinians are on the Palestinian side how would the ethnic cleansing even occur? The land swap idea I don't believe is workable when you take into a account settlers and the refugee issue.
I feel refugees, settlers and Jerusalem will be far harder issues to solve than HAMAS and co recognising the right of Israel to exist.
well played
I read an article in the New York Times today the US Government is trying to everything it can to prevent the UN General Assembly from voting on Palestine being recognised as a state by the United Nations.
Does the United States really believe itself to be a neutral observer in this affair? Over the last twelve months the Israelis have done nothing but walk all over the Americans, yet the US still support them in every way imaginable - Tel Aviv must think that they are mugs there for the taking.
The Americans have no right to be telling UN members who and who they cannot recognise as a legitimate state, especially when we jumped down the Russian's throat for invading Georgia and they down ours when we recognised Kosovo.
Does the United States really believe itself to be a neutral observer in this affair? Over the last twelve months the Israelis have done nothing but walk all over the Americans, yet the US still support them in every way imaginable - Tel Aviv must think that they are mugs there for the taking.
The Americans have no right to be telling UN members who and who they cannot recognise as a legitimate state, especially when we jumped down the Russian's throat for invading Georgia and they down ours when we recognised Kosovo.
It is a sorry state of affairs when Americans inside and outside of their Government cannot comprehend that to be considered neutral in the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict that they actually have to neutral. Using their UNSC veto everytime Israeli interests come before it, giving them billions of dollars worth of military aid every year isn't what you'd typically call neutral.
It is for reasons like this I didn't get caught up in the Obamamania episode in 2008, that expectations were wildly out of touch with reality, in foreign affairs he has down very little at all to live up to his rhetoric in campaigning for the Presidency.
It is for reasons like this I didn't get caught up in the Obamamania episode in 2008, that expectations were wildly out of touch with reality, in foreign affairs he has down very little at all to live up to his rhetoric in campaigning for the Presidency.
Of course it isn't a neutral observer.
Put it this way, the Israel lobbyists are heaps more influential than the Palestinian lobbyists if they even exist that is. Its never been about maintaining a neutral ground for talks, but rather pitching for whoever can swing a domestic election, or fund a electoral campaign, or in regards to the big picture - who confides more with their regional goals.
What I found amusing was how the US had threatened to cut support to the Palestinians should they have the audacity to claim statehood through a largely unanimous UN approval: US threatens aid cut over Palestinian bid for state - Middle East, World - The Independent.
The most baffling thing though was how the US recently vetoed a UN condemnation on illegal settlement expansion in the WB, calling it a 'counterproductive move in the peace process'
Oh indeed, the influence of lobbyists in Washington doesn't escape me at all, it just annoys me that every Democratic President goes to Washington stating that it is one of his priorities to drive them out of politics but it never goes beyond that.
Some one should ask the President what his views are regarding self-determination with regard to American pressure against UN recognition.
Some one should ask the President what his views are regarding self-determination with regard to American pressure against UN recognition.
Unfortunately the system is rotten to the point where you can only climb that greasy pole if you're being supported by influential lobbies such as AIPAC. Obama no doubt had to give them the rhetoric of unquestionable support for Israel in return for their substantial support for his presidential campaign.
It explains why as to anti-lobbyists such as Ron Paul face no chance whatsoever in elections despite a considerable support base.
Its also unfair to label the Republicans as the usual suspects, the Democrats are just as partial when it comes to FP issues such as Israel.
I do like the fact that Cameron is willing to play hardball with the Israelis in a way that the Americans or Blair would not do. I know that Cameron has referred to Gaza as a 'prison camp' before and that he is threatening to endorse Palestine's sovereignty if Israel doesn't become more indclined to negotiation.
I don't disagree with anything you say, this is why I cringe when the Americans start pontificating about the glories of their founding fathers and their shining beacon of liberty.
That's a rather shallow interpretation of things. At its core, American support for Israel is all about the US being a predominantly Christian nation whose messianic fate is believed to be interwoven with Israel's existence. This is why its the ultimate taboo for U.S. politicians to be anything other than "Pro Israel". AIPAC, Jewish-American politicians, and all of the other usual suspect issues are really ancillary to the core reason why US politicians nearly always side with Israel. So despite the rhetoric, the answer here is that the U.S. isn't neutral. Its pro-Israel.
I am well aware it isn't neutral, but when each and every one of your Presidents over the last twenty years have came up with their peace plan initiatives, they have always tried to pass themselves off as a neutral middle man to bring everybody together.
As you are well aware I am conservative, I am not an idealist when it comes to foreign policy and I am genuinely very supportive of the United States even for an Englishman so when I see the hypocrisy of the US position over the conflict who knows what the rest of the world believes.
To be fair I think Cameron's just being pragmatic, as of now around 122 countries have declared their approval for a Palestinian state including major EU states, so I think Cameron's just doing the logical thing in riding the wave of approval so that Britain isn't left out.
But you're right, it makes a refreshing change to Blair's stubborn compliance of the US's status quo, even if his party has ironically, historically maintained pro-Palestinian connections.
I am sure he is which is the thing I like most about him, he isn't dogmatic for the sake of it.
You do get the sense from his foreign policy views that he is willing to take a line independent of the United States. We and France pretty much bypassed the US with regard to Libya who came in as an afterthought, and we are willing to give Israel a rough ride.
The last Prime Minister who was like that was John Major who had a notoriously bad relationship with Bill Clinton. It almost split UK-US relations completely, the future of NATO was brought into question, there was a famous occasion when they were having an argument on the phone and Major decided to put the phone down when Clinton was mid rant - they didn't speak for weeks after that. That all happened because the British Government of the day was willing to pursue a foreign policy of its own design, free of what the Americans thought of it - we even came down on opposite sides of who we should support in the wars in Yugoslavia.
So what's the rationale behind the potential UN vote on a Palestinian state?
US/UK/France will veto it, the US has repeatedly said this. The Israeli Foreign Minister(Avi-scum-dor Liberman) warned of dire consequences.
What are these dire consequences? More settlements? More blockades?
US/UK/France will veto it, the US has repeatedly said this. The Israeli Foreign Minister(Avi-scum-dor Liberman) warned of dire consequences.
What are these dire consequences? More settlements? More blockades?
This could be done without resorting to childish gestures. I don't know what he meant, and what diplomatic or other retorts Israel might use but the scenario I see is one of demonstration that might start peacefully but would end up getting out of control. "Popular" marches towards settlements or army checkpoints will end in countless casualties.
Considering this current doplomatic move isn't going to get past the security council anyway I feel the sacrifice is foolish.
Childish gestures
The Palestinians have indicated, they would take it to the General Assembly - which can and would only grant them 'Observer State' status like the Vatican. Which in turn would grant them certain extra facilities under the UN(not sure what those are tbf).
Most have said this is the Palestinians trying to force the Israelis and the other 'peace partners' to start the peace talks again. But I'm not sure how effective a strategy this will be...After all, what does Israel have to lose, if it does not come to the party(and it won't, without being satisfied that its interests are being protected/looked after)?
Not forgetting the other major issue...the Palestinians lacking a unified, cohesive and coherent voice, Hamas says one thing, Abbas and Co say the complete opposite the next day.
Childish gestures
The Palestinians have indicated, they would take it to the General Assembly - which can and would only grant them 'Observer State' status like the Vatican. Which in turn would grant them certain extra facilities under the UN(not sure what those are tbf).
Most have said this is the Palestinians trying to force the Israelis and the other 'peace partners' to start the peace talks again. But I'm not sure how effective a strategy this will be...After all, what does Israel have to lose, if it does not come to the party without being satisfied that its interests are being protected/looked after?
Not forgetting the other major issue...the Palestinians lacking a unified, cohesive and coherent voice, Hamas says one thing, Abbas and Co say the complete opposite the next day.
I have no idea whta this is all about. Almost any anti-Israeli resolution will get an automatic majority in the GA, and I'm not sure anyone is giving the implications and consequences a careful thought. An independent Palestine along the 1967 lines means two Palestines with Israel in between. One of many futilities in this stunt.
I don't foresee a resolution on this until the Israeli's stop their Apartheid regime and the Palestinians start getting together to stand on a unified front. And for as long as the US is the one to lead peace talks, considering them not being neutral at all, I just cannot see a common ground being reached. And that's my god's honest opinion, like it or not.
EDIT: typo
EDIT: typo
Who started it? Israel has maintained without fail their Apartheid outlook. What you expect the other side to do eventually? Smile and hold your hand?
Conveniently ignoring the point I made after that. Now tell me again who's childish? And it's pointless having this discussion with you. You'll say anything to backup Israel, I'll say what I need to show the Apartheid style of the Israeli's because I've been on the oppressed side under an Apartheid rule. So yeah, like I said, it's my opinion whether you like it or not.
I don't think your background is relevant for judging Israel's policies. You may not like all of them, but having lived under apartheid does not make your argument more valid than any other.
The who started it first route is not just childish, but also foolish and futile. It's been done here before too, so to save you the search I'll refer you to the 1929 Hebron massacre. Not the first by any means, but certainly prior to the evil Israeli apartheid.
I never implied it did. Read my first statement again. If you missed it, here's a refresher...
Got sent this link today by a friend, Jewish Voice for Peace haven't even looked through it though.
Even today I feel like I only know 1/2 the arguments.
Even today I feel like I only know 1/2 the arguments.
I wouldn't be too sure about European countries vetoing. France has already declared itself supportive of Palestinian state, and the UK has yet to decide what it may do. In the case of the latter its more interesting seeing as Cameron can either give in to US pressure much like his predecessor, or he might take a more sensititve angle considering how his nation is involved in trying to rebuild Libya...who will no doubt watch what happens with great interest. However I'd suspect that both France and the UK would probably abstain, Germany on the other hand...
The only ones 'childish' here are the US threatening to veto the resolution and withdrawing all funding to the Palestinians...and they like to see themselves as impartial mediators for peace talks. And then there's good ol Liebermann with his threats of 'dire consequences'.
For what its worth I think they have every right to take this to the UN. Its clear that peace talks are futile since the Israelis won't concede their illegal settlement expansion, so it seems that the Palestinians are doing the rational, peaceful thing in using diplomacy to push ahead for self-determination.
For me the most interesting outcome would actually be the US vetoing it. I think the Arab world would begin to reassess their relationship with the US (especially those countries undergoing revolutions - would they trust a US partner in the future now?). The worrying aspect however would be the Palestinians then realising that peaceful means are futile at best, and may hence return to armed struggle.
By Arab world you basically mean Egypt? Because I don't think the Saudis and Jordanian give a shit about the Palestinians. And there you go again, not even the Arab world is unified on this matter and Egypt alone doesn't really pose a threat, imo. I think the Palestinians using diplomacy instead of rockets is always a good move. If they could for once be consistent in their policy, then maybe there would be some progress. For some reason, however, I doubt that. The hatred for the Jew is an intrinsic part of their collective identity and each new death only perpetuates this attitude. I'd be very curious to see what would happen if all violence would completely stop for a period of five years, or ten years, how the relations between the Israelis and Palestinians would develop, how they would perceive each other, etc.
Egypt would be one yes, but lets not underestimate their role in all this considering they border Israel and are in the process of building a new nation. Then there's also their North African neighbours Libya and Tunisia who will no doubt feel concerned for their Arab compatriots. And let's not forget countries in the region with a US military presence in them - Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the entire Gulf....yes most of these countries would do feck all considering their regimes but that's not to say their people wouldn't think any differently. And of course let's not forget the elephant in the room - Turkey. They're not an Arab country but they're looking to integrate themselves more in Middle Eastern affairs now that it looks like the EU is still a distant dream; the last thing the US wants to do is annoy whats probably its second biggest ally in the region after Israel, that would be disastrous.
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting though with the whole 'hatred for Jews' vibe. Its no secret that the majority of Palestinians despise their Israeli counterparts (and most probably vice versa too) but thats unfortunately what violence incites on both sides. If you want them to be consistent in their peaceful ways then this is a good start and as you said - beats firing a barrage of rockets. I think to halt this would be potentially dangerous and will most likely push the Palestinians into initiating another intifada.
The Arab world clearly gives a shit to be frank, even the likes of Saudi Arabia... Below is an excerpt from a Washington Post article written by prince Turki Al-Faisal, the intelligence chief of Saudi.
"There will be disastrous consequences for US-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes UN recognition of a Palestinian state. It would mark a nadir in the decades-long relationship as well as irrevocably damage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and America's reputation among Arab nations. The ideological distance between the Muslim world and the West in general would widen - and opportunities for friendship and cooperation between the two could vanish."
Failed favoritism toward Israel - The Washington Post
Whether they can do anything about it is another argument altogether obviously, but every action that the US makes now is going to be closely scrutinised by the Muslim world. Thanks to its on-going wars and economic plight, US power is slowly waining and I don't think it will be too long before its puppets in the ME are either ousted or they begin to listen to the will of their people.
And if there's one thing the Muslim world is united on, its the right of Palestinian people for their own state.
What I mean by this is that there's an impression, at least, that a whole new, young generation will have to first 'unlearn' to see Israel as the big sheytan in order to develop a sense and understanding that problems are not solved through violence. But this is not what is happening when you consider the Palestinian media and their educational system. And I'm not quite sure how much 'mutual respect' and 'say no to violence' the Palestinian kids are taught at their homes (Im just assuming this now). It basically becomes a part of a collective mentality and unless this is radically changed I'm not very optimistic.
I'm not familiar with the Israeli educational system but simply based on the fact that it's a secular country I don't think what their kids learn in school is nearly as radical. And I think education is a quite an important aspect as it has a big impact on shaping a society. I remember in school I was drilled and brainwashed into believing that brotherhood and unity is the only way forward and how we're all the same, so that even after the war (for which I'd have every reason to forever 'hate my enemy') I find myself resorting back to those principles and still consider them to be of paramount value. That's socialism for you, I guess
.Tbh this is just words. The powerful Arab leaders remind me on the Russians who were always good at talking but in the end never did anything to help our cause (talking about the Balkan wars). I might be wrong but this seems to me like a lot of hot air, mainly in order to please the population and give an impression that this can't go on forever and there will be consequences. We've heard it all before.
Theere are many in Israel who are supportive of a Palestinian state two. It's the terms of the agreement which are in question here. What is it about Germany that you forgot to complete btw?
I do not agree. The peace talks and previous agreements were based on the notion that any future resolution would be reached through a dialogue and not unilaterally. I'm sure you would reach the same conclusions regarding the outcome of unilateral measures without Lieberman's help.
I hope Israel does not concede anything, not a square inch, unless the Arabs/Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland.
The Arab world started reassessing the US right after Obama's speech in Cairo. As for the worrying prospects, the Palestinians have never abandoned their armed struggle.
If common interest prevailed after 9/11 I guess they'll last a US veto later this month. As for the "peace process", unilateral measures contradict its very foundations.
I think the Arab world is pretty much in agreement regarding the right of the Jewish people for their own state too.
So do the people behind that website. They know the Palestinian half only.
What I mean by this is that there's an impression, at least, that a whole new, young generation will have to first 'unlearn' to see Israel as the big sheytan in order to develop a sense and understanding that problems are not solved through violence. But this is not what is happening when you consider the Palestinian media and their educational system. And I'm not quite sure how much 'mutual respect' and 'say no to violence' the Palestinian kids are taught at their homes (Im just assuming this now). It basically becomes a part of a collective mentality and unless this is radically changed I'm not very optimistic.
I'm not familiar with the Israeli educational system but simply based on the fact that it's a secular country I don't think what their kids learn in school is nearly as radical. And I think education is a quite an important aspect as it has a big impact on shaping a society. I remember in school I was drilled and brainwashed into believing that brotherhood and unity is the only way forward and how we're all the same, so that even after the war (for which I'd have every reason to forever 'hate my enemy') I find myself resorting back to those principles and still consider them to be of paramount value. That's socialism for you, I guess
You have to remember that 'hatred' is not an irrational phenomenon....ok well it is, but its sources aren't. In the case of the Palestinians you have to see it from their perspective - they see the Israelis as occupiers who continue to colonise the west bank and maintain a crippling blockade over Gaza, older Palestinians will also regard them as those who drove them form their homes. From this its almost understandable to see where this hatred stems from. Likewise, an Israeli who's lost their 12 year old daughter from being hit by a Katuysha rocket while walking home from school will also most likely see the Palestinians as child-killing savages who one cannot make peace with. As such the cycle of violence and hatred continues.
Now its good and all talking about ceasefires and gradually trying to dwindle the intense mutual hatred, but really that just might lead to maintaining the status quo.
The way I see it, this recent move from the Palestinian camp is one of initiative and non-violence, its setting the right tone for trying to achieve what most people want - a two state solution, in the most peaceful way possible. Its not as Obama describes it - "counter-productive", in fact it would be counter-productive to veto this initiative since all it'll do is ultimately take the Palestinians back to phase one where they'll be less motivated than ever to handle things peacefully.
Its no secret that Germany wants a more permanent role in the UNSC, so its not surprising that they're trying to lure US acceptance by following their course in this matter.
A notion which is incredibly flawed. Remember the 'road map' plan? It was a sensible proposition made obsolete by Israeli's 14 amendments which were all unfair propositions.
The hypocrisy is that Israeli wont recognise a Palestinian state.
They have been reassessing since then yes, but a US veto would only confirm what they began to suspect following the Arab Spring - the US doesn't give two hoots about them or or their wishes. It will only further isolate the US's trust and influence in the region, as it already has begun to do so. And yes, Palestinians haven't dropped their armed struggle, but much of it remains in hibernation. To deny them this opportunity would violently awaken most of its elements.
Well said.