Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

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.

For that they'd need the backing of the Russians and Chinese too (?), both of whom support the Palestinian cause in the UN SC purely for care of the oppressed.


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.

Israel would, when the Arab world recognizes the right of the Jewish people for a homeland in the region. There is a reason why peace movements here chanted "two states for two peoples" 20 years ago, whereas these days we're discussing a 2-state solution.

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.

The US has never been popular in the ME, and it appears that stabbing their allies in the back hasn't won them any new support. Obama.
 
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.

Can you see the perspective of a people that has its independence and self-determination questioned and delegitimised? Could you understand its reluctance to make further compromises?
 
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.

Lets be honest, there's no such thing as a peace process anymore, there may have been at one point but those days are long gone. The whole thing has become a sham and its aim now is nothing more than a 'process' of prolonging any sort of a viable solution. Peace is not in the interests of the Israeli economy which is just too reliant upon war and counter terrorism measures.


I think the Arab world is pretty much in agreement regarding the right of the Jewish people for their own state too.

Not exactly, I think most Arabs would have no problems with a Jewish state so long as it remains within its own geographical boundaries, respects its neighbours and upholds international law. Arabs don't 'hate' Jews, they have lived side by side for centuries. I think its time Israel dropped this 'victim' mentality it seems to have developed and listen to what (most of) the rest of the world has to say. Statements like the one above are childish and do nothing to resolve the situation. By shifting the blame backwards and forwards, we'll be having this same conversation for years to come...
 
Lets be honest, there's no such thing as a peace process anymore, there may have been at one point but those days are long gone. The whole thing has become a sham and its aim now is nothing more than a 'process' of prolonging any sort of a viable solution. Peace is not in the interests of the Israeli economy which is just too reliant upon war and counter terrorism measures...

I think it's not the first time you show this depth of knowledge of the Israeli economy. Do you really believe this tripe?

Not exactly, I think most Arabs would have no problems with a Jewish state so long as it remains within its own geographical boundaries, respects its neighbours and upholds international law. Arabs don't 'hate' Jews, they have lived side by side for centuries. I think its time Israel dropped this 'victim' mentality it seems to have developed and listen to what (most of) the rest of the world has to say. Statements like the one above are childish and do nothing to resolve the situation. By shifting the blame backwards and forwards, we'll be having this same conversation for years to come...

Why isn't there one prominent Arab leader who publically says so then? Arabs have NEVER acknowledged the Jews' right for independence here, and still don't which highlights the truth that the conflict isn't about borders or international law.
 
Why isn't there one prominent Arab leader who publically says so then? Arabs have NEVER acknowledged the Jews' right for independence here, and still don't which highlights the truth that the conflict isn't about borders or international law.

Why go ruin plasticinian aspirations with fact?

Thought you'd know better mate.
 
I think it's not the first time you show this depth of knowledge of the Israeli economy. Do you really believe this tripe?

The numbers speak for themselves. In 2010, Israel exported $7.2 billion worth of military hardware making it the fourth largest arms exporter in the world - Astonishing for such a small country. Combine this with all the 'counter-terrorism' initiatives that the country offers and it doesn't take too long to realise the militarization of the economy.


Why isn't there one prominent Arab leader who publically says so then? Arabs have NEVER acknowledged the Jews' right for independence here, and still don't which highlights the truth that the conflict isn't about borders or international law.

Playing the victim card again I see.

You got on fine with Mubarak didn't you??

In not acknowledging Israel, the Arab leaders are playing right into its hands, Israel can continue to flount international law using 'self defense' and other pathetic excuses such as those you have been using.
 
The numbers speak for themselves. In 2010, Israel exported $7.2 billion worth of military hardware making it the fourth largest arms exporter in the world - Astonishing for such a small country. Combine this with all the 'counter-terrorism' initiatives that the country offers and it doesn't take too long to realise the militarization of the economy.

These numbers suggest that Israeli companies make good business from conflicts across the globe, not necessarily the Arab-Israeli one. Of course we have the Arabs to "thank" for a prosperous arms industry and counter-terrorism expertise.
In fact, I'd argue that Arabs have always had a common interest in maintaining the conflict, and an outside evil that can be blamed for the failings of their own societies.

Playing the victim card again I see.

You got on fine with Mubarak didn't you??

In not acknowledging Israel, the Arab leaders are playing right into its hands, Israel can continue to flount international law using 'self defense' and other pathetic excuses such as those you have been using.

I guess the Arab nation can not find even one leader as wise as yourself, who would do the obvious abd challenge Israel's intentions by accepting a Jewish state here?
 
Mark Regev and can't remember the other bloke(former advisor/minister under Sharon - bushy eyebrows) were doing the rounds after Abbas made his speech. Both were adamant the speech was very inflamatory, and the potential vote even moreso, and that this in effect ended previous agreements, and Israel wouldn't be now bound by them.

Anyone catch anything interesting?

I just saw a headline that quoted Abbas as saying...this does not seek to de-legitimize Israel or a Jewish state, also Saudi Arabia playing their card...warning the US, a veto could/would hurt US/Arab relations...blah blah blah.
 
Barack Obama caught between Israel and his Palestinian 'promise' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Good article, perfectly sums up how Obama has essentially pissed off both sides with his on-the-fence compromises.

Apart from his compromise is to offer the Palestinians what the US position has been for 30 years.

Its the American political class that have changed their view to protect the right wing government of Israel.
Even if he does everything that Netanyahu asks him to do, it won't be enough because Netanyahu will continue to make more extreme demands.
 
If the West Bank would ever become independent, what would happen with the half a million or so Jews who currently live there?
 
That's already happening in the WB, except the Israelis aren't at the receiving end.

It happened to the Bethlehem Christian community after Arafat's mob took charge. Other than that I'm not aware of recent ethnic cleansing incidents.
 
For that they'd need the backing of the Russians and Chinese too (?), both of whom support the Palestinian cause in the UN SC purely for care of the oppressed.

The likelihood of Russia and China accepting three countries from Western Europe to be UNSC members is very low indeed.
 
It happened to the Bethlehem Christian community after Arafat's mob took charge. Other than that I'm not aware of recent ethnic cleansing incidents.

I'd say that a continued settlement program using violence to force Palestinians out of their homes is a cleansing of some sorts.
 
I'd say that a continued settlement program using violence to force Palestinians out of their homes is a cleansing of some sorts.

Rubbish. There are countless examples of injustice in the WB but nothing like ethnic cleansing. This just doesn't compute with the increase in WB Arab population.
 
Bob,

You're embarrassing yourself again. I decided not to quote that idiotic piece you posted there to give you a chance to delete it before others spend 5 minutes of their lives only to find out what a tool you are.
 
Rubbish. There are countless examples of injustice in the WB but nothing like ethnic cleansing. This just doesn't compute with the increase in WB Arab population.

What good is an increasing population if their lands and livestock are being taken by force?
 
What good is an increasing population if their lands and livestock are being taken by force?

What good is the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" when no such thing actually happens. It goes without saying that daily life in the WB is well short of acceptable, and there is no need for buzzwords for further clarification.
 
Tomorrow's going to be an interesting time to be living here in the West Bank. Would love to get involved in the discussion here on the caf but I suspect the book length post I'd have to come up with to express a tenth of the things I think should be considered would bore most people away.

I will say that the mood amongst my Palestinian friends is far less optimistic than Abbas, or the mainstream media, would have you believe. Everyone seems very realistic about what any decision in the UN could realistically achieve.
 
What good is the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" when no such thing actually happens. It goes without saying that daily life in the WB is well short of acceptable, and there is no need for buzzwords for further clarification.

Ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.

Sounds like what's happening in the WB.
 
Robert Fisk: Why the Middle East will never be the same again - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent

The Palestinians won't get a state this week. But they will prove – if they get enough votes in the General Assembly and if Mahmoud Abbas does not succumb to his characteristic grovelling in the face of US-Israeli power – that they are worthy of statehood. And they will establish for the Arabs what Israel likes to call – when it is enlarging its colonies on stolen land – "facts on the ground": never again can the United States and Israel snap their fingers and expect the Arabs to click their heels. The US has lost its purchase on the Middle East. It's over: the "peace process", the "road map", the "Oslo agreement"; the whole fandango is history.

Personally, I think "Palestine" is a fantasy state, impossible to create now that the Israelis have stolen so much of the Arabs' land for their colonial projects. Go take a look at the West Bank, if you don't believe me. Israel's massive Jewish colonies, its pernicious building restrictions on Palestinian homes of more than one storey and its closure even of sewage systems as punishment, the "cordons sanitaires" beside the Jordanian frontier, the Israeli-only settlers' roads have turned the map of the West Bank into the smashed windscreen of a crashed car. Sometimes, I suspect that the only thing that prevents the existence of "Greater Israel" is the obstinacy of those pesky Palestinians.

But we are now talking of much greater matters. This vote at the UN – General Assembly or Security Council, in one sense it hardly matters – is going to divide the West – Americans from Europeans and scores of other nations – and it is going to divide the Arabs from the Americans. It is going to crack open the divisions in the European Union; between eastern and western Europeans, between Germany and France (the former supporting Israel for all the usual historical reasons, the latter sickened by the suffering of the Palestinians) and, of course, between Israel and the EU.
Related articles

A great anger has been created in the world by decades of Israeli power and military brutality and colonisation; millions of Europeans, while conscious of their own historical responsibility for the Jewish Holocaust and well aware of the violence of Muslim nations, are no longer cowed in their criticism for fear of being abused as anti-Semites. There is racism in the West – and always will be, I fear – against Muslims and Africans, as well as Jews. But what are the Israeli settlements on the West Bank, in which no Arab Muslim Palestinian can live, but an expression of racism?

Israel shares in this tragedy, of course. Its insane government has led its people on this road to perdition, adequately summed up by its sullen fear of democracy in Tunisia and Egypt – how typical that its principle ally in this nonsense should be the awful Saudi Arabia – and its cruel refusal to apologise for the killing of nine Turks in the Gaza flotilla last year and its equal refusal to apologise to Egypt for the killing of five of its policemen during a Palestinian incursion into Israel.

So goodbye to its only regional allies, Turkey and Egypt, in the space of scarcely 12 months. Israel's cabinet is composed both of intelligent, potentially balanced people such as Ehud Barak, and fools such as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the Ahmadinejad of Israeli politics. Sarcasm aside, Israelis deserve better than this.

The State of Israel may have been created unjustly – the Palestinian Diaspora is proof of this – but it was created legally. And its founders were perfectly capable of doing a deal with King Abdullah of Jordan after the 1948-49 war to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. But it had been the UN, which met to decide the fate of Palestine on 29 November 1947, which gave Israel its legitimacy, the Americans being the first to vote for its creation. Now – by a supreme irony of history – it is Israel which wishes to prevent the UN from giving Palestinian Arabs their legitimacy – and it is America which will be the first to veto such a legitimacy.

Does Israel have a right to exist? The question is a tired trap, regularly and stupidly trotted out by Israel's so-called supporters; to me, too, on regular though increasingly fewer occasions. States – not humans – give other states the right to exist. For individuals to do so, they have to see a map. For where exactly, geographically, is Israel? It is the only nation on earth which does not know and will not declare where its eastern frontier is. Is it the old UN armistice line, the 1967 border so beloved of Abbas and so hated by Netanyahu, or the Palestinian West Bank minus settlements, or the whole of the West Bank?

Show me a map of the United Kingdom which includes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and it has the right to exist. But show me a map of the UK which claims to include the 26 counties of independent Ireland in the UK and shows Dublin to be a British rather than an Irish city, and I will say no, this nation does not have the right to exist within these expanded frontiers. Which is why, in the case of Israel, almost every Western embassy, including the US and British embassies, are in Tel Aviv, not in Jerusalem.

In the new Middle East, amid the Arab Awakening and the revolt of free peoples for dignity and freedom, this UN vote – passed in the General Assembly, vetoed by America if it goes to the Security Council – constitutes a kind of hinge; not just a page turning, but the failure of empire. So locked into Israel has US foreign policy become, so fearful of Israel have almost all its Congressmen and Congresswomen become – to the extent of loving Israel more than America – that America will this week stand out not as the nation that produced Woodrow Wilson and his 14 principles of self-determination, not as the country which fought Nazism and Fascism and Japanese militarism, not as the beacon of freedom which, we are told, its Founding Fathers represented – but as a curmudgeonly, selfish, frightened state whose President, after promising a new affection for the Muslim world, is forced to support an occupying power against a people who only ask for statehood.

Should we say "poor old Obama", as I have done in the past? I don't think so. Big on rhetoric, vain, handing out false love in Istanbul and Cairo within months of his election, he will this week prove that his re-election is more important than the future of the Middle East, that his personal ambition to stay in power must take first place over the sufferings of an occupied people. In this context alone, it is bizarre that a man of such supposed high principle should show himself so cowardly. In the new Middle East, in which Arabs are claiming the very same rights and freedoms that Israel and America say they champion, this is a profound tragedy.

US failures to stand up to Israel and to insist on a fair peace in "Palestine", abetted by the hero of the Iraq war, Blair, are responsible. Arabs too, for allowing their dictators to last so long and thus to clog the sand with false frontiers and old dogmas and oil (and let's not believe that a "new" "Palestine" would be a paradise for its own people). Israel, too, when it should be welcoming the Palestinian demand for statehood at the UN with all its obligations of security and peace and recognition of other UN members. But no. The game is lost. America's political power in the Middle East will this week be neutered on behalf of Israel. Quite a sacrifice in the name of liberty...
 
Tomorrow's going to be an interesting time to be living here in the West Bank. Would love to get involved in the discussion here on the caf but I suspect the book length post I'd have to come up with to express a tenth of the things I think should be considered would bore most people away.

I will say that the mood amongst my Palestinian friends is far less optimistic than Abbas, or the mainstream media, would have you believe. Everyone seems very realistic about what any decision in the UN could realistically achieve.

Post away...

As for your comment regarding people on the ground being realistic, I agree 100%. Unilateral decisions regarding statehood are meaningless. It's like a couple of Israeli govt said, at best Abbas will get the go ahead for a 'Virtual State'.

Oh and one more time...the decision to appoint Blair, Bush's personal sextoy as a special envoy/liaison/whatever was proof if anymore was needed that no one in the west actually wants the status quo to change.

If I were a Palestinian I would trust right wing orthodox Israelis more than I would trust anything Blair said.
 
Ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.

Sounds like what's happening in the WB.

No, it doesn't. A settler torching olive trees is violent, criminal and definitely unacceptable but it isn't ethnic cleansing.

Would you call the 64-year long hostility from the Arab world towards Israel an ethnic cleansing campaign because 100,000s of Israelis have decided to live abroad?
 

Commentary: Exposing Abbas | The National Interest

In fact, what actually happened was this: The Arab states and the Palestinian national leadership, headed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, opposed the partition of Palestine, claiming all of Palestine for the Arabs. When the General Assembly voted in favor of partition, on 29 November 1947, the Palestinian leadership rejected the resolution and the Palestinian militias launched hostilities to abort the emergence of a Jewish state. They were aided by money, arms and volunteers from the Arab states. In the course of this first, civil-war half of the 1948 War (roughly from 30 November 1947 until 14 May 1948) the Palestinian militias attacked Jewish traffic and settlements for four months. But eventually the Jewish militias, chiefly the Haganah, went over to the offensive (in early April) and routed the Palestinians, and some 300,000 were displaced from their homes and lands. On 15 May 1948, the day after the Zionist leaders declared the establishment of the State of Israel, the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq invaded Palestine, in defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the partition resolution, and attacked the Jewish state. The army of Jordan, the fourth invading army, occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the core of the territory earmarked in the partition resolution for Palestinian Arab statehood. (The Palestinians failed to declare statehood, and Jordan did not allow the Palestinians to establish a state and subsequently formally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Egypt emerged from the war in control of the Gaza Strip.) During the weeks and months after 15 May, the Israeli army contained the invading armies and eventually drove them out of most of Palestine. Another 400,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes in the course of the fighting: Some were expelled by Jewish troops (for example, from Lydda and Ramle in July 1948), some were advised to leave or ordered out by Arab leaders and officers (for example, from Haifa in April 1948 and Majdal in October). But most of the 700,000 simply fled out of fear of being caught up and harmed in the fighting. In summer 1948 the Israeli government decided not to allow the displaced Arabs—most of whom ended up in refugee camps in other parts of Palestine, i.e., the West Bank and Gaza—to return to the area of the State of Israel, deeming them inimical (they had just assailed the Jewish community and tried to destroy the Jewish state) and a potential Fifth Column.

Abbas's twisted history deliberately omits mention of the first half of the 1948 War, the civil war half, in order to portray the Palestinians as innocent victims. In fact, they were primary agents in the events that followed 29 November 1947, and in launching their assault on the Jewish community provoked and generated the Zionist counter-attack that resulted in the collapse of Palestinian society and the creation of the refugee problem. In history, peoples often pay for their aggression and mistakes, and this is what happened in Palestine.

Abbas and his authority have now launched a campaign for international recognition of Palestinian Arab statehood, which he promises will be formally declared in September. This, he tells us, will "pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice."

What Abbas does not tell his readers is that the Palestinians, as in 1947, were offered statehood in a two-state compromise settlement in 2000 and rejected it (and he, Arafat's aide, did not object); and that he, Abbas, was again offered a state, a two-state settlement, by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, and he (again) rejected it. The compromises offered by Barak-Clinton and Olmert were based on a Palestinian state consisting of some 94% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip and the (Arab) eastern half of Jerusalem, including half or three-quarters of the Old City. In return, the Palestinians were expected to recognize Israel, give up their demand for a mass refugee return and agree definitively to an "end of claims" and an "end of conflict."

Arafat and Abbas rejected the offered compromises because they do not want a two-state solution, they want all of Palestine. Hence they had, and have, no interest in negotiating a compromise with Israel. (Abbas, in the New York Times, pays lip service to the idea of negotiation: "Negotiations remain our first option"—but this is hogwash. Last year Netanyahu froze settlement activity for ten months, under pressure from Obama and the Arab world—but Abbas failed to actually negotiate. He dragged his feet. Since then, Netanyahu, in refusing to extend that settlement freeze, has played into Abbas's hands, and has contributed enormously to the ongoing delegitimization of Israel in the West. In the Arab countries, of course, it was neither here nor there, as they have never "legitimized" Israel.)

Abbas is now pursuing a Palestinian state without having to pay the price of recognizing Israel or making peace. Once the Palestinians get their West Bank-Gaza state, they will use it as a springboard for their second-stage assault, political and military, on Israel—and they will no doubt lodge claims "at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies, and the International Court of Justice" as part of that assault.

But the major basis of political and moral assault on Israel will be the Palestinian demand for a "Right of Return"—and its international acceptance and implementation—of the 1948 refugees, who now number, them and their descendants, 5-6 million souls. As Abbas puts it in his article, the refugee problem will need to be resolved "justly" on the basis of UN General Assembly resolution 194, of December 1948, which, in the Palestinian interpretation, endorses the "Right of Return." If the world accepts this Palestinian demand and there is implementation, Israel will cease to exist (Israel's current population consists of close to 6 million Jews and 1.4 million Arabs: Add to it 5-6 million Palestinian refugees and the country will have an Arab, not a Jewish, majority. Ergo, no Jewish state.). This is the Palestinian aim and end game; this, in fact, is the "truth" that Abbas is purveying and pursuing.
 
HL- with all due respect, the scenario of 5mil Palestinians returning from all over the world to inundate Israel is simply scare mongering is it not?

I'm not saying the scenario wouldn't be one of complete devastation for Jews, but there is absolutely no chance in hell that would happen. What UN resolution has Israel abided by that it didn't like?

Honestly speaking, the P5 could endorse such a resolution(more chance of Swansea winning the PL this season), and Israel would still ignore such demands.
 
HL- with all due respect, the scenario of 5mil Palestinians returning from all over the world to inundate Israel is simply scare mongering is it not?

I'm not saying the scenario wouldn't be one of complete devastation for Jews, but there is absolutely no chance in hell that would happen. What UN resolution has Israel abided by that it didn't like?

Honestly speaking, the P5 could endorse such a resolution(more chance of Swansea winning the PL this season), and Israel would still ignore such demands.

gazaNuseiratRefugeeCamp350__350x233.JPG
vs.
TelAviv_428x269_to_468x312.jpg


It doesn't have to be 5 million though, does it (nevermind the Palestinian claim there are 13 million of them). The Palestinians have been kept by their "brothers" in camps for 40-60 years. Why on earth wouldn't they want to swap that for a much better life in Israel, which includes political rights and freedom? Another way to look at this is asking why Israeli Arabs are so opposed to having the proposed land swaps include their towns so they become free Palestinian citizens in the new state rather than remaining "second class" citizens which it often claimed that they are in a Jewish Israel.

Anyway, if only 2-3 million "decide" to immigrate to Israel (you'll get that from Gaza and Lebanon camps/towns alone) you're looking at ~40% of the population of Israel. Roughly knowing the birthrate stats, how long would you thing it's take for Israel becoming another Arab state, or merging with "Palestine"?
 
If the Israelis are so concerned about the migration of millions then why was it okay, and why does it continue to be okay, for millions of Jews to come?

I recall when the second intifada was well and truly under way, there was a perception that you don't get more hardcore than Ariel Sharon, oh how wrong they were.
 
If the Israelis are so concerned about the migration of millions then why was it okay, and why does it continue to be okay, for millions of Jews to come?

I recall when the second intifada was well and truly under way, there was a perception that you don't get more hardcore than Ariel Sharon, oh how wrong they were.

Because it's their "ethnic homeland" so they can discriminate and mistreat others based on race/religion/ethnicity whenever they want. The whole basis of a nation around one's religion/ethnicity is disgusting to me. Then again, as an American, it's not as though most of the ethnic groups in the US have been here for a long time aside from the Native Americans.
 
The whole basis of a nation around one's religion/ethnicity is disgusting to me.

I absolutely agree that it is a problem, and I'm saying that living in Israel as jewish and seeing terrible discrimination. Yes, Israel IS like that, I'm afraid. Thing is, jewish people have also been persecuted for many years just because they were jewish, which drove them into creating their own nation...
 
I absolutely agree that it is a problem, and I'm saying that living in Israel as jewish and seeing terrible discrimination. Yes, Israel IS like that, I'm afraid. Thing is, jewish people have also been persecuted for many years just because they were jewish, which drove them into creating their own nation...

The "terrible discriminatgion" isn't worse compared with discrimination against minorities elsewhere, even when those are not a constant threat to the national aspirations of the majority or collaborate with their own country's enemies.
 
My neighbours racist so it's fine to be less racist than them...

Makes sense.
 
The whole basis of a nation around one's religion/ethnicity is disgusting to me.

Well it might not have been necessary had Europeans been able to refrain from basing mass-murder around religion/ethnicity. As it is, the fact that they went on to wipe out half the Jewish population of Europe pretty much vindicates the arguments of the early Zionists, I reckon. There's disgusting and there's disgusting.

Which is not meant to excuse any contemporary disgustingness going on on the West Bank, of course.
 
I understand that most of the "New World" is a bit different because of the huge mix of people and the willingness to accept and change according to the influx of people. While many Americans weren't happy about Eastern Europeans, Jews, Italians, Irish, or Catholics in general coming to the US, they eventually got over it and realized they had to live together and had more in common than they thought. Israel seems to be dead against ever reconciling with the Palestinians or making any efforts to ensure a peaceful coexistence.

I'm not saying the Palestinians are necessarily different, but at the moment, they are like blacks and colored people in apartheid South Africa. As long as Israelis can keep them out of the UN and second class citizens within Israel, they have no recourse. They're both going to have to learn to live with one another eventually and the one in power abusing the others isn't going to help.

How exactly is South African apartheid comparable to the treatment of Israeli Arabs?
 
Republicans criticise Obama over Israel

Texas Governor Rick Perry called Mr Obama's approach "insulting"


Texas Governor Rick Perry branded the president's policy of giving equal standing to Israeli and Palestinian grievances "misguided and dangerous".

Mr Obama is expected on Wednesday to urge Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to drop his move for UN recognition.

The US president will also meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Diplomats have been scrambling to avert a UN vote on the issue, and the Obama administration has pledged to block such a Palestinian move with a veto in the UN Security Council.

'Israel thrown under bus'
Both the US and Israel say only direct talks can lead to peace, but Palestinians say years of on-off negotiations have left them nowhere. Mr Abbas says he will submit a formal bid on Friday.

The last peace talks broke down a year ago. But both Mr Netanyahu and Mr Abbas this week suggested they were willing to meet each other.

Palestinians currently have permanent observer entity status at the UN
They are represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
Officials now want an upgrade so a state of Palestine has full member status at the UN

The Palestinians are seeking international recognition of their state based on the borders that existed in 1967, which would take in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

Gov Perry, speaking to a group of Jewish and Israeli leaders at a New York hotel on Tuesday, said it was "wrong" for President Obama to have suggested earlier this year that these boundaries should be a starting point for negotiations.

"We would not be here at this very precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East wasn't naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous," said Mr Perry, flanked by US and Israeli flags.

"The Obama policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a dangerous insult."

Mr Perry accused President Obama of a policy of "appeasement" in the Middle East. The Texas governor said his religious faith was a reason for his support of Israel.

"Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel," Mr Perry told reporters.

Mitt Romney - currently second favourite to win the Republican nomination and challenge Mr Obama next year - also hit out at the president's Middle East policy.

"What we are watching unfold at the United Nations is an unmitigated diplomatic disaster," he said in a statement.

"It is the culmination of President Obama's repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position. That policy must stop now."

But presidential aide Antony Blinken hit back in the Wall Street Journal.

"What could actually harm US-Israeli relations, and the security of the Jewish state, is subjecting either to the vagaries of partisan politics or turning them into election-year talking points," he wrote.


Rick Perry:
"The Obama policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a dangerous insult."

Mr Perry accused President Obama of a policy of "appeasement" in the Middle East. The Texas governor said his religious faith was a reason for his support of Israel.

"Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel," Mr Perry told reporters.

Mitt Romney:

"It is the culmination of President Obama's repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position. That policy must stop now."

Stupid Arabs and Palestinians for thinking the US political machine would ever be an honest broker or give a feck...and the temerity of Perry to bring up equivalency when it comes to grievances.

I hope the arab people see and hear the comments people like Perry make on a daily basis, and wise up. There is no ambiguity in his statement, he will not deal with the arabs/muslims in an open and fair manner.

Israel thrown under the bus...yeah, remind me what's changed in the last 3 years, other than Obama making a couple of inconsequential statements admonishing Israel, and then having to backtrack or explain them away, when the media and politicians, on both sides condemned them.

The day the two state solution comes to fruition, Israelis and Palestinians will rejoice almost to a man in the hope that it will bring lasting peace and security for all concerned, while the American political class and the Christian right will cry their beady little eyes out.
 
"Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel," Mr Perry told reporters.


This is the most dangerous statement.

Country as a tactical move supporting one nation over another is fine no matter what the circumstances, since there is some rationality involved in it. Doing so purely on religious lines is devoid of any rational logic and dangerous.