Big deal. The entire Arab world stands with the Palestinians, both as Arabs and Muslims
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Big deal. The entire Arab world stands with the Palestinians, both as Arabs and Muslims
Big deal. The entire Arab world stands with the Palestinians, both as Arabs and Muslims
Yet...he is a 3rd party...An Israeli saying that, a Jew from the UK/India/Ethopia/Iran saying that would make sense...an american private citizen saying it would also be just fine.
But a US politician who hopes to be president, and in turn play a big hand in massaging the process through...nope, not acceptable.
But then again, HL and the other Israelis on this forum, speak with more even handedness(even Fearless, who thinks the Palestinians already have a nation ie Jordan) when it comes to this issue than you do.
Yeah and that is the issue. Take out the religious element and though you can not be certain, the issue IMO would have been somewhat resolved as in it would still exist but not in such dire straits.Big deal. The entire Arab world stands with the Palestinians, both as Arabs and Muslims
Relax Neutral, I don't have much love for radical, evangelical Christians either tbf.
This conflict isn't about borders, nor "apartheid"
Abbas will back down and not go for the vote - he's too scared to lose his job.
The WB will therefore be a state for one people. Interesting.
at the Czechoslovakia bit.The WB will therefore be a state for one people. Interesting.
I blame Netanyahu
Yet Israel is practically the only nation on earth that refuses to declare her borders and continues to sanction illegal settlement expansion.
Sad state of affairs if I'm honest, but if you were in Israel's position, would you support the creation of a neighbouring state which would still hold territorial/national demands afterwards?
Not if territory was fairly allocated to begin with. Either way you'll probably find that sympathies will swing once the Palestinians have a (fair) state of their own, but as of now the Israeli's will be regarded as the aggressors because of the border and settlement situation.
The sympathies swung before (Oslo and then the pullout from Gaza), but we have little left to pay with for short-term sympathies.
I know we are regarded as agressors as long as we control the WB, but if the alternative to long faces in Europe is rockets on Haifa I know which one I'd prefer. Israel would have been very generous territorially if the Palestinians (and other Arabs states for that matter) acknowledged Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.
Although I must admit in my case I'm not generally opposed to the idea of having a "homeland based on one ethnicity". It depends on the circumstances. I'm glad we in Bosnia have our own Serbian part, and the Muslims and Croats have theirs and I hope it stays like this because, for now, it's the best solution for all parties. A lot of people in my area feel much safer this way.
Tongue in cheek, Miha...
I'll be willing to consider giving up the idea of states based on religion/ethnicity when all the rest do.
Spot on.
I guess it all comes down to personal experience. Standing amongst the ruins of my own house and visiting too many graves changed something in me. From then on my first thought was always the safety of friends and family, and there's no doubt people continue to feel that way. And if the price is to stay 'ethnically clean', in order to prevent history repeating itself, then that's the price we'll all gladly pay. This example is probably not entirely analogous to the situation in Israel, but I can imagine that a Jew living in Israel will also look back in history and contemplate 'what's the best way to avoid a repetition of 1948, 1967, 1973, the intifada...
Just listened to Obama's speech at the UN general assembly. Besides the nauseatingly partial and bottling rhetoric we've all come to expect from him, its this quote which caught my ear:
So the same means by which an Israeli state was created is not applicable for the creation of a Palestinian state? I take it we should rip us Kosovo and South Sudan's membership and inform Obama that UN resolutions don't count for squat now.
He could have cut his speech a lot shorter by just walking in and going "shut up, the UN is obsolete, quit whining Palestinine lulz".
On the plus side his friends from AIPAC must be happy, and he's no doubt now won enough public opinion to guarantee a second term. Yes we can.
Obama said:
So the same means by which an Israeli state was created is not applicable for the creation of a Palestinian state? I take it we should rip us Kosovo and South Sudan's membership and inform Obama that UN resolutions don't count for squat now.
He could have cut his speech a lot shorter by just walking in and going "shut up, the UN is obsolete, quit whining Palestinine lulz".
On the plus side his friends from AIPAC must be happy, and he's no doubt now won enough public opinion to guarantee a second term. Yes we can.
Obviously I'm not one of his biggest fans, but I'll offer him some help in return for that favourable speech. The means by which Israel was created in the perfect example why empty statements and resolutions in the UN are meaningless.
The relevant UN resolution gave the platform for the creation of two states in 20% of mandatory Palestine- a Jewish and Arab states. It's not the UN's or Israel's fault that the Arab one still doesn't exist 64 years later.
Curiously enough, according to the UN resolution 1244 Kosovo is still an integral part of Serbia
Yet here we are 64 years later where there is a chance for a UN resolution to be implemented declaring a Palestinian state, supported by a majority of nations. The only thing stopping it is a supposedly 'impartial' mediator who thinks that to veto it would somehow be a better solution in the long run. Obama said that the UN was not the way to go about it, so what is it then? Going back to the hopeless peace talks where the stalemate means whats left of the WB slowly succumbs to settlement expansion day by day? Where more innocents on both sides get killed?
Curiously enough, according to the UN resolution 1244 Kosovo is still an integral part of Serbia
Bah stop being pedantic! You get my point!
The Palestinians still do not accept THAT resolution, so why would they expect other to pass another instead for them?
I do.
Seriously though, is there any credible information on what exactly the new Palestinian state would look like? What happens with the settlements and the settlers, what about Jerusalem, the border controls, etc. Is Abass' proposal just a one liner or is there a proper draft being submitted?
They didn't accept it for right or wrong yet it got passed, despite the overwhelming regional opposition.
The vast majority support the Palestinian statehood resolution yet the only thing stopping it is a super power vetoing it for agenda-driven reasons.
The "vast majority" don't give two shits whether rockets will be launched tomorrow from "Palestine" on Israel.
A Plestinian state will only be created through negotiations, and the nature of the conflict dictates that both parties will have a heavy price to pay in order to achieve it considering their respoctive national ethos. Whether Chad, Laos or Venezuela have other ideas is irrelevant.
As long as thing like settlements keep being built and Hamas and Israel refuse to talk face to face peace can never occur. For both sides will just keep dancing around the peace table throwing rocks at each other.
But the majority are concerned about Israeli's refusal to declare borders and the illegal blockade of Gaza and settlement expansion in the WB.
Negotiations have proven to be hopeless for decades namely because they're one sided and the demands Israel make are unfair and quite frankly ridiculous (see the 14 'amendments' made to the 'road map' plan). The fact is, Israel can continue to make these ridiculous demands simply because it has the full backing of the US which you and I both know are not an impartial party in these peace talks. Heck you take the US out of the equation and suddenly you just might have an equal platform for negotiations.
And lets be honest - stalling and delaying these talks only works in favour of Israel who can continue to build settlements in the WB.
There was I thinking that the point of the UN was to ensure co-operation, interdependence and to seek peace across the world.
I want to know why no politician has put it to him yet whether the United States still believes in popular sovereignty and self determination.
It will be interesting to see how France and the UK act on this, Sarkozy and Cameron have been looking for opportunities to further mutual cooperation and they seem to be on the same hymn sheet regarding the situation.
Once again this shows the insincerity in the pronouncements of the US to allow the rights to freedom and democracy to all.
Hypocrites
Hypocrites
How so ?
If the U.S. position is that both parties negotiate their way to the same outcome the Palestinians aspire to, then how can it be interpreted as hypocrisy ?
Israel is willing to declare borders between a Jewish and an Arab/Palestinian state.
The Gaza blockade is perfectly legal (see the recent Palmer report).
The Palestinians did not sit and negotiate when Israel froze any construction in the settlement for 10 months.
The US can not force anyone into peace. The sides have to recognize each other's right for independence and self-determination, and this requires abandoning dreams rather than foolishly continuing to indoctrinate them to little kids. Blaming the US for ME faults is tiring.
I never managed to understand that conviction of yours. I've neveer voted for a left-wing party here, yet I have crossed the WB once in the last two decades. Why do you think it's within my "interests" to pour money there? Why is building settlements work "in my/Israel's favour" unless the alternative is making these territories a front base for continuing the conflict (see Gaza)?
I don't mind handing the WB to the Palestinians tomorrow morning if Israel is recognized as a Jewish state and we have a lasting peace here.
Why would the US support the Palestinian demands despite their insistance on denying their neighbours' right for self-determination? Don't you see the paradox here?
The Palestinians make a unique underdog, don't you think? I struggle to reacall another example where any nation seeked recognition while at the same time insisted on denying their rivals/enemies/occupiers the same basic rights.
I don't remember Israel negotiating with the Palestinians when they set up country and expanding every year. Why should the Palestinians be denied the right to chart their own course in defined borders? Israel has been stealing land every year which goes by without any solutions. Peace does not suit their agenda. If Israel won't negotiate then surely UN's role is to act as a mediator. I just find the US insincere and hypocritical when they talk big about democracy, freedom as universal rights.
Mr Abbas's spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, said after Mr Obama's speech: "The end of the Israeli occupation and a Palestinian state are the only path to peace.
"We will agree to return to the negotiations the minute that Israel agrees to end the settlements and the lines of 1967."
How is agreeing to end the settlements along the lines of 1967 denying Israel a state? Is that not a clear declaration of accepting Israel as a neighbour?
Let's face it. As long as power balance still lies in the favor of Israel, peace will never be a realism in the Middle east.
If it's up to me, I'd simply split the land into half, shake hands, and move on to rebuilt peacefully, but in reality there are too many vested interest and looney fanatics on both sides.
If it's up to me, I'd simply split the land into half, shake hands, and move on to rebuilt peacefully, but in reality there are too many vested interest and looney fanatics on both sides.
Let's be realists here Sults. There is only one way to go about achieving the sustainable end state of two states, that that's by direct negotiations between both parties. Statehood, without Israeli participation in the process and without the support of the world's superpower would seem unsustainable. Its merely a half-thought out way to use the mechanism of the UN to unconstructively delegitimize Israel, which would set any hope for direct negotiations back several steps. The only way things will improve is with the buy in of all parties involved. Everything else (much like the flotilla fiasco), is not going to work.