He was just making a Space Jam reference, relax.
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Evidently.
Israel has a fondness for collective punishment of Palestinians
Perhaps, if some elements among the Palestinian population didn't engage in acts of terrorism, and negotiated or accepted previous peace offers, they might live in a prosperous Palestinian state without those restrictions.
Israel has only ever offered apartheid
If the Palestinians were offered an entire planet they'd still refuse.
We all know what you really want.
Not to live under apartheid
And every single one of those 'peace offers' had ridiculous amendments which the Israelis knew the Palestinians wouldn't accept.
The trouble is, the hardliners in Israel do not want peace. They're quite happy with the status quo which allows them to keep up their illegal settlement colonisation and refraining from declaring their borders. Peace would eventually see an end to that.
So they deliberately make outlandish demands knowing the Palestinians wouldn't accept them, and then shrug their shoulders claiming it's the Palestinians who aren't interested in peace. They're also helped by the fact the United States is unequivocally behind them, with the Orange Twitler blessing their settlement program and deciding to recognise Jerusalem as their capital, so they know they needn't be in a position to compromise.
100% correct.
Israel has had 40 years to accept the international consensus for resolving the conflict. That's the peace offer. Based on that international consensus (and in fact international law) Israel has made precisely zero concessions in all of its negotiations with the Palestinians. All of the concessions have come from the Palestinians.
It should be acknowledged however that there are huge political pressures at play on both sides in these negotiations. An interesting quote during the 2008 negotiations came from Tzipi Livni. The Palestinians showed her a map that would have allowed 60% of the settlers to remain in place on 2% of the West Bank (a monumental concession going far beyond what was required of them under international law). She said, "It's not that your map is physically impossible," she said it was "politically impossible". That is to say, no Israeli Prime Minister could support such a map and still remain in office.
I'll cite one example to disprove your claim that Israel has never made any concessions at peace talks - Camp David, 2000.
At Camp David in 2000:
1. The Palestinians were offered more than 90% of the West Bank and the whole of the Gaza Strip.
2. The 1949 Armistice Line (the Green Line) separating Israeli and Jordanian forces would become the official border subject to minor modifications.
3. A transit route would be built to bridge the West Bank and Gaza, which would be free from Israeli control.
4. Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, but split between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with a strong measure of Palestinian control over Arab areas.
The Israeli cabinet voted to accept the terms outlined above on December 27, 2000.
Last edited:
Could you elaborate on the bolded parts?
Was 90% of the West Bank in continuous territory?
What is implied by the term "minor modifications"?
What exactly does a strong measure of control entail?
Which means a Palestinian concession of up to 10% of what they are entitled to.
Fair enough. Hadn't thought of that as it isn't usually thought of as one of the core issues.
Again, any Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem would be a Palestinian concession.
This was not Camp David though. Camp David took place in July. What you are referring to was the Clinton Parameters. This was the closest Israel ever got to the international consensus. But it was too late in the day. Barak had wasted so much time on the unsuccessful Syrian track before turning his attention to the Palestinians. By the time the Clinton Parameters were announced Bush was president elect and Barak was on his way out of office as well. In fact, those negotiations at Taba ended when Barak walked away, not the Palestinians.
In regards to point 3, Israel wouldn't control it but they did reserve the right to shut it down in an emergency at their own discretion.
What is the basis for the claim of Palestinian entitlement, and the 10% figure?
How would Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem be a Palestinian concession?
I agree, I should have differentiated for accuracy.
Been chatting to work colleagues about this for a while and we still don’t have an appropriate answer: why are the USA so blindly, continuously and overtly supporting the Israelis to the hilltops? Just don’t get it.
Kafka, outmatched by reality:
Palestinian family destroys own home in Jerusalem to avoid Israeli demolition fees
https://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=779681
Palestinian family destroys own home in Jerusalem to avoid Israeli demolition fees
https://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=779681
The 10% figure is the complement to the "more than 90% of the West Bank" that you mentioned. Anything less than 100% of the West Bank is a Palestinian concession.
Several factors form the basis of Palestinian entitlement. Firstly there is resolution 242. This is understood to mean withdrawal to the 1967 lines with minor and mutual border adjustments and is supported overwhelmingly by the international community (as demonstrated in countless UN resolutions). If one sees things from a Palestinian perspective, one must understand that for a long time they wanted the liberation of the entirety of their homeland from European colonisation. When they recognised Israel's right to exist in 1988 they gave up 78% of their homeland. In their eyes that was an astonishing concession made on the understanding that the other 22%, and nothing less, would be set aside for a Palestinian state.
They also saw 100% of the Sinai returned to Egypt. They saw Assad demand 100% of the Golan (the negotiations failed since Israel wanted to keep some of the Golan for reasons to do with water). The Palestinians were not going to accept less than Syria and Egypt were demanding.
And of course since then, the world's highest legal authority has ruled unanimously that, in their legal opinion, all of the territory is theirs.
Ok I see that, but how is that particular lobby so powerful and influential, what are they offering in return?
1. The Palestinians did not give up 78% of any land, because they didn't have land to offer as a concession. The Palestinian Arabs were not afforded sovereign legal title to any part of Palestine. This applies to the West Bank too.
2. There is no comparison with Egypt (Sinai) and Syria (Golan) on one hand, and the Palestinians on the other. No country disputes Egypt and Syria as sovereign title holders to Sinai and the Golan Heights. The Palestinians are not in a position to make such a demand.
As I said, from their perspective they were giving up 78% of their homeland. Bear in mind that when the British took control, the principle of self-determination, which was applied to all other newly formed states in the region, was not applied to Palestine. Had it been (and why not?), Palestine would have had a huge Arab majority. Even in the decades after the Balfour Declaration the Arabs had been repeatedly reassured by the British that they would not allow the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine or even in part of Palestine (meaning that a home for the Jews did not mean a state).
When Israel was established, in its very own declaration of independence it cited the UN partition plan as legitimising their right to create their state. Well, either the partition plan is valid for both sides or neither at all. Of course, Israel has tried to promote the myth that it has never declared its borders. But in fact when Israel was recognised by the US and then followed by other states, all had been assured that the borders were in line with the UN partition plan (although Ben Gurion managed to get references to borders removed from the Declaration in the hope of future expansion).
Despite these facts, the world now recognises Israel's legal borders to be the pre-1967 lines. Similarly, the world recognises the rest of historic Palestine to be occupied Palestinian territory. This has been enshrined in numerous UN security council resolutions as well as the ICJ opinion. But of course, if Israel wants to challenge the Palestinian claim to the final 22%, then there is an argument to be made for a Palestinian claim to the 23% Israel took by force in 1948, or perhaps even the Palestinians still have a valid claim to the entirety of historic Palestine.
Out of curiosity, what sort of resolution to the conflict would be your preference?
@Super Hans, best username on the Caf.
@BeepBeepImAJeep easily
In short - they're extremely organised and very well funded. Just take a look at how much they dispense in campaign contributions on both sides of the US political sectrum - from last year annual AIPAC conference, the average speaker (which included dozens of Congressman) pocked on average $36,000 for merely speaking. Its pretty much considered political suicide to be publicly critical of Israel. A bit like how it would be considered politically suicidal for a GOP congressman to publicly come out in support of abortion rights or gun control, except this is a bipartisan phenomenon. On the Republican side, they're also catering to a signficant aspect of their base - the radical Christian Zionists, who have some doomsday belief that the messiah will rise when The Holy Land fully returns to the Jewish people.
Also, its probably fair to say that on the whole US opinion towards Israel is favourable. They see it as this pro-American bulwark in a region filled with 'hostile Muslim states', and congress try and reflect that sentiment.
Got it, thanks, interesting.
Basically money (and votes)?! That’s sad.
Israel remains generally quite popular with the American public for religious, cultural and historical reasons which means the Israel lobby is working on fertile ground to an extent that equally well-funded lobbies are not.
Especially post 9/11. Interestingly enough US public opinion towards Israel just prior to the 9/11 attacks was at the lowest its ever been, then shot up during the 'War on terror' that ensued after and has remained positively stable ever since.
But as a non Christian or Jew, I thought they were rivals(?).
Didn't the Jews literally hang Christ? Why are they all so pally-pally now?
Religiously it's related to reformed Christian eschatology, the idea that the holy land needs to be returned to Jewish rule in order to usher the last days.
Culturally it's due to the perception of Israel as a Western, progressive bulwark against backward Arabs combined with the general success of Jewish America.
Historically it's due to the many obvious parallels in how both the US and modern Israel were founded.
Fascinating, thank you.
So even though the Christians and Jews were 'rivals' - the Christian eschatology believes in giving the holy land back to the Jews? That's interesting.
It's not necessarily 'Christian' eschatology - Catholics and Orthodox have little or no interest in it. It's certain forms of Reformed Christianity whose adherents laid the foundations of the US and continue to set much of the agenda in American politics.
I also don't think it's useful to think of Judaism and Christianity as 'rival' faiths, or their adherents as historical 'rivals'.
And one of those newly formed states was Trans-Jordan, 80% of the Palestine you claim to have been ignored (such irony!). How terribly, and selfishly convenient.
Nevertheless, with even less of the palestine cake to re-distrubute, Israel was confirmed in 1948 as a national entity by the U.N. with Judea and Samaria as part of this sovereign state based on an international agreement signed by the government of Turkey and recorded in the Treaty of Lausanne which legalized the San Remo Accords. The government of Turkey as signatory to this binding treaty gave up all claim to its former territories (which you foolishly believe were “Palestinian” whatever that means) and the Mandate for Palestine came into legal force. And thus ‘Jewish Palestine’ was established by the League of Nations on September 16th 1922 as Eretz-Israel when Israel was defined as the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea by the Transjordan Memorandum. This subsequent partition plan of 1947 was merely a proposal and totally rejected by the Arabs. It has no legal standing whatsoever. The San Remo agreement and the Treaty of Lausanne are Israel’s Magna Carta and are in full force to this day. No country, or rant based 'from their perspective" may try to change the legitimate borders.
Likewise, the so-called pre-67 borders mean nothing: they are the armistice lines resulting from the failed invasion of your Arab friends.
Look forward to more of your 'perspectives'.
Last edited:
This is what confuses me. The Jews didn't (don't) recognise Jesus as divinity, they made his (and his followers) life hell, and literally killed him, however it's all water under the bridge between the two of them?!
You need to read up on the history of Jewish-Christian relations since the death of Christ.orrrr....watch a documentary on it! heh
Last edited:
From what I understand it's mostly persecution of Jews, whether you look at Western Europe or Russia...?