• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Should Not Capitulate

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
10,197
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Assuming the latest news accounts are accurate, I believe President Obama's current efforts to press Israel are badly misguided for a number of reasons:

1. They ignore the reality that it has been the Palestinians not Israel who have been boycotting negotiations. The Palestinians have been demanding an entrance price to indirect talks. Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness and desire to immediately engage in unconditional direct negotiations.

2. Israel has demonstrated through credible actions its desire for peace. It accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal of December 2000. In late 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offered even more generous terms than President Clinton's proposal. In both instances, the Palestinians failed to seize the opportunity for peace. In the two cases where Arab states were serious about peace, Israel reached agreement.

3. Israel has repeatedly made good faith unilateral concessions. Those concessions have been pocketed by the Palestinians. They did not produce greater flexibility on the part of the Palestinians. In the case of the Gaza Strip and also Lebanon, the result was violence against Israel's people.

4. Indirect talks have not produced much progress. The successful negotiations between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan were direct talks.

5. Israel is held responsible for a badly timed announcement by the Interior Minister. The Palestinians were not criticized for naming a public square in Ramallah after a terrorist who was responsible for a loss of Israeli lives.

6. Breaking an ally demonstrates a lack of reliability. Should Israel be forced to capitulate to U.S. demands, that will send a clear message to other U.S. allies that the alliance is based strictly on U.S. desires , not mutual interests, and can turn on a whim. It will demonstrate before the world that U.S. commitments are not reliable. That development would raise legitimate concerns down the road, both with economic and political partners. For example, given persistent U.S. trade deficits, countries running trade surpluses with the U.S. might well have reasons to expect that the U.S. will act in a protectionist fashion even if such trade imbalances are the result of comparative advantages not unfair trade practices. Given long-term fiscal imbalances, nations currently financing U.S. debt could have genuine reason to worry about a partial U.S. default via significant currency devaluation.

IMO, Israel should not capitulate to the current unreasonable demands being placed on it. Such a move would set a bad precedent and embolden the Palestinians to become even more intransigent in the belief that the U.S. would ultimately break Israel. Furthermore, I suspect that there is a limit to how far the Administration can push Israel before Congress constrains it.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's true that the Palestinians have been emboldened/made more intransigent by the election of Obama who, before the campaign in which Israel support is gratuitous, clearly had some serious Palestinian ties. Many, including Hussein Ibish, spoke of them.

Abbas/Fatah/The PA is now demanding the "Exact 1967 Border" position of Hamas.. whereas the election of McCain might have pushed the Palestinians more towards the deal Ohlmert offered, and which I think Abbas was interested in and may have then acceded to. Israel returns 99%!

Now, it's not even clear that Netanyahu would offer the Ohlmert or previous Ehud Barak 95%-100% exchange deal/s anyway.

So with a more confident/less compromising Palestinian position and Netanyahu around for another few years, Peace seems less likely than I can ever remember.
And for many reasons, most prominently declawing Iran, Israel needs peace.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
10,197
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
With respect to my point that there is probably a limit to how far the Administration can push Israel before Congress constrains it, The Jerusalem Post just reported:

The congresswoman who oversees US aid to Israel told The Jerusalem Post Thursday that the ongoing dispute between the countries would in no way harm assistance to the Jewish state.

“There is no question in my mind that the 10-year memorandum of understanding is solid,” Nita Lowey, chairwoman of the US House appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, said of the decade-long US aid plan under which $3 billion will be going to Israel this year. “There is strong bipartisan support for Israel in the Congress that will not falter.”
'Dispute won?t harm $3b. aid to Israel'
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Whining about who is at fault is why the process never gets anywhere. What matters is simply using what power you have to influence the best outcome. The U.S. has a unique ability to influence Israel thanks to its military aid. Thus, strong arming Israel into doing something sensible like getting rid of settlements is something that can actually be accomplished. Ideally we could do the same for the Palestinians, but the U.S. lacks the influence. While it is probably unfair in some cosmic sense that Palestine can get away with worse behavior, that is no excuse for continuing to allow Israel to do stupid things.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,787
Reaction score
6,221
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Whining about who is at fault is why the process never gets anywhere. What matters is simply using what power you have to influence the best outcome. The U.S. has a unique ability to influence Israel thanks to its military aid. Thus, strong arming Israel into doing something sensible like getting rid of settlements is something that can actually be accomplished. Ideally we could do the same for the Palestinians, but the U.S. lacks the influence. While it is probably unfair in some cosmic sense that Palestine can get away with worse behavior, that is no excuse for continuing to allow Israel to do stupid things.
The "military aid" to Israel is a two-sided treaty between the US and Israel that both nations are contracted on and benefit from to some degree.
Be it the money that allows Israel to purchase extra defense systems from the US, or the American arms market that benefits from the contract that forces Israel to buy a great percentage of its weapons from American contractors.

That being said, it is more than predicted that if an American administration was ever to try and blackmail Israel using the treaty between them, Israel would see it necessary to cancel the treaty in order to preserve its sovereignty.
Of course, I personally don't believe that such an incident would ever occur, not even by the current administration.

The settlements that the US administration tries to dismantle before even entering to the negotiations with the Palestinians would most probably be dismantled as a result of negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The objective, aim and target of the American administration, since they took on themselves to broker the peace process between the two sides, is to push the two sides to enter the negotiations.

As for current time, while the Israeli government constantly states that it desires to go back into the negotiation table and calls for its Palestinian counterpart to do the same, the Palestinian authority strongly refuses to enter the negotiations with Israel and practically boycotts the talks until their interests would be fulfilled.

Such political nerve by the Palestinians would not have existed were the US to show an objective take on the conflict between the two sides.
 
Last edited:

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The "military aid" to Israel is a two-sided treaty between the US and Israel that both nations are contracted on and benefit from to some degree.
Be it the money that allows Israel to purchase extra defense systems from the US, or the American arms market that benefits from the contract that forces Israel to buy a great percentage of its weapons from American contractors.
Israel is the only recipient of foreign military aid from the United States that does not have to use all the money on US military projects. Every other country that receives aid from us is forced to invest it back into our own market.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,787
Reaction score
6,221
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Israel is the only recipient of foreign military aid from the United States that does not have to use all the money on US military projects.
Doesn't contradict any of my points, I'm afraid.

Secondly, please source up the claim that Egypt is forced to invest all of the military aid it receives from the US in US military projects.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Israel is the only recipient of foreign military aid from the United States that does not have to use all the money on US military projects. Every other country that receives aid from us is forced to invest it back into our own market.
LOL. Strawman alert.
'Just' 75%!
and that doesn't contradict/refute apocalypse who said Both sides benefit to "so Some degree".
(will this be another english/logic lesson?)

US aid for Israel tied to arms sales: 75% of the aid must be used to buy military material made in the US NWO Observer

".....Israel is bound by the agreement to use 75% of the aid to buy military hardware Made in the US: in the crisis-racked US economy, those military factories are critical to many towns.

For the first time the US is also providing $500 million to the Palestinian Authority, including $100 million to train security forces, under the strict proviso that the authority’s leadership recognises Israel.

For many years Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid, followed by Egypt ($1.75 billion), which also receives Most of its assistance in tied military aid....
Edit: I see apoc has already answered degreez faux rebuttal to some degree.
 
Last edited:

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Doesn't contradict any of my points, I'm afraid.
I wasn't trying to contradict any of your points. I read your post, and agreed with some of your comments (like paragraph three). However, I found your first paragraph misleading and responded to it.
Secondly, please source up the claim that Egypt is forced to invest all of the military aid it receives from the US in US military projects.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB93087.pdf
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2006/CBJNearEast.pdf
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,787
Reaction score
6,221
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I wasn't trying to contradict any of your points. I read your post, and agreed with some of your comments (like paragraph three). However, I found your first paragraph misleading and responded to it.
Misleading means that my words were causing a false/partially false conclusion to be made.

That is of course not the case here, as I have never argued about other military aid receivers, but about Israel specifically.
I've just done a quick reading of the paragraphs relating to the American military aid to Egypt in both of your supplied sources.

I am afraid that I was unable to find the statement that relates to the Egyptian commitment to use 100% of the military aid it receives from the US on American military projects.

Your aid in finding those particular statements would be appreciated.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Assuming the latest news accounts are accurate, I believe President Obama's current efforts to press Israel are badly misguided for a number of reasons:

1. They ignore the reality that it has been the Palestinians not Israel who have been boycotting negotiations. The Palestinians have been demanding an entrance price to indirect talks. Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness and desire to immediately engage in unconditional direct negotiations.

2. Israel has demonstrated through credible actions its desire for peace. It accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal of December 2000. In late 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offered even more generous terms than President Clinton's proposal. In both instances, the Palestinians failed to seize the opportunity for peace. In the two cases where Arab states were serious about peace, Israel reached agreement.

3. Israel has repeatedly made good faith unilateral concessions. Those concessions have been pocketed by the Palestinians. They did not produce greater flexibility on the part of the Palestinians. In the case of the Gaza Strip and also Lebanon, the result was violence against Israel's people.

4. Indirect talks have not produced much progress. The successful negotiations between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan were direct talks.

5. Israel is held responsible for a badly timed announcement by the Interior Minister. The Palestinians were not criticized for naming a public square in Ramallah after a terrorist who was responsible for a loss of Israeli lives.

6. Breaking an ally demonstrates a lack of reliability. Should Israel be forced to capitulate to U.S. demands, that will send a clear message to other U.S. allies that the alliance is based strictly on U.S. desires , not mutual interests, and can turn on a whim. It will demonstrate before the world that U.S. commitments are not reliable. That development would raise legitimate concerns down the road, both with economic and political partners. For example, given persistent U.S. trade deficits, countries running trade surpluses with the U.S. might well have reasons to expect that the U.S. will act in a protectionist fashion even if such trade imbalances are the result of comparative advantages not unfair trade practices. Given long-term fiscal imbalances, nations currently financing U.S. debt could have genuine reason to worry about a partial U.S. default via significant currency devaluation.

IMO, Israel should not capitulate to the current unreasonable demands being placed on it. Such a move would set a bad precedent and embolden the Palestinians to become even more intransigent in the belief that the U.S. would ultimately break Israel. Furthermore, I suspect that there is a limit to how far the Administration can push Israel before Congress constrains it.
I don't see what's wrong in asking Israel to stop doing something illegal. No one outside Israel recognizes the annexion of East Jerusalem.



Furthermore, even if we disagree on the legality of the colonization of East Jerusalem, there is still the legitimacy problem. Jerusalem is also the capital of the Palestinians, and that will be the capital of their future state. Asking for the freezing of the colonization is a step towards peace.
 
Last edited:

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't see what's wrong in asking Israel to stop doing something illegal. No one outside Israel recognizes the annexion of East Jerusalem.



Furthermore, even if we disagree on the legality of the colonization of East Jerusalem, there is still the legitimacy problem. Jerusalem is also the capital of the Palestinians, and that will be the capital of their future state. Asking for the freezing of the colonization is a step towards peace.
Had Israel not agreed to do this?
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
10,197
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't see what's wrong in asking Israel to stop doing something illegal. No one outside Israel recognizes the annexion of East Jerusalem.



Furthermore, even if we disagree on the legality of the colonization of East Jerusalem, there is still the legitimacy problem. Jerusalem is also the capital of the Palestinians, and that will be the capital of their future state. Asking for the freezing of the colonization is a step towards peace.
Technically, from the international perspective, East Jerusalem is disputed. It is not Palestinian territory. The idea that the Palestinians are automatically entitled to East Jerusalem would, in effect, grant possession to the Palestinians based on Jordanian aggression (an offensive war in 1948 that led to Jordan's capturing that part of Jerusalem).

Ultimately, it will be negotiations that resolve the final status of that part of the city. Both sides have some needs with respect to East Jerusalem and those needs will have to be addressed at the negotiating table. However, the Palestinians have deliberately chosen a strategy of avoiding negotiations and finding just about any pretext to do so.

In that context, it is unconscionable to put the lives of Jerusalem's residents--Arabs and Jews--on hold. The city's residents have real needs. They are having children. More housing is needed. More schools and infrastructure are needed to accommodate the basic needs of a growing population. Jerusalem's municipal government should accommodate those needs of the city's residents and outsiders should not politicize what is a basic responsibility of any competent municipal government.

All said, rather than trying to undermine the wellbeing of Jerusalem's residents (as would happen if a growing population cannot have its basic needs accommodated) to fit the circumstances created by Palestinian intransigence and if the international community truly believes that a negotiated settlement is key to resolving the historic dispute, the international community would do far better to demand that the Palestinians return to negotiations immediately and unconditionally.

Furthermore, demands that Prime Minister Netanyahu intervene in municipal activities are also not very reasonable. Does President Sarkozy determine day-to-day building in Paris? Does President Obama sign off before an apartment complex is to be constructed in Los Angeles? Of course not.

If the Palestinians want the best possible outcome from their perspective, they should be at the negotiating table right now. Instead, they have squandered many months in their self-imposed boycott of negotiations. They should not be rewarded for their intransigence. Such an outcome would only produce additional incentives for intransigence. Jerusalem's residents should not have their lives and wellbeing put on hold to reward that continuing intransigence nor to nourish additional intransigence.
 
Last edited:

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Technically, from the international perspective, East Jerusalem is disputed.
Disputed...according to Israel, not according to the rest of the world


It is not Palestinian territory. The idea that the Palestinians are automatically entitled to East Jerusalem would, in effect, grant possession to the Palestinians based on Jordanian aggression (an offensive war in 1948 that led to Jordan's capturing that part of Jerusalem).
Israel does the same with the Golan and West Bank, don't they?

But frankly, there is nothing to negociate about Jerusalem. There are Palestinians and Israeli, both want a part of it, it's fair to give one part to the Israeli and another part to the Palestinians. The idea that the Palestinians couldn't have their part is not acceptable.


Ultimately, it will be negotiations that resolve the final status of that part of the city. Both sides have some needs with respect to East Jerusalem and those needs will have to be addressed at the negotiating table. However, the Palestinians have deliberately chosen a strategy of avoiding negotiations and finding just about any pretext to do so.
And the Israeli governments always talks about negociations but in the mean time they keep on colonizing West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is a scandal.


All said, rather than trying to undermine the wellbeing of Jerusalem's residents (as would happen if a growing population cannot have its basic needs accommodated) to fit the circumstances created by Palestinian intransigence and if the international community truly believes that a negotiated settlement is key to resolving the historic dispute, the international community would do far better to demand that the Palestinians return to negotiations immediately and unconditionally.
You say that the Palestinians are intransigeant, but who would accept being colonized and blockaded??? Do you know that a blockade was the casus belli used by Israel to start two wars?

Furthermore, demands that Prime Minister Netanyahu intervene in municipal activities are also not very reasonable. Does President Sarkozy determine day-to-day building in Paris? Does President Obama sign off before an apartment complex is to be constructed in Los Angeles? Of course not.
I don't talk about that, I just say that Israel should stay on its side of the border (the 1967 border, the one that the entire world recognises as the border of Israel)


If the Palestinians want the best possible outcome from their perspective, they should be at the negotiating table right now. Instead, they have squandered many months in their self-imposed boycott of negotiations. They should not be rewarded for their intransigence. Such an outcome would only produce additional incentives for intransigence. Jerusalem's residents should not have their lives and wellbeing put on hold to reward that continuing intransigence nor to nourish additional intransigence.
You talk about intransigeance but aren't provocations like the ongoing colonization of West Bank and East Jerusalem also a way to make any discussion impossible?

Well in fact Israel has totally isolated itself on the international level because of the colonization, even their traditional ally is getting fed up.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Had Israel not agreed to do this?
No, they didn't say they would stop colonizing the palestinian part of Jerusalem.

But read that:

Many in the United States see Netanyahu as a hard-liner who isn't serious about peace. But seen from Israel, a perhaps more-important issue is the incompetence of some of his advisors. Netanyahu's government makes unnecessary blunders (such as the recent pointless insults to the Turkish ambassador in Tel Aviv) on an almost weekly basis, though usually the consequences aren't always so far-reaching.

For Netanyahu, the current disorganized construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is a feature, not a bug. Israeli governments, as a rule, find it useful to leave such district planning commissions with no supervision. "A righteous person's work is done by others," goes the old Jewish saying. Why should a minister bother to interrupt? If the construction goes unnoticed, Israel has succeeded in creating "facts on the ground" in a disputed area. If the plan is exposed, better not to be involved. East Jerusalem is not officially included in Netanyahu's pledge to freeze construction in the settlements for 10 months. But a close look at the situation in the West Bank will show that even there, the government and the settlers have found diverse ways to bypass the official decision. Settlers were granted permission to build hundreds of housing units just before the freeze was announced, and they are also allowed to complete houses for which the foundations have already been laid.
Biden's visit to Israel just highlights the Netanyahu government's incompetence - By Amos Harel | Foreign Policy
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Last edited:

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't see what's wrong in asking Israel to stop doing something illegal. No one outside Israel recognizes the annexion of East Jerusalem.
No western country will ever recognise Israel's claim to Jerusalem. No matter how many houses they knock down and rebuild.

I agree that Israel should stop its illegal activity and build only on recognised Israeli territory.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, they didn't say they would stop colonizing the palestinian part of Jerusalem.
what makes East Jerusalem Palestinian? on which bases do you make this claim? it was supposed to be under UN suppervision and later on was under Jordanian occupation so who in the world, excluding arab nations, looks at East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory rather than area in dispute as was mentioned before?
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,787
Reaction score
6,221
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
East Jerusalem has never belonged to the people known today as the Palestinians.

People who argue otherwise are either very confused about history or are trying to rewrite it.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,787
Reaction score
6,221
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No western country will ever recognise Israel's claim to Jerusalem. No matter how many houses they knock down and rebuild.
Every western country recognizes Israel's claim to Jerusalem, they simply do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,818
Reaction score
10,197
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Disputed...according to Israel, not according to the rest of the world
Despite what amounts to revisionism with respect to the status of East Jerusalem, the fact remains that the 1949 armistice agreements only separated the military forces following the 1948 war. They did not create borders. East Jerusalem was captured by Jordan during that war. The argument that East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians to whom Jordan ceded its claims is, in substance, is based solely on Arab (Jordanian) possession following the outcome of the 1948 war. It is no different from an argument that Israel should retain that area strictly because it captured it during a war and now possesses it.

As noted earlier, the basis of that area's status depends on the 1949 armistice agreement. That agreement is explicit that the demarcation lines did not constitute a border. As such, the area remains disputed and its status will need to be resolved through negotiations.

Israel does the same with the Golan and West Bank, don't they?
The Golan Heights is a little different, as it was not captured by Syria in the 1948 war. Nonetheless, Israel has demonstrated its willingness to cede practically all of those two areas for peace.

In 2000 Israel committed to giving Syria virtually all of the Golan Heights except for a slice that was a little more than 100 kilometers wide along Lake Kinneret. Syrian President Hafez Assad rejected it.

Similarly, inclusive of land swaps, Israel accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal that would have given the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank and, under Prime Minister Olmert offered 99% of the West Bank. The Palestinians did not seize those opportunities.

But frankly, there is nothing to negociate about Jerusalem. There are Palestinians and Israeli, both want a part of it, it's fair to give one part to the Israeli and another part to the Palestinians. The idea that the Palestinians couldn't have their part is not acceptable.
As noted previously, both peoples have needs there. One mechanism for accommodating those needs (and reflected in the Clinton and Olmert Proposals) was Israel's giving up all of the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Another mechanism would be a joint sovereignty arrangement whereby the city enjoys a single municipal government elected by its residents, Palestinians and Israel both claim that city as part of their state (Jerusalem would remain undivided and the Palestinians would be able to have their political offices there). Another would fall short of joint sovereignty and instead grant the Palestinians a role in East Jerusalem, with that role being defined so as to ensure open access and allow the Palestinians to locate political offices there. In other words, there are various ways that the seemingly irreconcilable dispute can be addressed to focus on core needs, even if maximum demands cannot be achieved.

And the Israeli governments always talks about negociations but in the mean time they keep on colonizing West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is a scandal.
The residents of Jerusalem deserve basic services.

The demand that Jerusalem basically freeze everything as things stand is both unreasonable (needs of Jerusalem's residents) and inconsistent. Is there a demand that no building of any kind take place in Kashimir until India and Pakistan resolve their historic dispute there? Is there a demand that all construction be frozen in Kosovo until that area, which NATO carved off Serbia when the parties were unable to resolve their dispute, until a mutually acceptable resolution is achieved? Is there a demand that all construction cease in Abkhazia and South Ossetia until Russia and Georgia resolve their dispute? No. The demand is inconsistent.

You say that the Palestinians are intransigeant, but who would accept being colonized and blockaded??? Do you know that a blockade was the casus belli used by Israel to start two wars?
The Palestinians had a chance to achieve a final settlement in 2000-early 2001 under President Clinton's bridging proposal. They had a chance to do so again in late 2008 under Prime Minister Olmert's proposal, which went beyond the Clinton parameters.

If the Palestinians are to gain a state, they can do so through:

1. negotiations
2. force
3. outside imposition

Under the former approach, an agreement that has legitimacy can be achieved. Under the second, power alone will dictate the terms of the settlement and the Palestinians are in no position to prevail in such a contest. No major power is likely to sacrifice its manpower and resources to try to impose a settlement. Hence, on grounds of practicality, diplomacy offers the Palestinians the best prospects of achieving a settlement that is closer to their desired terms.

Refusing to talk does not serve Palestinian interests. The Palestinians' demanding that Israel reward such intransigence and 'pay them' with unilateral concessions to return to the negotiating table is absurd.

I don't talk about that, I just say that Israel should stay on its side of the border (the 1967 border, the one that the entire world recognises as the border of Israel)
That was not a secure border. It was not a recognized border. Having said that, Israel has accepted terms that would be very close to that boundary (2000 and 2008).

You talk about intransigeance but aren't provocations like the ongoing colonization of West Bank and East Jerusalem also a way to make any discussion impossible?
Israel has a 10 month settlement freeze in the West Bank. The Palestinians have wasted 4 months of that freeze isolating themselves from negotiations. East Jerusalem is not the West Bank. It is a very different situation and Israel's needs there run far deeper than in the West Bank.

Well in fact Israel has totally isolated itself on the international level because of the colonization, even their traditional ally is getting fed up.
Allied states will sometimes disagree, even sharply. The bilateral U.S.-Israel relationship is not in danger. Indeed, Congresswoman Nita Lowey, who heads the House subcommittee charged with dealing with Israel, has made crystal clear that the relationship is not in danger and that the U.S. will not suspend its agreements.

Israel will formally acknowledge various understandings reached with the U.S., though those understandings will fall well short of the demands that have been made. Whether the Palestinians choose to boycott talks remains to be seen.

The international community should insist that the Palestinians return to the table immediately and unconditionally. Then, if there are difficulties, the international community could offer to mediate or offer constructive suggestions. Trying to isolate Israel will not produce peace. Ignoring the reality that it is the Palestinians who refuse to negotiate will not advance peace and will sustain conduct that postpones the possibility of peace. Insisting that Israel pay an entrance price for talks and take measures that reward intransigence will further complicate matters. Humiliating Israel or trying to impose terms on Israel will undermine the constructive role those doing so might otherwise play on account of their surrendering their impartiality.

In the end, it will be up to the two parties to negotiate and reach agreement. Negotiations will need to be direct, as they were between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. International conferences that would do little more than turn on Israel won't contribute much to the process. Attempts at imposition by single states, groups of states, or at international bodies won't produce results either. In direct talks, both sides will need to be flexible and compromise to accommodate one another's core needs. Neither side will achieve its maximum demands.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Misleading means that my words were causing a false/partially false conclusion to be made.

That is of course not the case here, as I have never argued about other military aid receivers, but about Israel specifically.
Yes, the false conclusion is that the FMF to Israel gives mutual benefits to both sides. These "mutual benefits" are part of every arms trade with America (Arms Export Control Act). Reality is that Israel is the only country that can use FMF from the US on domestic military products, greatly expanding Israel's economy.
I've just done a quick reading of the paragraphs relating to the American military aid to Egypt in both of your supplied sources.

I am afraid that I was unable to find the statement that relates to the Egyptian commitment to use 100% of the military aid it receives from the US on American military projects.

Your aid in finding those particular statements would be appreciated.
I suggest rereading the part about Foreign Military Financing (FMF). Here is some more information on it:

DSCA -- FMF
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
what makes East Jerusalem Palestinian? on which bases do you make this claim?
It's full of Palestinians, it's not under Israeli sovereignty according to the entire world, and it's the only city that could be their capital
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's full of Palestinians, it's not under Israeli sovereignty according to the entire world, and it's the only city that could be their capital
Um al Fahem is also full of Palestinians, is it a part of Palestine too?
Are Jaffa an Acre part of Palestine?? What about the lower city of Haifa?

Why can't Ramalla be their capital? are there any terms a city must follow inorder to be a capital?
 
Last edited:

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Um al Fahem is also full of Palestinians, is it a part of Palestine too?
Are Jaffa an Acre part of Palestine?? What about the lower city of Haifa?

Why can't Ramalla be their capital? are there any terms a city must follow inorder to be a capital?
Do you know what a straw man is?

Why can't East Jerusalem be the capital of a future Palestinian state? It is part of the Palestinian occupied territories, territories that will be part of a Palestinian state.
 
Top Bottom