US says will veto Palestinian state bid at UN

[X Factor]

President Obama made no mention of the "67 lines" this time.

PM Netanyahu said "I want to thank you, Mr President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations"

where are all the posters who were highly critical of President Obama 2 months ago, calling him Un American and accusing him of throwing Israel under a bus?

He got it right this time. /shrug

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Oppressing millions? Really, millions? Got a source?

Population of the West Bank: about 2.5 million (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html)

 

[EagleAye]

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in Obama, although I think I understand where he's coming from. Solid agreements must be had by all before the creation of a new state can be successful and secure by all. I just read this in the New York Times where Sarkozy admits that immediate statehood for Palestinians may not be possible, but he he suggests making "Palestine" a "observer state" as opposed to a "member state." This sounds like a good idea. Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/w...p://json8.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.jsonp

In the above article, Sarkozy acknowledges that statehood right away is unlikely: "Each of us knows that Palestine cannot immediately obtain full and complete recognition of the status of United Nations member state," but he also suggests this, "Why not envisage offering Palestine the status of United Nations observer state?” said the French leader. “This would be an important step forward. Most important, it would mean emerging from a state of immobility that favors only the extremists.”

It seems to me that the Fatah, under the guidance of Mahmoud Abbas has been "less trouble" than the Hamas in Gaza. Abbas has at least demonstrated restraint and a modicum of strategic thinking and statecraft. It seems to me that he can be reasoned with. Offering at least partial acknowledgment prior to the Fatah acknowledging the state of Israel might sway the bargaining to a real solution. Once "Palestine" becomes part of the UN system it also must become more responsible in the eyes of the UN. Up until now, Palestinian forces (mostly the Hamas) have been free to violate UN standards of conduct without any punishment whatsoever, whereas the tiniest infraction by Israel receives "full condemnation" by the UN. Let the Palestinians of the Fatah enjoy a certain amount acknowledgment from the UN (and the support and security that brings), but also the responsibility for good behavior that also comes with it.

As it sits now, the standoff only encourages the extremists, as Sarkozy suggests. We aren't likely to change the minds of Hawks or Doves on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Concessions offered might be enough to sway those in the middle and move the peace process along. I say work with Abbas because I think he's worth the risk, while the katyusha-hurling Hamas can go fly a kite!

 

[mbig]

President Obama made no mention of the "67 lines" this time.

PM Netanyahu said "I want to thank you, Mr President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations"

where are all the posters who were highly critical of President Obama 2 months ago, calling him Un American and accusing him of throwing Israel under a bus?

We still have those in the Media and on msg bds bashing Obama, when in fact we previously discussed...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/99657-rights-mischaracterization-misquote-obama.html

 

[Serenity]

We still have those in the Media and on msg bds bashing Obama, when in fact we previously discussed...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/99657-rights-mischaracterization-misquote-obama.html

i remember that thread. excellent post.

 

[CJ 2.0]

President Obama made no mention of the "67 lines" this time.

PM Netanyahu said "I want to thank you, Mr President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations"

where are all the posters who were highly critical of President Obama 2 months ago, calling him Un American and accusing him of throwing Israel under a bus?

Sorry. We've been busy patting ourselves on the back for getting Obama to back away from the ledge.

What was the question again?

 

[Paschendale]

What exactly does preventing Palestinians from governing themselves do to keep Israel safer? Serious question. The average poor Palestinian worker doesn't give a crap about hurting anyone. They just want to live as peacefully as possible. What right do we have to hold so many people hostage to the actions of a few bad eggs? There are innocent people suffering under oppression in Palestine. Alleviating that suffering might even cut out support for terrorism against Israel.

 

[CJ 2.0]

What exactly does preventing Palestinians from governing themselves do to keep Israel safer? Serious question. The average poor Palestinian worker doesn't give a crap about hurting anyone. They just want to live as peacefully as possible. What right do we have to hold so many people hostage to the actions of a few bad eggs? There are innocent people suffering under oppression in Palestine. Alleviating that suffering might even cut out support for terrorism against Israel.

I'll engage. Let's deal with each of these in turn.

What exactly does preventing Palestinians from governing themselves do to keep Israel safer?

Potentially a lot. Now part of this is the ambiguity of the question asked. What do you mean by "governing themselves"? Presumably, you mean either of two alternatives: (1) the Palestinians electing citizens to act as their representatives in the legislature and executive or (2) the elevation of various citizens to the legislature and executive through non-democratic means. I say presumably because most westerners tend to automatically think only of the former, though the later is general practice in the Arab world and, when looking at the suituation, a far more likely outcome, at least over the medium term.

But beyond that, you have a Palestinian population that supprots a wide range of policies that are inimical to Israeli existential concerns. Things like the "right of return" and the potential to sign alliances with countries that formally declared war against Israel and maintain themselves in that state (with such alliances potentially allowing those hostile states to locate troops and heavy weaponry in the area). Others, like the myopia of non-democratic potential rulers (and democratic ones like Hamas who have no qualms about losing the next election because they only play the game to gain power), also may elect to, say use access to Israel's water supply for sabotage or blackmail.

Then you have the host of potential terrorist/militant attacks from these territories into Israel, as was the norm prior to 1967, and Israeli perception that "independence" will not come with responsibility, and that Israel will not have a free hand in terms of international opinion to deal with threats.

Of course, you are right, there is a potential upside. Like I've said (and I suspect most if not all Israel supporters here), I do support a state in which the Palestinians can be sovereign and exercise their independence. Now it may not be as big as what they have in mind and they may need to enter into agreements that limit their exercise of certain sovereign rights (similar to how the treaty between Israel and Egypt places limits on Egyptian military deployment within Egyptian territory), but the core acceptance of the rights of the Palestinians to exercise self-determiniation in a sovereing nation is there.

What is not there is reciprocity on the Palestinian side. They will not recognize that the Jews have equivalent rights in Israel, they will not move their people away from the deluded "right of return" that is a stealtth policy for the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, and they (as is clear) will not enter into any peace agreement that in their view detracts from their ability to continue to wage a war against Jewish sovereignty in Israel.

Oh, and add to that the fact that Israel saw more civilian casulaties following Oslo (a process which Israel entered into with good faith and the Palestinians did not), and you have a rightfully extremely risk adverse Israeli population and government to whom what you say is "best for them" seems like a request to jump off a cliff without a parachute because there is an invisible net 2 feet from the bottom. They tried that once. It worked out very badly, because the Palestinians and the international community lied about the existence of the net they are being asked to believe is now in place.

The average poor Palestinian worker doesn't give a crap about hurting anyone.

Perhaps. Though I haven't seen a poll on that. What I've seen (Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (40), Publications, Palestinian Territories, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung) can be summarized as follows:

Of those polled in the WB and Gaza (i.e., excluding those living in internment camps elsewhere in the Arab world), 66% (two-thirds) believe that one of the top two goals of the Palestiniasn should be "to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages". That would be the first priority for 26% of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza and the second priority (behind establishment of an independent state in the WB and Gaza and East Jerusalem) for 40%. And here we have the "we should have everything now" vs the "plan of stages" going head to head. I don't think it is much comfort to know that the plan of stages is right now the preference of a plurality of those Palestinian workers you say doesn't give a crap about hurting anyone. Cause they also don't give a crap about NOT hurting the Jews, and there are enough people within Palestinian society who want to (and they have the power or could take it whenever they want).

Beyond this, here's a poll result that supports your proposition: MIFTAH - Poll # 176: (79.7 %) Support the Reconciliation Agreement that Was Signed in Cairo

Of course, it also says that 30.1% of Palestinians support the launching of rockets into Israel from (non-occupied) gaza, so I'm not quite sure that's much comfort. Sometimes it is the rotten 1.2 million that ruins it for the other 2.8.


These are honest answers meant to engage, not to provoke. I hope they are taken in that spirit.

 

[Rough Rider]

Hmmmm, random.

I'm sure you think so. Unfortunately fundementalist Christian views, as expressed by Perry, influence US foreign policy with regard to Israel and Palestine. Many GOP leaders publically admit that their unswerving support of Israel is largely based on religious beliefs, rather than any actual geopolitical considerations.
Just what we need in this situation, more religious fanaticism.

 

[tjinta ibis]

Obama wasn't speaking to the world, and he wasn't speaking to the U.N., and he certainly wasn't speaking to the Palestinians. He gave a politcal speech to his shaky Jewish base. Mission accomplished....maybe. Mention "occupation?" hell no! Mention "land grabbing?" hell no! Mention the fact that 500,000 Israelis live outside the 1967 borders? Hell no. To the Arabs the Jews are a virus and they don't want a vaccine administered by Israel or the US. Life is "the cause" and that has to be kept alive at all costs. It keeps them focused away from being 2d class citizens in the land they once walked more freely in.

 

[tjinta ibis]

I'm sure you think so. Unfortunately fundementalist Christian views, as expressed by Perry, influence US foreign policy with regard to Israel and Palestine. Many GOP leaders publically admit that their unswerving support of Israel is largely based on religious beliefs, rather than any actual geopolitical considerations.
Just what we need in this situation, more religious fanaticism.

What's ironic about this is that while right wing Jews embrace the Republican right in New York the evangelicals plan to convert them once the messiah returns in Israel.

 

[X Factor]

I'm sure you think so. Unfortunately fundementalist Christian views, as expressed by Perry, influence US foreign policy with regard to Israel and Palestine. Many GOP leaders publically admit that their unswerving support of Israel is largely based on religious beliefs, rather than any actual geopolitical considerations.
Just what we need in this situation, more religious fanaticism.

What's ironic about this is that while right wing Jews embrace the Republican right in New York the evangelicals plan to convert them once the messiah returns in Israel.

Well sure, because we all know that there can be no other legitimate reason to support Israel other than religion. Without that, we may as well all just join Hamas. Funny that religious fanatics could only be people who disagree with you. Good thing Islam is free of such fanaticism.

 

[What if...?]

Get serious? What world do you live in out of curiousity. Get serious? You are telling a country that faces terrorism and is surrounded by hostile elements at every one of its borders it hasn't been serious?

Do you live on this planet or are you oblivious to terrorism?Are you oblivious to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the civil wars going on in Egypt, Syria, Iraq. Afgghanistan, and Yemen?

Serious? You mean like realizing Hamas has continually stated it won't stop its war of terrorism until Israel is dismantled and as many Israeli civilians are killed as is possible to achieve this?

Serious? You mean like Turkey deliebately financing and staging a confrontation at sea and placed terrorists on board a ship to deliberately contest Israel's right to inspect ships that could be sending weapons to Hamas?

Serious?

You mean the Fatah Hawks that Mr. Abbas has no control over?

Serious?

You have any idea how you typify the typical patronizing attitude of someone who assumes they can lecture Israel on existence?

You? You tell Israel to get serious? Really. Oh do tell us your experience for living next door to someone who vows to not stop until you are dead. Oh do tell us all your experience with living with your life constantly threatened and how you deal with it.

Do teach us all.

Security? How does Mr. Abbas' refusal to negotiate with Israel provide security? What he has done is the exact opposite for his people. By forcing his hand, all he does is polarize and alienate Palestinian Muslims and give Hamas fuel for their terrorist raison d'existence. They can turn around and say look what a fool Mr. Abbas is.

Security? How does the average Palestinian obtain security if Hamas and terrorists are not disarmed? Tell us all. Do you think having Hamas, Fatah Hawks, Jihad and countless other terrorist cells running around breaking international law and refusing to acknowledge peaceful co-existence provides them security?

Where were you when Hamas burned down the buildings, schools, Mosques, green houses and blew up the roads Israel financed and donated to charities working indirectly with Hamas when it openly denounced terror? Where were you when a terrorist Muslim brotherhood wing from Syria wrestled control of Hamas and killed its foes and went out on the streets rubber necklacing Palestinians in Gaza for having relationships with Israelis?

Where were you when Hamas slaughtered Palestinians in the streets that opposed their views? Security? What you think recognizing a nation on the West Bank deals with Gaza, Hamas, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon. Do you think poof like magic
once someone calls Palestine a nation suddenly presto bongo its people feel secure?

Hello. The day after such a charade is marched before the UN the streets will erupt and this fiasco will fuel exactly what the Iran-Turkey-Hamas Axis want.

Security?

Security comes when people put down their arms. Security does not come pointing a gun at your enemy and saying I won't stop until I wipe you out and I will break every international law to do it, but at the same time while I deny the right of Israel to exist, I will be a member of an organization that acknowledges Israel's right to exist.

Which one is it. What we pick a little of this, a little of that off the menu when it suits us?

I'll say this once and probably get thread banned for it or worse.

Y'all are the ones who decided to set up house on a fire ant mound. Or in a flood plain. Or on the side of a volcano. Or whatever analogy you want to use.

I'm frankly tired of hearing Israel cry because they're getting bitten by ants. Or because they keep getting flooded. Or because boiling hot lava keeps destroying their homes. Whatever.

You guys chose the most hostile area of the planet to set up shop.

I don't feel any sympathy for those kids who teased that tiger til it jumped put of its cage and killed them.

I think it sucks that non-combatants are dying in this conflict. On both sides.

But since youre all about the native Israelis suffering the consequences of a few's actions, I thought i'd bring up an Israeli action that had completely predictable consequences.

In the interest of fairness.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I'll say this once and probably get thread banned for it or worse.

Y'all are the ones who decided to set up house on a fire ant mound. Or in a flood plain. Or on the side of a volcano. Or whatever analogy you want to use.

I'm frankly tired of hearing Israel cry because they're getting bitten by ants. Or because they keep getting flooded. Or because boiling hot lava keeps destroying their homes. Whatever.

You guys chose the most hostile area of the planet to set up shop.

I don't feel any sympathy for those kids who teased that tiger til it jumped put of its cage and killed them.

I think it sucks that non-combatants are dying in this conflict. On both sides.

But since youre all about the native Israelis suffering the consequences of a few's actions, I thought i'd bring up an Israeli action that had completely predictable consequences.

In the interest of fairness.

Sorry, so you are comparing Arabs to insects or other completely non-thinking phenomena? I persoanlly love that strain of anti-Israel thinking in the west that is so imbued with a "colonialist" mindset that it assume the "natives" are simply instinctual reactors to events and bear no responsibility for their actions. Because these sorts of people, making these sorts of statements, genuinely do not even remotely perceive their own bias against those they are supporting.

When the "zionist enterprise" started, there were fewer than a million people living in all of Palestine and Jordan. The place was a desolate backwater. And it was a whole lot more "friendly" than, say, the Pale of settlment in the east, where mass murders of Jews for being Jews were a fairly common occurrence.

To summarize your views, I guess the descendants of those Jews who left to build an independent nation deserve to be the targets of mass murder and extermination in Israel because their ancestors didn't stay in Europe to be gassed by the Nazis or in other Arab countries to be persecuted by the islamists. Cause they tried to build a home in their ancestral homeland which was a barren wasteland, and the Arabs are a bunch of automaton racists.

I assume you don't think that accurately reflects your position. But I do.

In the interests of fairness, of course.

 

[Demon of Light]

I support Obama on this and I'm glad that he will veto any notion to give Palestine UN recognized statehood. A Palestinian nation should be created as a result of peace talks and negotiations.

Why is it that you do not find something oddly ironic in supporting Israel's creation through such an action while refusing to allow it with Palestine?

President Obama made no mention of the "67 lines" this time.

PM Netanyahu said "I want to thank you, Mr President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations"

where are all the posters who were highly critical of President Obama 2 months ago, calling him Un American and accusing him of throwing Israel under a bus?

Don't worry, the next time Obama disagrees with Israel he will once again be condemned as a traitor to his Jewish allies. Then when he agrees with them he will once more be paraded through the streets as a hero for the Jews. Fickle people those pro-Israelis.

 

[Rough Rider]

Well sure, because we all know that there can be no other legitimate reason to support Israel other than religion. Without that, we may as well all just join Hamas. Funny that religious fanatics could only be people who disagree with you. Good thing Islam is free of such fanaticism.

Typical of the knee jerk mentality that permeates right wing Christian fundementalism.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Why is it that you do not find something oddly ironic in supporting Israel's creation through such an action while refusing to allow it with Palestine?

That's an easy one. Because the Arabs repeatedly made crystal clear their opposition to Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in any shape or form, and made it very clear that they would fight to exterminate any attempt to exercise independence (thus increasing the importance of international "support" for Jewish sovereignty - not that they did anything to actually support it in practice), while Israel has offered independence to the Palestinians on multiple ocassions, has been very clear that it will accept an independent Palestinian state and has made repeated efforts to engage in further substantive dialogue with the Palestinians in this regard.

Don't worry, the next time Obama disagrees with Israel he will once again be condemned as a traitor to his Jewish allies. Then when he agrees with them he will once more be paraded through the streets as a hero for the Jews. Fickle people those pro-Israelis.

not a traitor. Just a dumbass simpleton who screws up pretty much every foreign policy item he touches.

And for the record, this speech doesn't change my view. It's either a ploy to pander politically (probably is) or, even if genuine, the damage he's done to the prospects for peace up until this point are so severe that even a pivot to a sensible positiion will not undue the damage he's done.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Typical of the knee jerk mentality that permeates right wing Christian fundementalism.

well, as an athiest Jew, I share his position, so I'm not sure how you could fit me in as a christian fundamentalist.

And for the record, even though it is so obvious it shouldn't really need to be said, there is a whole heap of difference between Islamic supremacist wahabbi fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.

Just in case you maybe missed that point in PC class.

 

[What if...?]

Sorry, so you are comparing Arabs to insects or other completely non-thinking phenomena? I persoanlly love that strain of anti-Israel thinking in the west that is so imbued with a "colonialist" mindset that it assume the "natives" are simply instinctual reactors to events and bear no responsibility for their actions. Because these sorts of people, making these sorts of statements, genuinely do not even remotely perceive their own bias against those they are supporting.

When the "zionist enterprise" started, there were fewer than a million people living in all of Palestine and Jordan. The place was a desolate backwater. And it was a whole lot more "friendly" than, say, the Pale of settlment in the east, where mass murders of Jews for being Jews were a fairly common occurrence.

To summarize your views, I guess the descendants of those Jews who left to build an independent nation deserve to be the targets of mass murder and extermination in Israel because their ancestors didn't stay in Europe to be gassed by the Nazis or in other Arab countries to be persecuted by the islamists. Cause they tried to build a home in their ancestral homeland which was a barren wasteland, and the Arabs are a bunch of automaton racists.

I assume you don't think that accurately reflects your position. But I do.

In the interests of fairness, of course.

So its your position that the only place in the world the Jews could have gone was their ancestral homeland, right in the heart of their ancestral enemies?

Completely surrounded by enemies, and smack dab on one of THEIR holy sites?

And that their exercise of "right of return" was somehow different at face value than the right of return you scoff at when the native Israelis bring it up?

And I think you're operating under the assumption that the "new" Jewish arrivals were "cool" to their new neighbors, which is not borne out by the evidence, nor the stated Israeli objective of a homeland for the Jewish people. Where they can never NOT be the majority.

Now, how can that happen WITHOUT pushing out the existing Arab population?

I'm actually not anti-Israel. My wife is Jewish and came back from Birthright with the story of why ben Gurion declared a Jewish state against the wishes of the international community.

Because they had been full citizens of every country that had turned on them, and that was what they believed would prevent that from happening again.

So there was no way for them to attain this goal if they absorbed the Arab population, because they believed, as they do now, that they would be out populated by the natives. You said yoirself this was a "stealth" plan.

But I bet you deny any of the things those you "label" anti Israel, but from my experience are are actually anti-Israeli misbehavior, bring up that are absolutely necessary and in keeping with preventing the Jewish Israelis from being outpopulated by Arabs.

Its the obvious presence of full power deceptive persuasive messaging in the pro Israel forces that offends me. And as I've said before, Israelis don't blindly support Israel the way we do here. Every point of contention with the whole issue I have can be supported from Israeli sources. There are real human rights issues there that no American would tolerate if they found themselves on the receiving end.

 

[Rough Rider]

well, as an athiest Jew, I share his position, so I'm not sure how you could fit me in as a christian fundamentalist.

And for the record, even though it is so obvious it shouldn't really need to be said, there is a whole heap of difference between Islamic supremacist wahabbi fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.

Just in case you maybe missed that point in PC class.

I wouldn't care to speculate about how you fit in.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Credit where credit is due.

Yea Obama!
:clap:

 

[Paschendale]

Potentially a lot. Now part of this is the ambiguity of the question asked. What do you mean by "governing themselves"? Presumably, you mean either of two alternatives: (1) the Palestinians electing citizens to act as their representatives in the legislature and executive or (2) the elevation of various citizens to the legislature and executive through non-democratic means. I say presumably because most westerners tend to automatically think only of the former, though the later is general practice in the Arab world and, when looking at the suituation, a far more likely outcome, at least over the medium term.

I didn't really stipulate which sort of government Palestine could have, but the point being that they would be their own country, not under the rule of someone else. The same thing that dozens of peoples have fought revolutions for in the last several centuries, the US included. However their government would look, they would be the ones to set it up. If they wanted a democracy, more power to them. If they want an Islamic theocracy, that's their choice, too. Or rather, it should be.

But beyond that, you have a Palestinian population that supprots a wide range of policies that are inimical to Israeli existential concerns. Things like the "right of return" and the potential to sign alliances with countries that formally declared war against Israel and maintain themselves in that state (with such alliances potentially allowing those hostile states to locate troops and heavy weaponry in the area). Others, like the myopia of non-democratic potential rulers (and democratic ones like Hamas who have no qualms about losing the next election because they only play the game to gain power), also may elect to, say use access to Israel's water supply for sabotage or blackmail.

Then you have the host of potential terrorist/militant attacks from these territories into Israel, as was the norm prior to 1967, and Israeli perception that "independence" will not come with responsibility, and that Israel will not have a free hand in terms of international opinion to deal with threats.

That is a serious concern. But these are all internal problems that won't go away without Palestinians striving for a better country. You can't force modernization on people. They have to want it for themselves. Who knows, an independent Palestine might learn very quickly that was and violence don't pay, and that peaceful solutions are they only way they can survive on their own. Right now, they must be dependent on Israel to survive. Take away that safety net, and they'll have no choice but to get with the times. Palestine itself would have reason to condemn anti-Israeli terrorism. Especially if Israel champions the cause of independence.

Of course, you are right, there is a potential upside. Like I've said (and I suspect most if not all Israel supporters here), I do support a state in which the Palestinians can be sovereign and exercise their independence. Now it may not be as big as what they have in mind and they may need to enter into agreements that limit their exercise of certain sovereign rights (similar to how the treaty between Israel and Egypt places limits on Egyptian military deployment within Egyptian territory), but the core acceptance of the rights of the Palestinians to exercise self-determiniation in a sovereing nation is there.

This is entirely fair. Independence does not mean that a new nation suddenly has power and influence to control the international stage. It only means they have control over their domestic issues, and that's what I think is really important. I think it's hypocritical to champion freedom and liberty... but only for our friends.

What is not there is reciprocity on the Palestinian side. They will not recognize that the Jews have equivalent rights in Israel, they will not move their people away from the deluded "right of return" that is a stealtth policy for the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, and they (as is clear) will not enter into any peace agreement that in their view detracts from their ability to continue to wage a war against Jewish sovereignty in Israel.

Oh, and add to that the fact that Israel saw more civilian casualties following Oslo (a process which Israel entered into with good faith and the Palestinians did not), and you have a rightfully extremely risk adverse Israeli population and government to whom what you say is "best for them" seems like a request to jump off a cliff without a parachute because there is an invisible net 2 feet from the bottom. They tried that once. It worked out very badly, because the Palestinians and the international community lied about the existence of the net they are being asked to believe is now in place.

These are absolutely serious issues, but I don't think oppression is going to be the means to solve them. No one can deny that a lot of violence comes from Palestine. I certainly don't absolve Israel of responsibility for the conflict, but I will readily agree that Palestine bears more than half of it. But again, the people of Palestine are trapped in a state of oppression. They have no means to change things. Radical elements exist in every society, and only lose power when the rest of that society turns against them. Kicking Palestinians down to crush the violence and terrorism simply won't work. Bringing up the people they claim to be fighting for, so that the terrorists are disowned, that's how you beat them. Oppression only serves to prove them right.

Perhaps. Though I haven't seen a poll on that. What I've seen (Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (40), Publications, Palestinian Territories, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung) can be summarized as follows:

Of those polled in the WB and Gaza (i.e., excluding those living in internment camps elsewhere in the Arab world), 66% (two-thirds) believe that one of the top two goals of the Palestiniasn should be "to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages". That would be the first priority for 26% of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza and the second priority (behind establishment of an independent state in the WB and Gaza and East Jerusalem) for 40%. And here we have the "we should have everything now" vs the "plan of stages" going head to head. I don't think it is much comfort to know that the plan of stages is right now the preference of a plurality of those Palestinian workers you say doesn't give a crap about hurting anyone. Cause they also don't give a crap about NOT hurting the Jews, and there are enough people within Palestinian society who want to (and they have the power or could take it whenever they want).

Beyond this, here's a poll result that supports your proposition: MIFTAH - Poll # 176: (79.7 %) Support the Reconciliation Agreement that Was Signed in Cairo

I'll admit, I didn't look to polls to justify the position that regular Palestinians don't care about Israel. But human nature makes us focus on our own position, far more than the big picture. Your average person doesn't really care about what's going on in the big world. We care about our little corner of it. I've said the same thing for years about all the tumultuous regions of the Middle East. If their lives improve, their complaints against the western world will diminish. They'll be too busy being comfortable and living the good life. Some argue that this conflicts with Islam, but one need only look at Muslims in the west to see that this is false. Even if the Qur'an tells them to fight the infidels, they're too busy living comfortably among them. It's really hard to declare a holy war on the barista making your coffee.

Of course, it also says that 30.1% of Palestinians support the launching of rockets into Israel from (non-occupied) gaza, so I'm not quite sure that's much comfort. Sometimes it is the rotten 1.2 million that ruins it for the other 2.8.

It's hard to poll for apathy. Apathetic people tend not to respond to them. But either way, even if this is the present, the question is how to change it for the future. Comfort makes people abandon war, conflict makes them embrace it.

These are honest answers meant to engage, not to provoke. I hope they are taken in that spirit.

I'm liking this discussion here. ^_^

 

[CJ 2.0]

So its your position that the only place in the world the Jews could have gone was their ancestral homeland, right in the heart of their ancestral enemies?

soprry, where else would you have proposed they go? Many went to the US, and that worked out very well in the end. Though of course there was a pretty solid streak of antisemitism in the US too, with fascists like Charles Lindberg having strong political support and Henry Ford as the paragon of the US entrepreneurial class.

Of course Canada adopted a "none is too many" policy with respect to Jewish immigration on account of the rabidly antisemetic prime minister and a population that was sympathetic to those views.

And all of that is putting aside the demographic profile (or largely absent of which) existed in Israel at the time and both the normative basis of wanting to live in Israel and the rational basis for arguing for Jewish sovereignty in their ancestral home.

And on the other hand you have an assertion that Arab automaton robots could be expected to act entirely according to script based on their hatred of Jews?

Completely surrounded by enemies, and smack dab on one of THEIR holy sites?

Which one? Oh, right, Jerusalem, which was not even remotely treated as a major holy site until the Jews came around to reestablish their state.

Just wait until they start identifying major historical holy sites in Spain and other parts of Europe.

And that their exercise of "right of return" was somehow different at face value than the right of return you scoff at when the native Israelis bring it up?

Well obviously, becauyse the Palestinian "right" is a ploy to try to destroy Jewish sovereignty. The entire Palestinian national movement, and the entuire foundation of the Palestinians as a people, is an effort to neutralize and counter Jewish aspirations. It is destructionist to the core. By contrast, Jewish efforts at a national home could only be faulted because they were entirely indifferent to the Arabs living in Palestine (or I guess the large number of other Arabs who now get to be "Palestinians" because their ancestors moved to Palestine for 2 years to pursue opportunities created by the Jews). otherwise, it was, and is, entirely aspirational.

And I think you're operating under the assumption that the "new" Jewish arrivals were "cool" to their new neighbors, which is not borne out by the evidence, nor the stated Israeli objective of a homeland for the Jewish people. Where they can never NOT be the majority.

sorry, you must have mistaken me (and many others) for someone who cares. I don't care how cool Israel is to its neighbours or to the Arabs. they have plenty of land to exercise self determination and collective self-defence. The Jews have a little bit. And they deserve to (and will) keep it regardless of the PC mush you want us to buy into.

Now, how can that happen WITHOUT pushing out the existing Arab population?

That's a question for Europe. The Israelis are breeding just fine.

Its the obvious presence of full power deceptive persuasive messaging in the pro Israel forces that offends me. And as I've said before, Israelis don't blindly support Israel the way we do here. Every point of contention with the whole issue I have can be supported from Israeli sources. There are real human rights issues there that no American would tolerate if they found themselves on the receiving end.

I don't blindly support them either and I doubt many pro-Israelis do. It may just seem that way tyo you on a site like this one, where rabid anti-Israel propagandists are out in full force and there is so much material to engage with.

When you are fighting a global war on multiple fronts, a leaders conference is not the right place to discuss where to build a sports stadium. Similarly, when trying to counter the propaganda of those who actually do wish to see Israel wiped from the map, it isn't the appropriate place to get into a 15-sided debate on the finer points of Israeli labour laws (even ignoring the fact that they are head and shoulders better than anything anywhere else in the region).

 

[What if...?]

soprry, where else would you have proposed they go? Many went to the US, and that worked out very well in the end. Though of course there was a pretty solid streak of antisemitism in the US too, with fascists like Charles Lindberg having strong political support and Henry Ford as the paragon of the US entrepreneurial class.

Of course Canada adopted a "none is too many" policy with respect to Jewish immigration on account of the rabidly antisemetic prime minister and a population that was sympathetic to those views.

And all of that is putting aside the demographic profile (or largely absent of which) existed in Israel at the time and both the normative basis of wanting to live in Israel and the rational basis for arguing for Jewish sovereignty in their ancestral home.

And on the other hand you have an assertion that Arab automaton robots could be expected to act entirely according to script based on their hatred of Jews?



Which one? Oh, right, Jerusalem, which was not even remotely treated as a major holy site until the Jews came around to reestablish their state.

Just wait until they start identifying major historical holy sites in Spain and other parts of Europe.



Well obviously, becauyse the Palestinian "right" is a ploy to try to destroy Jewish sovereignty. The entire Palestinian national movement, and the entuire foundation of the Palestinians as a people, is an effort to neutralize and counter Jewish aspirations. It is destructionist to the core. By contrast, Jewish efforts at a national home could only be faulted because they were entirely indifferent to the Arabs living in Palestine (or I guess the large number of other Arabs who now get to be "Palestinians" because their ancestors moved to Palestine for 2 years to pursue opportunities created by the Jews). otherwise, it was, and is, entirely aspirational.



sorry, you must have mistaken me (and many others) for someone who cares. I don't care how cool Israel is to its neighbours or to the Arabs. they have plenty of land to exercise self determination and collective self-defence. The Jews have a little bit. And they deserve to (and will) keep it regardless of the PC mush you want us to buy into.



That's a question for Europe. The Israelis are breeding just fine.




I don't blindly support them either and I doubt many pro-Israelis do. It may just seem that way tyo you on a site like this one, where rabid anti-Israel propagandists are out in full force and there is so much material to engage with.

When you are fighting a global war on multiple fronts, a leaders conference is not the right place to discuss where to build a sports stadium. Similarly, when trying to counter the propaganda of those who actually do wish to see Israel wiped from the map, it isn't the appropriate place to get into a 15-sided debate on the finer points of Israeli labour laws (even ignoring the fact that they are head and shoulders better than anything anywhere else in the region).

From my understanding recolonization of biblical Israel was a choice, that there were other options available that were rejected, for the reasons given by you and ben Gurion.

And without US support and weaponry Israel cannot exist. So what they do with our money and weapons is absolutely subject to American criticism.

And don't forget that Israel has some of the best funded and most sophisticated public relations resources of anybody on the planet.

The propaganda here goes BOTH ways. Just so we're painting ALL information coming out of this arena with the appropriate propaganda brush. Anything else is just the pot calling the kettle a mother****er.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I didn't really stipulate which sort of government Palestine could have, but the point being that they would be their own country, not under the rule of someone else. The same thing that dozens of peoples have fought revolutions for in the last several centuries, the US included. However their government would look, they would be the ones to set it up. If they wanted a democracy, more power to them. If they want an Islamic theocracy, that's their choice, too. Or rather, it should be.

And that's sort of my point - I disagree. They are not entitled to a state if the primary purpose of that state is to work towards ending Jewish sovereignty in Israel. I don't care if 100% of them vote for it. Because they do not have standing to threaten Israel as of right.

It is for them to prove their intentions given the history of bad intentions on their side.

Beyond that, on a more political theory type of point, "they" are not the ones setting up a government if it is non-democratic. That's tyhe whole point. Saddam Hussein was not the "legitimate representative of the Iraqi people" just because he seized control and persecuted anyone who dissented (along with their families). And Saddam's goals and policy objectives were not even remotely drawn up based on the preferences of his subjects.

So here, you could have 95% of the Palestinians believing in peaceful co-existence, but it wouldn't matter in the slightest to the Israelis if the 5% seized control and implemented their own goals through a reign of terror at home.

That is a serious concern. But these are all internal problems that won't go away without Palestinians striving for a better country. You can't force modernization on people. They have to want it for themselves. Who knows, an independent Palestine might learn very quickly that was and violence don't pay, and that peaceful solutions are they only way they can survive on their own. Right now, they must be dependent on Israel to survive. Take away that safety net, and they'll have no choice but to get with the times. Palestine itself would have reason to condemn anti-Israeli terrorism. Especially if Israel champions the cause of independence.

I doubt it. Palestine will not end the conflict because its goals for the conflict include control over all territory currently controlled by Israel, including territories inside the 1949 armistace lines.

And yes, you can force modernization on people. The British did it in India, for example, forefully putting an end to the practice of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands, as well as importing all different sorts of modern western institutions.

An interesting thing happens when you look at the world and how it has evolved. Other than the British and their colony nations, there actually isn't much of a history of democratic inclination among cultures. Even in Europe, which had a few flirtations with democracy until very recently, this democracy was essentially imposed by force and is very constrained by Europeans' seeming inclination to elistist government (i.e., the wholly undemocratic EU, which is essentially run by bureaucrats and which ignores referenda when the results are not what they want to see).

It seems fairly certain that it is what's unique about british civilization is what facilitates long term democratic governance. I wouldn't propose to get into all that here, but two things that are critically important are institutions and the attitudes of the general population. And I would suggest both of those pre-requisites are lacking in Palestinian society and culture.

And no, the occupation is no excuse. the Jews set up therse institutions long before they declared independence, in spite of active opposition from the governing power and the Arabs.

So you may say there is, what, a 50% chance of democracy in any Palestinian state? I would say there isn't more of a 10% chance that the state would be demoratic 10 years out. And that has very big implications for how Israel should behave in choosing its course, as that will have a direct impact on the survivability of Jewish sovereignty and the lives of a majority of the Jews living there.

This is entirely fair. Independence ... only means they have control over their domestic issues, and that's what I think is really important. I think it's hypocritical to champion freedom and liberty... but only for our friends.

I would agree, but note that freedom and liberty do not allow you the liberty to impinge on others. Just as you would place longer term restrictions on those who have used violence in the past against fellow citizens, you cannot ignore the intentions of the Palestinians going forward. They intend to continue their fight to eliminate Jewish sovereign control over any territory in the middle east. I wouldn't propose to give them the widest l;atitude to do so.

They are only under occupation in the first place because of their participation in the "war of annihilation" that was oft promised against the Jews. They have been offerred independence repeatedly if they agree to end the conflict and to allow the Jews defensible borders. They have been refusing independence for over a decade now because it would require a commitment from them that would make attainment of their goal (the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in Israel) more difficult. They have refused to resettle "refugees" within territories under their cntrol because that would undermine the "right of return". They are silent with respect to the internment camps throughout the Arab world that hold people of Palestinian descent who are 3rd and 4th generation born in those countries for similar reasons.

It isn't about their own independence. It's about the Jews'.

These are absolutely serious issues, but I don't think oppression is going to be the means to solve them. ...

I disagree. It is entirely within their control. They stop trying to achieve victory over the Jews and agree to compromise and they get their state.

If the Arabs stop fighting, there will be no war and the Palestinians will be independent. If the Jews stop fighting there will be no Jews. A trite little cliche, but no less true today than it was 60 years ago.

Radical elements exist in every society, and only lose power when the rest of that society turns against them. Kicking Palestinians down to crush the violence and terrorism simply won't work. Bringing up the people they claim to be fighting for, so that the terrorists are disowned, that's how you beat them. Oppression only serves to prove them right.

Agree with you to an extent, but not on approach. Radical elements exist everywhere. Fine. Even putting aside the nature and intensity of this "radicalization" which is different in different cultures and across time.

But from my perspective, the radicals can only be defeated if they are discredited. The Arab world is big on the strong horse. For us to pass through the looking glass, so to speak, the Palestinians must entirely despair of achieving their true goal (the elimination of the Jewish State) and must move on to accept that their own sovereign state living next to a Jewish Israel is an accpetable outcome.

And I don't think this will ever happen until the Palestinians lose so badly, so utterly, that they cannot cling to that goal any longer. We've had a decade of Palestinian motehrs being tought that the highest aspirations they should have for their children is to die trying to murder Jews and we continue to have a culture which celebrates and lionizes useless murderers whose only contribution to "the cause" has been to sneak past soldiers to murder civilians.

I also, for the record, don't think this will ever happen. because for the Palestinians to lose uttery, for any chance to exist that they could pass through to the other side, the world must abandon them. And that will never happen.

So from my perspective, the Palestinians will never be satisfied until Israel is gone, and the international community will never allow the circumstances to arise that would allow for that.

I guess I'm a pessimist.

But even then, I would say the Palestinians should get a state (not onall the land they claim) when they make some sort of credible commitment to behave themselves. The Jews have borne enough risk with respect to the good intentions of the Palestinians. the next move has been theirs for a long time now.

I'll admit, I didn't look to polls to justify the position that regular Palestinians don't care about Israel. But human nature makes us focus on our own position, far more than the big picture.

Your human nature. The human nature in the society and the culture you were raised in. History would tell a very different story, from the very many various suicides in Rome to hopeless battles fought for home and king and emperor and country to the self flagelation and pious violence inflicted by medival Europeans on themselves.

Arab culture and society is far closer to those, particularly with the spread of Wahhabi Islam since the 60s, than it is to the materialist athiestic "focus on the now" cuture we all have grown up in.

One of the biggest policy mistakes someone can make in international politics or even in contract negotiations is to assume that the other side has the same midset and criteria for assessment as you do. the farther away you get from your own culture, the less accurate that assumption is likely to be.

Your average person doesn't really care about what's going on in the big world. ...

except of course that the complaints tend to assume their most violent form among those who are much better off than the masses, which kind of blows a giant hole in that argument. If their lives improve, they will have more resources to pursue their objectives. And if that objective is a global caliphate, for example, or "restoration of Arab honour" or some other goal which would seem like ridiculous nonsense to a westerner, we're all in a heap of trouble.

They'll be too busy being comfortable and living the good life.

Just like Osama bin Laden. I think the studies have shown that terrorists and islamist supremacist leaders tend to be fairly affluent.

You may want to re-examine your paradigm. I know it's popular, but it lacks any empirical support and is directly contradicted by the information that is available.

Some argue that this conflicts with Islam, but one need only look at Muslims in the west to see that this is false. Even if the Qur'an tells them to fight the infidels, they're too busy living comfortably among them. It's really hard to declare a holy war on the barista making your coffee.

It isn't false. It wasn't that hard for a dutch muslim, for example, to declare a holy war on a filmmaker and stab him to death on a public street and then pin a note into his chest with a knife. It wasn't that hard for a british convert to sneak a shoe bomb on a plane full of fellow citizens and try to blow it up.

There are a whole lot of these examples. And of course, most would not fit into that mold. But mosques that are funded by the Saudis are political institutions as much as religious ones, and they seem to do pretty well in making various populations more extremist.

I've seen the argument made that the west is now so wishy washy that for those seeking more than we offer - i.e., something in the spiritual realm - the disenchanted, etc. Islam is the go to religion. And as Islam gets larger, those with the most aggresive agendas get more powerful. And Islamist culture, thought and philosophy appears more or less incompatable with liberal western democracy.

... Comfort makes people abandon war, conflict makes them embrace it.

I disagree. Comfort makes western cultures abandon any sort of idea of self-worth and certainly reduces our propensity for engaging in violence. I have not seen that replicated elsewhere.

As a semi-relevant side point, there is an interesting phonemenon in psychological research called WEIRD. As it turns out, most studies of psychology tend to involve university students (and undergraduate psychology students more specifically). of course, inasmuch as these students are not reflective of the broader population, the results from studies that use them as subjects may not reflect the results that would have prevailed with a wider population sample.

This biased group of subjects are known as "WEIRD" outliers, WEIRD standing for "westernized, educated people from industrialized, rich democracies".

Combine that with the tendancy to fill gaps in knowledge about others with information about yourself and your own culture, and you can get to radically off-base conclusions about the psychology of those in other societies that are different from your own.