Thread: BREAKING--Two State Solution officially dead. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020083

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Or at least that is coming out of the Netanyahu and Orange One lovefest.

Netanyahu is saying he looks forward to a Greater Isreal and peace with his Arab Neighbors. The Orange one is acquiescing.

It is a brave new world.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Some observers have been saying for a while that things might actually be better if Israel went the whole hog and unilaterally annexed the whole West Bank.

What they're saying by this is (i) the Palestinian Authority is a nonsense and Oslo was set up to fail (ii) if Israel regularised their military occupation of the West Bank, this would at least mean that the "two legal systems" nonsense was done away with (iii) Palestinians would become voting citizens in Israel and (iv) if Israel then tried to expel millions of West Bank Palestinians the world could hardly just sit back and do nothing.

In reality the conservative arsewipes in government in Israel don't actually want the occupation to end, don't want millions of arabs suddenly becoming citizens, don't want to have to take responsibility for the many who survive on food handouts etc. And there is no guarantee that the world would do anything much if millions of Palestinians were made to leave.

I suggest that doing any such thing, even with the tacit support of Trump, would be beyond stupid and quite likely suicidal.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
If two state is dead dead dead, a lot more will die in its wake.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
People who think what Trump says at one part of the day means anything in an hour haven't been watching.

This means nothing.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
It's not entirely what Trump says. It's also what Netanhayu thinks that he can now do.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
People who think what Trump says at one part of the day means anything in an hour haven't been watching.

This means nothing.

Yeah, like stating he was going to institute a Muslim ban, build a wall, institute a hiring freeze, restart the Dakota pipeline, repeal Affordable Healthcare, freeze Obama's in-process regulations, promote anti-abortion laws. Yep, never trust anything he says he will do as none of it has happened or is in process.

ETA: And this

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
It's not entirely what Trump says. It's also what Netanhayu thinks that he can now do.



[ 15. February 2017, 22:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Again, not listening. Trump's been all over on this particular topic - saying both two state and one state in the last year.

His only stated thing today was, in essence, whatever they want, which means nothing really.

Trump's certainly not going to press Netanhayu to change anything but he's not really committing to anything here beyond "Yeah, whatever."

I've heard this is Mr. Ivanka's file - somebody ask him what official policy is cause asking Trump about something he doesn't care about is pointless.

[ 16. February 2017, 00:26: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

Trump's certainly not going to press Netanhayu to change anything but he's not really committing to anything here beyond "Yeah, whatever."

I don't dispute Trump's lack of interest. My point is that Trump's lack of interest signals to Netanyahu that he has an even freer hand to deal with the PA and Gaza however he wishes without having to put up with static, however heretofore ineffectual, from Washington. Now that the violation of private property rights has been "legitimised" by the Knesset's passage of the Regularisation Law (still to be challenged in court), we can expect to see even greater expansion of Jewish settlement in the West Bank. The very bad is getting worse.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Is it too cynical, scheming, evil, strategic, profit making to suggest that this will provoke a terrorist event, another Project for a New American Century hard-on event* which will make Muslim bans, water boarding, black sites etc look kindergarten. Expect more than 7 million deaths this time.

*The George Bush II crew of war criminals prayed for a "Pearl Harbor" event pre 11 Sept 2001, about which they published a paper, since taken down, but beloved of conspiracy theorists, and illustrative of the complete amorality of Bush and his war criminal gang. I have a copy somewhere. If I had a rocket launcher..,
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
*The George Bush II crew of war criminals prayed for a "Pearl Harbor" event pre 11 Sept 2001, about which they published a paper, since taken down, but beloved of conspiracy theorists, and illustrative of the complete amorality of Bush and his war criminal gang. I have a copy somewhere.

This is obvious bullshit. Establishment Republicans, however much you may disagree with them, aren't pantomime villains so moustache-twirlingly evil that they would publish a document in which they 'prayed for a "Pearl Harbor" event'. I don't believe you have a copy of anything that even remotely comes close to this.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Regards, the hiring freeze. For a while there the Forest Service was in a panic because they could not hire the necessary seasonal firefighters they would have needed to be ready for the summer fires. About 6,000 workers.

The Feds have exempted the Forest Service from the freeze now, but they have yet to allow the National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management to hire the people they need for their crews.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re the pre-9/11 document that np mentioned:

Evidently, it's the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Wikipedia).

And here's a link to a PDF copy of the report at Archive.org.

Note: I just did a really quick search, and skimmed the Wiki article. Haven't looked at the PDF.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the pre-9/11 document that np mentioned:

Evidently, it's the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Wikipedia).

And here's a link to a PDF copy of the report at Archive.org.

Note: I just did a really quick search, and skimmed the Wiki article. Haven't looked at the PDF.

If that's what he meant, I suppose NP can thank you for doing his homework for him. I've searched the PDF (and not for the first time; I'm pretty sure NP has flogged this BS before) and there two places Pearl Harbor is mentioned in that article:
quote:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
quote:
For the moment, the U.S. Navy enjoys a level of global hegemony that surpasses that of the Royal Navy during its heyday. While the ability to project naval power ashore is, as it has always been, an important subsidiary mission for the Navy, it may not remain the service’s primary focus through the coming decades. Over the longer term – but, given the service life of ships, well within the approaching planning horizons of the U.S. Navy – the Navy’s focus may return again to keeping command of the open oceans and sea lines of communication. Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.
Neither of these can be reasonably glossed as "praying for a Pearl Harbor event."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Again, not listening. Trump's been all over on this particular topic - saying both two state and one state in the last year.

OK, you did not specify that your comment was about this particular topic, but I suppose one could say it was implied by where it was placed.
BUt PG's comment still is relevant in that it isn't just what Trump will do, but what other leaders infer from his behaviour.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I would postulate that Trump is basically interested in only two things: 1. where the US (and more particularly the he) can make money in the Middle East and 2. backing the "winners" of the current conflict in Israel-Palestine.

The USA gives shedloads of aid dollars to Israel, but I think it is fairly natural to believe that there is money to be made there rather than in Palestine. I don't know about whether Trump himself has interests there.

And Netanyahu's whole macho image is based on being the hardman who never capitulates or rows back on anything, ever. They're natural allies.

Trump has said a load of different things in the past on all kind of things, including Middle East peace depending on who he was talking to at the time. But the fact remains that he believes in walls, he wants to keep refugees out and he believes in his own divine calling to rule.

In that sense, the USA and Israel are the same place and Trump and Netanyahu are as close as - I dunno, let's pick some random leaders from the past - Hitler and Mussolini.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I'd like to have the following questions answered:

1) If the 1967 border is enforced with the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank, how will Israel defend its borders in the areas where geographically it will be impossible?

2) If the West Bank becomes a proper Palestinian State it has been said uncategorically that no Israeli - no Jew - will be allowed to live there. Therfore, what will happen to the 500,000 Israelis currently living in the West Bank?

3) If the Jews are cleansed from the West Bank, what will happen to all the businesses owned by Israelis?

4) If the Jews are expelled from the new Palestine, what will happen to the thousands upon thousands of Arabs who are at present employed by Jewish people in Israeli-owned companies, and who rely on their employment in order to live?

[ 16. February 2017, 08:47: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
The two state solution died back when Rabin was murdered.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to have the following questions answered:

1) If the 1967 border is enforced with the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank, how will Israel defend its borders in the areas where geographically it will be impossible?

Not sure what you mean. How does any country defend their borders without having a buffer security zone?

quote:
2) If the West Bank becomes a proper Palestinian State it has been said uncategorically that no Israeli - no Jew - will be allowed to live there. Therfore, what will happen to the 500,000 Israelis currently living in the West Bank?
No they absolutely haven't categorically said that no Jew will be allowed to live there. I've heard Palestinians even in Hebron say that Jews who have a historic family tie to the city are welcome. Those who are not welcome are the parasitic settlers who have no tie to the city and who treat other people like vermin.

As to the settlers, I think this entirely depends on their attitude. My sense is that some settlements would be welcome in a future Palestinian state providing the settlers contribute effectively to that state. Not all the settlers are religious ideologues and I think some may actually be prepared to live in that arrangement and I think there may be some places where Palestinians would accept them as new Palestininan towns.

Those who did not accept would have to leave. There would be some negotiation around the edges as to exactly where the negotiated line should go - but the current situation where the settlements have unilaterally grabbed around 40% of the Palestinian land is clearly not acceptable.

quote:
3) If the Jews are cleansed from the West Bank, what will happen to all the businesses owned by Israelis?
They will close, just like the settler businesses in Gaza will close. I'm not sure why you think this is a major problem.

quote:
4) If the Jews are expelled from the new Palestine, what will happen to the thousands upon thousands of Arabs who are at present employed by Jewish people in Israeli-owned companies, and who rely on their employment in order to live?
Presumably either they'll start their own businesses or suffer.

It's a pretty daft argument to suggest that one people should accept the presence of an oppressor because they're giving them work and keeping them alive.

More of an issue may well be how the Israeli government responds to a Palestinian state where settlers have been forced to leave. I'm fairly sure this would lead to a very large number of "undesirables" being forced to leave Israel.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
The mighty Fisk sums up why a One-State solution is not likely to be any better.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-netanyahu-israel-palestine-two-state-solution-abandoned-west-bank-dark-comed y-a7583101.html
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
3) If the Jews are cleansed from the West Bank, what will happen to all the businesses owned by Israelis?
They will close, just like the settler businesses in Gaza will close. I'm not sure why you think this is a major problem.

I wonder if you would like to consider this and the ramifications.

500,000 Jews settled in mainly Israeli towns.
The Palestinian authority comes and closes down their businesses, ejects them from their houses and actually transports them to the border and forces them to leave.

Do you know what that will look like, what it will remind them of?

Will all the shop windows bear the Arabic word for Jew (rather than Jude)?
Will the people with their suitcases all be wearing yellow stars?
What transport will they use? Cattle rucks? goods trains?

Do you realise how anti-Semitic the attitude of, Oh, they'll just have to close their businesses and leave' sounds.

And what, might I ask, do you think will happen if people do not want to leave?
And what, might I ask, do you think the UN and the international community - let's say, for example, the US, the UK and Australia, will say and do in the face of this ethnic cleansing?

[ 16. February 2017, 12:45: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder if you would like to consider this and the ramifications.

500,000 Jews settled in mainly Israeli towns.
The Palestinian authority comes and closes down their businesses, ejects them from their houses and actually transports them to the border and forces them to leave.

Do you know what that will look like, what it will remind them of?

Mudfrog, listen I'm really trying to be calm with you but I've been there and I don't think you have. You walk down Al-Shuhada Street in Hebron and you tell me what it is like for someone else to close down your market.

Palestinians were expelled from their homes, some were murdered and many were pushed into inadequate housing in both 1948 and 1967.

Settlers, most of whom live in much better housing than any Palestinian, would have to go back to Israel - where there are jobs and other places that they can live. They'd not be put in refugee camps with the clothing they're standing in, they'd not be shot down.

quote:
Will all the shop windows bear the Arabic word for Jew (rather than Jude)?
Will the people with their suitcases all be wearing yellow stars?
What transport will they use? Cattle rucks? goods trains?

Again, I'm going to ignore this because I assume you are totally ignorant about what is actually happening in the West Bank.

Don't tell me about graffiti on shops until you've seen it in Hebron, please.

quote:
Do you realise how anti-Semitic the attitude of, Oh, they'll just have to close their businesses and leave' sounds.
Really, this is tiresome.

During the second world war, Nazis took over parts of the Channel Islands, including running businesses. At the end, they left.

Nobody said "oh hang on, the Germans were providing jobs to people, so we need them and they can stay". No. They were part of the occupying force and when hostilities ended, they left.

This is exactly the same. The settlers are in illegal land captured during a conflict against the will of the owners. In a negotiated settlement between equals, they'd have to leave. Nothing to do with them being Jews, everything to do with them being illegal settlers on occupied land.

quote:
And what, might I ask, do you think will happen if people do not want to leave?
And what, might I ask, do you think the UN and the international community - let's say, for example, the US, the UK and Australia, will say and do in the face of this ethnic cleansing?

Wow. I'm out of flabbers. They are fully gasted.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder if you would like to consider this and the ramifications.

500,000 Jews settled in mainly Israeli towns.
The Palestinian authority comes and closes down their businesses, ejects them from their houses and actually transports them to the border and forces them to leave.

Do you know what that will look like, what it will remind them of?

Will all the shop windows bear the Arabic word for Jew (rather than Jude)?
Will the people with their suitcases all be wearing yellow stars?
What transport will they use? Cattle rucks? goods trains?

Do you realise how anti-Semitic the attitude of, Oh, they'll just have to close their businesses and leave' sounds.

And what, might I ask, do you think will happen if people do not want to leave?
And what, might I ask, do you think the UN and the international community - let's say, for example, the US, the UK and Australia, will say and do in the face of this ethnic cleansing?

So let me get this straight - a bunch of Israelis illegally annex parts of Palestinian land, and trying to reverse that process is equivalent to the holocaust?

That's utterly ridiculous. Quite insane. It's an insult to both logic and the holocaust itself.

And it's about as close to "ethnic cleansing" as making all the Brits leave their colonies once the Empire ceased to be. Which is to say, not at all.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Transfer the same policies to another country and then work through it to see if they seem acceptable. I'll bet money they aren't. We can all be Palestinian liberators of a radical form until we think about it in our own context and realise we'd actually really not like that in our own country or on our own doorstep. There's a kind of strange fog that mists up the brain when people even so much as mention Palestine and Israel in the same sentence.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Transfer the same policies to another country and then work through it to see if they seem acceptable. I'll bet money they aren't. We can all be Palestinian liberators of a radical form until we think about it in our own context and realise we'd actually really not like that in our own country or on our own doorstep. There's a kind of strange fog that mists up the brain when people even so much as mention Palestine and Israel in the same sentence.

Which policies did you have in mind? I'm not following what you are saying.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
We're talking about 500,000 people here.

People who will all be expelled.
Not to another village, but out of the country.

I get what you're saying. I accept that I have not been to Hebron and I haven't seen the stuff you've seen and I am not saying it is defensible.

But this is surely on a different scale.

Up to 500,000 people?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We're talking about 500,000 people here.

People who will all be expelled.
Not to another village, but out of the country.

I get what you're saying. I accept that I have not been to Hebron and I haven't seen the stuff you've seen and I am not saying it is defensible.

But this is surely on a different scale.

Up to 500,000 people?

Out of interest, how many people do you actually think are living in Palestinian refugee camps? How many Palestinians are being supported by food hand-outs? How many are in prison for resisting an occupier?

Now tell me how many Israeli settlers live in unsanitary conditions. How many have no access to clean water, have poor roads to drive on and have limited access to Israel and their jobs. How many have been imprisoned for attacking Palestinian olive farmers, for stealing land.

This isn't whataboutery; in order to create good living conditions for the settlers, the Israeli authorities (intentionally, in many cases) have made Palestinian lives unbearable. If they now have to leave, meh.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So let me get this straight - a bunch of Israelis illegally annex parts of Palestinian land, and trying to reverse that process is equivalent to the holocaust?

That's utterly ridiculous. Quite insane. It's an insult to both logic and the holocaust itself.

Erm... Was it not the case that after Israel was attacked from Egypt they were then attacked from Jordan and it was in the defeating the Jordanian army that Israel occupied the West Bank? Is it not the case that 94% of the west bank has in fact been given back?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is it not the case that 94% of the west bank has in fact been given back?

Nope

Around 40% of land outside the green (1967 defacto peace) line is controlled by settlers. Of the rest, much is under permanent military occupation. Of the bits that aren't, life is extremely difficult as travel even between villages is almost impossible.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I was trying to avoid getting into specifics because like any sectarianism it draws you into its entanglement. But for instance, let's take Northern Ireland. Imagine having the same policy there if a large enough portion of the populace decided they wanted a united Ireland and the current RofI was able to stomach the notion. Even before we get into the specifics, the current notions about Ireland and Northern Ireland held among some people in the UK are deeply disparaging and borderline racist if not overtly so, and yet the same people can be all manner of radical about their approach to Palestine - because its far away see, it doesn't really effect them that much and they are free from the reality of their own investments.

It's a bit like when I heard a lecture by the liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez that everyone thought was great, then another theologian appeared immediately after him to take his ideas out of the Latin American context to place them in the context of Scotland, and guess what: everyone in the room was horrified. We can have all manner of romantic and idealist notions about other people in other countries, but once its on our own doorstep the issues become a lot different.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Transfer the same policies to another country and then work through it to see if they seem acceptable. I'll bet money they aren't.

OK. I'm picturing a situation where France has expanded into Britain, driving out (or killing) the native population and inserting their own people into the now-vacant areas. A situation where Brits are effectively locked up in Wales and Scotland while the French claim all of England as their own and violently suppress all Brits who cry out for liberation.

Now I'm imagining people saying that the French are wrong, and that all the French invaders should get the fuck out of England and let the Brits reclaim their homelands.

Seems pretty acceptable to me.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
If a huge population of people with no connection to Ireland in many generations moved in - with a private army - on the basis of a 1000 year old land claim, built a completely new first-world country on top of the existing infrastructure and left the rest of the existing population to exist in developing country conditions, then yes that is exactly the same.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I can;t help but note how carefully you left Northern Ireland out of that equation
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There was an injustice in Northern Ireland which has historic roots in British colonialism. But there is quite a massive difference between a historic wrong which has been there for hundreds of years and the one in Israel-Palestine which was simply conjoured out of thin air in 1948.

Most of the settlers in the West Bank did not originate in Israel and have been living in the settlements for a few decades.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Erm... Was it not the case that after Israel was attacked from Egypt they were then attacked from Jordan and it was in the defeating the Jordanian army that Israel occupied the West Bank? Is it not the case that 94% of the west bank has in fact been given back?

In WW2 Britain was attacked by Germany. In defeating the German army Britain had to occupy France (and Belgium, etc.).

By your logic, Britain would have been justified in claiming France as its own and moving French populations out of various regions in order to insert British settlers there instead.

Oh, and if 50 years later there had been a worldwide effort to make those British settlers leave France it would have been ethnic cleansing on a par with the holocaust, right?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

....was simply conjoured out of thin air in 1948.

That would be your specific view of it, and undoubtedly the specific view held by many others too. However it does ignore the views of many, many others who have an entirely different way of looking at it. Now we could all just hold on to our viewpoints and bash them up against each other like a game of conkers, hoping that eventually one cracks and breaks, but is that really the best approach? Is there not a better way?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
That would be your specific view of it, and undoubtedly the specific view held by many others too.

It is the view held by almost the entire international community and the UN, the EU and until recently the USA.

quote:

However it does ignore the views of many, many others who have an entirely different way of looking at it. Now we could all just hold on to our viewpoints and bash them up against each other like a game of conkers, hoping that eventually one cracks and breaks, but is that really the best approach? Is there not a better way?

Yes, the better way is to consider the welfare of everyone, not just those who happen to live in settlements. By any stretch of the imagination, the Palestinians have gotten an extremely poor deal out of the creation of Israel. However you want to cut a political agreement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it cannot possibly be fair to suggest that Palestinians live in poverty whilst their neighbours live in luxury on the land which was theirs.

Frankly, the Palestinians I know are past caring who runs the show. They just want to have a life which isn't marked by some arsehole towering over them, telling them that they can't be free in their own houses and in their own land.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

However you want to cut a political agreement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it cannot possibly be fair to suggest that Palestinians live in poverty whilst their neighbours live in luxury on the land which was theirs.

See! There's the fog bank rolling in. I never suggested any such thing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
See! There's the fog bank rolling in. I never suggested any such thing.

Palestinians can't be free when there are settlers inside the 1967 green line for more reasons than I can be bothered to type.

[ 16. February 2017, 13:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
You seem to be arguing with a blank wall! You have no idea what I even think because nowhere on this thread have I actually revealed it (and quite consciously so), yet you've jumped to all manner of assumption.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm sorry, where have I accused you of having an opinion? The fact that Palestinian freedom is related to the presence of settlers is just a fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that settlers can live first-world lives and still extend freedom to Palestinian villagers.

I've no idea what your opinion is.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

I've no idea what your opinion is

Exactly. For all you know I might entirely agree with you in everything you have said, yet you keep posting in a manner that feels a little like you're shouting at me about horrible settlers and freedom and the wrongs of oppression as of those things weren't important to any human being on earth.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
OK, then do please grace us with you opinion as to how settlers can co-exist with Palestinians in a way that allows for Palestinian freedom.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
No
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Dave W.
Project for a New American Century

The document is "Rebuilding America's Defences":

"Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy. The passage suggested that the transformation of American armed forces through "new technologies and operational concepts" was likely to be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[45] Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans"

You can search for the document name "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which appears to be in PDF according to links I cannot follow on a phone. I have a copy from the organization's website before they took it down

No you are wrong, the conspiracy theories exist. The Bush gang's ideas exist. The combination has bad optics and fed conspiracy theories nicely. I suspect there will be an interesting history written one day.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The most likely long-term outcome of a 'one state solution' would surely be a system akin to apartheid-era South Africa.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Most of the settlers in the West Bank did not originate in Israel and have been living in the settlements for a few decades.

and when we talk about settlers in the West Bank we are talking about people who are out of the scope of the original 1948 partition anyway, and we are referring to a process which continues to this day.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Judging by this thread and thousands of similar ones, it may be that someone with no knowledge of history or politics has at least as good a chance of finding a solution than the cognoscenti.

The peace process started by Rabin, the peace process that had the greatest chance of success of any in my lifetime and which saw the Israelis forcibly dismantle settlements against the will of the Israeli occupiers, is dead and has been dead for years. This is a great tragedy in my opinion and is much to be lamented.

Successive interested parties have held out the prospect for a two-state solution since its death because there is nothing else that has arisen as a viable solution, or even a viable negotiation point.

I think what's happened now is that Israel is continuing to build settlements, because a negotiated solution seems unlikely to get them East Jerusalem, while the Palestinians (I think) are pursuing a strategy involving the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State supported or authorised or legitimised by the United Nations.

In the circumstances, I think a negotiated solution in the foreseeable future is unlikely. If Trump manages to facilitate one, he will have earned his place in the history books and done the world a great service. I pray for his success.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Dave W.
Project for a New American Century

The document is "Rebuilding America's Defences":

"Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy. The passage suggested that the transformation of American armed forces through "new technologies and operational concepts" was likely to be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[45] Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans"

You can search for the document name "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which appears to be in PDF according to links I cannot follow on a phone. I have a copy from the organization's website before they took it down

No you are wrong, the conspiracy theories exist. The Bush gang's ideas exist. The combination has bad optics and fed conspiracy theories nicely. I suspect there will be an interesting history written one day.

I didn't say conspiracy theories don't exist - of course they do! Conspiracy theories about the Apollo moon landings exist also.

I said your claim that "The George Bush II crew of war criminals prayed for a "Pearl Harbor" event pre 11 Sept 2001, about which they published a paper" is obvious bullshit, and it still is.

I've already quoted the two references to Pearl Harbor in that document, and they say nothing of the sort.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
No

What a funny way to add to a discussion.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The most likely long-term outcome of a 'one state solution' would surely be a system akin to apartheid-era South Africa.

Israel will never support a one-state solution because that would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. They will continue to support the status quo, where the Palestinian slaves -- sorry, natives -- are held in thrall, their land not really theirs but not really part of Israel either, steadily chipped away by illegal settlements until there is nothing left and all the Palestinians have to go somewhere else, PROBLEM SOLVED!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Judging by this thread and thousands of similar ones, it may be that someone with no knowledge of history or politics has at least as good a chance of finding a solution than the cognoscenti.

First, no. Not happening. But even should it be possible, it would require knowledge and a grasp of reality that cheeto doesn't have.
quote:

If Trump manages to facilitate one, he will have earned his place in the history books and done the world a great service. I pray for his success.

You make make me laugh. Let's accept miracles have happened and the biblical ones were real. When was the last, verifiable miracle of this calibre?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Trump getting elected as President?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mousetheif:
quote:

What a funny way to add to a discussion.

It is a funny way, but I wasn't really that interested in entering the fray of the pissing contest of who can be the most (self) righteously indignant about their chosen 'side'. It strikes me that there are very close parallels with what appears to be an intractable conflict in Israel and Palestine and what went on in Northern Ireland. For years Northern Ireland was pushed into doing something about peace by international leaders outside its borders, but for all of his faults it was actually Bill Clinton who seemed to recognise that essentially compromise was effectively an uneasy state where no one was in fact entirely happy with the result and that those involved directly in conflict were the ones who had to broker peace by talking to each other rather than constantly seeking the righteous support of external nations and their leaders. To me it was a better way, because it achieved peace and ignited hope in a way that I would never have dreamed that I would see in my own lifetime. In the end all of the arguments about who was more right and all the self indulgent digging over old ground of ancient wrong achieved absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to hold up Northern Ireland as some kind of beacon it is clearly not either; there are still huge problems and challenges and violence is still a strong feature of society but to my mind there was a lesson there in terms of how peace began and peace certainly did not begin with internet forum pissing contests and righteousness competitions.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Trump getting elected as President?

Aren't miracles generally things that people are pleased about? None of miraculous destruction, miraculous carnage, miraculous shit-storm seem to be good adjective-noun pairs.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As to the settlers, I think this entirely depends on their attitude. My sense is that some settlements would be welcome in a future Palestinian state providing the settlers contribute effectively to that state. Not all the settlers are religious ideologues and I think some may actually be prepared to live in that arrangement and I think there may be some places where Palestinians would accept them as new Palestininan towns.

This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned. Presumably the Palestinian authority has some system of land ownership and the land occupied by settlers is technically owned by someone else - but the state of Israel does or doesn't have a system that applies to Palestinian territories?

I can read about the legal ambiguity regarding Palestine's government in international law (although not easily understand), but what I don't find any information on is what the internal legal positions are regarding land ownership and whether they are internally consistent.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It is a funny way, but I wasn't really that interested in entering the fray of the pissing contest of who can be the most (self) righteously indignant about their chosen 'side'.

The whole way you frame your comment is wrong. There is an oppressor and there is an oppressed population. There is a bunch of people who were given land under a partition plan and who unilaterally decided to steal the other side's allocation. There is a population living without clean water because there are people down the road who, having stolen their land, have restricted access to their water.

That's what this is about. It isn't about taking sides between equal adversaries and deciding that the Palestinians gib is shinier than the Israelis. It is about taking sides against oppression and against a strong population trying to physically intimidate a weaker one.

quote:
I'm not trying to hold up Northern Ireland as some kind of beacon it is clearly not either; there are still huge problems and challenges and violence is still a strong feature of society but to my mind there was a lesson there in terms of how peace began and peace certainly did not begin with internet forum pissing contests and righteousness competitions.
Northern Ireland is absolutely nothing like Israel-Palestine.

And if you don't want to engage in "pissing contests" stop writing drivel on bulletin boards.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Yes Mr Cheesy, you are of course entirely right; the radiated light of your righteous posts will leap out to illuminate the world and liberate Palestine. The power of piss compels them!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned. Presumably the Palestinian authority has some system of land ownership and the land occupied by settlers is technically owned by someone else - but the state of Israel does or doesn't have a system that applies to Palestinian territories?

The Palestinian Authority effectively doesn't exist, the only real legal authority in the West Bank is the defacto occupying power, Israel.

Inside Israel-proper, there is a developing set of legal norms as you'd find in most developing countries. Inside the West Bank is a shadowy nether-world of laws made-up and enforced by the Israeli military, many of which harp back to laws set down by the British last time they were there (as occupiers) and even further back. Under these rules, for example, Israel can unilaterally decide that a family has no right to live in land they've been on for generations. It can unilaterally decide to knock houses down and declare than land in the West Bank is henceforth under military control as a gunrange.

There are two legal systems. If you live in the settlements, you are tried under normal Israeli law. If you happen to be a Palestinian 10 yards away, you're tried under a completely different set of laws. Even for the same offence.

Underneath that, the Palestinian Authority has tried to set up and enforce their own laws. But the Palestinian Authority is a puppet of the Israeli military. It can only do what it is allowed to do - which is often not very much given that so many of the lawmakers are in Israeli prison.

quote:
I can read about the legal ambiguity regarding Palestine's government in international law (although not easily understand), but what I don't find any information on is what the internal legal positions are regarding land ownership and whether they are internally consistent.
There are lots of things to read about this if you are really bothered - see btselem on the military courts, Machsom Watch for accounts of how the courts work, this about the two law systems in the West Bank, this from the J-Post about the way Ottoman era property law is used, and so on.

If you don't like those resources, there are plenty of others. Nobody is denying that this is how the Israeli legal system works in the West Bank.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
mr cheesy, fletcher Christian

Pissing contests between mutually pissed off Shipmates belong in Hell. As you know.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists (that's a prophecy that), maybe simontoad's nice Mr. Trump will allow full refugee status to all Palestinians? That's more likely than divine justice by the falsely named Israel after all. They are backslidden Jacob. Supplanter. Henceforth that's how they should be known.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Martin60:
quote:

If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists....

You speak of Israel like it's a monolithic identity when it is made up of people. We hear the powerful and the loud voices but can we really be sure that we hear all voices? Who really knows what the next generation will do; why condemn them to a self-fulfilling prophecy? To put it in spiritual terms: have you no faith that God might complete his work, perhaps even in spite of them?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
While all this DH like discussion was going on in here, the expected happened and a Trump administration person indicated the two state solution was not dead.

This time it was the US ambassador to the UN.

Sooooo...maybe not so BREAKING or "officially dead"?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists (that's a prophecy that), maybe simontoad's nice Mr. Trump will allow full refugee status to all Palestinians? That's more likely than divine justice by the falsely named Israel after all. They are backslidden Jacob. Supplanter. Henceforth that's how they should be known.

Crikey Martin. That's pretty extreme. Why not just go for "synagogue of Satan"?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
While all this DH like discussion was going on in here, the expected happened and a Trump administration person indicated the two state solution was not dead.

This time it was the US ambassador to the UN.

Sooooo...maybe not so BREAKING or "officially dead"?

The two-mind solution of Trump is not dead! If he pronounces X, we can expect -X before dusk.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Martin60:
quote:

If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists....

You speak of Israel like it's a monolithic identity when it is made up of people. We hear the powerful and the loud voices but can we really be sure that we hear all voices? Who really knows what the next generation will do; why condemn them to a self-fulfilling prophecy? To put it in spiritual terms: have you no faith that God might complete his work, perhaps even in spite of them?
Aye fletch. Ten thousand years.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists (that's a prophecy that), maybe simontoad's nice Mr. Trump will allow full refugee status to all Palestinians? That's more likely than divine justice by the falsely named Israel after all. They are backslidden Jacob. Supplanter. Henceforth that's how they should be known.

Crikey Martin. That's pretty extreme. Why not just go for "synagogue of Satan"?
Steady on TT. And it doesn't have the nice resonance.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mdijon:
quote:
This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned.
Only in places where the rule of law applies. Anywhere else, land is occupied by those who can fight to defend it against others. As, for example, in the Debateable Lands on the Anglo-Scottish border before the union of the two crowns.

(Note for Americans: you will find a familiar presidential surname among the list of border clans)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
...but to my mind there was a lesson there [(in Northern Ireland)] in terms of how peace began and peace certainly did not begin with internet forum pissing contests and righteousness competitions.

While absolute certainty is never really possible, I'm pretty sure nobody on this thread thinks that what we write here will bring about peace. So this observation, while 100% true, is also 100% irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Trump getting elected as President?

Only if you think 30 years of right wing propaganda and brainwashing, plus a year or more of Russian manipulation of the press, are a miracle. Otherwise it's pretty evident that Trump's election followed from natural causes.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Martin60:
quote:

If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists....

You speak of Israel like it's a monolithic identity when it is made up of people. We hear the powerful and the loud voices but can we really be sure that we hear all voices? Who really knows what the next generation will do; why condemn them to a self-fulfilling prophecy? To put it in spiritual terms: have you no faith that God might complete his work, perhaps even in spite of them?
Martin's statement leaves open that possibility. If the next generation changes in relevant ways, then the antecedent "if Israel continues to deny justice" will be false, obviating Martin's statement. So he is not "condemning" anybody. He's stating a perfectly obvious truth. Continuation of injustice will perpetuate the problem. Cessation of injustice is the only way to bring about peace.

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
While all this DH like discussion was going on in here, the expected happened and a Trump administration person indicated the two state solution was not dead.

This time it was the US ambassador to the UN.

Sooooo...maybe not so BREAKING or "officially dead"?

Or the US ambassador to the UN's days are numbered in his current position.

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Crikey Martin. That's pretty extreme. Why not just go for "synagogue of Satan"?

Oh FFS. Can we please get over the ridiculous idea that Israel is beyond criticism because it's a Jewish state run by Jews? Like Jews can do no wrong, ever, since the Shoah? Yes, antisemites criticize Israel. From this it does not follow, however, that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. It grows fucking tiresome every time this old canard is dragged out. Give it a rest.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Question. How do Israelis actually justify building settlements? (I know some don't think it's justified of course, but I'm asking about those who do.)

IME, when most people do something that is (apparently) immoral, they still have some rationalisation in their head that explains why it's not really immoral at all.

So when the West (including many of Israel's supporters in the West) say that the settlements are illegal, these Israelis must think: 'What the West fails to understand about the settlements is X.' What is X?

(Yes, we can all think of cynical values for X, but they must have values of X that at least attempt to be just and moral.)

Do they regard the river Jordan as Israel's legitimate western border? If so, isn't a one-state solution pretty much the endpoint of their belief?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.

So's a sense of humour it would seem.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned.

And if I take over your country and supplant your legal system with my own, then maybe land becomes owned by someone else.

Consider land reform in former colonies. Land was owned by large white landowners. A change in governance opens up the possibility of land being taken away from white landowners and given to indigenous people. Perhaps with some degree of compensation for the ex-landowner, and perhaps not, depending on the whim of the new government.

You may take a different moral view of decolonization on the one hand, and settlement on the other, but the legal framework is pretty similar.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.

It isn't any crazier than the God backs Israel nonsense.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.

It isn't any crazier than the God backs Israel nonsense.
Yeah, I'll give you that.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Here's one possibility for negotiating a two-state solution.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question. How do Israelis actually justify building settlements? (I know some don't think it's justified of course, but I'm asking about those who do.)

IME, when most people do something that is (apparently) immoral, they still have some rationalisation in their head that explains why it's not really immoral at all.

So when the West (including many of Israel's supporters in the West) say that the settlements are illegal, these Israelis must think: 'What the West fails to understand about the settlements is X.' What is X?

It's their land by right.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.

I think "falsely so-called Israel" is defensible. It's not the Israel of yore. It's a new, modern state, pretending to be the Israel of yore by choice of name. (I believe that in 1948 some mumbling was heard in gentile circles over the audacity of the name. It was quickly hushed in the name of antiantisemitism.)

Anti-Zionist orthodox Jews are very upset that a nation was created called "Israel" before the return of Moshiach.

[ 18. February 2017, 03:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

Didn't know that last bit, though I did know that there are Jews who aren't Zionists. If the ones you mentioned think the Messiah is being upstaged, they must be furious.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mdijon--

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Trump getting elected as President?

Aren't miracles generally things that people are pleased about? None of miraculous destruction, miraculous carnage, miraculous shit-storm seem to be good adjective-noun pairs.
IMHO, there are such things as anti-miracles. Bad stuff that inexplicably happens.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
But there are people, are there not, who hold that God has ordained Trump's win for some holy purpose?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Haven't all the neighbouring countries painted the Palestinians into a corner? Excessive demands such as no Israel at all, which leads to Israeli paranoid inflexibility about settlements. Where is an Anwar Sadat or Yitzak Rabin when needed? One traded peace for land, and get killed. The advocated that and got killed.

I don't think it matters who did and didn't do what 50 years ago; the history only shows only Egypt and Israel made peace. No one else has come close. History did not freeze in 1948 or 1979, and won't freeze today either. It isn't Israel's fault. It isn't Palestinians' fault. It might be moreso the neighbouring countries. But none of it matters. I do not think I will live to see peace.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Haven't all the neighbouring countries painted the Palestinians into a corner? Excessive demands such as no Israel at all, which leads to Israeli paranoid inflexibility about settlements.

I don't get the connection. I don't see how controlling the, frankly bastard, settlers has anything to do with the idea of Israel remaining a country.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Deutsche Welle re 2 state solution. Basically, all sides suck.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Actually, Jordan and Israel signed a peace agreement in 1994.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
np--

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Haven't all the neighbouring countries painted the Palestinians into a corner?

Actually, Jordan has taken in so many Palestinian refugees that (IIRC) they outnumber the Jordanians. Raina, wife of the current king, is Palestinian.

I gather Jordan is overloaded with taking in Syrians, too.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Jordan could be the Palestian state?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Interesting idea, but I don't know how the pre-existing, non-Palestinian Jordanians would feel about that.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Jordan could be the Palestian state?

So your solution to people being dispossessed on their own land is to remove them from it completely?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
That's baiting the hook. But to respond, why not? If it is the only way to peace. And yes, of course it is unjust. War and conquest is unjust. That is how countries operate in our un-updates international realpolitik. People are expendable in that view.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's baiting the hook. But to respond, why not? If it is the only way to peace. And yes, of course it is unjust. War and conquest is unjust. That is how countries operate in our un-updates international realpolitik. People are expendable in that view.

It isn't a way to peace. Not only will the Palestinians and Jordan not accept this, the rest of the players will not.
There is no quick and simple solution. There are measures which can reduce tensions. First is no more fucking settlers, full stop. Another would be make the ones there stop being bell ends.
And start treating Palestinians better.
And, honestly, boot some of the settlers the Hell out.
Israel is in the driver's seat, they are the ones who can most easily alter course.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It seems to me that from the day after the State of Israel was created, when the Arabs attacked her, the Israelis just can't win.

If the entire population of Israel was to be confined to the city limits of Tel Aviv that wouldn't be enough for the Palestinian authority.

They will not be happy until there is a one state solution - that state being Palestine, and that devoid of all Jews.

[ 19. February 2017, 18:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Yes, that worked in the western hemisphere.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that from the day after the State of Israel was created, when the Arabs attacked her, the Israelis just can't win.

If the entire population of Israel was to be confined to the city limits of Tel Aviv that wouldn't be enough for the Palestinian authority.

They will not be happy until there is a one state solution - that state being Palestine, and that devoid of all Jews.

That is just bullshit to excuse poor behaviour.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
What, there was no attack after all on the day after Israel became a nation?

Well, that's relief; now I can believe that the Arabs are totally without blame in all of this conflict. There was me thinking the Israelis had enemies.

[ 20. February 2017, 11:07: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Still the same bullshit. That Israel was attacked doesn't excuse their poor behaviour towards the Palestinians.
Your Jesus would agree that two wrongs do not make a right.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."

The Arabs had no right to attack a UN-recognised Sovereign state; not in 1948 and not in 1967 either.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that from the day after the State of Israel was created, when the Arabs attacked her, the Israelis just can't win.

If the entire population of Israel was to be confined to the city limits of Tel Aviv that wouldn't be enough for the Palestinian authority.

Actually all the main Palestinian factions including Hamas have said that they're willing to accept Israel within the 1967 borders.

quote:
They will not be happy until there is a one state solution - that state being Palestine, and that devoid of all Jews.
There are some Palestinian hardliners, but it is a bit much to claim that that view is the only one available. And the difference is that whereas the stated policy of the PA, Fatah and Hamas is to recognise Israel within the 1967s borders, the stated policy of the hardliners within the governemnt of Israel is to never ever ever allow Palestinian nationhood.

And, I ought to note that Israel obtained recognition from Egypt and Jordan after the 1967 war. There is full recognition of both of these neighbouring countries of Israel.

And, lest it be said that the Arab league doesn't want peace, there is even an ongoing process by the Arab league which offers recognition for a negotiated peace - re-endorced as recently as 2013.

Pragmatically, it seems that most Arab countries are prepared to accept Israel within the 1967 borders. Contrary to what some would have you believe.

[ 20. February 2017, 12:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."

The Arabs had no right to attack a UN-recognised Sovereign state; not in 1948 and not in 1967 either.

And Israel has no right to settle its citizens outside its borders. The difference is that that is happening now, not in 1967, not in 1948.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And Israel has no right to settle its citizens outside its borders. The difference is that that is happening now, not in 1967, not in 1948.

Land was illegally captured in 1967 and Israel was created in 1948 from disputed land. So that's not really true.

The reality is that the Palestinians and Arab states are compromising by recognising Israel's existence within the 67 borders, which in some senses were no more theirs than any other land captured in war or created as part of a settler nation.

Incidentally, the Arab states are not at all blameless for the status quo, but instead of recognising the legitimate wish for Palestinian nationhood and the concessions available and on the table, Israel continues with the beligerant occupation mentality. Even if the Arabs are lying, as the hardliners in Israel make out, their bluff should be called if peace is really what everyone wants.

[ 20. February 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."

The Arabs had no right to attack a UN-recognised Sovereign state; not in 1948 and not in 1967 either.

My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."

I think he might have taken the 1948 UN partition plan as the best of bad available options.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that from the day after the State of Israel was created, when the Arabs attacked her, the Israelis just can't win.

The problem goes back a long way before the state of Israel was created, which was itself hardly excusable except by appeal to Euroguilt. This kind of tunnel vision doesn't help anything.

Oh, and Israel wasn't acknowledged by the UN until 1949.

Oh, and Israel has no right to occupy but not annex the territories for half a century in defiance of the Geneva Conventions.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."

I think he might have taken the 1948 UN partition plan as the best of bad available options.
As I said the problem started long before 1948. Unless Jesus has no foresight he wouldn't have let it get so far.

The existence of the Zionist enclaves in Palestine starting in the late 1800s was de facto ethnic cleansing, and the ethnic cleansing has been going on steadily ever since.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."

The Arabs had no right to attack a UN-recognised Sovereign state; not in 1948 and not in 1967 either.

So why didn't He?

The Arabs had no right to behave like any other ethne when faced by an invasion?

Your Jesus should have stopped the dumping by failed Christian states (including Russia) of the most significant non-Christian minority they had nearly annihiliated.

Why didn't your Jesus do anything about the thousand years of pogroms culminating in the Holocaust?

Only the Muslim Arabs, born of failed Christian imperialism which continued after their early years should have been Christian?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

The existence of the Zionist enclaves in Palestine starting in the late 1800s was de facto ethnic cleansing, and the ethnic cleansing has been going on steadily ever since.

Mmm. Not really. Mostly they bought land off people who were ready to sell it.

There have indeed been various efforts at ethnic cleansing throughout the history of the blasted pile of rocks we call Jerusalem, but it is hard to say that random small groups of Zionists in the 1800s were practicing it.

Nobody is blameless in this.

The only difference at the moment is that the Israeli settler state has the upper hand, largely because of assistance from the USA (who are the largest source of the most militant settlers and who represent a very large proportion of the population of modern Israel, along with immigrants from Russia). And thus the cycle of violence continues.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."

Jesus approved of the British Empire otherwise?


My Jesus argues with your Jesus, and with everyone else's Jesuses*. And they all come with pointed sticks and throwing out money-changers attitudes.

*is this the plural of Jesus or perhaps Jesi given the 'us' ending
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."

Bullshit. Even if one buys into the middle-east manifest destiny rubbish, by that logic Israel blew it and got ejected. God provided no miracle reentrance. Again, believing that God, your Christian God of love and benevolence, cares more about land than people is ridiculous.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."

Jesus approved of the British Empire otherwise?


My Jesus argues with your Jesus, and with everyone else's Jesuses*. And they all come with pointed sticks and throwing out money-changers attitudes.

*is this the plural of Jesus or perhaps Jesi given the 'us' ending

Bleedin' GREEK ennit?! Therefore Jesudes. Assuming a 3rd declension noun.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sod it. You're right. Jesus is Latin. Jesi. Iesus is transliterated Greek, if not Iesous. So Ies[o]udes.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Perhaps he would say "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:14)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

The existence of the Zionist enclaves in Palestine starting in the late 1800s was de facto ethnic cleansing, and the ethnic cleansing has been going on steadily ever since.

Mmm. Not really. Mostly they bought land off people who were ready to sell it.
Mostly bought off absentee landlords in Turkey who were previously able to squeeze the land from its former Palestinian owners due to changes in the tax code. So the willingness of the sellers doesn't really signify.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."

Jesus approved of the British Empire otherwise?
There's a non sequitur for the ages.

"X disapproved of Y doing Z"
"Ah, so X approved of everything else Y did?"

Everything else Y did isn't the subject of this thread. Try to stay on topic, wouldja?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly bought off absentee landlords in Turkey who were previously able to squeeze the land from its former Palestinian owners due to changes in the tax code. So the willingness of the sellers doesn't really signify.

It shows that in the chaotic history of 19 century Jerusalem there is considerable uncertainty about exactly who owned what. Yes, wealthy Jewish philanthropists were coming in and buying up land to build new estates. But the whole place was a mess, the suggestion that these small groups of ideologue zionists were somehow conducting ethnic cleansing is likely bogus.

There is a better case for saying that Peasants Revolt of the 1830s led to ethnic cleansing - due to the mass executions and deportation of (some say) 10,000 men.

Some say that the first mass migration of Jews began in 1882, comprised of around 30,000 people - of which 50% or more left again.

The demographics of the place was in flux, with various religious from lots of nationalities, Europeans and other migrants constantly coming and going. There was no simple "ethnic cleansing" which can be charged against the Jews.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Fair enough
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0