No thread on this yet?
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2011/11/01/palestine_becomes_member_of_unesco_us_cuts_funds/
QuotePalestine becomes member of UNESCO, US cuts funds
By Sarah DiLorenzo and Bradley Klapper
Associated Press / November 1, 2011
PARIS—Palestine won its greatest international endorsement yet on Monday, full membership in UNESCO, but the move will cost the agency one-fifth of its funding and some fear will send Mideast peace efforts off a cliff.
In an unusually dramatic session at the Paris-based United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, there were cheers for "yes" votes and grumbles for the "no's" and abstentions. When the results were in, many delegates jumped to their feet and applauded and someone let out a cry of "Long live Palestine!" in French.
"Joy fills my heart. This is really a historic moment," said Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki. "It's the return of he who was banished."
But the jubilation was quickly pierced by reality: The United States said it wouldn't make a $60 million payment to fill out its contributions for this year and would suspend all future funding.
UNESCO depends heavily on that money -- Washington provides 22 percent of its budget -- but has survived without it in the past: The United States pulled out of UNESCO under President Ronald Reagan, rejoining two decades later under President George W. Bush.
Monday's vote was a grand symbolic victory for the Palestinians, but it alone won't make Palestine a state. The issues of borders for an eventual Palestinian state, security, a solution for Palestinian refugees, the fate of Jerusalem and other disputes that have thwarted Middle East peace for decades remain unresolved. Some argued it would even make it harder for the Palestinians to reach their goal.
White House spokesman Jay Carney called UNESCO's decision "premature" and said it undermines the international community's efforts toward a comprehensive Middle East peace plan. He called it a distraction from the goal of restarting direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Israeli Ambassador Nimrod Barkan said the decision did "a great disservice to international law and to chances for peace."
"UNESCO deals in science, not science fiction," he said in a speech to delegates after the vote. "However, a large number of member states, though most emphatically less than two-thirds of the member states of this organization, have adopted a science fiction version of reality."
His government said it was reconsidering its cooperation with UNESCO.
The request to grant Palestine full membership passed 107-14, with 52 abstentions. Eighty-one votes were needed for approval -- or two-thirds of the 173 eligible member delegations present. There are now 195 members in all.
In a surprise, France voted "yes" -- and the room erupted in cheers. It was joined by Ireland, Austria and the Arab states. The "no" votes included the United States, Israel, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany, while many American allies abstained, including Japan, Britain and New Zealand.
Monday's vote is definitive, and the membership formally takes effect when Palestine signs UNESCO's founding charter.
It is part of a broader Palestinian quest for greater international recognition in hopes of moving closer to statehood through channels other than simply negotiations with Israel.
There, however, are concerns that strategy could backfire. Before the vote, Israel's outspoken foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said that if the measure passed, Israel should cut off ties with the Palestinian Authority. It was not clear whether he was voicing government policy.
By contrast, Malki said he hoped the vote would only provide momentum for the Palestinians' quest for statehood. But he added that it was no substitute for the Palestinians' more high-profile request for admission to the United Nations.
The Obama administration has vowed to use its veto power in the Security Council to quash Palestinian membership in the broader U.N., but had been hoping it wouldn't come to that since wielding its veto could undermine the United States' typically pivotal role as negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians.
However, Malki, indicated Monday that he thought he had enough support to win a Security Council vote, which has not yet been scheduled.
UNESCO, like many U.N. agencies, is a part of the world body but has separate membership procedures and can make its own decisions about which countries belong. The disconnect between memberships is rare but not unprecedented. Two tiny Pacific island nations -- the Cook Islands and Niue -- are members of UNESCO but not the U.N., while Liechtenstein belongs to the larger world body but not the cultural agency.
Even if the vote's impact isn't felt right away in the Mideast, it will be quickly felt at UNESCO, which protects historic heritage sites and works to improve world literacy, access to schooling for girls and cultural understanding. One of the first concrete results of Palestine's membership could be that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is listed as a world heritage site; the Palestinians have already prepared an application for the traditional birthplace of Jesus.
In addition to the reduction in funding, the vote will also set back UNESCO's efforts in recent years to shed its image as an anti-Israeli agency. When the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO in the 1980s, it was to protest the passage of a resolution equating Zionism with racism.
UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova has been at the forefront of remaking the agency's image, and she expressed concern about the vote's effect.
"It is my responsibility to say that I am concerned by the potential challenges that may arise to the universality and financial stability of the organization," Bokova said. "I am worried we may confront a situation that could erode UNESCO as a universal platform for dialogue. I am worried for the stability of its budget."
While the U.S. has cut off funding -- which typically amounts to $80 million annually -- Washington has said it will remain a member, though if it fails to pay its dues for two years, it will lose its vote.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was up to member states "to ensure the United Nations system as a whole consistent political and financial support."
"As such, we will need to work on tactical solutions to preserve UNESCO's financial resources," he said, while urging a negotiated solution to Mideast peace.
What the fuck did UNESCO expect to happen, anyway?
Why would the US be opposed to that? It's not like it's the UN Security Council. Isn't it good that Palestine would cooperate on UNESCO goals, which are valid and worthy?
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2011, 10:44:29 AM
Why would the US be opposed to that? It's not like it's the UN Security Council. Isn't it good that Palestine would cooperate on UNICEF goals, which are valid and worthy?
I suppose no one should be suprised you are blind to what is actually happening and why this vote took place. But for your benefit let me try one more time.
Quotesomeone let out a cry of "Long live Palestine!"
Well what is there to say?
How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state? *shrug*
Quote"Joy fills my heart. This is really a historic moment," said Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki. "It's the return of he who was banished."
Really? This moment? And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO? What just happened here?
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 11:03:34 AM
Well what is there to say?
How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state? *shrug*
...
Really? This moment? And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO? What just happened here?
It's part of the PA's push for UN recognition of a Palestinian state. They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best. So they're going to push for international recognition. Palestine hasn't been a state for UN purposes, they' just got observer status. By getting membership of UN bodies they are getting recognised by the UN as a state. The US will veto in the Security Council so the Palestinians are pushing for this through the separate bodies, then the General Assembly, then the Security Council where they want a majority even though the US will veto.
The US Congress has I believe passed a bill that will remove funding for all UN bodies who recognise Palestine as a state. They initially planned to cut all funding to the PA, but I think this was avoided after intense lobbying by the Israelis who pointed out that the PA's security forces are pretty important and helpful to Israel.
I find it rather disgusting that for the US, the "red line", beyond which they will not provide funding to an otherwise helpful and useful organization, is the implied recognition of the Palestinian state.
I have not realized the Jewish lobby in Washington DC is so powerful.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:24:58 PM
They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best.
Well that was the exact view the Israelis were using for their own unilateral disengagement during the Sharon years was it not? That the Palestinians could not be trusted in negotiations?
In any case I have a hard time seeing how having a state to sanction whenever Palestinians behave badly would be a bad thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:24:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 11:03:34 AM
Well what is there to say?
How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state? *shrug*
...
Really? This moment? And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO? What just happened here?
It's part of the PA's push for UN recognition of a Palestinian state. They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best. So they're going to push for international recognition. Palestine hasn't been a state for UN purposes, they' just got observer status. By getting membership of UN bodies they are getting recognised by the UN as a state. The US will veto in the Security Council so the Palestinians are pushing for this through the separate bodies, then the General Assembly, then the Security Council where they want a majority even though the US will veto.
The US Congress has I believe passed a bill that will remove funding for all UN bodies who recognise Palestine as a state. They initially planned to cut all funding to the PA, but I think this was avoided after intense lobbying by the Israelis who pointed out that the PA's security forces are pretty important and helpful to Israel.
i believe it wasn't a bill but a treaty from the 90s between israel amd the US that prevents US funding of any organization recognizing Palestine in the absence of an accord between Israel and the Palestinians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:24:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 11:03:34 AM
Well what is there to say?
How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state? *shrug*
...
Really? This moment? And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO? What just happened here?
It's part of the PA's push for UN recognition of a Palestinian state. They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best. So they're going to push for international recognition. Palestine hasn't been a state for UN purposes, they' just got observer status. By getting membership of UN bodies they are getting recognised by the UN as a state. The US will veto in the Security Council so the Palestinians are pushing for this through the separate bodies, then the General Assembly, then the Security Council where they want a majority even though the US will veto.
The US Congress has I believe passed a bill that will remove funding for all UN bodies who recognise Palestine as a state. They initially planned to cut all funding to the PA, but I think this was avoided after intense lobbying by the Israelis who pointed out that the PA's security forces are pretty important and helpful to Israel.
I thought the main tripwire for US/Israel supporting recognition was reciprocal recognition for Israel. Is that not right?
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:30:52 PMWell that was the exact view the Israelis were using for their own unilateral disengagement during the Sharon years was it not? That the Palestinians could not be trusted in negotiations?
To some extent. Part of it was motivated by the cost both economic and military of keeping settlements in Gaza. It makes me wish Sharon was still around to lead though :(
On this because of the UNESCO vote the Israeli government's apparently considering the expansion of settlements.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2011, 01:38:15 PMI thought the main tripwire for US/Israel supporting recognition was reciprocal recognition for Israel. Is that not right?
The PA's recognised Israel since the 90s. The issue is a bilateral, negotiated settlement leading to a two-state solution vs this unilateral declaration by the Palestinians.
Part of the issue is that a negotiated settlement will have different borders, while this declaration is based on 1967 borders. As I've said before I think if the Israelis had played this well they should have jumped on the resolution and challenged the Arab world to endorse Israel's right to exist in the UN - for this reason the Iranians also oppose the UN approach. As it is I think they have but the Israelis haven't made much of it and it's sort of being ignored.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
To some extent. Part of it was motivated by the cost both economic and military of keeping settlements in Gaza. It makes me wish Sharon was still around to lead though :(
You and me both. The Sharon years were the only time I had any sort of optimism about the Palestine-Israel question.
QuoteOn this because of the UNESCO vote the Israeli government's apparently considering the expansion of settlements.
Figures.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2011, 01:38:15 PMI thought the main tripwire for US/Israel supporting recognition was reciprocal recognition for Israel. Is that not right?
The PA's recognised Israel since the 90s. The issue is a bilateral, negotiated settlement leading to a two-state solution vs this unilateral declaration by the Palestinians.
Part of the issue is that a negotiated settlement will have different borders, while this declaration is based on 1967 borders. As I've said before I think if the Israelis had played this well they should have jumped on the resolution and challenged the Arab world to endorse Israel's right to exist in the UN - for this reason the Iranians also oppose the UN approach. As it is I think they have but the Israelis haven't made much of it and it's sort of being ignored.
The problem is that while the PA has recognized Israel, Hamas has not, and Hamas is either (a) the legitimately elected government of Palestine, or (b) part of the recent Hamas-PA accord government, take your pick.
In short, while it would be comforting to pretend as thge UN appears likely to do that the PA is the legitimate government for an entity identifiable as "Palestine", this is far from the truth: granting the PA recognized statehood will not simplify matters but complicate them, as who will this state consist of? The WB, or the WB and Gaza? How will that work, when Gaza is governed by an elected party (albeit of thugs) who do not want any part of "statehood", and will not recognize the right of their neigbour to exist? If it is only the WB, the problem is that now there are
three effective states, not two.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:44:56 PMYou and me both. The Sharon years were the only time I had any sort of optimism about the Palestine-Israel question.
Shame that most of his Premiership he was dealing with Arafat. I think Abbas, Sharon and Fayyed could have worked towards something better.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2011, 01:50:13 PMThe problem is that while the PA has recognized Israel, Hamas has not, and Hamas is either (a) the legitimately elected government of Palestine, or (b) part of the recent Hamas-PA accord government, take your pick.
In short, while it would be comforting to pretend as thge UN appears likely to do that the PA is the legitimate government for an entity identifiable as "Palestine", this is far from the truth: granting the PA recognized statehood will not simplify matters but complicate them, as who will this state consist of? The WB, or the WB and Gaza? How will that work, when Gaza is governed by an elected party (albeit of thugs) who do not want any part of "statehood", and will not recognize the right of their neigbour to exist? If it is only the WB, the problem is that now there are three effective states, not two.
The PA is the recognised government of Palestine - they're the ones recognised by everyone from Israel to the Quartet. Hamas have withdrawn from that though they were the elected government and have forced a semi-independence on Gaza. This is a huge issue. There need to be elections again and Abbas is making a mistake in delaying them - not least because I think if Hamas allowed them in Gaza they'd lose big.
But it's clear that this UN plan has been Fayyed and Abbas's idea, like Iran, I think Hamas would object to a Palestinian state being recognised and an Israeli state being recognised by the world. You're right that it doesn't actually practically do much but I don't think that was the intention. It's always been the PA's argument that they're delivering security to the Israelis and building a state so they can become a state. This is more symbolic than anything.
Personally, I don't think it it's helpful or necessarily the right thing to do. But I've always supported the idea that the PA should be supported as it builds a state, so as it develops the security apparatus, the infrastrucutre, the economy and the governing structures. I've supported that because I believe in a two state solution. I think the PA's closer to delivering than ever before, that should be encouraged and I can see how disheartening it must be for them to work on that but then face no steps forward in negotiations with Israel and an inability to reassert themselves in Gaza.
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2011, 01:28:43 PM
I find it rather disgusting that for the US, the "red line", beyond which they will not provide funding to an otherwise helpful and useful organization, is the implied recognition of the Palestinian state.
I have not realized the Jewish lobby in Washington DC is so powerful.
I don't. :cool:
Looks like this legislation could prevent the US from funding the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the Palestinians join. Oops.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/1101/After-UNESCO-Palestine-vote-could-US-defund-nuclear-watchdog-IAEA-too
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:44:56 PM
You and me both. The Sharon years were the only time I had any sort of optimism about the Palestine-Israel question.
I thought they had a real chance in the late 90's. When Arafat showed that he could not, or would not make a deal, I lost all faith that there will be a peace.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2011, 01:38:15 PMI thought the main tripwire for US/Israel supporting recognition was reciprocal recognition for Israel. Is that not right?
The PA's recognised Israel since the 90s.
Also in Arab? Or just in english for the non-arabs/muslims?
I don't understand. So, the US doesn't think Palestine is a state?
I mean, we recognize that Iran and Syria are states even though we don't like them...
I must say, kudos to the PA at the moment. They're playing a crafty game and using the weapons of their 'enemy' to their advantage. It defintely makes them more a nation in waiting that the usual circle of violence eminating from the Gaza area.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 01, 2011, 05:56:11 PM
I don't understand. So, the US doesn't think Palestine is a state?
I mean, we recognize that Iran and Syria are states even though we don't like them...
They really aren't. Not until they get the Israeli boot off their neck and start controlling some territory.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 01, 2011, 05:21:50 PMAlso in Arab? Or just in english for the non-arabs/muslims?
Yep. It was part of Oslo and one of the conditions of it. Then I think the PLO's charter was initially amended, but not necessarily to everyone's satisfaction. I think it's since been replaced and Netanyahu's government in the late 90s accepted that the PA position explicitly recognises Israel under 'international law'.
QuoteI don't understand. So, the US doesn't think Palestine is a state?
I mean, we recognize that Iran and Syria are states even though we don't like them...
The Palestinians have never officially declared independence. This is something they've been pushing the past year or so. They've got explicit recognition from most of Latin America and some European nations. The UN vote had all of the BRICS on their side.
QuoteI must say, kudos to the PA at the moment. They're playing a crafty game and using the weapons of their 'enemy' to their advantage. It defintely makes them more a nation in waiting that the usual circle of violence eminating from the Gaza area.
I think they're playing it well and the Israelis are just not playing at all.
Very classy America, very classy.
I thought the US didn't really pay their UN bills anyways...so is cutting UNESCO funding a huge deal?
Quote from: Josephus on November 01, 2011, 06:40:07 PM
I thought the US didn't really pay their UN bills anyways...so is cutting UNESCO funding a huge deal?
Wasn't that some time ago? The impression I got was that the US was going to cut them a cheque, but now is prevented by law.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 06:26:39 PM
I think they're playing it well and the Israelis are just not playing at all.
The Israelis usually look good when they let the Palestinians have the pitch to themselves.
But, seriously, I think the Oslo process is foundering on the inevitable problem of the final resolution of the conflict. The issues of Refugees does not seem resolvable. The basic fundamental positions of the two sides on the refugees is the true issue standing in the way of the solution.
The Israelis will not accept a solution which changes the demographics of Israel and the Palestinians will not accept a deal which does not accept the right of Palestinian refugees to just that.
Quote from: Neil on November 01, 2011, 06:57:10 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 01, 2011, 06:40:07 PM
I thought the US didn't really pay their UN bills anyways...so is cutting UNESCO funding a huge deal?
Wasn't that some time ago? The impression I got was that the US was going to cut them a cheque, but now is prevented by law.
Pretty sure the US came up to date on its UN debts some time ago.
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2011, 09:22:08 AM
Pretty sure the US came up to date on its UN debts some time ago.
Yeah GWB decided to play nice with the UN again. We have been members in good standing ever since. Well until now it seems.
The problem isn't right of return. That's like Jerusalem, it's one of the problems everyone know neither side will get entirely what they want but is very much a final status issue.
The problem is settlements right now. The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:26:35 AM
The problem is settlements right now. The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.
One of the reasons I feel like our last chance for a real solution was blown in the last decade. The Palestinians made it clear they did not want a deal when they elected Hamas and the death of Sharon made it clear Israel was unlikely to get on board any time soon as well. So now I am not sure what will happen. But I guess we might as well just move forward with a WB state. Why the hell not.
Quote from: Tyr on November 01, 2011, 06:35:12 PM
Very classy America, very classy.
Well you know the Israel-Palestinian crisis has always been all about class and good will. Truly a disagreement between gentlemen.
Overreaction by the US. 11/2012 is starting to drive policy.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 01, 2011, 06:35:12 PM
Very classy America, very classy.
Well you know the Israel-Palestinian crisis has always been all about class and good will. Truly a disagreement between gentlemen.
Well, I would not find it weird if Israel would boycott the UNESCO over this (it's like China boycotting some UN body if they suddenly admitted Taiwan). However, the US acting like this is an overreaction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 10:25:26 AM
Overreaction by the US. 11/2012 is starting to drive policy.
How is it an over-reaction? Aren't we required by law to cut off funding? And wasn't that law passed 20+ years ago?
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:26:35 AM
The problem is settlements right now. The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.
One of the reasons I feel like our last chance for a real solution was blown in the last decade. The Palestinians made it clear they did not want a deal when they elected Hamas and the death of Sharon made it clear Israel was unlikely to get on board any time soon as well. So now I am not sure what will happen. But I guess we might as well just move forward with a WB state. Why the hell not.
Yeah. Israel might as well settle the fuck out of the place, because there's no reason not to.
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
Aren't we required by law to cut off funding? And wasn't that law passed 20+ years ago?
That's what people keep saying but I haven't seen any citation to any actual law yet. And while there are references to a 1990 law, it seems odd to me that a law that predates the existence of the Palestinian National Authority would apply to this situation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:26:35 AM
The problem isn't right of return. That's like Jerusalem, it's one of the problems everyone know neither side will get entirely what they want but is very much a final status issue.
The problem is settlements right now. The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.
The problem is return. It's the ONLY issue where there has been NO movement from either side (apart from Ehud Barak's symbolic 100,000 which Olmert kept offering though vaguely).
The maps of jerusalem and the west bank have been discussed and gives and takes have been made and offered. Barak and Olmert have made concrete proposals. Abbas has seen Olmerts proposals and today declares that if the Israelis made the same land offer he'd accept it (this might be because he doesn't think the Israelis will not make the same offer again).
I don't really understand why settlements are an obstacle. I can see how they are problematic to Palestinian lives but they cease to be that as soon as a final status is reached. The way to get rid of settlements is to make a final status deal or at least define a border between Israel and Palestine in the West Bank so that there will be no more settlements. Settlements are ONLY a problem if the status quo persists in perpetuity (or at least for another generation). Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.
Walls, Fences, Checkpoints and Settlements can be bulldozed. The peace agreement is ultimately a situation where Israel gives tangible assets now (land, cities, water etc.) in exchange for intangibles in the future (peaceful and good behavior). The Palestinians don't need to trust the Israelis. If the Israelis renig on any commitment the Palestinians are perfectly capable of returning to the status quo anti-final status talks unilaterally.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 12:56:13 PM
Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.
That's where we are. And I think the Palestinians are right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 12:56:13 PM
Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.
That's where we are. And I think the Palestinians are right.
The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.
This has left the well of trust on the Israeli side rather dry. They are being asked to take all the risks, to benefit their opponents, in exchange for a goal they with some reason think is not obtainable.
I can understand the Israeli position. The Palestinians are attempting to obtain through the UN what should be negotiated with Israel. The horrible hypothetical is that whatever entity is recognized by the UN will become dominated by Hamas.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 01:31:26 PMThe problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.
But I think this is putting the horse before the cart. All that the US has tried to get the Israelis to do is to meet their past promises and stop building new settlements or expanding existing ones. The Israeli government's not willing to do that and has in fact expanded settlement building over the past few years.
This is a confidence building measure that leads to negotiations that leads to an exchange of property for peace. This is the Israeli equivalent to the Palestinians reforming the PA or building up their security capability. It's the bare minimum indication that they want peace - or in the case of Israel that they're really willing to exchange land for peace.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 01:31:26 PM
The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace
Not really; most of the property is already gone. The Palestinians have their proto-state and it is inconceivable at this point that Israel would seek to reverse that. The present argument is about sematics and symbolism; whether to confer the de jure recognition of the emerging de facto reality. My 2c is that Israel would be better off ripping off that bandaid faster rather than slower; at a certain point if the Palestinians don't have their separate state, troublemakers start to wonder whether a one-state solution is preferable after all. Better having to deal with heated rhetoric from a shiny new UN General Assembly seat than the heated exhaust from rocket fire.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 12:56:13 PM
Naturally if the Palestinians think the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and the settlements are being built on the assumption that there will be no peace for a generation and facts on the ground are needed then the peace process is in serious trouble.
That's where we are. And I think the Palestinians are right.
I'm actually gonna go and agree with you there. Netanyahu is not making serious offers because (like in 48, 67 and 73), to paraphrase Abbe Eban, he is relying on the Palestinians not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I think Netanyahu is perfectly ready for a Camp David or Taba style negotiation where Obama witnesses as Bibi offers reasonable final status proposals that Abbas cannot accept or make counter offers to. Reasonable people know that "returning" millions of ex-patriot palestinians to Israel proper will result in nothing less than civil war in Israel as the well armed and well organized jews will expel the badly led, armed and organized palestinians with a massive loss of life on both sides (one more than the other obviously).
The fundamental problem is not that Israel wants land, builds on it and then offers to exchange it for land near gaza or in the judean desert. The fundamental problem is in the Palestinian body politic. Legitimacy in Palestinian society does not stem from popular support but rather from honour or glory (i.e. the ability to resist). Only by showing strength vis a vis the Israelis is any palestinian leader going to gain legitimacy. Arafat and the FATAH gained leadership in the PLO buy leading the fight against Israel after the 6 day war in the Jordan Valley. This is why Arafat funded and supported the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade after HAMAS challenged him for the leadership of the cause by blowing up Israeli civilians. This is why Hizbullah runs Lebanon today and why they keep making bombastic statements about starting the war in Tel Aviv, this is also why Ahmedinejad acts like he does.
Netanyahu has legitimacy, he won the election. He could make a bad peace agreement if he wanted which future Israeli leaders, even if they vehemently opposed it, would be bound by. Abbas is not in the same situation. When Ben Gurion was faced with the same problem Abbas faces today (lets use Irgun as an analog for HAMAS for the purposes of this comparison) he simple recognized that he was the legitimate head of the government and Irgun was an illegal armed body sabotaging the monopoly of violence by the state and obstructing it's ability to do diplomacy. Abbas cannot do the same to HAMAS (not only because it is so heavily armed and motivated) because doing so would be treason to the Palestinian cause.
To put it bluntly a Palestinian leader gains legitimacy when he attacks Israel. To gain the political capital to make a lasting peace between the two sides (i.e. one where the Refugees are not settled in Israel) he would have to make such violence on Israel that Israel would never agree to make peace. HAMAS' primary activity is earning legitimacy (through violence against Israelis and charitable work), Abbas' primary activity is spending legitimacy trying to run a nascent state.
It makes sense for both Netanyahu and Abbas to hold their present respective positions. I don't think there will be a resolution this generation. I think the Israelis know this. I think Abbas knows this as well. Palestinian society is incapable of making peace on any terms but victory. I think that is the true obstacle to peace.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 01:46:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 01:31:26 PM
The problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace
Not really; most of the property is already gone. The Palestinians have their proto-state and it is inconceivable at this point that Israel would seek to reverse that. The present argument is about sematics and symbolism; whether to confer the de jure recognition of the emerging de facto reality. My 2c is that Israel would be better off ripping off that bandaid faster rather than slower; at a certain point if the Palestinians don't have their separate state, troublemakers start to wonder whether a one-state solution is preferable after all. Better having to deal with heated rhetoric from a shiny new UN General Assembly seat than the heated exhaust from rocket fire.
Not really, the Israelis are being asked - and rightly - to exchange the property that currently lies under various settlements established by them. That land is not "gone" as it is still in play.
The issue is not whether to re-occupy the WB, it is whether the WB and Israel are going to have an agreed on, conflict-free border or not. Everyone is aware that the PA will not accept status quo, for a "real" peace Israel will have to remove some, if not all, settlements. To do so would have political costs in Israel that can only be borne if the Israelis are getting something from it, like a meaningful peace deal. To remove the settlements and still be faced with a list of new demands and continued conflict is what the Israelis fear, with some justification.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 01:57:21 PM
Not really, the Israelis are being asked - and rightly - to exchange the property that currently lies under various settlements established by them.
They have been asked that but final resolution of that issue is not a necessarily pre-requisite for Palestinian statehood.
Previously, the PA withheld from seeking recognition in part precisely b/c it might be deemed an implicit endorsement of the territorial status quo. Query whether from the Israeli perspective the PA willingness to go ahead and push this in any event is actually a positive development.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 01:31:26 PMThe problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.
But I think this is putting the horse before the cart. All that the US has tried to get the Israelis to do is to meet their past promises and stop building new settlements or expanding existing ones. The Israeli government's not willing to do that and has in fact expanded settlement building over the past few years.
This is a confidence building measure that leads to negotiations that leads to an exchange of property for peace. This is the Israeli equivalent to the Palestinians reforming the PA or building up their security capability. It's the bare minimum indication that they want peace - or in the case of Israel that they're really willing to exchange land for peace.
The problem is, why should they bother if they have lost any confidence that any "process" will create an actual peace? Current Israeli thinking, seems to me, is pure unilateralism - just take what they want, build a wall around it, and let the Palestinians stew - striking back if they lob rockets over the border. The reason: the public has lost any confidence that any agreement will bring about a cessation of hostilities, or that Palestinian demands can ever be met.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 01:57:21 PMNot really, the Israelis are being asked - and rightly - to exchange the property that currently lies under various settlements established by them. That land is not "gone" as it is still in play.
But as the Israelis would have to remove some settlements so will the Palestinians have to accept a new border that makes some of the larger settlement blocks Israeli territory.
QuoteTo remove the settlements and still be faced with a list of new demands and continued conflict is what the Israelis fear, with some justification.
Which is why it should be part of a final peace deal. Not least because, as I say, some settlements will stay. All that's being asked of the Israelis is stop expanding them.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 01:31:26 PMThe problem is that the Israelis are being asked to exchange property for peace, where a past unilateral exchange of property with Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza) has not, in fact, resulted in any increase in peace - but rather the opposite.
But I think this is putting the horse before the cart. All that the US has tried to get the Israelis to do is to meet their past promises and stop building new settlements or expanding existing ones. The Israeli government's not willing to do that and has in fact expanded settlement building over the past few years.
This is a confidence building measure that leads to negotiations that leads to an exchange of property for peace. This is the Israeli equivalent to the Palestinians reforming the PA or building up their security capability. It's the bare minimum indication that they want peace - or in the case of Israel that they're really willing to exchange land for peace.
The problem is, why should they bother if they have lost any confidence that any "process" will create an actual peace? Current Israeli thinking, seems to me, is pure unilateralism - just take what they want, build a wall around it, and let the Palestinians stew - striking back if they lob rockets over the border. The reason: the public has lost any confidence that any agreement will bring about a cessation of hostilities, or that Palestinian demands can ever be met.
Indeed, that is my take on the situation.
Shelf looks at it and says "Hey, the Israelis don't want to deal". I look at it and say "Hey, the Israelis have given up on dealing."
It isn't, IMO, a matter of Israel not being willing to come to the table, it is that they've gone to the table over and over and it never goes anywhere. It is easy to say NOW that Israel is the problem, but that kind of ignores how they got to the point where they've given up on ever resolving this at the table.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
Aren't we required by law to cut off funding? And wasn't that law passed 20+ years ago?
That's what people keep saying but I haven't seen any citation to any actual law yet. And while there are references to a 1990 law, it seems odd to me that a law that predates the existence of the Palestinian National Authority would apply to this situation.
Yea ok. I was hoping you'd know what law it was, because I couldn't find any specifics either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 02:04:54 PM
QuoteTo remove the settlements and still be faced with a list of new demands and continued conflict is what the Israelis fear, with some justification.
Which is why it should be part of a final peace deal. Not least because, as I say, some settlements will stay. All that's being asked of the Israelis is stop expanding them.
THe only sane reason for them to stop expanding them would be because they think doing so could result in a peace deal though.
If they don't think that is possible, why should they bother?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 02:00:56 PM
They have been asked that but final resolution of that issue is not a necessarily pre-requisite for Palestinian statehood.
Previously, the PA withheld from seeking recognition in part precisely b/c it might be deemed an implicit endorsement of the territorial status quo. Query whether from the Israeli perspective the PA willingness to go ahead and push this in any event is actually a positive development.
I interpret it as PA desperation to stay relevant in the face of unrelenting Israeli hostile unilateralism - which in turn was stirred up by previous unrelenting PA rejection of Israeli peace ovetures.
Think of it in games theory terms. In this game, from the Israeli perspective, being reasonable (Oslo Accords) has failed, and tit-for-tat (Israelis handing over Gaza) has also failed. What seems to "work" best is pure unilateralism - to the extent that the current development is "positive", it was caused by that.
It's like two people fighting, or a married couple where one is abusive.
At some point, the wife says "If you hit me again, we are done forever. No more". Hubby wacks her, then bitches that she is being unreasonable because she won't go see a therapist.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 02:03:06 PMThe problem is, why should they bother if they have lost any confidence that any "process" will create an actual peace? Current Israeli thinking, seems to me, is pure unilateralism - just take what they want, build a wall around it, and let the Palestinians stew - striking back if they lob rockets over the border. The reason: the public has lost any confidence that any agreement will bring about a cessation of hostilities, or that Palestinian demands can ever be met.
Because their negotiating partner has been delivering on building up the Palestinian state and delivering security. As I say the Israelis have gone into overdrive lobbying Congress not to cut off funding for the PA's security forces over this precisely because they are providing a benefit to Israel, not least it mitigates the cost of policing the West Bank for the Israelis.
But the problem is that the Israelis aren't even just building a wall and unilaterally letting the West Bank be, the settlers movement - with backing from some within this government are expanding and then demanding that the Israeli state follow them and provide security.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:09:16 PMShelf looks at it and says "Hey, the Israelis don't want to deal". I look at it and say "Hey, the Israelis have given up on dealing."
It isn't, IMO, a matter of Israel not being willing to come to the table, it is that they've gone to the table over and over and it never goes anywhere. It is easy to say NOW that Israel is the problem, but that kind of ignores how they got to the point where they've given up on ever resolving this at the table.
I think looking for historical blame hasn't helped anyone in the Middle East before and it's better to look at the present. Right now I think the Israel's are the ones not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
But my other point is that I think a two-state solution is essential for Israel to survive as a Jewish state and as a democracy. As I've said before I think if she continues to expand settlements in the West Bank and increase their area of de facto governance then they'll either have to choose to be an apartheid state with a Palestinian bantustan, or they'll end up as one state with a Muslim majority. This is in Israel's interests.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 02:13:11 PM
But the problem is that the Israelis aren't even just building a wall and unilaterally letting the West Bank be, the settlers movement - with backing from some within this government are expanding and then demanding that the Israeli state follow them and provide security.
Huh when you put it that way it almost sounds like the Israelis are forcing the issue this way. A method to the madness perhaps?
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:10:13 PMTHe only sane reason for them to stop expanding them would be because they think doing so could result in a peace deal though.
If they don't think that is possible, why should they bother?
Well as I say I think continual expansion into the West Bank will make Israel into a state that is either not democratic or not Jewish. I think it's a genuine threat to Israel.
My view's roughly the same as Jeffrey Goldberg here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/why-palestinians-have-time-on-their-side.html#0_undefined,0_
As an aside the Atlantic's 'Is Peace Possible?' series is, I think, quite interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/introducing-a-4-part-special-report-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/247263/
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 02:23:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:09:16 PMShelf looks at it and says "Hey, the Israelis don't want to deal". I look at it and say "Hey, the Israelis have given up on dealing."
It isn't, IMO, a matter of Israel not being willing to come to the table, it is that they've gone to the table over and over and it never goes anywhere. It is easy to say NOW that Israel is the problem, but that kind of ignores how they got to the point where they've given up on ever resolving this at the table.
I think looking for historical blame hasn't helped anyone in the Middle East before and it's better to look at the present.
I think that is missing the point.
It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:50:09 PM
I think that is missing the point.
It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".
Yes - one might certainly want to forgive, but one probably oughtn't forget.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:50:09 PM
I think that is missing the point.
It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".
But I think this is just another way of justifying inaction on the basis of history. How long is it okay for the PA to build their state infrastructure, deliver on security as agreed with the Israelis and for the Israelis to continue to expand settlements? How long can the failure of previous Palestinian governments to act in good faith justify the current Israeli government's unwillingness to do so?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 02:29:32 PM
My view's roughly the same as Jeffrey Goldberg here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/why-palestinians-have-time-on-their-side.html#0_undefined,0_
A one state solution is akin to suicide for Israel. The Israelis realize this. I don't think any amount of moral, international, trade or economic pressure can force them to accept the One State Solution. The only people I see discussing the 1SS are people urging Israel to submit or Palestinians to reject any offer. I think if Israel is forced into a situation where it has to choose between the 1SS or monstrous criminality on a large scale they will choose the monstrous criminality.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 03:00:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:50:09 PM
I think that is missing the point.
It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".
But I think this is just another way of justifying inaction on the basis of history. How long is it okay for the PA to build their state infrastructure, deliver on security as agreed with the Israelis and for the Israelis to continue to expand settlements? How long can the failure of previous Palestinian governments to act in good faith justify the current Israeli government's unwillingness to do so?
To be blunt. They can do that as long as the PA doesn't speak for men of violence in Gaza.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 03:00:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:50:09 PM
I think that is missing the point.
It isn't about blame, it is about whether one party believes the other party will over actually deal in good faith. I don't think Israel has any such belief. This has nothing to do with "blame".
But I think this is just another way of justifying inaction on the basis of history. How long is it okay for the PA to build their state infrastructure, deliver on security as agreed with the Israelis and for the Israelis to continue to expand settlements? How long can the failure of previous Palestinian governments to act in good faith justify the current Israeli government's unwillingness to do so?
What is the difference between justification and explanation?
What if Israel doesn't give a shit about justifying anything anymore?
There are consequences to action. You can only kick a dog so many times before it is not going to stick around to be kicked anymore. It doesn't matter what is "ok", it only matters what Israel feels they need to do in order to make themselves secure. What is "ok" was relevant back when there was some reason to believe a deal could possibly be made.
You are playing the mariage counselor who is trying to convince the wife that she really should trust hubby this time when he promises not to beat her...much (after all, the Palestinians as a people have hardly agreed that Israel should exist).
Or worse, you are guy actually blaming the wife for not being willing to deal, when the only reason the hubby is even at the table is because he knows the wife won't actually discuss it anymore, because he wants to look like the good guy to the judge.
The Arabs decided that violence was their only means of interaction with Israel for decades. Now that Israel has finally decided to believe them, you are saying they should ignore all that history and buy into a negotiated settlement after they spent 50 years trying just that very thing without any success at all. In fact, one can make a very convincing argument that engaging in negotiation with their neighbors while their neighbors worked very hard to murder them has made the situation overall much worse.
I am not saying I agree with their position, but I most certainly understand it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:12:57 PM
It's like two people fighting, or a married couple where one is abusive.
At some point, the wife says "If you hit me again, we are done forever. No more". Hubby wacks her, then bitches that she is being unreasonable because she won't go see a therapist.
Except the couple is shackled into the same 100 square foot area, so there's no practical way in which they'll ever be "done" without the death of one or the other.
Quote from: frunk on November 02, 2011, 03:14:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 02:12:57 PM
It's like two people fighting, or a married couple where one is abusive.
At some point, the wife says "If you hit me again, we are done forever. No more". Hubby wacks her, then bitches that she is being unreasonable because she won't go see a therapist.
Except the couple is shackled into the same 100 square foot area, so there's no practical way in which they'll ever be "done" without the death of one or the other.
Yes, it certainly is a problem, isn't it?
It is too bad the Palestinians insisted on the "Exterminate the jews" options for so long.
I agree, but I'm not sure that Israel really wants to go down the road of the only choice being kill or be killed.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 03:06:49 PMTo be blunt. They can do that as long as the PA doesn't speak for men of violence in Gaza.
Okay. My view is that the Israelis should be bolstering the moderates in this. But even then I don't get the link. Hamaz in Gaza are a huge problem, so the Israelis expand settlements in the West Bank and undermine the PA that's helping provide them with security? That doesn't make sense to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 03:06:49 PMTo be blunt. They can do that as long as the PA doesn't speak for men of violence in Gaza.
Okay. My view is that the Israelis should be bolstering the moderates in this. But even then I don't get the link. Hamaz in Gaza are a huge problem, so the Israelis expand settlements in the West Bank and undermine the PA that's helping provide them with security? That doesn't make sense to me.
I agree that it doesn't make sense as long as Israel still thinks that there can possibly be a Palestinian state authority that is worth dealing with in anything more that a superficial and temporary fashion.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 03:03:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 02:29:32 PM
My view's roughly the same as Jeffrey Goldberg here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/why-palestinians-have-time-on-their-side.html#0_undefined,0_
I think if Israel is forced into a situation where it has to choose between the 1SS or monstrous criminality on a large scale they will choose the monstrous criminality.
Me too. I fear more than ever that the final outcome of this situation will be the genocide of one side or the other, perhaps both if nuclear weapons are used. :(
Where's Solomon when you need him? Somebody needs to cut the baby in half.
Quote from: frunk on November 02, 2011, 03:14:26 PMExcept the couple is shackled into the same 100 square foot area, so there's no practical way in which they'll ever be "done" without the death of one or the other.
I don't think the beaten wife analogy is that helpful or accurate.
My view is led by two thoughts. Peace is always in Israel's interests. Governments change and have different priorities at different points. The combination of those points, in my view, made it entirely right to recognise that Sadat was a very different creature than Nasser and that peace could be made. Similarly it's what allowed Rabin to make peace with King Hussein. Securing those borders with long-term peace deals is better than having one very friendly superpower but little else.
I think almost all previous Israeli PMs would recognise that it's in their interests to work towards peace with the PA and that Abbas and Fayyad are different from Arafat.
QuoteA one state solution is akin to suicide for Israel. The Israelis realize this. I don't think any amount of moral, international, trade or economic pressure can force them to accept the One State Solution. The only people I see discussing the 1SS are people urging Israel to submit or Palestinians to reject any offer. I think if Israel is forced into a situation where it has to choose between the 1SS or monstrous criminality on a large scale they will choose the monstrous criminality.
I think Lieberman and the settlers movement could support annexing the West Bank.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 03:06:49 PMTo be blunt. They can do that as long as the PA doesn't speak for men of violence in Gaza.
Okay. My view is that the Israelis should be bolstering the moderates in this. But even then I don't get the link. Hamaz in Gaza are a huge problem, so the Israelis expand settlements in the West Bank and undermine the PA that's helping provide them with security? That doesn't make sense to me.
The PA can't deliver peace, that is the problem. I think you referred to Israeli lobbying to get US funding to PA security forces renewed, that looks like bolstering the moderates. What Israel is doing is sticking to the Oslo agreements slavishly and insisting on all it's rights under it.
Abbas's demand is for Israel to make a further concession over the Oslo agreements for him to do what the PLO agreed to do under the Oslo agreement. I don't see how Israel agreeing to this will do anything for peace?
Abbas can leapfrog the entire settlement issue by declaring that he will simply bulldoze them when he takes over them in the final status agreement. Abbas' behavior only makes sense to me if he is seeking to fix the situation rather than reach a final status agreement.
I don't see what a married couple analogy has to do with a bunch of hard right wing messianic nutjobs actively annexing territory.
Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.
Quote from: Warspite on November 02, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
I don't see what a married couple analogy has to do with a bunch of hard right wing messianic nutjobs actively annexing territory.
Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.
Given that the vast majority of the settlers are in the foothills above Tel Aviv and Haifa and in the hills surrounding Jerusalem I have to disagree with your oversimplification of the nature of the different kinds of settlers.
Quote from: Warspite on November 02, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.
Yeah, that is a good point, because certainly historically them holding the Golan Heights was seen in that manner, and nobody bitched about that, amirite?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 03:06:49 PMTo be blunt. They can do that as long as the PA doesn't speak for men of violence in Gaza.
Okay. My view is that the Israelis should be bolstering the moderates in this. But even then I don't get the link. Hamaz in Gaza are a huge problem, so the Israelis expand settlements in the West Bank and undermine the PA that's helping provide them with security? That doesn't make sense to me.
Why can't the Palestinians bolster the moderates themselves? Why is it on the onus for Israel to always be the adult in the room? What you say is history I see as simple pattern recognition. It's not like the Palestinians failing to hold up their sides of the bargain is some ancient offense. This has repeatedly happened for two decades now. You say they have done some of the things in their agreements, but not the one that is most important to the Israelis, which is to stop attacking Israel. From the Israeli perspective, they've gotten more peace and security from the damned wall they built then from agreements with the Palestinians. The Palestinians still attack, but the rocket attacks cause less death and destruction then the suicide bombings.
From my view point the Israelis have been very gentle with the Palestinians. The US has kicked the shit out of groups of people for far less then this.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 04:08:56 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 02, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.
Yeah, that is a good point, because certainly historically them holding the Golan Heights was seen in that manner, and nobody bitched about that, amirite?
The Golan Heights has few Palestinians living on them; it is mostly inhabited by Druze and Alawites.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 04:08:56 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 02, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.
Yeah, that is a good point, because certainly historically them holding the Golan Heights was seen in that manner, and nobody bitched about that, amirite?
The Golan Heights has few Palestinians living on them; it is mostly inhabited by Druze and Alawites.
Most of them are now refugees in Syria. But, since they are not Palestinians, their Refugee status is not inherited.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 03:33:00 PM
I don't think the beaten wife analogy is that helpful or accurate.
My view is led by two thoughts. Peace is always in Israel's interests. Governments change and have different priorities at different points. The combination of those points, in my view, made it entirely right to recognise that Sadat was a very different creature than Nasser and that peace could be made. Similarly it's what allowed Rabin to make peace with King Hussein. Securing those borders with long-term peace deals is better than having one very friendly superpower but little else.
I think almost all previous Israeli PMs would recognise that it's in their interests to work towards peace with the PA and that Abbas and Fayyad are different from Arafat.
The difference is that Sadat and Hussein could actually deliver the goods (Sadat at the cost of his life). There is no evidence that the PA can, and plenty that it can't.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 04:32:44 PMThe difference is that Sadat and Hussein could actually deliver the goods (Sadat at the cost of his life). There is no evidence that the PA can, and plenty that it can't.
The PA has in the West Bank. We need new elections and for the PA to be strengthened for them to try and do that in Gaza.
QuoteYou say they have done some of the things in their agreements, but not the one that is most important to the Israelis, which is to stop attacking Israel. From the Israeli perspective, they've gotten more peace and security from the damned wall they built then from agreements with the Palestinians. The Palestinians still attack, but the rocket attacks cause less death and destruction then the suicide bombings.
The PA were kicked out of Gaza. They have stopped attacks from the West Bank and increasingly take the lead on security there. The Israeli security forces trust them. This is all new. None of this was really the case before Arafat died.
Gaza's a problem that is really difficult to resolve. But it's separate from the PA and is Abbas's problem. Without Hamas he can't have a comprehensive security agreement, with them the Israelis won't talk.
Apparently if the UN bid fails and there's no negotiations Abbas has said he'll resign an asked Fatah to vote to dissolve the PA. From what I understand his argument was basically 'what's the point?'
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 02, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
I don't see what a married couple analogy has to do with a bunch of hard right wing messianic nutjobs actively annexing territory.
Were Israel carefully seizing strategically vital land for specific territorial defence objectives, that would be one thing. But settlements are not really about this.
Given that the vast majority of the settlers are in the foothills above Tel Aviv and Haifa and in the hills surrounding Jerusalem I have to disagree with your oversimplification of the nature of the different kinds of settlers.
You are suggesting the settler movement is about defending Tel Aviv and Haifa?
Sheilbh, do you think the Israelis are purposefully avoiding peace for the sake of a few hilltop settlements?
I'lll agree that Gaza is the problem. But, unless you are suggesting Daniel Pipes' Three State Solution, shouldn't you be advocating the removal of HAMAS from Gaza in some way?
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 06:01:31 PM
Sheilbh, do you think the Israelis are purposefully avoiding peace for the sake of a few hilltop settlements?
Yes, but not just that. I think the Israeli government (or enough groups within it) doesn't want to deal with Abbas if it means giving up settlements in any way. I mean look at the conflict this government was willing to get into with the US administration over settlements.
The populations blocks we're talking about in the West Bank aren't a 'few hilltop settlements'. There are over 200 and they contain around 300 000 people, including the Foreign Minister (as Moshe Dayan's widow put it, a 'mad doberman'). I think a number of them have been used to change the ultimate, negotiated border.
QuoteI'lll agree that Gaza is the problem. But, unless you are suggesting Daniel Pipes' Three State Solution, shouldn't you be advocating the removal of HAMAS from Gaza in some way?
Gaza's like Pakistan. I think it's a problem and that's about as far as I can get.
Quote from: Warspite on November 02, 2011, 05:58:57 PM
You are suggesting the settler movement is about defending Tel Aviv and Haifa?
No, I'm suggesting that settler /= settler movement. The vast majority are living on the official settlements, the ones Netanyahu call suburbs of Jerusalem. The legal, authorized, planned and supported (with state subsidies) are the ones in the west bank where Israel is most narrow and around Jerusalem and the corridor to Jerusalem.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 05:48:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 04:32:44 PMThe difference is that Sadat and Hussein could actually deliver the goods (Sadat at the cost of his life). There is no evidence that the PA can, and plenty that it can't.
The PA has in the West Bank. We need new elections and for the PA to be strengthened for them to try and do that in Gaza.
QuoteYou say they have done some of the things in their agreements, but not the one that is most important to the Israelis, which is to stop attacking Israel. From the Israeli perspective, they've gotten more peace and security from the damned wall they built then from agreements with the Palestinians. The Palestinians still attack, but the rocket attacks cause less death and destruction then the suicide bombings.
The PA were kicked out of Gaza. They have stopped attacks from the West Bank and increasingly take the lead on security there. The Israeli security forces trust them. This is all new. None of this was really the case before Arafat died.
Gaza's a problem that is really difficult to resolve. But it's separate from the PA and is Abbas's problem. Without Hamas he can't have a comprehensive security agreement, with them the Israelis won't talk.
Apparently if the UN bid fails and there's no negotiations Abbas has said he'll resign an asked Fatah to vote to dissolve the PA. From what I understand his argument was basically 'what's the point?'
The PA claims to speak for all of Palestine, so it's not a separate issue. If they can't control half their claimed territory, really what is the point in negotiating with them?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 06:01:31 PM
Sheilbh, do you think the Israelis are purposefully avoiding peace for the sake of a few hilltop settlements?
Yes, but not just that. I think the Israeli government (or enough groups within it) doesn't want to deal with Abbas if it means giving up settlements in any way. I mean look at the conflict this government was willing to get into with the US administration over settlements.
I'm concerned that you don't differentiate in any way between hilltop settlements not approved by the Israeli government and the large cities which have been established in the corridor to jerusalem and in the hills above the israeli coastal plain as well as the settlements within municipal jerusalem.
You are in danger of becoming more catholic than the pope, since Olmert's plan kept almost all of the border blocs as well as the jerusalem neighborhoods in his proposal, which Abbas later said was satisfactory (after Netanyahu came to power mind you). The parties agree on lines drawn on maps and in the dirt, in the west bank and in jerusalem. The sticking point is still the refugees.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
The populations blocks we're talking about in the West Bank aren't a 'few hilltop settlements'. There are over 200 and they contain around 300 000 people, including the Foreign Minister (as Moshe Dayan's widow put it, a 'mad doberman'). I think a number of them have been used to change the ultimate, negotiated border.
500,000 to the best of my knowledge. Of which 200k are in Jerusalem, 300k are in the border blocs and a few thousand are in the frontier and hilltop settlements. I agree that settlement building is the Israelis primary method of redrawing the border, in effect marking the territories doggy style.
I don't think the Green line is a plausible secure border for Israel and Palestine.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
QuoteI'lll agree that Gaza is the problem. But, unless you are suggesting Daniel Pipes' Three State Solution, shouldn't you be advocating the removal of HAMAS from Gaza in some way?
Gaza's like Pakistan. I think it's a problem and that's about as far as I can get.
It's the fly in the ointment. It seems that nobody has replied or responded to my post on how the mere existence of HAMAS in Gaza affects the ability of the PA or PLO or anybody else to negotiate. It's a demonstration that Abbas cannot deliver anything. Even if there is a three state solution which includes peace with the west bank all that is needed is a HAMAS coup or election victory against FATAH to end it all, starting a new war.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:23:53 PM
Why can't the Palestinians bolster the moderates themselves? Why is it on the onus for Israel to always be the adult in the room?
Israel has a state, the Palestinians don't.
I really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood. Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 08:08:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:23:53 PM
Why can't the Palestinians bolster the moderates themselves? Why is it on the onus for Israel to always be the adult in the room?
Israel has a state, the Palestinians don't.
I really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood. Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.
The problem is then you have to set borders with them, which the settler movement can never accept, and the settlers wield disproportionate political power in Israel.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 08:08:09 PMI really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood. Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.
I agree. The Israeli FM should sit in the General Assembly inviting the Arab League to endorse a Palestinian state on the borders according to the UN, which will mean acknowledging Israel.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 08:08:09 PMI really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood. Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.
I agree. The Israeli FM should sit in the General Assembly inviting the Arab League to endorse a Palestinian state on the borders according to the UN, which will mean acknowledging Israel.
That's not going to happen, because Israel can't accept the borders the UN would want to impose.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2011, 06:29:08 PMI'm concerned that you don't differentiate in any way between hilltop settlements not approved by the Israeli government and the large cities which have been established in the corridor to jerusalem and in the hills above the israeli coastal plain as well as the settlements within municipal jerusalem.
Some settlement's will stay, they have to. Some will have to be dismantled. I don't distinguish because that's something that'll get settled in negotiations. All I'm saying should happen is that Israel should freeze their expansion as agreed to under the road map and as requested by the US and the rest of the international community.
QuoteYou are in danger of becoming more catholic than the pope, since Olmert's plan kept almost all of the border blocs as well as the jerusalem neighborhoods in his proposal, which Abbas later said was satisfactory (after Netanyahu came to power mind you). The parties agree on lines drawn on maps and in the dirt, in the west bank and in jerusalem. The sticking point is still the refugees.
Abbas asked for a few days to study the proposal Olmert presented and was told to go ahead - the issue was the land swap and aquifiers, the value of the land the PA would receive and that sort of thing. The next day Olmert resigned as PM. I thought Abbas wanted to begin negotiations again based on Olmert's proposal with Livni, but she couldn't get a coalition, then there was an election. Bibi won.
Secondly as I say I think right of return is really overstated. Olmert and Abbas had agreed to a return of 10 000 - symbolic more than anything - and certain humanitarian exceptions over 10 years. I think the Bush Administration suggested, with support from those countries, that they'd help resettle refugees who didn't get to go to Israel and didn't want to go to Palestine. I think Argentina was an option of where they'd go.
QuoteI agree that settlement building is the Israelis primary method of redrawing the border, in effect marking the territories doggy style.
I don't think the Green line is a plausible secure border for Israel and Palestine.
No argument at all.
QuoteIt's the fly in the ointment. It seems that nobody has replied or responded to my post on how the mere existence of HAMAS in Gaza affects the ability of the PA or PLO or anybody else to negotiate. It's a demonstration that Abbas cannot deliver anything. Even if there is a three state solution which includes peace with the west bank all that is needed is a HAMAS coup or election victory against FATAH to end it all, starting a new war.
Abbas can deliver most things. The outstanding issues don't involve Gaza.
I think this is largely more of what I said though: Gaza's a problem. It adds more detail to why Gaza's a problem. I've no idea what sort of solution is possible.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 09:18:48 PMThat's not going to happen, because Israel can't accept the borders the UN would want to impose.
The Israelis wouldn't be, they'd be continuing the bilateral negotiation process to reach final status talks. The Arab votes acknowledging that Israel exists would be rather more permanent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:04:59 PM
I agree. The Israeli FM should sit in the General Assembly inviting the Arab League to endorse a Palestinian state on the borders according to the UN, which will mean acknowledging Israel.
Absolutely agree, and would note that it is just as important that the PA would also, if it gets designated a state government, lose its status as "the government of Palestinians wherever they are." Palestinians who accept that their nationality is Palestinian rather than Israeli would have to rights to return to country even they admit isn't their own (though they would be entitled to restitution for land lost). Palestinians who insist they are Israelis and not Palestinians wouldn't be entitled to representation by the PA.
That would be worth more to Israel than anything they would lose to Palestinian state, I would think. Palestinian statehood would be a boon for Israel. If the Israeli government refuses to see that, then I don't see any reason why the US government should back the Israeli government in their mistake.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 08:32:36 AM
That would be worth more to Israel than anything they would lose to Palestinian state, I would think. Palestinian statehood would be a boon for Israel. If the Israeli government refuses to see that, then I don't see any reason why the US government should back the Israeli government in their mistake.
Because Jews vote and donate to political campaigns?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 08:08:09 PM
I really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood. Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.
And when they don't, what then?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 08:08:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:23:53 PM
Why can't the Palestinians bolster the moderates themselves? Why is it on the onus for Israel to always be the adult in the room?
Israel has a state, the Palestinians don't.
I really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood. Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.
Okay, I'll bite. Let them be a de jure state. Then we'll see if they mend their ways. It's not like it will hurt anything. They already are a de facto state. I agree that the US move was unhelpful, and that Obama seems to be dancing to a tune set by the Republican primary. Being 100% behind Israel no matter what is counter productive for both us and them. Especially now when the Israeli government seems have contracted a severe case of the stupid.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 03, 2011, 09:05:54 AM
And when they don't, what then?
Same thing as happens when Israel forgets to behave responsibly under the rules of the state system.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 03, 2011, 09:05:54 AM
And when they don't, what then?
Same thing as happens when Israel forgets to behave responsibly under the rules of the state system.
The UN will pass a strongly worded resolution? Yeah, that'll show 'em.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:26:35 AM
The problem isn't right of return. That's like Jerusalem, it's one of the problems everyone know neither side will get entirely what they want but is very much a final status issue.
The problem is settlements right now. The Israelis aren't meeting even the basic obligations of the road map.
Fuck you, motherfucker.
Settlements are being build in ISRAELI land.
Nobody is building in Gaza or the West Bank.
Jerusalem is israeli territory, wheather you like it or not.
Quote from: Siege on November 03, 2011, 08:31:22 PM
Jerusalem is israeli territory, wheather you like it or not.
It's disputed territory, whether you like if or not.
It would have been better if we had put Israel someplace decent, like maybe in Europe. Maybe Poland could be Israel, and the Poles could go live with their Russian brothers.
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 11:07:14 PM
It would have been better if we had put Israel someplace decent, like maybe in Europe. Maybe Poland could be Israel, and the Poles could go live with their Russian brothers.
Sadly, Moses decided to go east instead of north.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 04, 2011, 07:37:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 11:07:14 PM
It would have been better if we had put Israel someplace decent, like maybe in Europe. Maybe Poland could be Israel, and the Poles could go live with their Russian brothers.
Sadly, Moses decided to go east instead of north.
No, I mean the modern Israel. There wasn't any obligation to put it in the Mideast on territory that was rightfully Arab.
Quote from: Siege on November 03, 2011, 08:31:22 PMSettlements are being build in ISRAELI land.
Nobody is building in Gaza or the West Bank.
People are building in the West Bank.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2011, 08:45:35 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 03, 2011, 08:31:22 PMSettlements are being build in ISRAELI land.
Nobody is building in Gaza or the West Bank.
People are building in the West Bank.
Siege is just pointing out that the land you call "the West bank" is part of Israel's
Lebensraum and thus part of Israel. Only what isn't part of the
Lebensraum can be called "the West Bank."
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 07:55:43 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 04, 2011, 07:37:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 11:07:14 PM
It would have been better if we had put Israel someplace decent, like maybe in Europe. Maybe Poland could be Israel, and the Poles could go live with their Russian brothers.
Sadly, Moses decided to go east instead of north.
No, I mean the modern Israel. There wasn't any obligation to put it in the Mideast on territory that was rightfully Arab.
To be fair, it was rightfully Arab by means of conquest, and is now Israeli by those same means.
We can't accept a small state in the ME founded on terrorism.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 04, 2011, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 07:55:43 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on November 04, 2011, 07:37:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 11:07:14 PM
It would have been better if we had put Israel someplace decent, like maybe in Europe. Maybe Poland could be Israel, and the Poles could go live with their Russian brothers.
Sadly, Moses decided to go east instead of north.
No, I mean the modern Israel. There wasn't any obligation to put it in the Mideast on territory that was rightfully Arab.
To be fair, it was rightfully Arab by means of conquest, and is now Israeli by those same means.
Yeah, but I don't think that the Classical Greeks are going to be coming back for Palestine.
Should bring back the Ottomans, clearly. Give them Greece too for good measure.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 04, 2011, 07:27:22 PM
Should bring back the Ottomans, clearly. Give them Greece too for good measure.
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 08:08:09 PMI really think the smart move is open the door wide open to the PA and welcome them to statehood. Then they finally will have to be responsible for themselves and abide by the rules of the state system.
I agree. The Israeli FM should sit in the General Assembly inviting the Arab League to endorse a Palestinian state on the borders according to the UN, which will mean acknowledging Israel.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi797.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy252%2Fdustinw_bucket%2Ftumblr_ltlneu5Eis1qdtfig.gif&hash=148083a9414c7a5adaf43d4a732e5bbee1322f1f)
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2011, 10:44:29 AM
Why would the US be opposed to that? It's not like it's the UN Security Council. Isn't it good that Palestine would cooperate on UNESCO goals, which are valid and worthy?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi797.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy252%2Fdustinw_bucket%2Ftumblr_ltlneu5Eis1qdtfig.gif&hash=148083a9414c7a5adaf43d4a732e5bbee1322f1f)
Quote from: Solmyr on November 04, 2011, 07:27:22 PM
Should bring back the Ottomans, clearly. Give them Greece too for good measure.
I think the Ottomans had let the Jews settle there. Hell, if the Ottomans had lasted longer and had sufficiently protected the Jews from the Arabs a Jewish nation inside the Ottoman empire may have worked out quite well.
It's a shame WWI came along and ruined everything.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 01:51:40 AMI think the Ottomans had let the Jews settle there. Hell, if the Ottomans had lasted longer and had sufficiently protected the Jews from the Arabs a Jewish nation inside the Ottoman empire may have worked out quite well.
It's a shame WWI came along and ruined everything.
Oddly enough King Abdullah offered the Jewish Agency an autonomous Jewish canton within Trans-Jordan roughly along partition lines.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2011, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 01:51:40 AMI think the Ottomans had let the Jews settle there. Hell, if the Ottomans had lasted longer and had sufficiently protected the Jews from the Arabs a Jewish nation inside the Ottoman empire may have worked out quite well.
It's a shame WWI came along and ruined everything.
Oddly enough King Abdullah offered the Jewish Agency an autonomous Jewish canton within Trans-Jordan roughly along partition lines.
I think the Holocaust sorta soured the idea of Jews living at the mercy of another autocrat.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 08:42:44 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2011, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2011, 01:51:40 AMI think the Ottomans had let the Jews settle there. Hell, if the Ottomans had lasted longer and had sufficiently protected the Jews from the Arabs a Jewish nation inside the Ottoman empire may have worked out quite well.
It's a shame WWI came along and ruined everything.
Oddly enough King Abdullah offered the Jewish Agency an autonomous Jewish canton within Trans-Jordan roughly along partition lines.
I think the Holocaust sorta soured the idea of Jews living at the mercy of another autocrat.
It might have been possible if the world had been more successful in reining in Jewish terrorism. That said, Israel reaps what it has sown, and every Israeli civilian who is killed by terrorism is just getting a taste of the King David Hotel.
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 11:10:12 AM
It might have been possible if the world had been more successful in reining in Jewish terrorism. That said, Israel reaps what it has sown, and every Israeli civilian who is killed by terrorism is just getting a taste of the King David Hotel.
[The Brain]Unless they are shot, in which case they are getting a taste of what Israeli terrorists handed out when they murdered Folke Bernadotte.[/The Brain]
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2011, 03:52:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 11:10:12 AM
It might have been possible if the world had been more successful in reining in Jewish terrorism. That said, Israel reaps what it has sown, and every Israeli civilian who is killed by terrorism is just getting a taste of the King David Hotel.
[The Brain]Unless they are shot, in which case they are getting a taste of what Israeli terrorists handed out when they murdered Folke Bernadotte.[/The Brain]
Perhaps they should have just beaned him to death with steel ball bearings.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2011, 03:52:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 11:10:12 AM
It might have been possible if the world had been more successful in reining in Jewish terrorism. That said, Israel reaps what it has sown, and every Israeli civilian who is killed by terrorism is just getting a taste of the King David Hotel.
[The Brain]Unless they are shot, in which case they are getting a taste of what Israeli terrorists handed out when they murdered Folke Bernadotte.[/The Brain]
:yes: :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2011, 03:52:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 11:10:12 AM
It might have been possible if the world had been more successful in reining in Jewish terrorism. That said, Israel reaps what it has sown, and every Israeli civilian who is killed by terrorism is just getting a taste of the King David Hotel.
[The Brain]Unless they are shot, in which case they are getting a taste of what Israeli terrorists handed out when they murdered Folke Bernadotte.[/The Brain]
Indeed. Let's remember: Israel gets what it deserves.
Neil, do you really think I'm going to bite your trollish bait?
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 04:33:25 PM
Indeed. Let's remember: Israel gets what it deserves.
I don't think Israel can get what it deserves without a lot of collateral damage to innocent Palestinians. Israel may deserve what it gets, but it can't, in all justice, really get what it deserves.
Quote from: Siege on November 06, 2011, 05:34:34 PM
Neil, do you really think I'm going to bite your trollish bait?
You might, but it doesn't really matter. You would have been in Irgun anyways. You're the moral equivalent of some Arab who carbombs a pizza parlour in metropolitan Jaffa.