The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture

1235715

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    The security of Israel is now a fact on the ground, probably since 1967. Israel is not going to be pushed into the Mediterranean. One of the barriers to peace on the Arab side is the reluctance to acknowledge that, with a few very significant exceptions and a couple of small states as a result of the Saudi/Israel detente.

    Israel's security is certainly threatened in the sense that its citizens are under daily threat of attack, and that threat is not going to be reduced unless it can make peace with the Palestinians and that peace holds for a good long while. If Israel wants security in that sense, peace is the only solution.

    Yes ...
    "Peace is the only solution .... "
    and there can be no peace without mutual willing partners ...
    Thus far the Palestinian leaders -- the PLO, The PA, Hamas -- have shown no inclination to making peace with the Jewish State of Israel,
    hence the present situation ...
  • Yeah, but neither has the Israeli right, and the centre left is almost extinct.
  • That said, sometimes the hard arses are the ones with the political capital to negotiate and make a peace stick. That applies to both sides.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, but neither has the Israeli right, and the centre left is almost extinct.

    70+ years of military invasions, terror attacks, suicide bombers and incoming rockets don't inspire confidence in one's conversation partners ...
  • I agree, but why are you giving them the pass and not the Palestinians? I am sure you agree that there are moderates on both sides who are swamped by the hate and vitriol. Actually, do you agree with that?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Until then, it might be wise to remember that they're *all* people, trying to get through this world. FWIW.

    Yes ... Exactly ...
    This isn't about national policies ... It's about "people,"
    in fact an ENTIRE People, in particular The People of Israel
    You say "yes... exactly" and then deny the point. First you move from people in general - actual persons - to an abstract people - and then you move from them all being people to there being only one people that matters.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I agree, but why are you giving them the pass and not the Palestinians? I am sure you agree that there are moderates on both sides who are swamped by the hate and vitriol. Actually, do you agree with that?

    I don't give any of them "a pass" ...
    I recognize the facts on the ground ...
    (1) The Jewish State of Israel is not going to negotiate itself out of existence ... Period ...
    (2) Yes, the Palestinian people have entirely legitimate needs -- a RIGHT -- to self determination, a state of their own, etc. ... But that simply is not going to happen until and unless *they* choose and develop leadership of their own who will lead them in THAT direction rather than continual relentless incitement against Israel ... in the vain hope of pushing the Jews into the sea ...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Thus far the Palestinian leaders -- the PLO, The PA, Hamas -- have shown no inclination to making peace with the Jewish State of Israel,
    hence the present situation ...
    And Donald Trump says he personally saw Muslims celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Centre.
    The PLO and PA have taken part in peace talks. But those don't count because Israeli apologists can read minds and know they didn't really mean it.

    After all when the Palestinians and Israelis did sign a peace deal it wasn't the Palestinians who assassinated their own leader.
    Netanyahu led rallies at which the crowds called for Rabin's death; Netanyahu walked in front of a procession in which they carried a coffin and a noose; Netanyahu refused to moderate his rhetoric at the request of the Israeli security services. Netanyahu denies having called for Rabin's death.
    The Israeli people - not all of them, maybe not even a plurality, but enough of them - have repeatedly put Netanyahu in power.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Thus far the Palestinian leaders -- the PLO, The PA, Hamas -- have shown no inclination to making peace with the Jewish State of Israel,
    hence the present situation ...
    And Donald Trump says he personally saw Muslims celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Centre.
    The PLO and PA have taken part in peace talks. But those don't count because Israeli apologists can read minds and know they didn't really mean it.

    After all when the Palestinians and Israelis did sign a peace deal it wasn't the Palestinians who assassinated their own leader.
    Netanyahu led rallies at which the crowds called for Rabin's death; Netanyahu walked in front of a procession in which they carried a coffin and a noose; Netanyahu refused to moderate his rhetoric at the request of the Israeli security services. Netanyahu denies having called for Rabin's death.
    The Israeli people - not all of them, maybe not even a plurality, but enough of them - have repeatedly put Netanyahu in power.

    Name an acknowledged Palestinian leader who accepts the existence of the Jewish State of Israel as such ...
    (Arafat was clear that his call for "the two state solution" was merely a step to ONE state -- "Palestine" ...)

    Again ...
    The People of Israel are not going to negotiate the Jewish State of Israel out of existence ... They're just not ...
    "The Jews" are not going to negotiate themselves back into (1) eternal wandering, or (2) Exile in foreign lands, or (3) permanent minority status everywhere they live and move and have their being ... They're just not ...

    When Palestinian leaders accept those facts meaningful negotiations can begin ...
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Why do you keep putting "the Jews" in quotation marks?

    Because it isn't clear who is or is not a REAL Jew ...
    You mean you’re not sure who is or is not a Jew? Who exactly are you confused about?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Why do you keep putting "the Jews" in quotation marks?

    Because it isn't clear who is or is not a REAL Jew ...
    You mean you’re not sure who is or is not a Jew? Who exactly are you confused about?

    It's not for ME to decide, nor is it for the US Congress, or Hamas or any of Israel's friends or foes ...
    Is "Jewish-ness" about genes (which ones ???), or about Observance or personal faith and theology ... or ... ???
  • {patiently}

    So why not let Jews decide, then?

    Is anyone here saying Jews aren't Jews?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Why do you keep putting "the Jews" in quotation marks?

    Because it isn't clear who is or is not a REAL Jew ...
    You mean you’re not sure who is or is not a Jew? Who exactly are you confused about?

    It's not for ME to decide, nor is it for the US Congress, or Hamas or any of Israel's friends or foes ...
    Is "Jewish-ness" about genes (which ones ???), or about Observance or personal faith and theology ... or ... ???
    You probably don't know what a Palestinian is, either - why don't you put that in quotation marks?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Golden Key: So why not let Jews decide, then?

    The problem with that, Golden Key, is when you extend that to "Why not let the Germans decide who is a German?"
    Dave W You probably don't know what a Palestinian is, either

    A Palestinian, of course, is a citizen of a state called Palestine, just as a Canadian is a citizen of Canada. That concept is inimical to Zionists because of their racial ideology.
  • Peace emerges from justice. Full social justice. They are synonyms. That cannot be obtained without Israel baring its throat and there are a lot of dhabihah knives out there.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Peace emerges from justice. Full social justice. They are synonyms. That cannot be obtained without Israel baring its throat and there are a lot of dhabihah knives out there.

    In other places and at other times the cessation of hostilities has been a necessary pre-condition to even starting a conversation about social justice.
    Kwesi wrote: »

    A Palestinian, of course, is a citizen of a state called Palestine, just as a Canadian is a citizen of Canada. That concept is inimical to Zionists because of their racial ideology.

    In Israel, there are Palestinians who are full citizens with the same rights as Jews. The problem here is the right of return, and the status of the West Bank as an occupied territory. Zionism might say something different, I don't know. I imagine there are shades of Zionism.

    @Fr Teilhard I really must tackle you again on Arafat. When I said watch the hips not the lips, you said that Arafat said one thing to foreigners and another to Palestinians. I am sure you are right. There were cogent reasons for Arafat to say what he said to his internal audience, and say something else to the Israelis and Americans. That's politics. What matters more than what he says is what he does: watch his hips not his lips, you see? Arafat moved from being the leader of a terrorist group (to us) to being someone who negotiated a fair dinkum framework for peace. That it blew apart in the end didn't mean he wasn't genuine, any more than his attempts to mollify those who opposed peace with Israel.

    Recognition of Israel's sovereignty is the Palestinians' most valuable chip in negotiating a peace deal. Requiring them to give that up as a precondition to negotiations is like requiring the Israelis to accept that they must dismantle their wall for the same right. It may well be that in the course of negotiations both are on the table, but both sides would surely require major concessions in exchange.

    The question isn't whether this or that form of words is said to determine whether peace is possible. The question is whether the extremists, such as the Israeli right, such as the armed factions of Palestine, are prepared to let it happen. There is no question in my mind that there is a thirst for peace among ordinary people in Israel and the West Bank (edit: wishful thinking, I have only met people from the intelligentsia on the Palestinian side).

    Peace is required for wealth, just as it is required for safety and for the advancement of social justice.

    Peace over the last 20 years or so was out of reach. Maybe this alliance against Iran will shift things. Lord knows things need shifting. Netanyahu's days are numbered at last, but I agree now with Shipmates who a few years ago said that his departure won't make much difference to the Israeli position. The right is in the ascendant.

    The interesting question for me is: What will the Saudis require of Israel for recognition, and will Israel do it? Lots of Muslims are predisposed to loathe the Saudis. They probably can't afford to be seen to abandon the Palestinians. Can they come to an arrangement with Israel? Could they agree another pathway to peace? Could the Saudis put the hard word on both the Palestinians and the Israelis to come to the table?

    Wouldn't that be wonderful.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Name an acknowledged Palestinian leader who accepts the existence of the Jewish State of Israel as such ...
    (Arafat was clear that his call for "the two state solution" was merely a step to ONE state -- "Palestine" ...)
    Peace doesn't mean demanding that the other person agrees with you. Peace means you both agree not to resort to violence to resolve your differences.
    Again ...
    The People of Israel are not going to negotiate the Jewish State of Israel out of existence ... They're just not ...
    "The Jews" are not going to negotiate themselves back into (1) eternal wandering, or (2) Exile in foreign lands, or (3) permanent minority status everywhere they live and move and have their being ... They're just not ...

    When Palestinian leaders accept those facts meaningful negotiations can begin ...
    No. That would be an end goal of negotiations for the Israeli hawks. One side does not dictate what the other side accepts as a precondition for meaningful negotiations. What the other side accepts is an outcome of meaningful negotiations.

    The Israeli hawks can either use force or peaceful negotiation to persuade the Palestinians to accept their point of view. The Israeli hawks, and you on their behalf, say they will not use peaceful negotiation until after the Palestinians accept their point of view. Therefore, the Israeli hawks, and you on their behalf, are confessing that you prefer to use violence to achieve your goals.

    Why do you prefer to use violence to achieve your goal? Because your goal is violence.

    Suppose as is possible through peaceful demographic processes there come to be more Palestinians than Israelis in the territories claimed by Israel. What happens then to the majority status of Jews in Israel? They can try to peacefully persuade some of the Palestinians to emigrate. But what if the Palestinians don't want to emigrate from their homeland? Then the only way to secure majority status of Jews in Israel is violence. Netanyahu and the Israeli hawks know this. That is why they do not seek peace.

    I note that you have at least twice used the phrase 'live and move and have their being' of the Jews and the land of Israel. It is not any land but God in whom we all live and move and have our being. What you are describing is idolatry.
  • Good grief, I usually avoid any threads to do with Zionism, bad for the blood pressure, but at least in this thread it has produced excellent ripostes, esp., Dafyd, upon whom kudos flow.
  • History takes time ...
  • History takes time ...

    66-70 happened ...
    132-136 happened ...
    1918 happened ...
    1948 happened ...
    1967 happened ...
    1973 happened ...
    History matters ... Past ----> Present ----> Future ...
  • Of course history matters, but like justice it cuts both ways.
  • Yup. Be careful about calling down justice, because you don't know where it will land.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Of course history matters, but like justice it cuts both ways.

    Yes ... Indeed ... "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice ..." ...

    The Palestinian people will eventually have their own state when they stop trying to destroy the Jewish State of Israel ...
  • History takes time ...

    66-70 happened ...
    132-136 happened ...
    1918 happened ...
    1948 happened ...
    1967 happened ...
    1973 happened ...
    History matters ... Past ----> Present ----> Future ...

    Oh, and, there was that little *blip* 1933-45 ...
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Don't forget 1066 And All that, and year my aunt Fannie got into a bit of trouble. And do you remember the winter of 1961-2.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Of course history matters, but like justice it cuts both ways.

    Yes ... Indeed ... "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice ..." ...

    The Palestinian people will eventually have their own state when they stop trying to destroy the Jewish State of Israel ...

    What proportion of the Palestinian people do you think are currently engaged in "trying to destroy the Jewish State of Israel"? How low does that proportion need to be before you will support righting the wrongs done to them?
  • Abusive husband to wife: "I'll stop hitting you when you stop making me do it".
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Don't forget 1066 And All that,
    No, no, no. There was no history in the land of Palestine between 136 and 1918. Or rather what history there was doesn't matter. History only matters if it supports the Israeli hawks' agenda.

  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Don't forget 1066 And All that, and year my aunt Fannie got into a bit of trouble. And do you remember the winter of 1961-2.

    LOL ... Not to mention 1483-1546 ... and sequelae ...
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Don't forget 1066 And All that,
    No, no, no. There was no history in the land of Palestine between 136 and 1918. Or rather what history there was doesn't matter. History only matters if it supports the Israeli hawks' agenda.

    No, no, no ...
    History only matters if it supports Palestinian hawks' agenda ... ???
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    That said, sometimes the hard arses are the ones with the political capital to negotiate and make a peace stick. That applies to both sides.

    Sadat and Begin, at the Camp David Accords? I figured that worked because they were a couple of old soldiers.
  • Rabin and Arafat ditto
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    That said, sometimes the hard arses are the ones with the political capital to negotiate and make a peace stick. That applies to both sides.

    Sadat and Begin, at the Camp David Accords? I figured that worked because they were a couple of old soldiers.

    ... which produced the status quo ... Armistice lines ...
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    That said, sometimes the hard arses are the ones with the political capital to negotiate and make a peace stick. That applies to both sides.

    Sadat and Begin, at the Camp David Accords? I figured that worked because they were a couple of old soldiers.

    ... which produced the status quo ... Armistice lines ...

    The status quo is well beyond those lines due to the illegal settlements being built in the West Bank.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    That said, sometimes the hard arses are the ones with the political capital to negotiate and make a peace stick. That applies to both sides.

    Sadat and Begin, at the Camp David Accords? I figured that worked because they were a couple of old soldiers.

    ... which produced the status quo ... Armistice lines ...

    The status quo is well beyond those lines due to the illegal settlements being built in the West Bank.

    Until all parties in the Disputes settle up, there are NO internationally recognized "borders" between the Jewish State of Israel and the (not yet) State of Palestine ...

    (BTW, in 1948, Jordan invaded what was supposed to have been the nascent State of Palestine ... THEN, Jordan -- foolishly -- took part in the Anti-Israel War in 1967, in the process losing the territory they had illegally seized n 1948 ... So ... The situation on the ground in complicated ...)

    When eventually such borders are recognized by ALL, there will be adjustments made -- land swaps, reparations made, etc. ...
    Until that time ...
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...

    Yea, but the settlements are still illegal under international law. One way or the other those are occupied territories.
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...

    Yea, but the settlements are still illegal under international law. One way or the other those are occupied territories.

    Except ... The Palestinian leaders, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, et al., regard every square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied territory" ...
    But, okay I'll bite ... Please show us a universally recognized map of the internationally accepted borders of The Jewish State of Israel ...
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...

    There's no discussion needed. They can build them in Israel. The State of Israel has not annexed the West Bank so the settlements are illegal. The 4th Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory, is not ambiguous about this.
  • My pleasure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#/media/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg

    Of course, this is not "universally" recognized but a UN vote, albeit in 1947, might be considered "internationally accepted".
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...

    There's no discussion needed. They can build them in Israel. The State of Israel has not annexed the West Bank so the settlements are illegal. The 4th Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory, is not ambiguous about this.

    The Israeli *occupation* of The West Bank came about in 1967 as a direct result of a Jordanian military invasion meant to wipe a UN Member State off the map ...

    Since that time various terrorists (generally supported by Arab States hostile to Israel) have used West Bank towns and villages as bases from which to murder Israeli citizens ...

    Again, when meaningful peace negotiations begin, no doubt many of the settlements will be bargaining chips in land swaps, etc. ... That will happen only after the existence of the Jewish State of Israel is recognized as legitimate ... Period ...
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...

    Yea, but the settlements are still illegal under international law. One way or the other those are occupied territories.

    Except ... The Palestinian leaders, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, et al., regard every square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied territory" ...
    But, okay I'll bite ... Please show us a universally recognized map of the internationally accepted borders of The Jewish State of Israel ...

    The map, please ... ???
  • ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...

    There's no discussion needed. They can build them in Israel. The State of Israel has not annexed the West Bank so the settlements are illegal. The 4th Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory, is not ambiguous about this.

    The Israeli *occupation* of The West Bank came about in 1967 as a direct result of a Jordanian military invasion meant to wipe a UN Member State off the map ...

    Since that time various terrorists (generally supported by Arab States hostile to Israel) have used West Bank towns and villages as bases from which to murder Israeli citizens ...

    None of which justifies Israel breaching international law. It could have put up its huge wall on its own borders rather than cutting up the West Bank. It could have annexed the West Bank and given the Palestinians citizenship. The settlements are illegal. A deliberate policy of forcing a local population off their land in occupied territory and giving it to your own people has precedents and none of them are good.
  • I think there needs to be a correction here. Palestinians are divided into three main political camps: Fatah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihadists. There are a bunch of smaller parties, but I will address the three.

    As I understand it, Fatah is willing to accept a two-state solution so long as all Palestinians are given the right of return to their lands, including the ones seized by the Zionists prior to 1948. (to paraphrase them). However, they may settle for reparations for the lost land. Fatah controls most of the West Bank and has had back door relations with the Israelis concerning basic infrastructure,

    Hamas and the PJ's want to destroy Israel as a nation. Hamas, of course, controls Gaza.

    I do think there is a way for a two-state settlement with Fatah. I have no idea how Israel can settle with the other two. I think this is what the Biden administration will be working on.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think there needs to be a correction here. Palestinians are divided into three main political camps: Fatah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihadists. There are a bunch of smaller parties, but I will address the three.

    As I understand it, Fatah is willing to accept a two-state solution so long as all Palestinians are given the right of return to their lands, including the ones seized by the Zionists prior to 1948. (to paraphrase them). However, they may settle for reparations for the lost land. Fatah controls most of the West Bank and has had back door relations with the Israelis concerning basic infrastructure,

    Hamas and the PJ's want to destroy Israel as a nation. Hamas, of course, controls Gaza.

    I do think there is a way for a two-state settlement with Fatah. I have no idea how Israel can settle with the other two. I think this is what the Biden administration will be working on.

    I think, if you look at Hamas's revised charter there is room for movement there too. It's not perfect by any means (and there is obviously the question of whether it is purely a PR exercise) and the Hamas leadership are still a bunch of vicious nutjobs but, you know, 30 years ago most would have said the same about the Provisional IRA leadership (and they weren't wrong) but they were still willing to seek peace. P W Botha was still a racist with blood on his hands when he turned South Africa over to democracy. You don't necessarily have to have great people in order for peace to be achieved.
  • I think, if you look at Hamas's revised charter there is room for movement there too. It's not perfect by any means (and there is obviously the question of whether it is purely a PR exercise) and the Hamas leadership are still a bunch of vicious nutjobs

    .. who were financed by the Israeli government who hoped to set up a religious counter-weight to the largely secular (at the time) PLO and thus undermine Arafat.


  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think there needs to be a correction here. Palestinians are divided into three main political camps: Fatah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihadists. There are a bunch of smaller parties, but I will address the three.

    As I understand it, Fatah is willing to accept a two-state solution so long as all Palestinians are given the right of return to their lands, including the ones seized by the Zionists prior to 1948. (to paraphrase them). However, they may settle for reparations for the lost land. Fatah controls most of the West Bank and has had back door relations with the Israelis concerning basic infrastructure,

    Hamas and the PJ's want to destroy Israel as a nation. Hamas, of course, controls Gaza.

    I do think there is a way for a two-state settlement with Fatah. I have no idea how Israel can settle with the other two. I think this is what the Biden administration will be working on.

    Unfortunately for the history purists, it is impossible to go back and rework 1918, when Haj Amin al-Husseini -- the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- issued a fatwa calling for DEATH for anyone who sold land in The Land of Israel to a Jew ...

    Those who decry "Zionism" as somehow "racist" and unjust are CORRECT in their characterization of the common attitude (and policy !!!) that, "You Jews may NOT live *there* or *here* but only where we give you permission (which may be revoked at any time) ..."

    How many "Jews" were expelled from various Middle Eastern countries in 1948 ... ??? ... and where are they now ... ???

    We can't *go*back* to the status quo ante, but can only go forward, starting with the facts on the ground ...
  • Hamas was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It is true during 1948 Hamas did not participate in the fighting, preferring instead to concentrate on its social work. The Israelis did fund the charitable work for a while until they discovered that its leader had been amassing weapons through its military arm. I believe their largest benefactor at this point is Iran, though.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Fr Tielhard said:
    We can't *go*back* to the status quo ante, but can only go forward, starting with the facts on the ground ...

    But that is what Gramps was doing. His post is an attempt to look at the Palestinians and ask where is the opportunity for peace. Your reference to the Grand Mufti's statement in 1918 refers to one of the many barriers to peace. Why do you do that?

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be putting Palestinian recognition of Israel as the necessary thing that must happen before peace negotiations can begin, when peace negotiations have been going on for many many years, and when one major framework agreement has already been negotiated and failed on the ground.

    I'm sure you remember as I do that the peace agreement already negotiated established the PA, and that Israel voluntarily and against the will of many of its citizens abandoned settlements as part of that deal. Surely you remember the remarkable pictures of young Israeli soldiers literally dragging fellow Israelis out of their homes and bulldozing them.

    Why is it only now that Israel must have recognition as a precondition of negotiations?
Sign In or Register to comment.