The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture

145791015

Comments

  • Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    Israel's neighbors aren't "rewarding" Israel (why would they do that?), but see it to THEIR advantage to move ahead improving their own lot DESPITE Palestinian resistance to the reality of the facts on the ground ...
    IOW, try try trying to turn the clock back to 1947 hasn't worked out well for ANYONE in the Middle East (except for a few corrupt Arab leaders who stay in power by distracting their own people by invoking, "LOOK at ISRAEL ... !!!") ... and it won't happen in 2021 ... or 2022 ... or ever ...

    Keeping the Arab world -- including Palestinians -- *stuck* in 1948 is pointless ... WHEN everyone in the Middle East -- including the Palestinians -- accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel THEN issues can be settled and genuine peace established ... If the Arab Middle East -- including the Palestinians -- yearn for something resembling normal life they must accept reality ...
  • Is that anything other than a long way of saying "you lost, get over it"?
  • Is that anything other than a long way of saying "you lost, get over it"?

    It's a way of saying ...
    History ... counts for a lot ...
    Realism ... is really important ...

    It's a way of saying,
    "Your dream of driving 'The Jews' into the Sea ...
    is NOT ... going to happen ..."

    It's a way of saying,
    "It's time to accept the existence the Jewish State of Israel,
    and then meaningful negotiation on terms of peace can begin ..."
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited January 2
    Is that anything other than a long way of saying "you lost, get over it"?

    It's a way of saying,
    "When the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
    issued a Fatwa in 1918 calling for death
    for anyone who sold land to a 'Jew,' that was a BIG mistake
    at the time and very hard to undo in 2021 ..."
    and
    "When the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
    sat out WWII in Berlin as a personal guest of Adolf Hitler,
    that was another gross error
    that still has terrible consequences today ..."

    We can't turn the clocks and calendars back
    by wishful thinking or even by solemn [*wink*wink*] agreements
    but we must deal with the situation as it is TODAY
    and move forward ...
  • History is very much an impediment to peace in the Middle East, as your repeated references to the Grand Mufti demonstrates. History is a branch with which to birch the other side.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    History is very much an impediment to peace in the Middle East, as your repeated references to the Grand Mufti demonstrates. History is a branch with which to birch the other side.

    "History" is "what happened in the past ..."
    "Facts" (of history / on the ground) are "stubborn things ..."
  • I refer to and repeat my previous post.
  • Is that anything other than a long way of saying "you lost, get over it"?

    It's a way of saying ...
    History ... counts for a lot ...
    Realism ... is really important ...

    It's a way of saying,
    "Your dream of driving 'The Jews' into the Sea ...
    is NOT ... going to happen ..."

    It's a way of saying,
    "It's time to accept the existence the Jewish State of Israel,
    and then meaningful negotiation on terms of peace can begin ..."

    A simple "no" would have sufficed.

    In any case, the attempt to present the only alternative to an Apartheid state that privileges those of Jewish descent (you can be a secular atheist and still enjoy the benefits of being Jewish in Israel) as being an anti-Semitic genocide belongs in textbooks as an example of a false dichotomy.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    THE question for the Israelis is the existence of The Jewish State of Israel, which is increasingly -- reasonably -- accepted as a fact on the ground ...

    The Palestinians can/may/should have a proper state of their own as soon as they come around too ...

    There is no such country as "The Jewish State of Israel". Stop making such a place up. The official name of the country is "The State of Israel".

    If the actual government of Israel doesn't feel the need to shove "Jewish" into the name, I don't know how the fuck you think you're helping anyone by doing so.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Not that the name would be fully informative in any case. There are 4 Islamic Republics and they are not at all the same in their attitude and governance.

    Nevertheless, constantly referring to "The Jewish State of Israel" is just wildly inappropriate in this context when no country with that name exists.
  • Is that anything other than a long way of saying "you lost, get over it"?

    It's a way of saying ...
    History ... counts for a lot ...
    Realism ... is really important ...

    It's a way of saying,
    "Your dream of driving 'The Jews' into the Sea ...
    is NOT ... going to happen ..."

    It's a way of saying,
    "It's time to accept the existence the Jewish State of Israel,
    and then meaningful negotiation on terms of peace can begin ..."

    A simple "no" would have sufficed.

    In any case, the attempt to present the only alternative to an Apartheid state that privileges those of Jewish descent (you can be a secular atheist and still enjoy the benefits of being Jewish in Israel) as being an anti-Semitic genocide belongs in textbooks as an example of a false dichotomy.

    Ummm ...
    When in 1948 various Arab nations EXPELLED about 600,000 "Jews," it was THEY who were endorsing an "Apartheid" arrangement, as did The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1918 when he issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a "Jew" ...

    It is now a centuries old custom in The West to tell "Jews" where they can and cannot live and in what numbers ...

    (BTW, where did those ca. 600,000 "Jews" go in 1948, and where are they (and their descendants) now ... ???)
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Not that the name would be fully informative in any case. There are 4 Islamic Republics and they are not at all the same in their attitude and governance.

    Nevertheless, constantly referring to "The Jewish State of Israel" is just wildly inappropriate in this context when no country with that name exists.

    To be clear ... The neighbors of The Jewish State of Israel would be perfectly *okay* with having a State called "Israel" next door as long as it is NOT "Jewish" ..
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited January 3
    orfeo wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    THE question for the Israelis is the existence of The Jewish State of Israel, which is increasingly -- reasonably -- accepted as a fact on the ground ...

    The Palestinians can/may/should have a proper state of their own as soon as they come around too ...

    There is no such country as "The Jewish State of Israel". Stop making such a place up. The official name of the country is "The State of Israel".

    If the actual government of Israel doesn't feel the need to shove "Jewish" into the name, I don't know how the fuck you think you're helping anyone by doing so.

    As to The State of Israel and "Jews" ... ask the family of Leon Klinghoffer about that ...

    (BTW, your cursing doesn't impress anyone ...)

    And BTW BTW no less an important international figure than President Barrack Hussein O'Bama used to go out of his way to speak about "The Jewish State of Israel," thus making a vital point ... Get Over It ...
  • Is that anything other than a long way of saying "you lost, get over it"?

    It's a way of saying ...
    History ... counts for a lot ...
    Realism ... is really important ...

    It's a way of saying,
    "Your dream of driving 'The Jews' into the Sea ...
    is NOT ... going to happen ..."

    It's a way of saying,
    "It's time to accept the existence the Jewish State of Israel,
    and then meaningful negotiation on terms of peace can begin ..."

    A simple "no" would have sufficed.

    In any case, the attempt to present the only alternative to an Apartheid state that privileges those of Jewish descent (you can be a secular atheist and still enjoy the benefits of being Jewish in Israel) as being an anti-Semitic genocide belongs in textbooks as an example of a false dichotomy.

    Ummm ...
    When in 1948 various Arab nations EXPELLED about 600,000 "Jews," it was THEY who were endorsing an "Apartheid" arrangement, as did The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1918 when he issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a "Jew" ...

    It is now a centuries old custom in The West to tell "Jews" where they can and cannot live and in what numbers ...

    (BTW, where did those ca. 600,000 "Jews" go in 1948, and where are they (and their descendants) now ... ???)

    Expulsions should not have happened, and those expelled should all be allowed to return if they wish. It is worth noting that the esablishment of the State of Israel and the Nakba required to permit it can be reasonably said to have provoked the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries (in so far as it was a push from those countries rather than a pull to the new Israel; it's perhaps hard to grasp the impact of that 1948 declaration on many Jews at the time).
  • Is that anything other than a long way of saying "you lost, get over it"?

    It's a way of saying ...
    History ... counts for a lot ...
    Realism ... is really important ...

    It's a way of saying,
    "Your dream of driving 'The Jews' into the Sea ...
    is NOT ... going to happen ..."

    It's a way of saying,
    "It's time to accept the existence the Jewish State of Israel,
    and then meaningful negotiation on terms of peace can begin ..."

    A simple "no" would have sufficed.

    In any case, the attempt to present the only alternative to an Apartheid state that privileges those of Jewish descent (you can be a secular atheist and still enjoy the benefits of being Jewish in Israel) as being an anti-Semitic genocide belongs in textbooks as an example of a false dichotomy.

    Ummm ...
    When in 1948 various Arab nations EXPELLED about 600,000 "Jews," it was THEY who were endorsing an "Apartheid" arrangement, as did The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1918 when he issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a "Jew" ...

    It is now a centuries old custom in The West to tell "Jews" where they can and cannot live and in what numbers ...

    (BTW, where did those ca. 600,000 "Jews" go in 1948, and where are they (and their descendants) now ... ???)

    Expulsions should not have happened, and those expelled should all be allowed to return if they wish. It is worth noting that the esablishment of the State of Israel and the Nakba required to permit it can be reasonably said to have provoked the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries (in so far as it was a push from those countries rather than a pull to the new Israel; it's perhaps hard to grasp the impact of that 1948 declaration on many Jews at the time).

    Ironically, the observed fact that so many around the world obsess about Jews-Jews-Jews-Jews-Jews-Jews demonstrates WHY The State of Israel must BE The "Jewish" State of Israel ...

    Again, one of my good friends -- fellow clergy, Ph.D, full professor -- once solemnly informed me that "The Jews bring these problems on themselves because they don't assimilate ..."
    ... IOW, "The Jews" are targets for invasion, Exile, oppression and pogroms precisely because ... THEY ... ARE ... "Jewish" ... (re that, see: 1933-45 ...)
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    So once again we come to the question you've dodged before - if by immigration, expansion or internal differences in birth rates, or combination of such or other factors, Israel should be looking at a potential situation where it is no longer majority Jewish, what actions would it, in your view, be justified in taking to restore or maintain a Jewish majority?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    So once again we come to the question you've dodged before - if by immigration, expansion or internal differences in birth rates, or combination of such or other factors, Israel should be looking at a potential situation where it is no longer majority Jewish, what actions would it, in your view, be justified in taking to restore or maintain a Jewish majority?

    Since I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, that isn't for me to decide, is it ... ???

    But, being a serious student of history, and having paid close attention during the Wars of 1967 and 1973, I ... UNDERSTAND ... WHY ... The State of Israel IS "Jewish" and will remain "Jewish" ...
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited January 3
    @Fr Teilhard your posts would be more persuasive if it was easier to link up what other posters are saying, your response to those posts, and the conclusion you want to draw - instead of filling up your posts with random rows of dots and things some acquaintance of yours once said.

    For example: there are a few ways in which the Jewishness of Israel could be under threat. Just repeating JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL, even in block capitals, doesn't really help us understand what conversation you want to have. Here are a few possible threats to THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL:

    1. The Jews could all be expelled from Israel. Now, nobody here is advocating that, but maybe you mean to warn us that there's often a lack of empathy in the way Westerners think of Israel's approach to negotiations, and that nobody is going to persuade Israel to do anything if they don't understand where Israel is coming from.

    2. The borders of Israel could be drawn in such a way that Jews don't form a majority, or have only a weak majority. Now, this isn't a worry if someone is advocating a two-state solution, because, by definition, a two-state solution implies one state that is majority Jewish and another state that is majority Arab. It could be a problem if someone is advocating a one-state solution. Nobody has done that yet, but maybe that is a conversation you want to have?

    3. AIUI, Israel is set up so that Jews have different rights and obligations from other ethno-religious communities. The Netanyahus of the world believe these measures are necessary - even with a Jewish majority - to protect the Jewish character of Israel. Maybe your comments are directed against those who think these measures are unjustified or incompatible with liberal democracy?

    4. Right of return. AIUI, if all the Palestinians who claimed right of return were able to exercise that right, and did so, then Israel's Jewish majority would be under threat. And that is certainly problematic and worthy of debate for a number of reasons. But AFAICT you've barely alluded to right of return at all.

    What conversation are you actually looking to have?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    @Fr Teilhard your posts would be more persuasive if it was easier to link up what other posters are saying, your response to those posts, and the conclusion you want to draw - instead of filling up your posts with random rows of dots and things some acquaintance of yours once said.

    For example: there are a few ways in which the Jewishness of Israel could be under threat. Just repeating JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL, even in block capitals, doesn't really help us understand what conversation you want to have. Here are a few possible threats to THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL:

    1. The Jews could all be expelled from Israel. Now, nobody here is advocating that, but maybe you mean to warn us that there's often a lack of empathy in the way Westerners think of Israel's approach to negotiations, and that nobody is going to persuade Israel to do anything if they don't understand where Israel is coming from.

    2. The borders of Israel could be drawn in such a way that Jews don't form a majority, or have only a weak majority. Now, this isn't a worry if someone is advocating a two-state solution, because, by definition, a two-state solution implies one state that is majority Jewish and another state that is majority Arab. It could be a problem if someone is advocating a one-state solution. Nobody has done that yet, but maybe that is a conversation you want to have?

    3. AIUI, Israel is set up so that Jews have different rights and obligations from other ethno-religious communities. The Netanyahus of the world believe these measures are necessary - even with a Jewish majority - to protect the Jewish character of Israel. Maybe your comments are directed against those who think these measures are unjustified or incompatible with liberal democracy?

    4. Right of return. AIUI, if all the Palestinians who claimed right of return were able to exercise that right, and did so, then Israel's Jewish majority would be under threat. And that is certainly problematic and worthy of debate for a number of reasons. But AFAICT you've barely alluded to right of return at all.

    What conversation are you actually looking to have?

    (1) The "conversation" in which I am taking part is about "The Israeli-Palestinian" situation/history/conflict ...

    (2) Given (a) the facts of the history of Israel, (a)the history of the People of Israel, and (c) the history of the current situation/conflict, it is my firm understanding that The People of Israel ("The Jews") are NOT ever going to negotiate the JEWISH State of Israel out of existence ... Period ...

    It's just not going to happen ... Period ...

    Yes, borders, land swaps, the fate of particular settlements will be negotiated over time ... but only only only with negotiating partners who genuinely seek peace, rather than the dismantling/destruction of the Jewish State of Israel ... Period ...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    So once again we come to the question you've dodged before - if by immigration, expansion or internal differences in birth rates, or combination of such or other factors, Israel should be looking at a potential situation where it is no longer majority Jewish, what actions would it, in your view, be justified in taking to restore or maintain a Jewish majority?

    Since I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, that isn't for me to decide, is it ... ???

    But, being a serious student of history, and having paid close attention during the Wars of 1967 and 1973, I ... UNDERSTAND ... WHY ... The State of Israel IS "Jewish" and will remain "Jewish" ...

    We're ALL serious students of history and many of us lived knowingly through those wars. Which reinforced the understandable but... unwise UN impetus for a Jewish state in a post-Ottoman, post-Holocaust world, on Arab land.

    And 72 years later here we are. As with much of life it would slowly concurrently improve and get worse. There is no going back. There are no state players with any interest in attacking Israel. Egypt will not attack again, honour was restored in '73. None of the others count at all. Would? Anthropogenic climate change drought caused the Syrian civil war. The Tigris and Euphrates will disappear this century. Jews will be the least of anyone's problems in the region. And their neighbours will be the least theirs. Except when the Lebanese try and dam the dying Jordan... Or rather the Russians with air supremacy will...
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Fr Teilhard (2) Given (a) the facts of the history of Israel, (a)the history of the People of Israel, and (c) the history of the current situation/conflict, it is my firm understanding that The People of Israel ("The Jews") are NOT ever going to negotiate the JEWISH State of Israel out of existence ... Period ...

    It's just not going to happen ... Period ...

    Apart from your seeming congenital difficulty, Fr Teilhard, in expressing yourself in anything other than a confrontational tone and loud format, your contribution above does little more than state the current Israeli frame of mind, which virtually all contributors to this thread accept. You may well be proved right in your conclusion, though predicting the future with dogmatic certainty is always a hostage to fortune. Circumstances have a habit of altering cases. ISTM that a distinction needs to be made between accounting for the status quo and how it is likely to develop from the ethical question as to whether the Zionists are justified in displacing and dispossessing the non-Jewish Palestinians.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    So once again we come to the question you've dodged before - if by immigration, expansion or internal differences in birth rates, or combination of such or other factors, Israel should be looking at a potential situation where it is no longer majority Jewish, what actions would it, in your view, be justified in taking to restore or maintain a Jewish majority?

    Since I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, that isn't for me to decide, is it ... ???

    But, being a serious student of history, and having paid close attention during the Wars of 1967 and 1973, I ... UNDERSTAND ... WHY ... The State of Israel IS "Jewish" and will remain "Jewish" ...

    We're ALL serious students of history and many of us lived knowingly through those wars. Which reinforced the understandable but... unwise UN impetus for a Jewish state in a post-Ottoman, post-Holocaust world, on Arab land.

    And 72 years later here we are. As with much of life it would slowly concurrently improve and get worse. There is no going back. There are no state players with any interest in attacking Israel. Egypt will not attack again, honour was restored in '73. None of the others count at all. Would? Anthropogenic climate change drought caused the Syrian civil war. The Tigris and Euphrates will disappear this century. Jews will be the least of anyone's problems in the region. And their neighbours will be the least theirs. Except when the Lebanese try and dam the dying Jordan... Or rather the Russians with air supremacy will...

    History goes only in one direction
    >
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Fr Teilhard (2) Given (a) the facts of the history of Israel, (a)the history of the People of Israel, and (c) the history of the current situation/conflict, it is my firm understanding that The People of Israel ("The Jews") are NOT ever going to negotiate the JEWISH State of Israel out of existence ... Period ...

    It's just not going to happen ... Period ...

    Apart from your seeming congenital difficulty, Fr Teilhard, in expressing yourself in anything other than a confrontational tone and loud format, your contribution above does little more than state the current Israeli frame of mind, which virtually all contributors to this thread accept. You may well be proved right in your conclusion, though predicting the future with dogmatic certainty is always a hostage to fortune. Circumstances have a habit of altering cases. ISTM that a distinction needs to be made between accounting for the status quo and how it is likely to develop from the ethical question as to whether the Zionists are justified in displacing and dispossessing the non-Jewish Palestinians.

    LOL ...
    MY "tone" is "confrontationl" ... ???
    Tell that to the family of Leon Klinghoffer ...
    Tell that to Israeli families who have a thirty second warning to get into shelter when Hamas is firing rockets from Gaza ...
    Tell that to Israeli families in Galilee who wonder what Hezbollah will do next, or what the Syrians will do if they ever regain the Golan Heights ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I’m sure the family of Leon Klinghoffer is eternally greatful to you.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Expulsions should not have happened, and those expelled should all be allowed to return if they wish. It is worth noting that the esablishment of the State of Israel and the Nakba required to permit it can be reasonably said to have provoked the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries (in so far as it was a push from those countries rather than a pull to the new Israel; it's perhaps hard to grasp the impact of that 1948 declaration on many Jews at the time).

    (My emphasis)

    A couple of questions:

    To what would they returning? In the 70 years since, so much would have changed - perhaps housing demolished and new constructed of a different style. What had been farming property could now be towns.

    What happens to those who have been living. there since? Probably not many of those who moved in are still alive, and perhaps not many descendants of those live there with new residents having moved in.

    To ask this is not to take any sides in the general argument nor in the particular one to which your post refers. It's just to point out some of the many problems which exist in implementation.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    I’m sure the family of Leon Klinghoffer is eternally greatful to you.

    ???
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Expulsions should not have happened, and those expelled should all be allowed to return if they wish. It is worth noting that the esablishment of the State of Israel and the Nakba required to permit it can be reasonably said to have provoked the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries (in so far as it was a push from those countries rather than a pull to the new Israel; it's perhaps hard to grasp the impact of that 1948 declaration on many Jews at the time).

    (My emphasis)

    A couple of questions:

    To what would they returning? In the 70 years since, so much would have changed - perhaps housing demolished and new constructed of a different style. What had been farming property could now be towns.

    What happens to those who have been living. there since? Probably not many of those who moved in are still alive, and perhaps not many descendants of those live there with new residents having moved in.

    To ask this is not to take any sides in the general argument nor in the particular one to which your post refers. It's just to point out some of the many problems which exist in implementation.

    There is no way to flip the calendar back to 1947 ... but if we don't remember the past ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    I’m sure the family of Leon Klinghoffer is eternally greatful to you.

    ???
    Yes, my mistake - that should read “grateful”, of course.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 4
    orfeo wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    THE question for the Israelis is the existence of The Jewish State of Israel, which is increasingly -- reasonably -- accepted as a fact on the ground ...

    The Palestinians can/may/should have a proper state of their own as soon as they come around too ...

    There is no such country as "The Jewish State of Israel". Stop making such a place up. The official name of the country is "The State of Israel".

    If the actual government of Israel doesn't feel the need to shove "Jewish" into the name, I don't know how the fuck you think you're helping anyone by doing so.

    As to The State of Israel and "Jews" ... ask the family of Leon Klinghoffer about that ...

    (BTW, your cursing doesn't impress anyone ...)

    And BTW BTW no less an important international figure than President Barrack Hussein O'Bama used to go out of his way to speak about "The Jewish State of Israel," thus making a vital point ... Get Over It ...

    Get over the facts? No. The name of the country is not The Jewish State of Israel and that's all there is to it. If you want to have a meaningful conversation about the issues, you don't get to go about making up fantasy countries as you've been doing for 2 weeks now. Because symbolism is a huge part of the discussion, and you insisting on inaccurate symbolism is a real barrier.

    But it's not clear you actually want to have a meaningful conversation about the issues.

    That Judaism has a significant part to play in Israel's identity is not in question, but by changing the name of the country, you are deliberately picking one of several options for how Judaism can be part of that identity, and deliberately picking an in-your-face option.

    Swearing is not designed to impress you.

    I wish I knew what invoking Klinghoffer was designed to do. It's certainly not designed to create a meaningful argument, more press emotional buttons. He wasn't Israeli.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    I’m sure the family of Leon Klinghoffer is eternally greatful to you.

    ???
    Yes, my mistake - that should read “grateful”, of course.

    ???
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited January 4
    orfeo wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    THE question for the Israelis is the existence of The Jewish State of Israel, which is increasingly -- reasonably -- accepted as a fact on the ground ...

    The Palestinians can/may/should have a proper state of their own as soon as they come around too ...

    There is no such country as "The Jewish State of Israel". Stop making such a place up. The official name of the country is "The State of Israel".

    If the actual government of Israel doesn't feel the need to shove "Jewish" into the name, I don't know how the fuck you think you're helping anyone by doing so.

    As to The State of Israel and "Jews" ... ask the family of Leon Klinghoffer about that ...

    (BTW, your cursing doesn't impress anyone ...)

    And BTW BTW no less an important international figure than President Barrack Hussein O'Bama used to go out of his way to speak about "The Jewish State of Israel," thus making a vital point ... Get Over It ...

    Get over the facts? No. The name of the country is not The Jewish State of Israel and that's all there is to it. If you want to have a meaningful conversation about the issues, you don't get to go about making up fantasy countries as you've been doing for 2 weeks now. Because symbolism is a huge part of the discussion, and you insisting on inaccurate symbolism is a real barrier.

    But it's not clear you actually want to have a meaningful conversation about the issues.

    That Judaism has a significant part to play in Israel's identity is not in question, but by changing the name of the country, you are deliberately picking one of several options for how Judaism can be part of that identity, and deliberately picking an in-your-face option.

    Swearing is not designed to impress you.

    I wish I knew what invoking Klinghoffer was designed to do. It's certainly not designed to create a meaningful argument, more press emotional buttons. He wasn't Israeli.

    Leon Klinghoffer (1916-85) was an American Jew, who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists ("The Palestine Liberation Front") BECAUSE he was Jewish ... and therefore (presumably) had something*or*other to do with The Jewish State of Israel ...

    Look, The State of Israel is in/on The Land of Israel ...

    The State of Israel IS "Jewish" -- not Methodist or Baha'i or Buddhist or Shinto or Hindu or Wiccan or Secular Humanist or Atheist or Muslim ...

    The specific particular "Jewish-ness" of The State of Israel is not a bargaining chip or an accident ...
    It is non-negotiable ...

    The Land and State of Israel is THE Homeland of The People of Israel, i.e, "The Jews" (for the last 3,000+ years) ... It just is ... This fact drives some people over the edge, but it is simply a fact on the ground and in the air ...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 4
    orfeo wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    THE question for the Israelis is the existence of The Jewish State of Israel, which is increasingly -- reasonably -- accepted as a fact on the ground ...

    The Palestinians can/may/should have a proper state of their own as soon as they come around too ...

    There is no such country as "The Jewish State of Israel". Stop making such a place up. The official name of the country is "The State of Israel".

    If the actual government of Israel doesn't feel the need to shove "Jewish" into the name, I don't know how the fuck you think you're helping anyone by doing so.

    As to The State of Israel and "Jews" ... ask the family of Leon Klinghoffer about that ...

    (BTW, your cursing doesn't impress anyone ...)

    And BTW BTW no less an important international figure than President Barrack Hussein O'Bama used to go out of his way to speak about "The Jewish State of Israel," thus making a vital point ... Get Over It ...

    Get over the facts? No. The name of the country is not The Jewish State of Israel and that's all there is to it. If you want to have a meaningful conversation about the issues, you don't get to go about making up fantasy countries as you've been doing for 2 weeks now. Because symbolism is a huge part of the discussion, and you insisting on inaccurate symbolism is a real barrier.

    But it's not clear you actually want to have a meaningful conversation about the issues.

    That Judaism has a significant part to play in Israel's identity is not in question, but by changing the name of the country, you are deliberately picking one of several options for how Judaism can be part of that identity, and deliberately picking an in-your-face option.

    Swearing is not designed to impress you.

    I wish I knew what invoking Klinghoffer was designed to do. It's certainly not designed to create a meaningful argument, more press emotional buttons. He wasn't Israeli.

    Leon Klinghoffer (1916-85) was an American Jew, who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists ("The Palestine Liberation Front") BECAUSE he was Jewish ... and therefore (presumably) had something*or*other to do with The Jewish State of Israel ...

    Look, The State of Israel is in/on The Land of Israel ...

    The State of Israel IS "Jewish" -- not Methodist or Baha'i or Buddhist or Shinto or Hindu or Wiccan or Secular Humanist or Atheist or Muslim ...

    The specific particular "Jewish-ness" of The State of Israel is not a bargaining chip or an accident ...
    It is non-negotiable ...

    The Land and State of Israel is THE Homeland of The People of Israel, i.e, "The Jews" (for the last 3,000+ years) ... It just is ... This fact drives some people over the edge, but it is simply a fact on the ground and in the air ...

    Klinghoffer was undoubtedly chosen because he was American. Whether his Jewishness was also a factor is a topic of some debate. Quite possibly, but also possibly not.

    The State of Israel (thank you for finally using its proper name) has Jewish aspects undoubtedly. However, it does not have an official religion.

    And who the hell said anything about trying to get rid of the Jewish aspects of Israel? I certainly didn't. I just asked you not to add further Jewish aspects that don't exist.

    Please don't try to lecture me about facts, because you really don't have a particularly good grasp of them. You certainly seem quite unable to have the necessary precision to deal with the fact that "Jewish" is both a religious identity and a racial one, never mind the extra political dimension that gets thrown in as well.

    As for people claiming homelands for thousands of years, I really hate that stuff no matter where it's occurring. I have no intention of shipping off to where my ancestors were 3,000 years ago, nor do I have any desire to tell anyone else they are required to live in the same place as their ancestors did. This is not how human beings work. The fact that I can readily trace my ancestry back to England and Ireland does not give me a personal claim to a piece of soil on the British Isles.
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited January 4
    Someone has suggested (above) that it could be *okay* if The State of Israel would be NOT actually "Jewish," per se, but would still have a "Jewish" character ...

    I'll bite ...
    What would that be ... ???
    Maybe ... Sale and purchase and consumption of abominable foods such as pork chops, blood sausage and cheeseburgers would be entirely legal, but strongly discouraged ... ???

    Please define: "Jewish in character" ...

    BTW, I am not "Jewish," so I have no critter in this fight, but as a Catholic Christian the history of my own deeply held faith is totally rooted in the Faith and History -- and People -- of Israel ...
    (hint: The Lord Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a Swedish Methodist from Iowa, and His Crucifixion and Resurrection happened in Jerusalem, not in Reno, Nevada ...)
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Someone has suggested (above) that it could be *okay* if The State of Israel would be NOT actually "Jewish," per se, but would still have a "Jewish" character ...

    I'll bite ...
    What would that be ... ???
    Maybe ... Sale and purchase and consumption of abominable foods such as pork chops, blood sausage and cheeseburgers would be entirely legal, but strongly discouraged ... ???

    Please define: "Jewish in character" ...

    You do realise that such debates constantly occur within Israel itself? Given that close to half the people in the country that identify as Jewish racially also identify, in religious terms, as secular or even atheist, there is lots of debate about whether religious practices such as observing the Sabbath ought to be part of the law or not.

    Something is changed, the super-orthodox people generate a backlash, then the secular Jews in turn generate a backlash if the super-orthodox people get concessions.

    In other words, real life in Israel has plenty of mess about this particular question. But that's a matter for Israelis. They get to decide, much as the populations of other countries do, what sort of society they want (as far as I'm aware Israel manages to be reasonably democratic). It's for them to decide whether being a Jewish state means focusing on the cultural history or whether it means enforcing religious laws (when 20-25% of the Israeli population aren't Jewish in any case, and when many of the Jews are not religiously observant).

    You're still talking as if The State of Israel not being "actually Jewish" was a hypothetical situation. I repeat: the word Jewish is not in the country's name. Judaism is not the official religion. These are facts. It is also true that Israel describes itself as a Jewish state. Sorry if that's too complex for you.

    You could do worse than read all of this: https://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstMJewishState.htm

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    BTW, I am not "Jewish," so I have no critter in this fight, but as a Catholic Christian the history of my own deeply held faith is totally rooted in the Faith and History -- and People -- of Israel ...
    (hint: The Lord Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a Swedish Methodist from Iowa, and His Crucifixion and Resurrection happened in Jerusalem, not in Reno, Nevada ...)

    BTW 1: The claim that you have no critter in this fight seems, after 7 pages, to be self-deceiving.

    BTW 2: Your faith is also rooted in a fundamental decision, as recorded in the New Testament, that Christianity was not simply for Jews and that converts were not required to become Jews or follow Jewish practices. Seriously, this is perhaps the major debate driving the New Testament from Acts onwards. I cannot fathom why so many Christians have either decided to demonise Jews or to fetishise them.

  • orfeo wrote: »
    Someone has suggested (above) that it could be *okay* if The State of Israel would be NOT actually "Jewish," per se, but would still have a "Jewish" character ...

    I'll bite ...
    What would that be ... ???
    Maybe ... Sale and purchase and consumption of abominable foods such as pork chops, blood sausage and cheeseburgers would be entirely legal, but strongly discouraged ... ???

    Please define: "Jewish in character" ...

    You do realise that such debates constantly occur within Israel itself? Given that close to half the people in the country that identify as Jewish racially also identify, in religious terms, as secular or even atheist, there is lots of debate about whether religious practices such as observing the Sabbath ought to be part of the law or not.

    Something is changed, the super-orthodox people generate a backlash, then the secular Jews in turn generate a backlash if the super-orthodox people get concessions.

    In other words, real life in Israel has plenty of mess about this particular question. But that's a matter for Israelis. They get to decide, much as the populations of other countries do, what sort of society they want (as far as I'm aware Israel manages to be reasonably democratic). It's for them to decide whether being a Jewish state means focusing on the cultural history or whether it means enforcing religious laws (when 20-25% of the Israeli population aren't Jewish in any case, and when many of the Jews are not religiously observant).

    You're still talking as if The State of Israel not being "actually Jewish" was a hypothetical situation. I repeat: the word Jewish is not in the country's name. Judaism is not the official religion. These are facts. It is also true that Israel describes itself as a Jewish state. Sorry if that's too complex for you.

    You could do worse than read all of this: https://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstMJewishState.htm

    BINGO ... !!!
    The People of Israel don't consult with me -- or you -- about who is or is not "a Jew" ... or about proper Observance ... or about *genes* ...

    However ... "Jews" do have a "Right of Return" to their Homeland, The Land of Israel, and can easily become Citizens of The State of Israel ...

    Again ... The State of Israel is not, was not ever, a Homeland for Swedish Methodist refugees from Iowa ...
    If you think that The State of Israel (and The Land of Israel) is NOT about "Jews" ... well, I think you haven't paid enough attention to the history of the last 4,800 years in that region ...

    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...
    And thank goodness you're here to keep the flame burning; I'm sure no one feels more deeply about this than you do.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...

    And again, doing some very basic reading about what happened shows agreement that he was chosen because he was American, but whether being Jewish was also a factor is a topic of some debate.

    Throwing around capital letters doesn't make the facts all line up neatly for you, you know. And SO FUCKING WHAT? What exactly the death of Klinghoffer is supposed to establish about the nature of the State of Israel, I haven't the faintest idea. Could Klinghoffer have availed himself of the right to go to Israel? Sure. But SO FUCKING WHAT?

    I don't know what exactly it is you think you're required to prove about the nature of Israel, because a lot of the time you seem intent on proving things that aren't actually in question, and you seem to think that your best strategy for demonstrating something about the country is to invoke the death of an American citizen, who could arguably have become an Israeli citizen if he chose BUT DIDN'T.

    I mean, even if I take it for granted that Klinghoffer was selected as the hostage to kill because he was Jewish, I'm completely mystified as to how that changes anything about Israel. It's not in question that Israel has repatriation laws that favour Jews (though if you'd bothered to read the Knesset link I provided you with, you would have seen that there have been court cases about who actually counts as a Jew).

    You seem to have in your head some vague woolly notion that so long as you mention Jews loudly enough (preferably ones who have suffered), the interaction between the ancient Jewish kingdom, the modern Israeli state, individuals of Jewish ethnic background and individuals who actually follow the Jewish religion all magically resolves, and Jews then get to live in a magical fairytale country and the 20-25% of the Israeli population who aren't Jewish all spontaneously disappear and no Jew ever has to encounter a person who isn't Jewish if they don't want to.

    Meanwhile you get to go and live in Catholicland and similarly don't have to actually attempt a meaningful conversation with anyone whose inner workings don't match yours perfectly.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...

    I'm sure no one feels more deeply about this than you do.

    I think that you are correct ...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 4
    Actual researcher: https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/07/30/remembering-and-clarifying-the-murder-of-leon-klinghoffer/

    And I note that this is not the original place that I read how the evidence indicates that Klinghoffer was primarily chosen because he was American, and it's unclear whether him being Jewish was a factor.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...

    I'm sure no one feels more deeply about this than you do.

    I think that you are correct ...

    I think that you should apologise to Mr Klinghoffer's daughters.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...

    And again, doing some very basic reading about what happened shows agreement that he was chosen because he was American, but whether being Jewish was also a factor is a topic of some debate.

    Throwing around capital letters doesn't make the facts all line up neatly for you, you know. And SO FUCKING WHAT? What exactly the death of Klinghoffer is supposed to establish about the nature of the State of Israel, I haven't the faintest idea. Could Klinghoffer have availed himself of the right to go to Israel? Sure. But SO FUCKING WHAT?

    I don't know what exactly it is you think you're required to prove about the nature of Israel, because a lot of the time you seem intent on proving things that aren't actually in question, and you seem to think that your best strategy for demonstrating something about the country is to invoke the death of an American citizen, who could arguably have become an Israeli citizen if he chose BUT DIDN'T.

    I mean, even if I take it for granted that Klinghoffer was selected as the hostage to kill because he was Jewish, I'm completely mystified as to how that changes anything about Israel. It's not in question that Israel has repatriation laws that favour Jews (though if you'd bothered to read the Knesset link I provided you with, you would have seen that there have been court cases about who actually counts as a Jew).

    You seem to have in your head some vague woolly notion that so long as you mention Jews loudly enough (preferably ones who have suffered), the interaction between the ancient Jewish kingdom, the modern Israeli state, individuals of Jewish ethnic background and individuals who actually follow the Jewish religion all magically resolves, and Jews then get to live in a magical fairytale country and the 20-25% of the Israeli population who aren't Jewish all spontaneously disappear and no Jew ever has to encounter a person who isn't Jewish if they don't want to.

    Meanwhile you get to go and live in Catholicland and similarly don't have to actually attempt a meaningful conversation with anyone whose inner workings don't match yours perfectly.

    LOL ...
    Yes, Israeli society has tussled with -- continues to tussle with -- the question of "Jewish-ness" -- NOT with "Swedish-ness" ... or "Lutheran" Identity ... or Catholic Holy Days of Obligation ... or ...

    Such matters are nothing new, as witness the existence of competing schools of thought and Observance in First Century Judaism, e.g., the Pharisees and the Sadducees ... So what ... ???

    But, thank you for affirming my point ...
    (The Knesset hasn't dealt with, say, tussles between, say, Shia and Sunni Muslims ... has it ... ???) ... BINGO ...

    (Your cursing doesn't help you make your case ...)
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...

    I'm sure no one feels more deeply about this than you do.

    I think that you are correct ...

    I think that you should apologise to Mr Klinghoffer's daughters.

    ???
  • orfeo wrote: »
    BTW, I am not "Jewish," so I have no critter in this fight, but as a Catholic Christian the history of my own deeply held faith is totally rooted in the Faith and History -- and People -- of Israel ...
    (hint: The Lord Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a Swedish Methodist from Iowa, and His Crucifixion and Resurrection happened in Jerusalem, not in Reno, Nevada ...)

    BTW 1: The claim that you have no critter in this fight seems, after 7 pages, to be self-deceiving.

    BTW 2: Your faith is also rooted in a fundamental decision, as recorded in the New Testament, that Christianity was not simply for Jews and that converts were not required to become Jews or follow Jewish practices. Seriously, this is perhaps the major debate driving the New Testament from Acts onwards. I cannot fathom why so many Christians have either decided to demonise Jews or to fetishise them.

    Yes ...
    Thank God most parishes no longer recite "The Reproaches" on Good Friday ... but it took a looooong time to get to that point ...

    But there are still way far too many Christians who should know better who casually say, "The Jews rejected Christ ... " ...

    And I think that most "Lutherans" have no idea that (or why) Kristallnacht was launched on Martin Luther's birthday ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    And again, The PLF terror guys who killed Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 didn't just shove a random guy in a wheelchair off the ship for fun ...
    They singled him out for murder BECAUSE he was JEWISH and therefore presumably had something to do with "Israel" ...

    I'm sure no one feels more deeply about this than you do.

    I think that you are correct ...
    You must have been very close personal friends. I'm sorry for your loss.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 4
    But, thank you for affirming my point ...

    I can't possibly affirm your point. You haven't articulated a point. Capitalising everything and shouting "Jews!" at every opportunity isn't a point.

    The thread is supposed to be about the changing and evolving relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, and your contribution is to keep mentioning the death of an American 35 years ago. Is that seriously the most recent thing you know about the subject?

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Meanwhile you appear to have decided to check my profile and resurrect a thread no-one had written on since August. I didn't realise I'd affected you so much, but hey, good to know that something is getting through.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    @Fr Teilhard your posts would be more persuasive if it was easier to link up what other posters are saying, your response to those posts, and the conclusion you want to draw - instead of filling up your posts with random rows of dots and things some acquaintance of yours once said.

    For example: there are a few ways in which the Jewishness of Israel could be under threat. Just repeating JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL, even in block capitals, doesn't really help us understand what conversation you want to have. Here are a few possible threats to THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL:

    1. The Jews could all be expelled from Israel. Now, nobody here is advocating that, but maybe you mean to warn us that there's often a lack of empathy in the way Westerners think of Israel's approach to negotiations, and that nobody is going to persuade Israel to do anything if they don't understand where Israel is coming from.

    2. The borders of Israel could be drawn in such a way that Jews don't form a majority, or have only a weak majority. Now, this isn't a worry if someone is advocating a two-state solution, because, by definition, a two-state solution implies one state that is majority Jewish and another state that is majority Arab. It could be a problem if someone is advocating a one-state solution. Nobody has done that yet, but maybe that is a conversation you want to have?

    3. AIUI, Israel is set up so that Jews have different rights and obligations from other ethno-religious communities. The Netanyahus of the world believe these measures are necessary - even with a Jewish majority - to protect the Jewish character of Israel. Maybe your comments are directed against those who think these measures are unjustified or incompatible with liberal democracy?

    4. Right of return. AIUI, if all the Palestinians who claimed right of return were able to exercise that right, and did so, then Israel's Jewish majority would be under threat. And that is certainly problematic and worthy of debate for a number of reasons. But AFAICT you've barely alluded to right of return at all.

    What conversation are you actually looking to have?

    (1) The "conversation" in which I am taking part is about "The Israeli-Palestinian" situation/history/conflict ...

    (2) Given (a) the facts of the history of Israel, (a)the history of the People of Israel, and (c) the history of the current situation/conflict, it is my firm understanding that The People of Israel ("The Jews") are NOT ever going to negotiate the JEWISH State of Israel out of existence ... Period ...

    It's just not going to happen ... Period ...

    Yes, borders, land swaps, the fate of particular settlements will be negotiated over time ... but only only only with negotiating partners who genuinely seek peace, rather than the dismantling/destruction of the Jewish State of Israel ... Period ...

    Thank you for demonstrating the first paragraph of the post you are responding to.
  • I've got to say that Fr Teilhard's inability to distinguish Jewish people from Israeli citizens is appearing more and more anti-semitic.
  • @Fr Teilhard Your contributions have been unhelpful in this thread, in part because of their content, but more because of their frequency. Your contribution is, in short, that Israel's right to exist must be recognised by Palestinians. That can be stated and supported fairly easily. It might be attacked, but this is a thread on the Middle East. All propositions are likely to be attacked.

    My practice, when I am well, is to respond to people when I have something I want to say that I have not said recently in the thread, or when a point can be rebutted. I try not to repeat myself. I recommend the practice to you, and beg everyone's pardon for the times I have not lived up to this standard.

    The thread is titled "The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture and was intended to be a discussion of the detente between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the various agreements it has produced between Israel and Arab states.

    The article @Gramps49 posted from the NYT, back on page 6, is a very interesting discussion of the contribution of a retiring UN ME peace envoy, Nickolay Mladenov, a former Bulgarian Foreign Minister. I recommend it to all interested in the current state of Middle East diplomacy. The parts I want to emphasise are:
    In a two-hour exit interview, [Mladenov] recalled being surprised at how irrelevant he initially felt upon arriving in Jerusalem in 2015 as U.N. special coordinator for the Middle East peace process — a post created in 1999, when there still was a peace process.

    His predecessors had by and large functioned as gadflies, experts said, firing off statements that tended to criticize Israel but seldom venturing from the sidelines. Israelis dismissed the U.N. — “Um” in Hebrew — with a tart “Um, shmum.”

    “This mission was very much isolated from any sort of high-level interaction,” Mr. Mladenov said. “Nobody took it seriously. Basically, one side expects you to just repeat what they say, the other side expects you to go away, and that’s it.”

    That pretty much was how the Israeli attitude to the UN was when I was there. Getting the Israelis to give the UN more than lip service is a big thing, because they really did see the UN as on the Palestinian side.
    Taking action in the absence of negotiations ran contrary to diplomatic doctrine at the time, which held that resuming peace talks was paramount and the way to solve everything.

    “I don’t think that’s how it works,” Mr. Mladenov said. “You can have the best deal in the world,” but as long as Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are at odds, he said, “good luck with implementing it.”

    His approach has since gained widespread acceptance.

    One Quartet [USA, Russia, UN and EU] recommendation, urging Israel to halt its West Bank settlement enterprise, was hardly novel. But another — calling on the Palestinians to “cease incitement to violence” and condemn “all acts of terrorism” — required “a shift in everyone’s position,” he said.

    ...

    As the U.N. envoy, he caught flak over his bluntness. “I don’t talk about this conflict in the usual way,” he said. “You cannot go into a restaurant in Tel Aviv, shoot at people and tell me later that that’s legitimate resistance. No, it’s not.”

    Mr. Mladenov was equally unsparing when Israeli settlers burned a Palestinian family alive. And after Israeli soldiers killed a 15-year-old Gaza boy during border demonstrations in 2018, he tweeted, “Stop shooting at children.”

    “If you as the U.N. are not clear where you stand on these things, you can’t be credible,” he said. “And I suppose that being critical of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, where I felt that they’ve done things wrong, and welcoming them when they’ve done things right — I think that’s a novelty in this frozen conflict.”

    There is room for peace, I'm sure. But people have to want it, really want it. People have to let go of the mutual history of pain and suffering. People have to stop beating each other up about mutual injustices and atrocities. People have to stop killing each other, and steel themselves to continue to want peace and work towards it in spite of the continuing killings.
Sign In or Register to comment.