@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
If there is no right to dispossess people then presumably any solution that you propose will be careful to ensure that nobody is dispossessed from the land they now occupy ?
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
No. I "side" with victims of oppression. In the Middle East at the moment that's the Palestinian people. I have already said on this thread I do not support Hamas' actions.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic. Unfortunately every time there is an almost-agreement for a 2 state solution, there is a backing away because, mostly in my understanding the Palestinian-Arab groups hold out for more, deciding it is a bad deal and they cannot live with it. Then the right wing Israelis get wind in their sails and take over more land. I think that if it were possible, 1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
If anyone wants to hear from someone on the ground who understands and wants to move things forward, perhaps take time out to watch the Amos Trust video of a conversation with Sami Awad on 18th May.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
But there is hope if you're not too old.
I refer you to my previous comment.
What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness? You do know what righteousness is right?
Note to Telford. Palestine is recognized by over 150 different countries as a nation unto itself. (See https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-palestine) It also has observer status at the United Nations and has been allowed to present its case to the Security Council several times. It has a government as well. It was able to negotiate the Oslo Accords as a nation-state.
So I stand by what I said. Go tell the Palestinians they aren't a country and Israel is not trying to eliminate them.
BTW, you should thank your stars that I did not reply immediately after your comment, otherwise I would have made Hell look like a cakewalk for you.
Palestine is indeed a nation I think, some of the nation lives in the Israeli occupied territories, quite a few in Jordan, Lebanon, and in other countries. Not all nations are countries, hence First Nations (indigenous people in Canada), and Québec which is a nation not a country within Canada.
Palestine is indeed a nation I think, some of the nation lives in the Israeli occupied territories, quite a few in Jordan, Lebanon, and in other countries. Not all nations are countries, hence First Nations (indigenous people in Canada), and Québec which is a nation not a country within Canada.
Good point, however, I specifically said Palestine is a "nation-state." That is a people with a recognized boundary, which is again recognized by over 150 other countries (or nation-states).
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
But there is hope if you're not too old.
I refer you to my previous comment.
What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness? You do know what righteousness is right?
@Martin54 you may feel provoked, but please take personal attacks like this to Hell. This thread is hot enough already without that.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
But there is hope if you're not too old.
I refer you to my previous comment.
What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness?
You do know what righteousness is right?
I did not know that righteousness had a direction. It's neither right or left
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
I don't think Israel is going anywhere. I think further settlement in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank should stop because it is going to make the end state worse, and not better.
I think Israel has made a two state solution impossible, and the next few decades are going to be about the working out of that situation.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
But there is hope if you're not too old.
I refer you to my previous comment.
What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness?
You do know what righteousness is right?
I did not know that righteousness had a direction. It's neither right or left
Please explain how I am unrighteousness
Since I have ruled that what Martin54 said amounted to a personal attack, he is not at Liberty to pursue it further in Purgatory, and, frankly, I take a dim view of you inviting him to.
Interpersonal disputes belong in Hell, not in Purgatory.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
But there is hope if you're not too old.
I refer you to my previous comment.
What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness? You do know what righteousness is right?
@Martin54 you may feel provoked, but please take personal attacks like this to Hell. This thread is hot enough already without that.
@Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.
If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?
This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.
Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.
There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.
Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.
And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.
Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????
You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?
During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?
No to both questions.
You appear to hate the Jews don't you.
I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.
You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
But there is hope if you're not too old.
I refer you to my previous comment.
What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness?
You do know what righteousness is right?
I did not know that righteousness had a direction. It's neither right or left
Please explain how I am unrighteousness
Since I have ruled that what Martin54 said amounted to a personal attack, he is not at Liberty to pursue it further in Purgatory, and, frankly, I take a dim view of you inviting him to.
Interpersonal disputes belong in Hell, not in Purgatory.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
If there is no right to dispossess people then presumably any solution that you propose will be careful to ensure that nobody is dispossessed from the land they now occupy ?
As long as they have legitimate title to the land through having purchased it. If they dispossessed the landowners in any way, then of course it must be returned with all development intact. It's literally stolen property.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
Okay, let's see what people say in formal contexts, first from earlier in that interview:
"However Dr Zahar said the two-state process had been proved to be a failure because Israel doesn't want it.
"Practically, practically, that was proved," he said, arguing that the negotiations between Israel and the more moderate Fatah Palestinian faction in the West Bank had failed.
"It is not my assessment. Go and ask (Palestinian president) Mahmoud Abbas 'are you now saying a two state solution is viable or not?'... He will say no... The Israelis are not going to accept a two-state solution."
Ms Hotovely, 41, who has served as Israel’s Minister of Settlement Affairs, added that the establishment of a Palestinian state “contradicts the official policy of the State of Israel in general and the Foreign Ministry in particular.
“On the contrary, we are doing everything possible to advance the legal status of the settlements – the opposite of the idea of dividing the land.”
What that tells me is that firstly Hotovely doesn't believe in a two state solution and as per your earlier post what Hotovely envisages is running down of the clock to the point where the settlements have been there for long enough that (in your words):
"right of return" is not a sensible concept. It is about rights, but is can't happen. Advocating it means advocating violence. There's no end to it. Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back."
Hotovely belongs to the Netanyahu's party. Specifically what message do you think they were sending when they sent her out as diplomat?
South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?
A tangent, Martin. And I don’t want to derail the thread.
I suspect “cannibal” is a metaphor but on the face of it, it’s a racist slur re Zaire. Feel free to explain if you like but be more careful,
Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?
That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.
Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.
Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
You to @chrisstiles, 'What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority?'
That is your straw man, attributing an idea to them. And it's irrelevant what Hamas say. Absolutely irrelevant. And yes the Jews need to leave all property they dispossessed the owners of, including property within their UN agreed borders. The latter only when the UN absolutely guarantees their security. Which would mean the UN, not Israel, responding to any missile firing from Palestine.
You're still wrong. I wrote that Hamas is inconsistent. I wrote that there's official Israel policy and that their right wing takes advantage. Some pages ago I wrote that all parties have to actually want peace and a settlement to make it happen. There may be straw but it's not mine.
However, your analogy of how to agree an amicable divorce was seen as misrepresenting what most see as an abusive relationship. And what the abuser (in this case Israel in the analogy) sees as peace is not what the abused partner (Palestine) will see as peace.
It's not just peace, it's agreeing what would be an acceptable peace for everyone in the area. Because the situation is so asymmetric it seems likely that an outside body is going to have to force Israel to accept terms they won't agree with. So then Israel won't want peace on those terms.
Martin49: Maintain the status quo. Nothing else can or will be done.
It may well be that the Israel-Palestine conflict is intractable for the foreseeable future, but the geo-political context in which it operates will not remain for ever, though I have no idea how the cookie will crumble. One suspects, however, that there are not a few interested parties on either side believing that to continue on the present anomic course is likely to result in a calamity for all concerned.
My question: What to do? is to invite us to put ourselves in the shoes of Biden: What is my policy goal? How do I get there? What series of decisions do I have to make starting tomorrow? Who do I have to get on side? How do I achieve that?
IMO the aim should be to establish a one state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, and any others living in the territory enjoy a common citizenship, based on individual not group rights. The residency rights of Israelis living within the 1947 borders should be recognised and the rights of settlers in the occupied territories the subject of negotiation. Any settlement should also include agreement on compensation to dispossessed Palestinians where property cannot be/ is not to be returned following the negotiation. 'There would be no 'right of return' for Jews and exiled Palestinians. The state should be secular, privileging neither Jews nor Muslims. It might be advisable to have elements of Pillarisation in the provision of services, such as education and health, to accommodate the cultural needs of ethnic communities, however identified, with funding proportionate to numbers. In foreign policy it should be non-aligned and have its neutrality guaranteed by the United States, Russia and the EU.
A major player in any process will have to be the United States giving strong support to those on either side seeking accommodation, which means indicating to the Israelis that commitment to its security is less than unconditional. For an American administration, especially a Democratic one, that could prove highly problematic.
I have tried as far as possible to recognise that the problem is structural rather than moral and a matter of praise and blame, but to try and think how a solution might be constructed that recognises opposing interests. It also supposes that the parties are seriously desirous of a peaceful settlement, which I recognise is possibly a fatal flaw in any proposal at the present time. I'm just glad I don't live there.
South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?
A tangent, Martin. And I don’t want to derail the thread.
I suspect “cannibal” is a metaphor but on the face of it, it’s a racist slur re Zaire. Feel free to explain if you like but be more careful,
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
To be fair, Martin54 was replying to a comment I made.
In context, he had said Israel would not change its ways as long as the US supports it.
I replied that the US supported South Africa until it did not, only as an example that US support of any country is not always guaranteed.
Then Martin54 made the comment above.
I did not take his reply as a tangent. Don't make it one yourself, Barnabas.
You're still wrong. I wrote that Hamas is inconsistent. I wrote that there's official Israel policy and that their right wing takes advantage.
The Sky News link you posted contains this before the interview:
"In 2017 a revised charter essentially called for a two-state solution along the 1967 borders and it claimed that its conflict was no longer with Jews but with Zionism."
ISTM that if you have decided that Hamas is inconsistent based on what the 'senior member of Hamas' says in the interview, then you should also concede that Israel is being inconsistent based on what their Ambassador to London is saying in the bits I quote (at the very least, as I can't find a record of the current government supporting a two state solution).
However, your analogy of how to agree an amicable divorce was seen as misrepresenting what most see as an abusive relationship. And what the abuser (in this case Israel in the analogy) sees as peace is not what the abused partner (Palestine) will see as peace.
It's not just peace, it's agreeing what would be an acceptable peace for everyone in the area. Because the situation is so asymmetric it seems likely that an outside body is going to have to force Israel to accept terms they won't agree with. So then Israel won't want peace on those terms.
So how does that work?
Also I noted that the analogy breaks down. The surrounding nations were surprised in 1948, 1967, 1973 that they didn't win. It flipped from expectations.
Again, no outside agency or nation can make them find peace, sort out land for peace. Opportunities keep getting missed.
I think what happens is that the parties' leaders get to agreement, and everyone looks so optimistic, then they leave (e.g
Oslo ~2000 or somewhere else), and those who they lead threaten them when they return. So they repudiate.
To my mind, it's very much like current conservative gov'ts in various places coddling right wing fringe people, whether "both sides", anti-maskers, nationalists. Radicals frequently influence more than expected. The leadership is defective everywhere. I've seen several media things with average people from opposite sides finding common ground. Other than temporary good feelings, it doesn't go. It does show everyone's humanity.
I understand it's difficult to maintain a middle view and not take sides. But this requires that. It doesn't matter if it outrages emotions, sense of justice or fairness, immediate outrage over people killed.
IMO the aim should be to establish a one state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, and any others living in the territory enjoy a common citizenship, based on individual not group rights.
This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.
South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?
A tangent, Martin. And I don’t want to derail the thread.
I suspect “cannibal” is a metaphor but on the face of it, it’s a racist slur re Zaire. Feel free to explain if you like but be more careful,
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Sir. I cannot substantiate it with regard to Zaire, but as I recall it is ascribed to Zairean forces in Angola by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Another Day of Life, or it may have been The Shadow of the Sun. So, no, I didn't mean it as metaphor, but as I cannot substantiate it yet, I apologize and withdraw it.
KarlLB: This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.
You could well be right Karl. The problem, of course, is that the maintenance of an ethnically (racially)- based state will not solve the problem.
You're still wrong. I wrote that Hamas is inconsistent. I wrote that there's official Israel policy and that their right wing takes advantage. Some pages ago I wrote that all parties have to actually want peace and a settlement to make it happen. There may be straw but it's not mine.
You're being strange now. I quoted your straw man.
KarlLB: This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.
You could well be right Karl. The problem, of course, is that the maintenance of an ethnically (racially)- based state will not solve the problem.
The argument is that only in a majority Jewish country can Jews feel safe from becoming an oppressed minority. The problem is what then happens to the people whose existence upsets the demographics.
I Googled Zaire cannibalism and found an Independent News report re allegations of cannibalism by a couple of terrorist groups in the north of Zaire. The victims were pygmies. (I know that term is considered pejorative but it is used in the article. I don’t know a substitute). The year was 2002. It’s a dreadful story and I’m not giving a link.
I couldn’t find any connection with those terrorist groups in Zaire and any involvement by Zaire in Angola.
I Googled Zaire cannibalism and found an Independent News report re allegations of cannibalism by a couple of terrorist groups in the north of Zaire. The victims were pygmies. (I know that term is considered pejorative but it is used in the article. I don’t know a substitute). The year was 2002. It’s a dreadful story and I’m not giving a link.
I couldn’t find any connection with those terrorist groups in Zaire and any involvement by Zaire in Angola.
End Tangent
If memory serves cannibalism targetting pygmies, under the guise of "bush meat", is far from rare. The treatment of pygmies in central Africa is horrendous even by the standards of the conflicts in the DRC.
@Martin54 I'm just pulling out something you said here.
Sir. I cannot substantiate it with regard to Zaire, but as I recall it is ascribed to Zairean forces in Angola by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Another Day of Life, or it may have been The Shadow of the Sun. So, no, I didn't mean it as metaphor, but as I cannot substantiate it yet, I apologize and withdraw it.
I know you've quoted Ryszard Kapuściński before with great admiration, but one of the most disillusioning experiences I've had, as someone who has spent considerable time in Luanda, was reading Another Day of Life and realising it was full of lies and fictions. He was writing for the West and didn't think his work would be read by Angolans, except for that small elite who wanted his invented spin on that war. As a paid informer and collaborationist for Polish intelligence, Kapuściński was not free to write about much of what was going on. He was a brilliant fiction writer but not a trustworthy journalist.
One of the problems and it is pertinent to a thread like this is the experiential gap between those of us who actually live and work in places that are just armchair debate topics for others. My own understanding of the catastrophic event called the battle of Cuito Cuanavale between South African and Cuban forces backing UNITA or the MPLA is partial, fallible and open to revision. It haunts all of us who lived through that time. Ryszard Kapuściński turned other people's lived history into a grandiose fantasy.
Comments
Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
That's what makes it so difficult.
No. I "side" with victims of oppression. In the Middle East at the moment that's the Palestinian people. I have already said on this thread I do not support Hamas' actions.
It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic. Unfortunately every time there is an almost-agreement for a 2 state solution, there is a backing away because, mostly in my understanding the Palestinian-Arab groups hold out for more, deciding it is a bad deal and they cannot live with it. Then the right wing Israelis get wind in their sails and take over more land. I think that if it were possible, 1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.
Tell that to the Palestinians.
What country would I be telling them about ?
But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...
It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.
And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.
But there is hope if you're not too old.
What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
Palestine is an area, not a country.
I refer you to my previous comment.
What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness? You do know what righteousness is right?
Note to Telford. Palestine is recognized by over 150 different countries as a nation unto itself. (See https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-palestine) It also has observer status at the United Nations and has been allowed to present its case to the Security Council several times. It has a government as well. It was able to negotiate the Oslo Accords as a nation-state.
So I stand by what I said. Go tell the Palestinians they aren't a country and Israel is not trying to eliminate them.
BTW, you should thank your stars that I did not reply immediately after your comment, otherwise I would have made Hell look like a cakewalk for you.
Good point, however, I specifically said Palestine is a "nation-state." That is a people with a recognized boundary, which is again recognized by over 150 other countries (or nation-states).
The link should have been https://www.vox.com/22455044/american-jewish-education-israel-palestine
@Martin54 you may feel provoked, but please take personal attacks like this to Hell. This thread is hot enough already without that.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I did not know that righteousness had a direction. It's neither right or left
Please explain how I am unrighteousness
I don't think Israel is going anywhere. I think further settlement in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank should stop because it is going to make the end state worse, and not better.
I think Israel has made a two state solution impossible, and the next few decades are going to be about the working out of that situation.
No that straw man is your idea.
Since I have ruled that what Martin54 said amounted to a personal attack, he is not at Liberty to pursue it further in Purgatory, and, frankly, I take a dim view of you inviting him to.
Interpersonal disputes belong in Hell, not in Purgatory.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I beg your pardon. I only just saw this.
I totally agree.
As long as they have legitimate title to the land through having purchased it. If they dispossessed the landowners in any way, then of course it must be returned with all development intact. It's literally stolen property.
But it's not. To be fair, Hamas goes back and forth, but mostly against Israel's right to exist. This is from 2 ago. Senior Hamas Leader Says on British TV: Israel Has No Right to Exist. Probably when people say things in formal contexts we should take them seriously.
So you're wrong to attribute a straw man to me.
and as long as Israel keep hearing words like that, there cannot be a solution.
Okay, let's see what people say in formal contexts, first from earlier in that interview:
Now lets look at what the current Israeli ambassador to London had to say when she first took up post (from the Jewish Chronicle): https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/incoming-envoy-hotovely-attacked-board-over-two-state-commitment-1.500595
What that tells me is that firstly Hotovely doesn't believe in a two state solution and as per your earlier post what Hotovely envisages is running down of the clock to the point where the settlements have been there for long enough that (in your words):
Hotovely belongs to the Netanyahu's party. Specifically what message do you think they were sending when they sent her out as diplomat?
A tangent, Martin. And I don’t want to derail the thread.
I suspect “cannibal” is a metaphor but on the face of it, it’s a racist slur re Zaire. Feel free to explain if you like but be more careful,
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
You to @chrisstiles, 'What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority?'
That is your straw man, attributing an idea to them. And it's irrelevant what Hamas say. Absolutely irrelevant. And yes the Jews need to leave all property they dispossessed the owners of, including property within their UN agreed borders. The latter only when the UN absolutely guarantees their security. Which would mean the UN, not Israel, responding to any missile firing from Palestine.
It's not just peace, it's agreeing what would be an acceptable peace for everyone in the area. Because the situation is so asymmetric it seems likely that an outside body is going to have to force Israel to accept terms they won't agree with. So then Israel won't want peace on those terms.
So how does that work?
It may well be that the Israel-Palestine conflict is intractable for the foreseeable future, but the geo-political context in which it operates will not remain for ever, though I have no idea how the cookie will crumble. One suspects, however, that there are not a few interested parties on either side believing that to continue on the present anomic course is likely to result in a calamity for all concerned.
My question: What to do? is to invite us to put ourselves in the shoes of Biden: What is my policy goal? How do I get there? What series of decisions do I have to make starting tomorrow? Who do I have to get on side? How do I achieve that?
IMO the aim should be to establish a one state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, and any others living in the territory enjoy a common citizenship, based on individual not group rights. The residency rights of Israelis living within the 1947 borders should be recognised and the rights of settlers in the occupied territories the subject of negotiation. Any settlement should also include agreement on compensation to dispossessed Palestinians where property cannot be/ is not to be returned following the negotiation. 'There would be no 'right of return' for Jews and exiled Palestinians. The state should be secular, privileging neither Jews nor Muslims. It might be advisable to have elements of Pillarisation in the provision of services, such as education and health, to accommodate the cultural needs of ethnic communities, however identified, with funding proportionate to numbers. In foreign policy it should be non-aligned and have its neutrality guaranteed by the United States, Russia and the EU.
A major player in any process will have to be the United States giving strong support to those on either side seeking accommodation, which means indicating to the Israelis that commitment to its security is less than unconditional. For an American administration, especially a Democratic one, that could prove highly problematic.
I have tried as far as possible to recognise that the problem is structural rather than moral and a matter of praise and blame, but to try and think how a solution might be constructed that recognises opposing interests. It also supposes that the parties are seriously desirous of a peaceful settlement, which I recognise is possibly a fatal flaw in any proposal at the present time. I'm just glad I don't live there.
To be fair, Martin54 was replying to a comment I made.
In context, he had said Israel would not change its ways as long as the US supports it.
I replied that the US supported South Africa until it did not, only as an example that US support of any country is not always guaranteed.
Then Martin54 made the comment above.
I did not take his reply as a tangent. Don't make it one yourself, Barnabas.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
The Sky News link you posted contains this before the interview:
"In 2017 a revised charter essentially called for a two-state solution along the 1967 borders and it claimed that its conflict was no longer with Jews but with Zionism."
ISTM that if you have decided that Hamas is inconsistent based on what the 'senior member of Hamas' says in the interview, then you should also concede that Israel is being inconsistent based on what their Ambassador to London is saying in the bits I quote (at the very least, as I can't find a record of the current government supporting a two state solution).
Also I noted that the analogy breaks down. The surrounding nations were surprised in 1948, 1967, 1973 that they didn't win. It flipped from expectations.
Again, no outside agency or nation can make them find peace, sort out land for peace. Opportunities keep getting missed.
I think what happens is that the parties' leaders get to agreement, and everyone looks so optimistic, then they leave (e.g
Oslo ~2000 or somewhere else), and those who they lead threaten them when they return. So they repudiate.
To my mind, it's very much like current conservative gov'ts in various places coddling right wing fringe people, whether "both sides", anti-maskers, nationalists. Radicals frequently influence more than expected. The leadership is defective everywhere. I've seen several media things with average people from opposite sides finding common ground. Other than temporary good feelings, it doesn't go. It does show everyone's humanity.
I understand it's difficult to maintain a middle view and not take sides. But this requires that. It doesn't matter if it outrages emotions, sense of justice or fairness, immediate outrage over people killed.
This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.
Sir. I cannot substantiate it with regard to Zaire, but as I recall it is ascribed to Zairean forces in Angola by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Another Day of Life, or it may have been The Shadow of the Sun. So, no, I didn't mean it as metaphor, but as I cannot substantiate it yet, I apologize and withdraw it.
You could well be right Karl. The problem, of course, is that the maintenance of an ethnically (racially)- based state will not solve the problem.
You're being strange now. I quoted your straw man.
The argument is that only in a majority Jewish country can Jews feel safe from becoming an oppressed minority. The problem is what then happens to the people whose existence upsets the demographics.
Thanks, Martin54.
I Googled Zaire cannibalism and found an Independent News report re allegations of cannibalism by a couple of terrorist groups in the north of Zaire. The victims were pygmies. (I know that term is considered pejorative but it is used in the article. I don’t know a substitute). The year was 2002. It’s a dreadful story and I’m not giving a link.
I couldn’t find any connection with those terrorist groups in Zaire and any involvement by Zaire in Angola.
End Tangent
If memory serves cannibalism targetting pygmies, under the guise of "bush meat", is far from rare. The treatment of pygmies in central Africa is horrendous even by the standards of the conflicts in the DRC.
Sir. I cannot substantiate it with regard to Zaire, but as I recall it is ascribed to Zairean forces in Angola by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Another Day of Life, or it may have been The Shadow of the Sun. So, no, I didn't mean it as metaphor, but as I cannot substantiate it yet, I apologize and withdraw it.
I know you've quoted Ryszard Kapuściński before with great admiration, but one of the most disillusioning experiences I've had, as someone who has spent considerable time in Luanda, was reading Another Day of Life and realising it was full of lies and fictions. He was writing for the West and didn't think his work would be read by Angolans, except for that small elite who wanted his invented spin on that war. As a paid informer and collaborationist for Polish intelligence, Kapuściński was not free to write about much of what was going on. He was a brilliant fiction writer but not a trustworthy journalist.
One of the problems and it is pertinent to a thread like this is the experiential gap between those of us who actually live and work in places that are just armchair debate topics for others. My own understanding of the catastrophic event called the battle of Cuito Cuanavale between South African and Cuban forces backing UNITA or the MPLA is partial, fallible and open to revision. It haunts all of us who lived through that time. Ryszard Kapuściński turned other people's lived history into a grandiose fantasy.