With that synopsis it sounds a Trump speech, apart from actually resigning. So he’s still a step ahead.
Edit: I didn’t think much of the speech. Resigning is the best thing he could do however.
3 Likes
Israeli settlements are not the issue. Never have been, never will be. They are a convenient excuse that people seem to latch on to.
The Palestinians are not after a two state solution. In fact, I’m not sure where people ever got that idea from. If that’s all they wanted, it would have been done a long, long time ago. It’s been the official position of the Israeli government for several years and over several administrations now.
The Palestinians, and particularly Hamas, are very clear on what they want. They want “from the river to the sea”, the complete annihalation of Israel and Jewish genocide. It’s not about borders, or even about the living conditions of their people, it’s about a deep-seated hatred of Jews that will not end until they have full control. If the Palestinians laid down their guns tomorrow, there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down their guns tomorrow, there would no longer be any Israelis.
1 Like
And I’m so sick of how the responsibility and concessions for peace always seem to land on the lap of the Israelis.
They refuse to enter into direct negotiations, they kidnap soldiers, they go into Israeli homes and murder men, women, and children, they call for ‘intifadas’ simply because the US are finally choosing to recognise Jerusalem as the capital, they preach hatred and anti-semitism in their schools, they blow up buses and restaurants, pour all their funding which should go into improving the living standards of their people into building terror tunnels instead, name their streets and stadiums after terrorists, celebrate acts of terrorism, elect a government of actual terrorists, and all the while… it’s Israel who aren’t doing enough.
What kind of peace can you hope to achieve with a nation who is committed to killing you and says as much openly and regularly?
1 Like
Not quite. The Israelis rejected the Palestinian right to return.
1 Like
Because that would mean that Israel would be longer. Instead, we would have the world’s 51st Muslim majority country, and what a warm and inviting place it would be.
The ‘right of return’ also extends to the children, grand-children, great grand-children… etc of the Palestinians living in Israel way back when, regardless of the fact that they were born in another country and have never stepped foot in Israel. It’s an absurd request. Only with Palestinians does the definition of refugee extend to descendants who have been properly settled in other countries - ask yourself why that is.
Not to mention that many (perhaps even the bulk of) Palestinians fled voluntarily or upon the instruction of the invading Arab armies who sought to destroy the fledgling country, with the understanding they would win and then return to their homes. It was a war of aggression that was initiated by Israel’s neighbours.
Or how about the 900,000 Jews that were expelled from Islamic countries due to anti-semetic violence? Where are the calls for their ‘right of return’ and compensation? Why the double standard?
1 Like
Isn’t this contradictory to Jewish rights though?
I’m not fully across it but I allways thought all Jewish poeople had the right to citizenship in Isreal. So their family may have not been in Isreal for Millenia, yet still have the right to be in isreal today.
1 Like
Because they don’t really have a choice. Do they?
Why don’t they? If they were unfairly removed from their former homes, they’re entitled to be compensated.
You mean civilians who got out of the way of an impending conflict? It’s not unusual for civilians to flee from a conflict.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and anyone else who’s ambition is to push Israel into the sea are wrong and don’t have the support of decent minded people and governments however, Israel can’t think that it can guarantee peace by the continuing oppression of it’s Palestinian population with a regime of physical and financial apartheid, land confiscations and a legal system that is biased against them.
Two states with a clearly defined border and compensation for the displaced (on both sides) is the way forward.
1 Like
Because it will never happen.
Or is it that they don’t ask because the irony would be unbearable?
And Portugal and Spain recently granted right of return to descendants of Jews expelled around 500 years ago. No corresponding rights to descendants of the Moors.
What Hamas etc are doing is bad. But it does not make what Israel is doing is right. It is recognised as a like minded democratic Western country, but breaks the rules on illegal settlements and on its two tier citizenship status, plus frustrates trade access and economic development for Palestine granted by Europe and others ( I think including
Australia ) it needs to be judged on that basis .That Is not conducive to encourage Palestinians to agree to a two State solution, rather, it fuels the flames of violence by people who rightly have a grave sense of injustice.
3 Likes
I generally agree with your points, but do you really believe that bolded section? Republicans aren’t supporting Moore because of what Franken did as well. They’re supporting him because they don’t want to give up a senate seat. They’ve then used all kinds of arguments to justify that position. And some, like the state leader, have openly said they believe Moore’s accusers but would prefer him to a Democrat.
The concessions for peace always land on the Israeli’s because the Palestinians don’t actually have much to give up. They can give up violence. They can give up any rights arising from their original displacement. After that, they don’t have anything. And Israel has shown its perfectly happy with the status quo, so if the Palestinians would be non-violent they would happy leave things as is.
In that situation, of course the Palestinians have little to argue with. Moral outrage or a moral obligation don’t get you far in international politics. You say they should stop saying they want the land to the sea. What you’re really saying, is they should give up a claim before negotiations even start.
The Palestinians could lay down their guns tomorrow and there would be peace. There would be no justice, economic squalor and no control over their own fate or borders, but heh, they should just live with that, right?
On the two-state solution, there is obviously a difference depending on what that means. Yes, the Israeli’s have been officially for it for years. But in the negotiations that have happened, the two-state solution they have argued for is one which gives little water to the Palestinians, the best land to Israel, has huge tracks of land passing through their state that Israel would control, issues with border access, and significant limitations that would impact any ability to have a working, functional state. Israel may say their for a two-state solution, but what they’ve offered isn’t practical for anyone except Israel.
4 Likes
Please point me to the ‘practical’ two-state solution that’s been offered up by the Palestinians…
That would be a very strong foundation. How about we start with that?
Or do you think that Israel should negotiate away their security and ability to defend themselves and their populous before the Palestinian’s show any sort of committment to halting, promoting, celebrating, and incentivising acts of terrorism?
Israel capacity to protect its borders and the safety of its citizens - and the military hardware cost- is increasingly aggravated by technology developments . Now it’s low cost drones.
The US/UN ban on the sale of military hardware and military grade tecnology does not work when less sophisticated weapons of destruction are available to the public at low cost.
That would inevitably have to happen as part of a hypothetical long term peace settlement.
But right now, violence is the only bargaining chip the Palestinians have. Getting the to renounce it is going to be a long slow imperfect process in the cery best case. And that’s assuming there’s a single entity called ‘the Palestinians’ that can ensure NO murderer or fanatic or splinter group will keep right on being violent.
As the murder of Rabin demonstrated, neither side is entirely united on what constitutes a reasonable compromise.
Israel saying to the Palestinians ‘give up violence then we’ll talk’ is asking the current Palestinian leadership to make promises that they simply dont have the power to keep. And when (not if) extremists break those promises they didnt make and Israel retaliates heavily or withdraws from the agreement as a result, then those factions in the Palestinian leadership that wanted to negotiate are discredited and are likely to be replaced by more hardliners.
2 Likes
How can murdering innocent civilians ever be considered a bargaining chip in the name of achieving peace?
What makes you (or anyone) think that peace is even the end-goal?
2 Likes
Firstly, Palestinians are not a faceless fanatical mass of androids universally dedicated to the destruction of Israel above all else.
Second, when you’re trying to stop a war, of COURSE violence has to be one of the cards on the table at negotiations. It’s the entire central issue in fact. Here’s the thing, suicide bombing and terrorism and guerrilla warfare is the extremism of the weak because this is all the weak can do. Colonialism and oppression and expulsion and disenfranchisement and the denial of justice is the extremism of the strong, because the strong CAN do these things and so don’t have to resort to terrorism. Just ask menachim begin.
Third, a Palestinian could just as easily and just as accurately say about settlement expansion ‘How can ethnic cleansing ever be considered a bargaining chip in the name of achieving peace?’
As for ‘end goals’ - which are ridiculous, nobody is getting their ‘end goal’ out of this situation - what would you say Israeli ‘end goal’ is? And as for the renunciation of violence - if every single Palestinian took a giant hit from a magic peace bong and renounced violence overnight, do you really believe that Israel would say ‘fine here you go have a state’ or even ‘fine here you go, all of you get the vote now’? If the palestinians unilaterally renounced violence, what do you think Netanyahu’s Israel would do next?
5 Likes
Netanyahu’s Israel would remain the status quo.
1 Like
Israeli citizens have a lot to gain from making compromises as a contribution to peace. As it is, Israel is surrounded by hostile States and must depend on more distant Western States for its survival while deploying Mossad assassination squads in some of those States, The daily life of Israeli citizens a is to listen to the news to determine whether they can go out the door to work or school, or for that matter anywhere else.