Senate Israel/Palestine

The thing is that defending Israel should be about security. For reasons which we have discussed ad nauseum in this thread, Israel happens to have a very large population of Palestinians living next door who are not happy with being occupied, blockaded and oppressed. This creates valid security concerns for Israel.

This policy of pursuing international legitimacy for the Palestinian people is actually a step forward to alleviating those security concerns for Israel. The Palestinian people are demonstrating a desire to move from being perceived as a collective of freedom fighters and victims to recognitiion as a sovereign state with the attendant rights of membership in the institutions of international law and diplomacy. Israel would obviously prefer the Palestinians to remain perceived as a rabid mob of terrorists but the reality is that peace will be achieved through diplomacy and not car bombs.

I'm not sure why it actually helps Israel's cause, in terms of security, for the US to block the path the Palestinians have taken. If Israel was actually an honest partner in the peace process then it would be applauding these moves rather than sanctioning them.

Mr44 - I don't really have a response to your post.

 

LOH, no response at all? You and Watto are why I even posted on this. On to other observations.

Vivec-The Palestinians are suffering in a humanitarian crisis that is partially being perpetuated by Israel. In addition, they continuously lose their homes to Israeli settlers. To somehow compare them to a group of alcoholics and to completely ignore the situation of the Palestinians is dishonest to the discussion and furthermore, disgusting.

Yeah, I don't disagree. But the Kurds, for example, are suffering a humanitarian crisis. Besides being trotted out whenever it suits whoever needs them, why focus so much more on the Palestinians than the Kurds? Because the Palestinians have the spectre of "ZIONISM!" to fall back on, which is a pop culture boogeyman buzzword. If the roles were reversed, and the UN originally carved Israel out of portions of Turkey, and every other result was the same, no one would care about the Palestinians, but the struggle of the Kurds would be in the forefront. The Palestinians are not engaging in any kind of productive internal dialog, and so far have made a series of self-destructive decisions, which is precisely why the alcoholic comparison is so apropos.

Lowie-How is this the UN getting involved in an internal issue? Aren't we skipping over that part where, oh, the UN created Israel? The UN created this problem, and as such, they're already involved in it and the UN bears a responsibility to solve this far greater than the other issues mentioned, which weren't of their creating.

Because, at the basic level, there are institutions that exist in the UN right now that can address the issue without artificially elevating the Palestinians within the very same organization (even though they are not ready for such elevation.) It's not a case of either the Palestinians get official recognition equal to statehood or they get nothing. There are policies in place that help distressed population groups within the UN. Secondly, the "UN created Israel" is another issue that is a huge bone of contention. Israel was created about 65 years ago. Israel is older than Libya. Israel is older than contemporary Puerto Rico, and Moroco, and all sorts of other nation-states. Since modern day Laos's independence was recognized by the UN, and has resulted in almost constant civil war and revolt, would it make sense to undo that decision and return it to being part of Indochina? At some point, the policies of a past period can't be the focus of current policies, and this becomes more true as time goes by. I realize that no one here is talking about "undoing" Israel, and really, the focus is on joining together a new Palestine. But elements within the Palestinians act toward this goal. And this has been mentioned to death, but a modern day Palestine can be created right now out of the elements that the UN also gave to Jordan, and Syria, and Lebanon. Why is it politically desirable for Jordan to keep its "stolen" Palestinian land and artificial border, but Israel is screwed? A real solution has to come from all those involved, and it can't focus on Jordan pointing at Israel and telling the Palestinians that they're the bad guys, even as the Jordanian secret police beats down twice as many displaced Palestinians than Israel does, because Jordan doesn't want them either.

 

I know but your positions seem to be getting even wackier as time passes. If you were to propose that the Palestinians should relocate to the moon I would similarly have no response. The moon proposal and your comments in your recents posts are in the same ball park. You just seem to be obsessed with irrelevencies.

 

Couldn´t have said it better, but I must add that I think it´s a shame - 44, you know so much about the relevant institutions, history, tactics, and logistics, but you're squandering that knowledge on a lazy laissez-faire attitude. "After us, the deluge". It's a waste of your potential, and of the potential of this discussion.

 

You just seem to be obsessed with irrelevencies

But see, from my perspective, I'd say the same thing about your arguments. You and Watto seem to be obsessed with nothing but fairness of the situation, and compeltely glossing over the fact that the Palestinians themselves ruin their own chances for self-determination through their own action. Great, the situation in old Palestine was unfair. Welcome to the rest of the world, Palestine. Palestine meet the rest of the world. There's nothing intrinsically more serious regarding the Palestinian situation than any of the other unfair situations that exist in the world. Nothing that I've posted has been even remotely wacky or even represents outside-the-box thinking, except for the fact that it fosters accountability on the Palestinians themselves, which I think you two find to be a completely foreign idea. If even half the resources that have been endlessly spent on the Palestinians were instead spent on alternatives like providing fresh water to the Kurds, or providing skills training to Tutsi groups, the world would be a better place. At least until the Palestinians get their own house in order first.

There have been plenty of political divisions and even nation-states that have been successfully created by the UN. There have been plenty of spectacular failures engineered by the UN as well. The successes achieved such by moving forward and embracing self-determination. The failures sank lower because they became bogged down in internal in-fighting and external finger pointing. The Palestinians are very much entrenched in the latter category, no matter what anyone else does, or whose fault it was for a decision made over half a century ago.

That's what is so ironic. I'd say my posts here have remained pretty consistent regarding this topic. Continuing to watch this unfold, to me at least, it's you guys who seem to get more and more militant toward the Palestinian side. If you're worried that the Palestinians are becoming more and more marginalized, it's because the Palestinians themselves have ensured that this happen, and continue to ensure that they marginalize themselves even more. No matter how much you (they) try, you can't blame an external focus for this fact.

 

"The Palestinians themselves have allowed this to happen."

The Palestinians themselves have allowed this to happen.

Brute force funded by your tax money has allowed this to happen. Above all, your government's consistent backing of Israel has allowed this to happen. Is allowing this to happen, today. Will allow, tomorrow.

44, I'm dying to know what your position is in relation to your government's unwaivering support of Israel. Why do you always gloss that over? It's wannasee-ish.
Also, I'd really like to know how you can justify your projection of self-reliance on people under occupation. When my grandfather was arrested by a Nazi, would have told him "You've allowed this to happen"?

 

See, the major problem here is that you lump criticism of the Palestinians in with support of Israel. I do think that the US openly supports Israel too often, but that's born more out of selfish support for the US. I couldn't care less about what Israel does. Or it would be fair to say that I don't care any more about Israel than I care about what the Philippines does, or what Turkey does, or what Poland does. Israel earned its share of problems just as any others have. But Israel already has what it wants, which is statehood. As for what you say is the US's unwaivering support of Israel, let me ask you some other brutally honest questions.

1)Besides the US, why is Hamas listed as a terrorist organization by just about every technological Western power? Germany, Japan, Australia, the UK. All unapologetically condemn Hamas. Some of these even stronger than the US. It's not a matter of the US irrationally picking on Hamas. Did all of these countries just wake up one day and decide to bully the Palestinians? Guess who was elected as majority of the Palestinians authority despite this fact? One guess, and it's not the Green party.

2)Why does the Palestinian Authority constantly, as in a matter of policy, divert aid that the Palestinian people legitimately need in order to buy things like offensive rockets and other weapons of destruction? You dismiss them as "tales of missiles," but such practice has a self fulfilling result within the Palestinian territories themselves.

3)Why do the other Arab (meaning non-jewish, non-Israeli interests) nations in the region act with a more brutal response against the Palestinians than the Israelis do in many cases? Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, all are, or were at one time, sworn enemies of Israel, but all also utterly reject any claims of legitimacy from the Palestinians. It was just last summer when Egypt was perfectly content to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza, even if it meant they staved to death and/or suffered loss through disease and lack of medical care. Why?

You can't ignore these very real questions, and none of them have anything to do with Israel. Before anything else happens, the Palestinians have to gain some sort of moral, productive self identity, no matter what is happening around them. To draw another parallel, the Palestinians have to start choosing the path of Mohandas Gandhi, and stop choosing the path of Nikita Khrushchev, even if this means they forgive some perceived sins of the past. And I don't mean that they literally have to choose non-violence, or follow in the literal footsteps of Gandhi, but they have to earn some sort of international trust. Responsibility is earned, not weaseled into. Because what they are doing now is not working. To repeat, it's not working. The Palestinians will never achieve their goals as long as they marginalize themselves. And again, I say this without any other connotations for or against Israel.

 

1)Besides the US, why is Hamas listed as a terrorist organization by just about every technological Western power? Germany, Japan, Australia, the UK. All unapologetically condemn Hamas. Some of these even stronger than the US. It's not a matter of the US irrationally picking on Hamas. Did all of these countries just wake up one day and decide to bully the Palestinians? Guess who was elected as majority of the Palestinians authority despite this fact? One guess, and it's not the Green party.

Hamas is labeled as a terrorist organization because it has engaged in terrorism in the past. But just because we condemn Hamas doesn't mean Israel's hands are clean. Expansion of settlements, construction in East Jerusalem, claiming contested holy sites....these are not conciliatory steps towards peace, they're either intended to burn bridges or an attempt at conquest and domination.

Also, a major reason that Hamas was elected was because Fatah was hopelessly corrupt and people were sick of them.

2)Why does the Palestinian Authority constantly, as in a matter of policy, divert aid that the Palestinian people legitimately need in order to buy things like offensive rockets and other weapons of destruction? You dismiss them as "tales of missiles," but such practice has a self fulfilling result within the Palestinian territories themselves.

I've only heard of Hamas buying rockets, not the PA. But considering the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, can you blame the Palestinians when some of them get angry enough that they build rockets, shoot them into Israel, and call it self-defense? It's still wrong no doubt, but it would be disingenuous to look at this in a vacuum without considering what Israel has done to provoke them.

3)Why do the other Arab (meaning non-jewish, non-Israeli interests) nations in the region act with a more brutal response against the Palestinians than the Israelis do in many cases? Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, all are, or were at one time, sworn enemies of Israel, but all also utterly reject any claims of legitimacy from the Palestinians. It was just last summer when Egypt was perfectly content to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza, even if it meant they staved to death and/or suffered loss through disease and lack of medical care. Why?

Last summer Egypt was still ruled by Mubarak, and he didn't like being challenged by the Muslim Brotherhood or its affiliate Hamas. I probably don't have a grasp of the whole picture, but in any case the average Egyptian seems to be much more sympathetic to the Palestinians than their former leader was.

 

I just posted this in the Arab Spring thread, but new reports are saying Israel is preparing to strike Iran, with the help of the UK (and probably the US too).

 

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, in Gaza at least, the population will continue to support the likes of Hamas whilst the conditions imposed by Israel prevail. In the West Bank, I think you will find that the Palestinian leadership has already embarked upon the Gandhi path, as has the overwhelming majority of the population. Abbas is not brandishing a Kalashnikov, rather, he is taking diplomatic steps to seek the recognition of the Palestinian people in the institutions of international law and diplomacy.

The legal framework is in place for Palestinian sovereignty, the fundamental issue is that Israel continues to ignore the legal framework so as to create an obstacle to the proper formation of a Palestinian diplomatic society. That is my issue with Israel in a nutshell. By ignoring the dozens of UNSC and UNGC Resolutions imposed upon it, Israel perpetuates a situation which keeps the Palestinians marginalised internationally because of US veto powers. Israel has violated more UN Security Council Resolutions than Iraq ever did. I know you have a jaundiced view of the Palestinians, but they are not "alcoholics" as you claim in your analogy, they're abused children who are denied legal protection because the big brother of their tormentor happens to be the judge.

I do not accept your assertion that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon "utterly reject any claims of legitimacy from the Palestinians". Those countries simply do not want a de facto Palestinian state forming in their own back yards and for good reason, Lebanon and Jordan have both experienced an Israeli invasion as you well know. The invasion of Beirut and the ensuing Sabra and Chatila massacres serve as a reminder to any country what happens when you allow a mini Palestinian 'state' to take hold in their territory. The Palestinians are like poison to them.

 

Actually Red, the questions themselves were more rhetorical ones, but I don't know if those answers were supposed to offer a counter to anything asked. Anyway, your entire post illustrates my larger point. All of your answers seek to absolve the Palestinians of their own poor decisions, and all devolve down to a variation of "sure, the Palestinians have issues, but look at Israel." None of which will remotely get the Palestinians what they want. Who says the only internal choices for the Palestinian people has to be between Hamas and Fatah? Who says that the only response for a portion of aid money has to be to build revenge rockets to shoot into Israel to the point that other countries suspend their foreign aid? The Egyptian people had a goal, turned toward responsibility, and now have a different path, even if it's not going to be easy. But your post also illustrates what I wanted to highlight, which is that the Palestinian leadership, the governments of countries like Egypt and Jordan all use(d) the Palestinians toward their own end, and not toward anything remotely helpful toward the people themselves. These are choices that don't involve Israel at all, and will turn the tide toward alternatives.

If your parents let you borrow the keys to the family car, and you go and smash it drag racing, it's going to be more difficult to get the keys in the future. If you manage to convince them to borrow the keys for a second time, and you go out drag racing and smash it again, you're probably not going to get the keys ever again. In a nutshell, if you want to borrow the keys, you have to be on your best behavior to earn them because the keys aren't yours to take. Now, make it 60+ years of borrowing keys and drag racing without changing any choices or reacting in a different way. That's why the Palestinians are no closer to achieving their goals than they were back in 1948.

It doesn't matter in the slightest that its not fair that the neighbor kid down the street is allowed to drag race every day and get away with it because he has his own hot rod. Take care of yourself and the rest will follow.


-And LOH, see, I agree with everything in your post. And it didn't even revolve around sending the Palestinians to the Moon...

 

Well, I'm glad you agree but I just want to make the point that it is abundantly clear that the Palestinian leadership is doing its best to don a suit, brush its hair, polish its shoes and demonstrate to the international community that it is able to be a good international citizen if given the chance. This is a remarkable departure from the Arafat era and the US should be doing everything in its power to encourage this, as should Israel if it was a honest peace partner.

This move by Abbas is designed to undermine the influence of Hamas and to create a unity government which will see Hamas disappear as a political force in Gaza, once its fundamentalist religious agenda comes to the forefront. At the moment, Fatah is the only real option in the path to gaining sovereignty. Once that goal is achieved then the way will be paved for the emergence of a more stable political environment.

Edit: You can't really compare Palestinians living in the occupied territories under a regime of 'interim' self rule with nations such as Egypt. It's like apples and oranges.

 

I wasn't seeking to absolve the Palestinians of their poor decisions, at least not fully. But if Israel is pushing for maximalist demands, then we can't say that it's serious about peace and therefore it deserves to be criticized.

I don't know, were there other alternatives to Fatah? And I don't quite understand your point about the revenge rockets. What I was saying above was that Fatah, unlike Hamas, isn't firing rockets into Israel, so the aid we're giving them isn't going into buying rockets.

I don't see your point here either. Egypt was under the rule of a dictator, and is now (hopefully) on the way to a democratic government. We really can't hold the Egyptian people accountable if Mubarak's regime was using the Palestinians as political pawns. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are all run by non-democratic or less-than-democratic regimes that have their own interests that run counter to those of the Palestinians. Again this is the work of autocrats, not the people of those nations.

 

I still dismiss 44's entire line of rhetoric. When we're dealing with occupation, land grab, systematic discrimination, and blockade, the first responsible entity is the oppressor. Only when oppression has been lifted can you start criticizing the, ah, oppressee.

Human rights should not have to be earned.


The questions have been answered by Red very well, I think. I'd just like to add:

It was the party that was urged by the countries to join the elections you mentioned. Join the elections, join the elections, they said, but then that party won and was outlawed by those same countries. It´s like that Eddie Murphy sketch:

White dudes like to do **** like that, vote for the wrong dude as a goof.
They get drunk and go like:
"Let's vote for Jesse Jackson!"
"I just voted for Jesse Jackson!"
And next day would be like this: "He ******' won?"

 

Well, I'm glad you agree but I just want to make the point that it is abundantly clear that the Palestinian leadership is doing its best to don a suit, brush its hair, polish its shoes and demonstrate to the international community that it is able to be a good international citizen if given the chance.

I'm not so sure how much it is though. I'd agree with you that there is a remarkable departure from the Arafat era, but it's only the first step in a long journey, it's not the end result. I don't think it's wise for the Palestinians to push for official UN recognition just yet because it forces the issue. The UNESCO fiasco is simply a consequence of pushing for such things before it makes sense to do so. For example this:

"We have gotten a precedent that might open the road for us to join other agencies," said Ibrahim Khraishi, the Palestinian envoy to the U.N. in Geneva. He said the Palestinians are now studying whether they can join 16 other U.N. agencies. Palestinian officials said that after Monday's UNESCO vote, Palestinian Health Minister Fathi Abu Mughli rushed to the local offices of the World Health Organization to get information on joining. The moves come as the Palestinians are increasingly seeking unilateral moves toward statehood that would bypass peace talks. A key test of those efforts could come as soon as next week. The Palestinians have asked the U.N. Security Council to grant them full membership in the United Nations, and a vote is tentatively set for Nov. 11. The United States, as a permanent member of the powerful council, has promised to veto the request. But the Palestinians are still trying to rally the required nine-vote majority that would trigger the veto, believing that would give them a moral victory by placing the U.S. at odds with most of the international community.

It's these stupid games of brinksmanship that the Palestinians can't stop playing that is harming their prospects in other areas. If Khraishi wants to force Palestinian membership in a dozen UN organizations just to initial a moral game of chicken, the first time something happens that is beyond their control, such as UNESCO money being used to fund rocket purchases, it's all going to come crashing down around them again. It's much better to earn the respect and demonstrate that being allowed to achieve such recognition is a benefit to everyone involved. All of these actions form the basis for my earlier alcoholic comparison, but no matter if you want to compare them to alcoholics, abused children, or something else, it's not productive. Because the bottom line is that no one can force a collective arrangement where they still have to interact with other members of the collective.

Edit: You can't really compare Palestinians living in the occupied territories under a regime of 'interim' self rule with nations such as Egypt. It's like apples and oranges.

No, of course not. I wasn't making a direct comparison. But it demonstrates that the Palestinians have a negative reputation beyond Israel's borders. It's one thing to have an enemy hate you. That's a given. It's another thing entirely to have one's potential allies look upon you with the same disdain. If this doesn't change, the Palestinians will never achieve their goals.

Watto-I still dismiss 44's entire line of rhetoric. When we're dealing with occupation, land grab, systematic discrimination, and blockade, the first responsible entity is the oppressor. Only when oppression has been lifted can you start criticizing the, ah, oppressee.

But the problem is that your entire position is still based on anger. The Palestinians can stay mad all day long, and lament how land was stolen half a century ago, and how a collective code of honor means that they will never say they are sorry for reacting against a decision made before most were born. If you want to keep the blame game going out of some perceived fairness based moral code, fine. But this mentality is what keeps the conflict going, and is what ensures that the goals will never be

 

What the leaders of Arab countries think is hardly representative of what their respective populations think. In the case of Egypt, for example, you had a dictator that was supported and financially backed by the US, mainly because he was an obedient lapdog when it came to US/Israeli interests. When you use puppet dictators to support your claim that the Arab street has the same position toward Palestinians as the American and Israeli governments, you're just being disingenuous. It's not really a shock that your proxies agree with you.

 

Mr. 44, I totally get your point. I play devil's advocate on this discussion a lot with my friends who have various views, and this is something I often bring up. However, the point I think people are trying to convey to you is that Isreal is only in this superior position because of the backing of the United States.

I also agree with the notion that the occupier has a greater responsibility to foster peace and to properly care for the land it occupies. However, I am worried that there may not be any peaceful solution to this conflict. Has there ever been one in history? Traditionally, hasn't one side essentially taken over completely and expelled, obliterated, or subjugated the other side in this kind of conflict?

 

Mr. 44, I totally get your point. I play devil's advocate on this discussion a lot with my friends who have various views, and this is something I often bring up. However, the point I think people are trying to convey to you is that Isreal is only in this superior position because of the backing of the United States.

Sure, I get this. And I'd also say "so what?" What about the EU, which Israel also trades with? What about Turkey? Tomorrow, Israel could do a complete 180 degree turn and dump the US while making all kinds of deals with Brazil, and Israel's position would be just as strong. Why? Because Israel offers benefits to the relationship on the international stage, and actively makes it so, even to the point that it's worth the political risk. The Palestinians have alienated 99.9% of the entire world, even as they sit back and say "but it's not fair! It's not fair! Look what Israel is doing!" Yeah, it's not fair. And it's harsh. But it's something that only they can change.

India didn't get to be where it is because it stayed mired in the fact that the British treated them so utterly crappy during the colonial period. India got where it is today because it focused inward...developed GDP sustainable national products, and captured the moral side of of the issue, so just about every country in the world wanted to rally behind India's cause. India didn't have an easy time. India had to make difficult decisions. However, the Palestinians have done just about the exact opposite at every turn. Now, for a another disclaimer-I'm not making a direct comparison-India is not dispersed Palestine. But historically, all of us can look at the successful countries who moved on from independence, and all of us can look at the countries who took independence and failed miserably at it, and are still failing. There are a set of common attributes that all successful countries possessed, even if their specific situations were different. There are also common behaviors that the miserable failures engaged in, which ensured that they all but destroyed themselves.

At this point in time, the Palestinians have more in common with a Zimbabwe than an India. That reality should be starkly obvious to everyone involved, as should the result. And it has nothing to do with the US, the EU, Israel, or anyone else in the world.

 

44, my position isn't based on anger, it's based on international law. If international law changes, so will my position.

I'm not lamenting how land was stolen half a century ago - I'm trying to make you see how land is stolen today, and how you´re providing the bulldozers.

If there´s one thing I lament, it's that it appears that worldwide consensus and noble goals can only be reached after everything's gone down the dumper. That we humans are one reactive mob, and that we seem to be unable to take that clue from history.

 

Sure, but that's something that is going to change only if the Palestinians change themselves, because they've sacrificed their moral center.

I mean, NATO just interceded in a country like Libya, and not only that, actually rallied the public around the action, even though the rebels themselves are a mixture of knuckleheads and opportunists. There's been intervention in far flung places like Somalia, and West Africa, and all sorts of god-foesaken areas. Because the causes themselves were seen as just. No one, but no one, including the Palestinian's fair weather allies, are ever going to even think about interceding on the side of the Palestinians, because the Palestinians are the bad guys due to their own actions. Yeah, Israel is violating international law. Yeah, Israel is either directly setting up, or allowing illegal settlements to happen. But no one cares, and in fact, as you've mentioned, everyone goes as far as selling the bulldozers to them.

It might not be fair. It might not be right. But it's how the world works. And for it to change, the Palestinians have to earn a change in perception from within. And it's not dependent on Israel in the slightest.

 

You have to try that line again, I'm afraid. Come on! I know you can do it.

 

I'm afraid I don't get the reference.

 

Well - I know you don't want to seem Americanocentric to me, but in this case we both know the line should be:

No one, but no one, including the Palestinian's fair weather allies, are ever going to even think about interceding on the side of the Palestinians, because they would be fighting a proxy war with the US.

 

Ah, sure. I get it now. But that's my point.

The Palestinians could be on the same side as the West, and then there would be no proxy war to fight. There doesn't have to be any fighting at all. That's why the cycle of violence is so damning to the Palestinians. If it was worth it for Germany to sell the Palestinians bulldozers, they would. Instead, Germany freezes their assets, except for basic sustenance level. That's the difference.

 

In a world without religion, yes.
But sadly, the Palestinians aren't Jewish.