I've been denied entry to Thailand - Now What ! ?

[webfact]

Israel changes law to make it harder to cede Jerusalem control

By Maayan Lubell

 

FILE PHOTO: An Israeli flag is seen near the Dome of the Rock, located in Jerusalem's Old City on the compound known to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount December 6, 2017. REUTERS/Ammar Awad/File Photo

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's parliament passed an amendment on Tuesday that would make it harder for it to cede control over parts of Jerusalem in any peace deal with the Palestinians, who condemned the move as undermining any chance to revive talks on statehood.

 

The legislation, sponsored by the far-right Jewish Home coalition party, raises to 80 from 61 the number of votes required in the 120-seat Knesset to approve any proposal to hand over part of the city to "a foreign party".

 

Last month U.S. President Donald Trump angered the Palestinians, Middle East leaders and world powers by recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

 

As home to major Muslim, Jewish and Christian holy sites, Jerusalem's status is one of the most sensitive issues in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump's Dec. 6 decision sparked regional protests and prompted the Palestinians to rule out Washington as a peace broker in any future talks.

 

Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, described Trump's policy shift on Jerusalem and the passage of the amendment as "a declaration of war against the Palestinian people".

 

"The vote clearly shows that the Israeli side has officially declared an end to the so-called political process," Abu Rdainah said, referring to U.S.-sponsored talks on Palestinian statehood that collapsed in 2014.

 

Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed it in a move not recognised internationally. It says the entire city is its "eternal and indivisible" capital.

 

Palestinians seek to make East Jerusalem the capital of a state they seek to establish in the occupied West Bank and in the Gaza Strip.

The amendment, long in the legislative pipeline, was passed with 64 lawmakers voting in favour and 52 against.

 

Opposition head Isaac Herzog said Jewish Home was leading Israel "toward a terrible disaster". Jewish Home's leader, Naftali Bennett, said the vote showed that Israel would keep control of all of Jerusalem forever.

 

"There will be no more political skulduggery that will allow our capital to be torn apart," Bennett said on Twitter.

 

A bid to revive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations led by the president's adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has so far shown no progress.

 

On Sunday, Netanyahu's Likud party unanimously urged legislators in a non-binding resolution to effectively annex Israeli settlements built in the West Bank.

 

Political commentators said Likud's decision might bolster right-wing support for Netanyahu, who could seek a public mandate in an early election while he awaits possible criminal indictments against him on corruption suspicions. He denies wrongdoing.

 

Parliamentary elections are not due until November 2019 but the police investigations in two cases of alleged corruption against Netanyahu and tensions among coalition partners in his government could hasten a poll.

 

Some commentators, pointing to an existing law that already sets a similar high threshold for handing over territory in a land-for-peace deal, have said Jewish Home was essentially competing with Likud for support among the right-wing base.

 

(Reporting by Maayan Lubell, additional reporting by Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Raissa Kasolowsky)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-03

[ezzra]

A point that have to asked, Until 1967, the eastern part of Jerusalem and the entire West Bank were in the hands of Jordan, not Israel. Had the Arab world wished, an independent Palestinian state, with its capital in Jerusalem, could have been established at any time. Not only did this not happen, but there is no record of it ever having been discussed. To the contrary, Jordan annexed the territory, seeking full and permanent control. It proceeded to treat Jerusalem as a backwater, while denying Jews any access to Jewish holy sites in the Old City and destroying the synagogues there. Meanwhile, Gaza was under Egyptian military rule. Again, there was no talk of sovereignty for the Palestinians there, either.

[Bluespunk]

Now, how will trump and his pit bull punish Israel for hindering peace talks?

 

I await with baited breath...

[Morch]

From the OP:

 

Quote

Some commentators, pointing to an existing law that already sets a similar high threshold for handing over territory in a land-for-peace deal, have said Jewish Home was essentially competing with Likud for support among the right-wing base.

 

Indeed. Due to lack of support, and opting for a quick PR gain (as far as their right wing base goes), the legislation itself is not protected by the high threshold it specifies. Meaning that it can be changed by a minimal majority (which any future  coalition government would certainly have). 

 

Other than that, it obviously sends all the wrong messages and is essentially another shot at creating conditions which will make a reasonable resolution harder to attain. The same goes for the Likud Party Central Committee's statement regarding annexation. While these are both effectively non-binding and hollow domestic politic related moves, they promote an atmosphere which negates peace efforts.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Now, how will trump and his pit bull punish Israel for hindering peace talks?

 

I await with baited breath...

And I was waiting with baited breath for Trump to get mention

Second post : I didnt have to wait too long

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy and replies removed.  

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, car720 said:

Old Jewish saying:

 

Someone who you keep in your pocket can never punish you.

An old Jewish saying you just invented.

[ballpoint]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

And I was waiting with baited breath for Trump to get mention

Second post : I didnt have to wait too long

Really?  He's mentioned in the OP.  

[sanemax]

51 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

Really?  He's mentioned in the OP.  

Although that mention of him in the OP was quite unnecessary to the story

[Bluespunk]

8 hours ago, sanemax said:

And I was waiting with baited breath for Trump to get mention

Second post : I didnt have to wait too long

How nice for you. 

 

I hate waiting...

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, sanemax said:

Although that mention of him in the OP was quite unnecessary to the story

No, it wasn't. Trump's announcement of the movement of the embassy strengthened right wing factions in Israel, and let amongst other things to this move.

[ilostmypassword]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

From the OP:

 

 

Indeed. Due to lack of support, and opting for a quick PR gain (as far as their right wing base goes), the legislation itself is not protected by the high threshold it specifies. Meaning that it can be changed by a minimal majority (which any future  coalition government would certainly have). 

 

 

The thing is that the future of Israeli politics looks to be increasingly right wing.

Young Israeli Jews are mostly right-wing, increasingly religious — survey

"A majority of young Israeli Jews between ages 15-24 define themselves as right-wing, and a growing number of them are religious, a study published Thursday said.

Sixty-seven percent of Jewish youth define themselves as right-wing (or center-right), while just 16% consider themselves to be left-wing in findings from a survey of Israeli youth by the Macro Center for Political Economics and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, cited Thursday in a Yedioth Ahronoth report."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/young-israeli-jews-are-mostly-right-wing-increasingly-religious-survey/

\

Half of Jewish high schoolers say Arabs shouldn’t vote – poll

New survey finds 59% of high school students consider themselves right-wing, only 13% identify as left-wing

https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-half-of-jewish-high-schoolers-think-arabs-shouldnt-vote-in-israel/

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

There's right wing, and then there's right wing. Israel's first peace agreement with a neighboring  Arab state, and the largest territorial concession was carried by a right wing government.

 

I think most people tend to hold somewhat more extreme opinions in their younger days. The linked article mentions most respondents cited the economy as being the most pressing issue - there can be several interpretations to this, and not all are necessarily as gloomy as may have been implied.

 

Political positions do not come about in a vacuum, nor are they the sole product of an ideological indoctrination.

 

Rather than getting fixated on this poll and others, or treating the presumed negative implications as fait accompli, a better response would be to focus on contributing factors, and how to address them.

[ilostmypassword]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

There's right wing, and then there's right wing. Israel's first peace agreement with a neighboring  Arab state, and the largest territorial concession was carried by a right wing government.

 

I think most people tend to hold somewhat more extreme opinions in their younger days. The linked article mentions most respondents cited the economy as being the most pressing issue - there can be several interpretations to this, and not all are necessarily as gloomy as may have been implied.

 

Political positions do not come about in a vacuum, nor are they the sole product of an ideological indoctrination.

 

Rather than getting fixated on this poll and others, or treating the presumed negative implications as fait accompli, a better response would be to focus on contributing factors, and how to address them.

It's not just public opinion polls, though, is it? It's the polls that count: elections. And what was right wing then, would now be considered moderate.

It's no coincidence that as Israel has engrossed the West Bank, it's politics become steadily more extreme.

And while it's a common assumption that people who are younger tend to hold more extreme positions that moderate with time, social scientists have repeatedly shown that this is a misconception.

Here's a link to the Pew Foundation that addresses this:  

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

What you brought into the topic was opinion polls, rather then elections. While there is definitely a shift to the right in Israeli politics, the actual composition of coalition governments is not as straightforward. A lot of it has to do with several parallel agendas that need to be addressed, and leading parties having better options when it comes to forming alliances. The way things stand, promoting one agenda is often done at the price of concessions on other agendas. Israel's left wing (and even center, perhaps) painted itself into a corner in this regard - by refusing (or being unable) to prioritize issues and accept the price. Can't have everything, certainly not while alienating prospective political partners.

 

Whether Israel's involvement in the West Bank is the cause or the effect of said rightward shift can be debated. But the same can be said of Palestinian actions and reactions to Israel. And, of course - other factors as well. I don't think that focusing on a sole issue explains Israel's political map all that well.

 

Without getting sidetracked (fat chance....), the link cited refers to the USA. I don't know that it can be imported wholesale to a different arena, and different circumstances.

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

What you brought into the topic was opinion polls, rather then elections. While there is definitely a shift to the right in Israeli politics, the actual composition of coalition governments is not as straightforward. A lot of it has to do with several parallel agendas that need to be addressed, and leading parties having better options when it comes to forming alliances. The way things stand, promoting one agenda is often done at the price of concessions on other agendas. Israel's left wing (and even center, perhaps) painted itself into a corner in this regard - by refusing (or being unable) to prioritize issues and accept the price. Can't have everything, certainly not while alienating prospective political partners.

 

Whether Israel's involvement in the West Bank is the cause or the effect of said rightward shift can be debated. But the same can be said of Palestinian actions and reactions to Israel. And, of course - other factors as well. I don't think that focusing on a sole issue explains Israel's political map all that well.

 

Without getting sidetracked (fat chance....), the link cited refers to the USA. I don't know that it can be imported wholesale to a different arena, and different circumstances.

And this shift to the right has been going on for 40 years now with no end in sight. So focusing on the various machinations of the different political parties is looking at the shifting trees of Burnham wood and not paying enough attention to the fact that it has come to Dunsinane.

And it is, of course typical in colonial situations that the nation that colonized adopts ugly attitudes and ever harsher practices toward the locals. And where there is at times a violent and brutal  resistance, it is always the case that there will be some to claim that these actions at least mitigate the ugliness of the offenses of the colonizers.

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by ilostmypassword

[sanemax]

On 1/3/2018 at 6:25 AM, webfact said:

On Sunday, Netanyahu's Likud party unanimously urged legislators in a non-binding resolution to effectively annex Israeli settlements built in the West Bank.

If that were to happen , I wonder what the consequences would be ? The U.N unanimously  disagreeing, apart from the U.S , who agrees Palestinians get even angrier and firing a few rockets from Gaza

 

 

[mrwebb8825]

I hear Pakistan is soon to be up for sale. Maybe the Palestinians should borrow some arab oil money and buy it. That way they would finally have a country. 

[Credo]

58 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I hear Pakistan is soon to be up for sale. Maybe the Palestinians should borrow some arab oil money and buy it. That way they would finally have a country. 

You can rest assured that the Palestinians will not be able to compete with the Chinese for Pakistan.   

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Ah, so this was just another opportunity to push the "colonization" narrative and rhetoric. Should have known there wasn't much a of an actual on topic point. As said, you seem to treat the Israeli political map as revolving around a single issue. Obviously, this is not the case, even if it makes a contrived and simplistic "analysis" easier to pitch. Disregarding other contributing factors or minimizing them does not exactly convey a clear grasp on things, but rather an ideologically oriented one.

 

During the time-frame referenced, Israel signed peace agreements with two of its Arab neighbors and managed to sign quite a few agreements with the Palestinians. These things did not happen prior to the supposed start of the "shift to the right".

 

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I hear Pakistan is soon to be up for sale. Maybe the Palestinians should borrow some arab oil money and buy it. That way they would finally have a country. 

Palestan ?

[ilostmypassword]

On 1/4/2018 at 10:12 AM, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Ah, so this was just another opportunity to push the "colonization" narrative and rhetoric. Should have known there wasn't much a of an actual on topic point. As said, you seem to treat the Israeli political map as revolving around a single issue. Obviously, this is not the case, even if it makes a contrived and simplistic "analysis" easier to pitch. Disregarding other contributing factors or minimizing them does not exactly convey a clear grasp on things, but rather an ideologically oriented one.

 

During the time-frame referenced, Israel signed peace agreements with two of its Arab neighbors and managed to sign quite a few agreements with the Palestinians. These things did not happen prior to the supposed start of the "shift to the right".

 

I don't really care about Israel's shifts on things like healthcare or internal economic matters or relations with its Arab neighbors. This is about the rightward shift in Israel's policy in the occupied territories. And how exactly does one discuss Israel's policies in the occupied territories without discussing "colonization." What euphemism would you prefer?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I don't really care about Israel's shifts on things like healthcare or internal economic matters or relations with its Arab neighbors. This is about the rightward shift in Israel's policy in the occupied territories. And how exactly does one discuss Israel's policies in the occupied territories without discussing "colonization." What euphemism would you prefer?

 

That you "don't care" does not make related issues irrelevant, your position more informed or your "arguments" more valid. Quite the opposite. As for your ongoing "colonization" narrative, I doubt that the usage of loaded terms is aimed at casting doubt on Israel's legitimacy, through harnessing a supposed historical collective guilt trip. Hardly the first time we've been through this, too.

 

That Israel's ongoing occupation of the Palestinian is corrupting the country in more than one way, is agreed. That it is the sole issue around which Israeli politics revolve is incorrect.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

That you "don't care" does not make related issues irrelevant, your position more informed or your "arguments" more valid. Quite the opposite. As for your ongoing "colonization" narrative, I doubt that the usage of loaded terms is aimed at casting doubt on Israel's legitimacy, through harnessing a supposed historical collective guilt trip. Hardly the first time we've been through this, too.

 

That Israel's ongoing occupation of the Palestinian is corrupting the country in more than one way, is agreed. That it is the sole issue around which Israeli politics revolve is incorrect.

 

Once again, the direction of Israeli politics about matters other than the Occupied Territories is not relevant to the subject at hand which is about the control of Jerusalem. There are examples of other countries that espoused some very progressive policies for its citizens while treating others under their jurisdictions abominably. 

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Once again, the direction of Israeli politics about matters other than the Occupied Territories is not relevant to the subject at hand which is about the control of Jerusalem. There are examples of other countries that espoused some very progressive policies for its citizens while treating others under their jurisdictions abominably. 

 

Once again, that you declare things irrelevant does not make them so. And that you imagine a tunnel vision approach is helpful for understanding the situation, is peculiar. As things stand, quite a bit of the issues are tied together, and are relevant as to how different policies and political alliances shaping them are formed.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Once again, that you declare things irrelevant does not make them so. And that you imagine a tunnel vision approach is helpful for understanding the situation, is peculiar. As things stand, quite a bit of the issues are tied together, and are relevant as to how different policies and political alliances shaping them are formed.

Once again, you're focusing on alliances and relations among various political factions without acknowledging the huge rightward shift in relation to the occupied territories that most of these factions have ridden. I don't think it matters much to the Palestinians in the occupied territories where the Israeli electorate or political establishment stands on issues such as health care or subsidies for the Haridim any more than Indians cared much about British debates about a national railroad system. Not really relevant to the situation at hand.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once again, you're focusing on alliances and relations among various political factions without acknowledging the huge rightward shift in relation to the occupied territories that most of these factions have ridden. I don't think it matters much to the Palestinians in the occupied territories where the Israeli electorate or political establishment stands on issues such as health care or subsidies for the Haridim any more than Indians cared much about British debates about a national railroad system. Not really relevant to the situation at hand.

 

No, I'm not. That's you either failing to grasp the point, or more likely, misrepresentation of what I posted to suit your "argument". Hardly a first.

 

There is a shift to the right in Israel. It does not pertain solely to issues related to the occupation, nor does it stem solely from the occupation. Tackling the issue of the occupation (as in working toward an agreement) requires forming a coalition. The left wing's options and prospects on this front are slimmer, partly owing to unrealistic goals and burned bridges.

 

It's not that I place much value on your "insights" as to what Palestinians are interested in, but even if one was to accept your assertion, then the conclusion would be that the Palestinian ought to be interested. Given that the Israeli political map does have an effect on relations between the sides, it is in the Palestinians' best interests to see moderate forces ascend. That you try sneaking in your "colonial" nonsense doesn't make your point more valid.

[ilostmypassword]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, I'm not. That's you either failing to grasp the point, or more likely, misrepresentation of what I posted to suit your "argument". Hardly a first.

 

There is a shift to the right in Israel. It does not pertain solely to issues related to the occupation, nor does it stem solely from the occupation. Tackling the issue of the occupation (as in working toward an agreement) requires forming a coalition. The left wing's options and prospects on this front are slimmer, partly owing to unrealistic goals and burned bridges.

 

It's not that I place much value on your "insights" as to what Palestinians are interested in, but even if one was to accept your assertion, then the conclusion would be that the Palestinian ought to be interested. Given that the Israeli political map does have an effect on relations between the sides, it is in the Palestinians' best interests to see moderate forces ascend. That you try sneaking in your "colonial" nonsense doesn't make your point more valid.

And calling the Israeli settlement program, appropriation of land, evictions,  unequal laws etc make calling it "colonialism" nonsense because....?

[geriatrickid]

On 1/2/2018 at 8:57 PM, car720 said:

Old Jewish saying:

 

Someone who you keep in your pocket can never punish you.

No it is not. Are you sure that wasn't from one Goebbels missives that you quoted?

[Morch]

@ilostmypassword

 

Refer to my previous posts above or to similar ones on made on previous topics.