Its Happening - Law to Tax Overseas Income Now in Progress

[candide]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You are arguing from a moral, ideal point of view, and that's fine. Out in the real world, though, cooperation is something that doesn't necessarily conform to the above notion. If it helps calling it coercion, that's alright too.

It's not only a moral perspective, It's quite practical too. Wether they cooperate or not, more or less the same terms will be imposed, Under the current situation Israel will take what they have decided to take in any case. They have the military power to do so as well the support of the USA

So cooperating would mainly mean legalising with a treaty an illegal situation. On the other hand, if they accept it, they may get some economic benefits (depending on what is put on the table).

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Cooperation should by definition be reciprocal. Why should Palestinians cooperate on terms that are imposed to them (including by force) by Israel and the USA?

Because that's the way the world works

 

[candide]

6 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Because that's the way the world works

 

There's no need to cooperate in order to get things imposed on oneself. As mentioned in my other post, in case they cooperate, the main difference is that it will be legally imposed on them instead of illegally imposed on them.

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

There's no need to cooperate in order to get things imposed on oneself. As mentioned in my other post, in case they cooperate, the main difference is that it will be legally imposed on them instead of illegally imposed on them.

It makes no difference either way. Just get it done. Enough kumbaya, do it our way or else.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, candide said:

It's not only a moral perspective, It's quite practical too. Wether they cooperate or not, more or less the same terms will be imposed, Under the current situation Israel will take what they have decided to take in any case. They have the military power to do so as well the support of the USA

So cooperating would mainly mean legalising with a treaty an illegal situation. On the other hand, if they accept it, they may get some economic benefits (depending on what is put on the table).

 

That would be you projecting your political views on the conflict, not necessarily an objective or even factual account. I don't think that the same terms apply regardless of Palestinian positions - this might be the case with regard to some issues, not all. The same goes for your assertions about Israel taking "what it wants" - that's not quite the case, and there isn't even an Israeli consensus regarding these things.

 

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning - if the Palestinians sign an agreement, it makes it "legal" (rather loaded term in this context, but whatever...). Whether posters like it or not, a bit of arm-bending is part and parcel of these negotiations, so if that's out, it can be used as reason to discredit pretty much anything. The point about economic benefits is also unclear - arm-bending doesn't imply no economic benefits, only concessions. In the context of the conflict, arm-bending applies to letting go of staunchly held, unattainable positions in return for partial political achievements and economic benefits as carrot.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That would be you projecting your political views on the conflict, not necessarily an objective or even factual account. I don't think that the same terms apply regardless of Palestinian positions - this might be the case with regard to some issues, not all. The same goes for your assertions about Israel taking "what it wants" - that's not quite the case, and there isn't even an Israeli consensus regarding these things.

 

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning - if the Palestinians sign an agreement, it makes it "legal" (rather loaded term in this context, but whatever...). Whether posters like it or not, a bit of arm-bending is part and parcel of these negotiations, so if that's out, it can be used as reason to discredit pretty much anything. The point about economic benefits is also unclear - arm-bending doesn't imply no economic benefits, only concessions. In the context of the conflict, arm-bending applies to letting go of staunchly held, unattainable positions in return for partial political achievements and economic benefits as carrot.

This is my personal view, of course. Let me clarify. To start with, my first assumption is that the generous offer that is intended for the Palestinian will not be much different from the settlement and annexion plan of the political faction currently in power.

My second assumption is that this plan will be achieved anyway, either by the current way of establishing settlements, or by an agreement. In the first case it will remain illegal according to international law, in the second case the annexed land will legally belong to Israel.

 

If these assumptions make sense, there are two possible attitudes for Palestinians. One is to consider that, as they will lose this land in any case, it is better to cooperate in order to grasp some crumbs. The other is to consider that, as they will lose this land in any case, it is better not to make it legal for Israel on top of it.

Edited September 3, 2018 by candide

[Morch]

7 hours ago, candide said:

This is my personal view, of course. Let me clarify. To start with, my first assumption is that the generous offer that is intended for the Palestinian will not be much different from the settlement and annexion plan of the political faction currently in power.

My second assumption is that this plan will be achieved anyway, either by the current way of establishing settlements, or by an agreement. In the first case it will remain illegal according to international law, in the second case the annexed land will legally belong to Israel.

 

If these assumptions make sense, there are two possible attitudes for Palestinians. One is to consider that, as they will lose this land in any case, it is better to cooperate in order to grasp some crumbs. The other is to consider that, as they will lose this land in any case, it is better not to make it legal for Israel on top of it.

 

Your assumptions are based on incorrect or far-fetched premises. That you treat them as factual reality doesn't make it so.

 

As said on many a topic, including this one - there is no consensus about these issues among Israelis, not even among "the political faction currently in power" (which, of course, is made out of several political parties). Other than the announcement that what the Palestinian stance will not effect their gains will require a better reasoning then merely stating it as fact.

 

The second assumption relies on the first. As there is not much of a coherent, consensual "plan" - the basis for this premise is dubious.

 

IMO, the what you present is too simplistic with regard to positions and views on either side. Further, it ignores that, often, relevant choices and decisions are not arrived at on a rational basis, or are free from various political considerations to do with domestic politics and political survival.

 

My comment was more related as to how the current move may fit within the supposed Trump administration peace plan framework. I don't think that it is destined to achieve much by way of peace, or that it will actually manage to shift Palestinian positions as (supposedly) intended. It may result in further weakening of current Palestinian leaderships, though - which despite knee-jerk reactions from some, I doubt to be a great move without clear alternatives on the horizon.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, candide said:

Cooperation should by definition be reciprocal. Why should Palestinians cooperate on terms that are imposed to them (including by force) by Israel and the USA?

Keep in mind that the Palestinians/Arabs have walked away from every offer of peace ever presented to them including proposals that would have given them 80% of the lands that Israel currently resides on (Balfour), they have also rejected a return to the 1967 borders (Camp David). One side (Israel) has been willing to give up land for "peace" including kicking Jewish settlers out of Gaza, the other side (Palestinian/Arabs) have not shown a willingness to accept anything but the complete destruction of the country of Israel and kicking out 100% (or something very close) of every Jewish person that resides there. Cooperation should be reciprocal, but in this example, one side (Palestinians) are documented as being slightly less than reasonable for the last 100 or so years. I think that is long enough to make it a trend.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Keep in mind that the Palestinians/Arabs have walked away from every offer of peace ever presented to them including proposals that would have given them 80% of the lands that Israel currently resides on (Balfour), they have also rejected a return to the 1967 borders (Camp David). One side (Israel) has been willing to give up land for "peace" including kicking Jewish settlers out of Gaza, the other side (Palestinian/Arabs) have not shown a willingness to accept anything but the complete destruction of the country of Israel and kicking out 100% (or something very close) of every Jewish person that resides there. Cooperation should be reciprocal, but in this example, one side (Palestinians) are documented as being slightly less than reasonable for the last 100 or so years. I think that is long enough to make it a trend.

I don't deny they have refused previous deals and that they will surely refuse Trumps brilliant plan. However, your description of previous events is innacurate as mentioned before. The Camp David offer was not a return to 1967 borders, it only offered to return 73% of the West Bank (to be extended later to 91%) and Jerusalem East would have been annexed by Israel. Furthermore, the West Bank would have been divided in 3 zones. Not a great offer. As for Gaza beeng evacuated for "peace", it has never be the objective, quite the contrary (see the quotes from Israeli officials in the wikipedia article, for example). And of course it has been quickly compensated by extending settlements in the West bank. As for the recognition of Israel, the Palestinian authority has recognised it, while the Hamas has stated that they wanted first to know with which borders it would be.

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

I don't deny they have refused previous deals and that they will surely refuse Trumps brilliant plan. However, your description of previous events is innacurate as mentioned before. The Camp David offer was not a return to 1967 borders, it only offered to return 73% of the West Bank (to be extended later to 91%) and Jerusalem East would have been annexed by Israel. Furthermore, the West Bank would have been divided in 3 zones. Not a great offer. As for Gaza beeng evacuated for "peace", it has never be the objective, quite the contrary (see the quotes from Israeli officials in the wikipedia article, for example). And of course it has been quickly compensated by extending settlements in the West bank. As for the recognition of Israel, the Palestinian authority has recognised it, while the Hamas has stated that they wanted first to know with which borders it would be.

A half a glass of milk (or 73% - 91% of a glass of milk), is better than no glass of milk. How many settlements have been established in the West Bank since the Camp David Accords? The Palestinians seem to be very willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

[candide]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

A half a glass of milk (or 73% - 91% of a glass of milk), is better than no glass of milk. How many settlements have been established in the West Bank since the Camp David Accords? The Palestinians seem to be very willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

The reverse reasoning could also be hold. If Israel had followed the original Oslo intent (back to 1967 borders), they would probably be in peace now and benefit from much more international support (or at least have much less enemies). When one is too greedy....

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

The reverse reasoning could also be hold. If Israel had followed the original Oslo intent (back to 1967 borders), they would probably be in peace now and benefit from much more international support (or at least have much less enemies). When one is too greedy....

Unlikely given the Palestinian state of mind, but possible.

 

However, I wouldn't bet large sums of money on Palestinians supporting any peace deal that allowed Jewish citizens to remain in Palestine, or allowed any land to remain in Israeli hands. Actions speak louder than words, and every action of the Palestinians point to the fact that they are willing to only accept the whole enchilada, or nothing at all.

 

Nothing at all it will be.

[The manic]

On 9/1/2018 at 1:31 AM, dexterm said:

The usual way of ending a refugee problem in time of war is to allow people who want to return back to their homes when the fighting ends.

 

Seems somewhat hypocritical of both USA and Israel when many of these Palestinians still have the keys to their homes 15 minutes away across the separation barrier in Israel where they were born. 

 

There would be no need for UNWRA if Israel and USA allowed Palestinian refugees to return to their land and homes.

How about actually asking the refugees what they would like.

In time of war?

[Nyezhov]

6 hours ago, candide said:

The reverse reasoning could also be hold. If Israel had followed the original Oslo intent (back to 1967 borders), they would probably be in peace now and benefit from much more international support (or at least have much less enemies). When one is too greedy....

Israel will always have enemies. You dont placate enemies, you fight them.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Israel will always have enemies. You dont placate enemies, you fight them.

So there are just 2 options? With that kind of thinking it's a good thing you're not an attorney.

[CharlieH]

Troll post removed

[Nyezhov]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So there are just 2 options? With that kind of thinking it's a good thing you're not an attorney.

No because if I was an attorney I would have to see who is paying the bill.