Palestinians deserve self-determination but uncertain they can govern themselves - Kushner

[Dumbastheycome]

5 minutes ago, BestB said:

They could have always turned down the aid but they did not .

 

let me guess, it’s jews fault again?

And did the Jews  turn down the  aid? Declaration  of a home state, armed, sanctified? Enabled  to  exclude  territorial inhabitants? Get  real  about  the scenario!

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, BestB said:

It’s funny to read when you say Palestinians , do tell what was the capital of Palestine ?And the currency?

 

then of course there is no letter P in Arabic so they could not possibly be Palestinians , they could have been falestinians or balestinians but most certainly not Palestinians ????

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

Before you take your seat at the negotiating table and bring peace to the region , you need to do some homework and understand the history and the present .

  Palestinians rejected statehood in 1948  , they didnt want Jewish areas on the land .

Now the present : Palestinians still do not want Jewish areas on the land , they want a hard line Islamic state with Sharia law on every inch of Israel , although they will allow Jews to live there with Palestinian citizenship 

 

I don't think all Palestinian are interested in a hard line Islamic state with Sharia laws. I don't think all of them reject any compromise whatsoever.

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

As I recall, the "original offer" was just about like robbing a bank, then offering to return a small portion of the loot in return for giving up the rest- take it or leave it.

 

 

You can "recall" whatever you like, and frame it in any nonsense way you fancy. But bottom line, that's hardly the point, even if it was correct. The point was that painting the Palestinians as willing to make peace, whereas Israel is the rejectionist party, is not accurate. If you wish to argue that Israel should not exist etc. good luck with that.

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That plan was made in 1947.   How did the map look in 1945? 

 

I'll give you a hint.  There was no blue...

 

 

That is not correct. There were several previous attempts at reaching a partition plan, they all included a "blue" area.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

An easy statement with  no detail  of that which the Palestinians "would like to hear"!

Why is  it that the US  is presiding over the confrontation ?

There is something  very strange in the  very  fact that an American Jew  is  fore front  in  what is an international  issue of  concern  when that same  envoy  is the  cock relative  of a narcissist  POTUS.

In light  of  other ongoing  Middle East issues the  game plan is  not difficult  to  dismiss as  just a continuation  of  a  game  in light of  other US   moves  to consolidate  US/ Israeli  conalingist affirmations.

 

 

It's about as detailed as the post I was responding to, and you didn't seem to take much issues with that one. Not sure what your point was, or that you even had one.

 

How do you mean "presiding" over "the confrontation"? Again, not expecting much coherence, but seemed odd even by your standards.

 

And no, it isn't a strange that an "American Jew" would be in the forefront of such efforts, Kushner isn't the first even. What's a "cock relative"? Do I want to know?

 

Quote

In light  of  other ongoing  Middle East issues the  game plan is  not difficult  to  dismiss as  just a continuation  of  a  game  in light of  other US   moves  to consolidate  US/ Israeli  conalingist affirmations.

 

Ummm....say what? A whole lot of words, but still - "an easy statement with  no detail".

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

No. Not the  Jews  fault.  It is the  fault  of those  pandering wrongly to the exclusive  appeal of a sector of  humanity on the  basis  of  exclusive sympathy.

 

Who are "those pandering"? Who decided it's "wrong"? And what "exclusive  appeal of a sector of  humanity on the  basis  of  exclusive sympathy" actually means?

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

And did the Jews  turn down the  aid? Declaration  of a home state, armed, sanctified? Enabled  to  exclude  territorial inhabitants? Get  real  about  the scenario!

 

Your posts are all over the place. Here's a little summary to help you focus:

 

You asked why the USA was involved.

A poster answered that it was due to being a major donor.

You then got indignant over donation not implying ownership (or something).

The reply was that the Palestinians could have rejected the aid on offer.

Your current post is somewhat of a Non sequitur. Or a lame attempt at deflection.

 

Marshal your arguments.

[sanemax]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think all Palestinian are interested in a hard line Islamic state with Sharia laws. I don't think all of them reject any compromise whatsoever.

Hamas were elected by the Gazians and a Palestinian state compromising the whole of Israel under Sharia law is in the Hamas Charter 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Hamas were elected by the Gazians and a Palestinian state compromising the whole of Israel under Sharia law is in the Hamas Charter 

 

Yes. But Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians. It's even a good question whether it fully represents the views of Gazans.

[impulse]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

You can "recall" whatever you like, and frame it in any nonsense way you fancy. But bottom line, that's hardly the point, even if it was correct. The point was that painting the Palestinians as willing to make peace, whereas Israel is the rejectionist party, is not accurate. If you wish to argue that Israel should not exist etc. good luck with that.

 

So, which "original offer" were you referring to in your previous post indicating the Palestinians were the ones who rejected peace in the format of that  "original offer"? 

 

I'm not saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist and to thrive,  But in its current form, current apartheid state, and with its current policies towards Palestinians and illegal settlements, it represents a failure of a pretty noble plan for a homeland for the Jews.  Great concept, poorly executed by the West.  Because, let's face it.  That's where the vast majority of the current  Israelis came from.  In that regard, I consider the USSR to be European and therefore, Western.

 

So many of the 20th century tragedies have been the result of Western guilt over what happened to the Jews, the failure to stop what happened (and the blowback from colonialism).  I'm worried how much of the 21st century will be about Western guilt over what's happening now to the Muslims (and more blowback from failed colonialism and related broken promises).  Not just the Palestinians, but the millions being killed and dislocated, shrugged off as collateral damage. 

 

We're already seeing it in mass immigration to Europe.  What's next?  

[PingRoundTheWorld]

It's ridiculous to even think there's a possibility of an elected government maintaining control there. The two main parties are Hamas and Fatah, and while the Fatah has renounced terrorism Hamas has always been and remains a terrorist organization. Fatah's leader was elected President, however when Israel withdrew from Gaza Hamas slaughtered the Fatah there and took control. Ever since they have been launching rockets into Israel from Gaza.

 

In the West Bank meanwhile, under Israeli military assistance the elected President is able to maintain control to some degree, however the moment Israel withdraws it's forces out of there is the day the President gets beheaded and Hamas takes control and destroys it like they did to Gaza.

 

And meanwhile in Israel itself - 20% of the population is Arab-Israelis with full citizenship and voting rights who live in relative prosperity and freedom compared to most in the region.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

So, which "original offer" were you referring to in your previous post indicating the Palestinians were the ones who rejected peace in the format of that  "original offer"? 

 

I'm not saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist and to thrive,  But in its current form, current apartheid state, and with its current policies towards Palestinians and illegal settlements, it represents a failure of a pretty noble plan for a homeland for the Jews.  Great concept, poorly executed by the West.  Because, let's face it.  That's where the vast majority of the current  Israelis came from.  In that regard, I consider the USSR to be European and therefore, Western.

 

So many of the 20th century tragedies have been the result of Western guilt over what happened to the Jews, the failure to stop what happened (and the blowback from colonialism).  I'm worried how much of the 21st century will be about Western guilt over what's happening now to the Muslims (and more blowback from failed colonialism and related broken promises).  Not just the Palestinians, but the millions being killed and dislocated, shrugged off as collateral damage. 

 

We're already seeing it in mass immigration to Europe.  What's next?  

 

I don't think it should be too hard for you to follow the discussion and realize the context of what was posted. The post I was responding to attempted to paint the Palestinians as interested in peace and compromise, or at the very least, ignore the fact that this is not quite true. If you wish to cherry-pick, go right ahead.

 

Israel is not an apartheid state. That's an easy label to apply, and more "importantly" evokes South Africa's example - regardless of whether conditions and circumstances are the same. It's definitely not a country on par with "the West" when it comes to democracy, but then "the West" exists under a different reality.

 

The vast majority of current Israelis coming from "the West" (even including your wide definition) is not all that accurate, and anyway besides the point. You could have simply referenced Israel's ties being to "the West" (on multiple levels). How one judges Israel's democracy and ways depends on the benchmark used. Comes out not that great vs. "the West", not so bad vs. "the neighborhood". 

 

And no, lumping things together doesn't make them right. You want to do your usual colonialism self flagellation guilt trip, go right ahead (regardless of how ridiculous it is), and you'd even have a point that there were many instances involved. When it comes to supposed guilt over "what happened to the Jews", there aren't actually many associated tragedies involved. I doubt you're actually much worried about Muslims. Or that anything resembling "what happened to the Jews" is in store for them. Either way, co-opting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for that "cause" is quite out there.

 

Back to the OP - I think most posters are in agreement as to the chances of anything coming out of the so-called Deal of the Century. And that most recognize it was questionable (to put it politely) appointing Kushner as point man. That said - the commentary making the headline remains. So far, yet to see much by way of actually discussing it. Posters seem to be more at home bashing Israel, Jews or bringing up a bunch of historical details pandering to their views.

 

 

 

[Solinvictus]

I pretty much agree; the Israeli gov., is, in fact, terrible itself, and for Palestinians. Void of any empathy towards them. They are guilty of so many atrocities. Who would dare to deny that?

 

Support #BDS

 

AIPAC is horrible and a wretched lobbyist group in the U.S. in my opinion.

 

I respect the Torah.

 

Ha

[impulse]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think it should be too hard for you to follow the discussion and realize the context of what was posted. The post I was responding to attempted to paint the Palestinians as interested in peace and compromise, or at the very least, ignore the fact that this is not quite true. If you wish to cherry-pick, go right ahead.

 

Israel is not an apartheid state. That's an easy label to apply, and more "importantly" evokes South Africa's example - regardless of whether conditions and circumstances are the same. It's definitely not a country on par with "the West" when it comes to democracy, but then "the West" exists under a different reality.

 

The vast majority of current Israelis coming from "the West" (even including your wide definition) is not all that accurate, and anyway besides the point. You could have simply referenced Israel's ties being to "the West" (on multiple levels). How one judges Israel's democracy and ways depends on the benchmark used. Comes out not that great vs. "the West", not so bad vs. "the neighborhood". 

 

And no, lumping things together doesn't make them right. You want to do your usual colonialism self flagellation guilt trip, go right ahead (regardless of how ridiculous it is), and you'd even have a point that there were many instances involved. When it comes to supposed guilt over "what happened to the Jews", there aren't actually many associated tragedies involved. I doubt you're actually much worried about Muslims. Or that anything resembling "what happened to the Jews" is in store for them. Either way, co-opting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for that "cause" is quite out there.

 

Back to the OP - I think most posters are in agreement as to the chances of anything coming out of the so-called Deal of the Century. And that most recognize it was questionable (to put it politely) appointing Kushner as point man. That said - the commentary making the headline remains. So far, yet to see much by way of actually discussing it. Posters seem to be more at home bashing Israel, Jews or bringing up a bunch of historical details pandering to their views.

 

What is the ancestry of the majority of today's Israelis?  Because they certainly weren't indigenous to the area before they were imported in the 20th century.

 

You're right.  I'm not nearly as worried about the Muslims or the Jews as I am about the effect it has on the rest of us.  It's not my colonial self flagellation.  If there were no Western colonial guilt, do you figure there would be an open door policy for the stream of Muslim immigrants, much less the need for one?

 

As for tragedies related to guilt over what happened to the Jews-  For the OP it's pretty much right on topic, given that the formation of Israel itself, along with all the heartache and wars, unrest and world terrorism is a direct result.

 

You were the one who (in the context of the OP) brought up which party rejected some "original proposal", as your indication that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace.  Rejecting a one sided proposal 70 years ago, and within a couple of years of losing their homeland is hardly a good indicator.

 

I do agree that Kushner wasn't the right guy, and that little or nothing positive will come out of the current story.  I'd bet on several Trump/Kushner projects popping up in Israel before I'd bet on any move toward a genuine peace.

 

 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

I pretty much agree; the Israeli gov., is, in fact, terrible itself, and for Palestinians. Void of any empathy towards them. They are guilty of so many atrocities. Who would dare to deny that?

 

Support #BDS

 

AIPAC is horrible and a wretched lobbyist group in the U.S. in my opinion.

 

I respect the Torah.

 

Ha

 

Agree with what? That it's questionable whether Palestinians can govern themselves? Because the Israel Bad stuff doesn't really answer that. Same goes for the feel good advocacy bit. Or making this about AIPAC. What the Torah got to do with the OP shall remain a mystery.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Morch

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

What is the ancestry of the majority of today's Israelis?  Because they certainly weren't indigenous to the area before they were imported in the 20th century.

 

You're right.  I'm not nearly as worried about the Muslims or the Jews as I am about the effect it has on the rest of us.  It's not my colonial self flagellation.  If there were no Western colonial guilt, do you figure there would be an open door policy for the stream of Muslim immigrants, much less the need for one?

 

As for tragedies related to guilt over what happened to the Jews-  For the OP it's pretty much right on topic, given that the formation of Israel itself, along with all the heartache and wars, unrest and world terrorism is a direct result.

 

You were the one who (in the context of the OP) brought up which party rejected some "original proposal", as your indication that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace.  Rejecting a one sided proposal 70 years ago, and within a couple of years of losing their homeland is hardly a good indicator.

 

I do agree that Kushner wasn't the right guy, and that little or nothing positive will come out of the current story.  I'd bet on several Trump/Kushner projects popping up in Israel before I'd bet on any move toward a genuine peace.

 

 

 

The ancestry of the majority of today's Israelis is irrelevant. You pushed this as justification for the whole Western orientation bit. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with the OP. You wish to deny Jewish ties to the land, go right ahead.

 

Allow me to doubt you even care about "the effect it has on the rest of us". More like you're interested in co-opting issues to make political points. I'm not the one advocating guilt trips, or disingenuous "worries" about groups of people. As such, not interested in the contrived formulation presented re immigrants.

 

You could argue that the situation the Palestinians are in relates to the formation of Israel and to guilt over "what happened to the Jews". But that's essentially a single issue, whereas you original claim was that it applies for many (by lumping it together with colonialism). As for "the wars" - the ones that have to do with Israel are mostly an offshoot, not standalone. Alleging such things as "unrest" (where? which?) or all "world terrorism" on this is nonsense.

 

I brought Palestinian rejectionism as to inject some realism to the discussion, and to counter a narrative which places the current situation as resulting only from Israel's actions and positions. You're trying to load my comment with additional meaning. Spin it all you like, the Palestinians are not invested in peace. One could argue that they have good reasons for that, but it doesn't alter the fact that they aren't. Making it all about Israel is fine, but incorrect.

 

Regardless of the above, do you find the doubt raised about Palestinians and self-governance to be off mark?

[candide]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Mostly agree.

Where we differ is that I'm sure they have a plan, a deal offer or whatever. And effort have been invested in formulating it. That the end result would probably me underwhelming is another matter. But then it's not like other attempts proved themselves either. As with many Trump administration foreign policy issues, I think the real test is whether they result in lasting or permanent damage. A low benchmark, 

Very relevant conclusion. And short this time! ????

[simple1]

For a stater Kushner is a "Modern Orthodox Jew" who supports Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank, hardly complementary for his role. The question posed by Kushner is obviously rhetorical to make a political point. At a very basic level, so far as I know, Hamas and PA jurisdictions are still reliant on Israel for supply of utilities and trade routes, with no guarantee of supply. Hamas and PA have yet to reconcile their differences to form a national unity government to enable elections. The basic building blocks are not in-place for government to government negotiations.

[jingjai9]

I think Kushner should spend his time pondering whether or not Daddy-in-law can govern.

 

[BestB]

9 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

And did the Jews  turn down the  aid? Declaration  of a home state, armed, sanctified? Enabled  to  exclude  territorial inhabitants? Get  real  about  the scenario!

What does that have to do Palestinians being unable to self govern or complain about US involvement?

[moe666]

17 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

An American Jew tell the Palestinians what to do or not to do. What could possibly go wrong?

That is my thought as well, another white dude making decisions for people he knows nothing about

[Chomper Higgot]

The statement "Palestinians deserve self-determination but uncertain they can govern themselves"

 

A line of argument written across the history or imperialism and oppression of other peoples. 

 

Only the names of the people making the statement and those who are the subject of the statement have changed. 

[BestB]

21 minutes ago, moe666 said:

That is my thought as well, another white dude making decisions for people he knows nothing about

Do not need to know about people to see they unable to self govern due to internal conflicts , corruption and reliance on foreign aid, even basic infrastructure supplies 

 

Many do not seem to like the truth and facts but facts and truth remains the same no matter whose mouth it comes from. 

[Srikcir]

18 hours ago, webfact said:

Kushner said: "I'm not here to be trusted"

Then he has failed as a NEGOTIATOR.

"Lack of trust is the third critical piece of the failed Trump strategy. Negotiation experts concede that a hard-driving win-lose strategy sometimes can work. But not without trust." Thomas Kochan, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management, who also wrote about Trump’s effect on business negotiations. “They don’t trust him; he doesn’t trust them.” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/harvard-law-negotiation-bad-trump-deal-making-donald_n_5c3e42cee4b0e0baf541d979

"Positive negotiation relationships are important not because they engender warm, fuzzy feelings, but because they engender trust – a vital means of securing desired actions from others." https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-training-daily/negotiate-relationships/

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

For a stater Kushner is a "Modern Orthodox Jew" who supports Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank, hardly complementary for his role. The question posed by Kushner is obviously rhetorical to make a political point. At a very basic level, so far as I know, Hamas and PA jurisdictions are still reliant on Israel for supply of utilities and trade routes, with no guarantee of supply. Hamas and PA have yet to reconcile their differences to form a national unity government to enable elections. The basic building blocks are not in-place for government to government negotiations.

 

I don't think many disagree Kushner is unqualified, not PC, and politically biased for the job at hand.

 

That aside, I don't think the question was "obviously rhetorical to make a political point". It's a valid issue, which often gets less attention than it should.

 

Palestinians being reliant on Israel for "supply of utilities" etc, is not the cause of the internal Palestinian political split, and the same goes for development of proper governing bodies. If anything, the other way around.

 

The responsibility of creating the "basic building blocks" essential for self government lies mostly with the People aspiring for self-definition. An interesting, and relevant contrast to the Palestinian situation would be the Israel's development of valid national institutions prior to achieving independence. It's not a point of view that remains unacknowledged among Palestinians, just not a popular one with current leadership. One prominent advocate of this approach was Salam Fayyad, who was sidelined later on.

 

Going on about Israel Bad ain't going to change or improve all issues plaguing Palestinian society. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, moe666 said:

That is my thought as well, another white dude making decisions for people he knows nothing about

 

But had it been, say...Obama, it would be fine?

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The statement "Palestinians deserve self-determination but uncertain they can govern themselves"

 

A line of argument written across the history or imperialism and oppression of other peoples. 

 

Only the names of the people making the statement and those who are the subject of the statement have changed. 

 

A nice sounding hollow comment. Full marks for the Imperialism and Oppression keywords.

 

Now, dealing with reality - no doubts as to the Palestinians's ability to govern themselves? Or is this to be discredited on the force of disliking Kushner and his politics (we have no argument on these two fronts)?

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A nice sounding hollow comment. Full marks for the Imperialism and Oppression keywords.

 

Now, dealing with reality - no doubts as to the Palestinians's ability to govern themselves? Or is this to be discredited on the force of disliking Kushner and his politics (we have no argument on these two fronts)?

I would have raised the same observation regardless of who made the statement, which despite your attempt to deflect remains a line of argument written across the history of imperialism and oppression of others. 

 

Hey but let's only have observations on your terms. 

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think many disagree Kushner is unqualified, not PC, and politically biased for the job at hand.

 

That aside, I don't think the question was "obviously rhetorical to make a political point". It's a valid issue, which often gets less attention than it should.

 

Palestinians being reliant on Israel for "supply of utilities" etc, is not the cause of the internal Palestinian political split, and the same goes for development of proper governing bodies. If anything, the other way around.

 

The responsibility of creating the "basic building blocks" essential for self government lies mostly with the People aspiring for self-definition. An interesting, and relevant contrast to the Palestinian situation would be the Israel's development of valid national institutions prior to achieving independence. It's not a point of view that remains unacknowledged among Palestinians, just not a popular one with current leadership. One prominent advocate of this approach was Salam Fayyad, who was sidelined later on.

 

Going on about Israel Bad ain't going to change or improve all issues plaguing Palestinian society. 

I looked up Salam Fayyad for more detail, shame not more of him, sounds like a good guy. 

 

Think you misconstrued my post, perhaps poorly constructed. My intent was to support the proposition that at this time it is indeed correct the Palestinians are not ready for Self Determination as they do not have a National Unity Government.