King Abdullah: give Palestinians their rights

[Steely Dan]

Is King Abdullah going to give Palestinians in Jordan equal rights? They are treated as second class citizens in Jordan much as an apartheid state would.

[Morch]

So that's your plan is it. The Palestinians can just stay there. For once I agree with you.

What a fine mess Israel has gotten itself into. I would love to have been a fly on the wall at some of the early Israeli cabinet meetings post 1967. Have the minutes been released? Perhaps someone as knowledgeable as Morch can help us here.

Which bright spark suggested: "Hey, I know under the Geneva Convention we are allowed a few temporary military outposts in the West Bank and Gaza until we sign a peace deal, but why not slowly build Jewish only colonies around these outposts and import 500,000 Jewish Israeli colonists to live there. Confiscate Palestinian land if we have to and deny them civil rights. We got away with it in 1948, why not try it again?"

Israel has simply bitten off more than it can chew, and the world has indeed changed. The whole world is watching this time via international and social media.

Either end the occupation and agree to a viable contiguous Palestinian state, or annex the lot and grant equal civil rights and citizenship to the Palestinian population.

I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state. Israel will be in deep doggy doo then.

As usual, seeking simple answers to complex issues.

The Israeli government, as well as the Israeli public, was split on the question of how to handle the newly conquered territories. The Prime Minister at the time, Eshkol, was a dovish, while certain elements of his wide coalition (both within his party and outside) held other views. There were a series of discussions, resulting in what was referred to as "the secret decision". Basically, it expressed willingness for an Israeli withdrawal, in return to acknowledgment, peace agreements, and security arrangements. To be clear, this did not include Jerusalem, nor were all the formulations completely identical - but the underlying notion was that the newly conquered territories were bargaining chips, to be traded. The reasons this was kept secret at the time (and years later), was due to the hawkish positions expressed in the Khartoum Deceleration, the unfavorable public view and the domestic political balance.

The USA was made aware of this government decision, and at the time, considered it a generous proposal (as far as potential negotiations were concerned).

While the government decision was not changed, hawkish elements did not fully endorse it either. This became an accepted practice when Golda Meir became the next Prime Minister.

Nothing is as revealing that the views you express got little to do with actual Palestinian sentiment as "I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state". The notion of one-state solution, based on equality, is not a major theme among Palestinians. When it is mentioned, there is usually a reference to Palestinians becoming a majority and payback time for wrongs done. The other reference is to a one-state sans Israelis (or sometimes, Jews). Further, the notion that the Palestinians will renounce their claim for a Palestinian State, and ask for Israeli citizenship, is quite out there - can't offhand thing of any Palestinian of import actually suggesting this openly. This road was open for years, when it came to Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem - not that many went this way.

[Morch]

Italian PM Renzi and King Abdullah II want a long-term solution to the turmoil in the Middle East and a unified strategy to combat terrorism? A good first step would be to boycott the rogue state of Israel until they agree to stop building illegal settlements and live within their 1967 borders. International condemnation eventually brought the necessary changes to apartheid South Africa... it could do the same to the radical Zionist leadership of Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a core issue when it comes to addressing Daesh.

[dexterm]

So that's your plan is it. The Palestinians can just stay there. For once I agree with you.

What a fine mess Israel has gotten itself into. I would love to have been a fly on the wall at some of the early Israeli cabinet meetings post 1967. Have the minutes been released? Perhaps someone as knowledgeable as Morch can help us here.

Which bright spark suggested: "Hey, I know under the Geneva Convention we are allowed a few temporary military outposts in the West Bank and Gaza until we sign a peace deal, but why not slowly build Jewish only colonies around these outposts and import 500,000 Jewish Israeli colonists to live there. Confiscate Palestinian land if we have to and deny them civil rights. We got away with it in 1948, why not try it again?"

Israel has simply bitten off more than it can chew, and the world has indeed changed. The whole world is watching this time via international and social media.

Either end the occupation and agree to a viable contiguous Palestinian state, or annex the lot and grant equal civil rights and citizenship to the Palestinian population.

I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state. Israel will be in deep doggy doo then.

As usual, seeking simple answers to complex issues.

The Israeli government, as well as the Israeli public, was split on the question of how to handle the newly conquered territories. The Prime Minister at the time, Eshkol, was a dovish, while certain elements of his wide coalition (both within his party and outside) held other views. There were a series of discussions, resulting in what was referred to as "the secret decision". Basically, it expressed willingness for an Israeli withdrawal, in return to acknowledgment, peace agreements, and security arrangements. To be clear, this did not include Jerusalem, nor were all the formulations completely identical - but the underlying notion was that the newly conquered territories were bargaining chips, to be traded. The reasons this was kept secret at the time (and years later), was due to the hawkish positions expressed in the Khartoum Deceleration, the unfavorable public view and the domestic political balance.

The USA was made aware of this government decision, and at the time, considered it a generous proposal (as far as potential negotiations were concerned).

While the government decision was not changed, hawkish elements did not fully endorse it either. This became an accepted practice when Golda Meir became the next Prime Minister.

Nothing is as revealing that the views you express got little to do with actual Palestinian sentiment as "I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state". The notion of one-state solution, based on equality, is not a major theme among Palestinians. When it is mentioned, there is usually a reference to Palestinians becoming a majority and payback time for wrongs done. The other reference is to a one-state sans Israelis (or sometimes, Jews). Further, the notion that the Palestinians will renounce their claim for a Palestinian State, and ask for Israeli citizenship, is quite out there - can't offhand thing of any Palestinian of import actually suggesting this openly. This road was open for years, when it came to Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem - not that many went this way.

While any possible future Palestinian state shrinks further as Israel grabs more land to expand its colonies it is Israel itself who is forcing the inevitability of a one state solution upon itself. It doesn't need Palestinians to enunciate it. It looks like all the Palestinians will be left with is a few bantustans with Israel de facto annexing the whole of the West Bank (as they have in effect for the last 50 years anyway), continuing with their checkpoints and total control of Palestinian lives without giving them equal human and civil rights... in effect apartheid.

People globally will react accordingly as this situation becomes crystal clear to the world community. I think external pressure is the only thing that will make Israel come to its senses. As you have frequently said, you can't see any Israeli poliitcal parties making any radical difference in the near future.

Edited December 11, 2015 by dexterm

[dexterm]

Italian PM Renzi and King Abdullah II want a long-term solution to the turmoil in the Middle East and a unified strategy to combat terrorism? A good first step would be to boycott the rogue state of Israel until they agree to stop building illegal settlements and live within their 1967 borders. International condemnation eventually brought the necessary changes to apartheid South Africa... it could do the same to the radical Zionist leadership of Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a core issue when it comes to addressing Daesh.

But the double standards and hypocrisy the USA and the west practise when it comes to turning a blind eye to Israel's abuse and denial of human, economic and civil rights in one arena while proclaiming the fight for freedom against Daesh in another, is not lost on observers and is an element in radicalizing extremists.

[Morch]

As usual, seeking simple answers to complex issues.

The Israeli government, as well as the Israeli public, was split on the question of how to handle the newly conquered territories. The Prime Minister at the time, Eshkol, was a dovish, while certain elements of his wide coalition (both within his party and outside) held other views. There were a series of discussions, resulting in what was referred to as "the secret decision". Basically, it expressed willingness for an Israeli withdrawal, in return to acknowledgment, peace agreements, and security arrangements. To be clear, this did not include Jerusalem, nor were all the formulations completely identical - but the underlying notion was that the newly conquered territories were bargaining chips, to be traded. The reasons this was kept secret at the time (and years later), was due to the hawkish positions expressed in the Khartoum Deceleration, the unfavorable public view and the domestic political balance.

The USA was made aware of this government decision, and at the time, considered it a generous proposal (as far as potential negotiations were concerned).

While the government decision was not changed, hawkish elements did not fully endorse it either. This became an accepted practice when Golda Meir became the next Prime Minister.

Nothing is as revealing that the views you express got little to do with actual Palestinian sentiment as "I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state". The notion of one-state solution, based on equality, is not a major theme among Palestinians. When it is mentioned, there is usually a reference to Palestinians becoming a majority and payback time for wrongs done. The other reference is to a one-state sans Israelis (or sometimes, Jews). Further, the notion that the Palestinians will renounce their claim for a Palestinian State, and ask for Israeli citizenship, is quite out there - can't offhand thing of any Palestinian of import actually suggesting this openly. This road was open for years, when it came to Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem - not that many went this way.

While any possible future Palestinian state shrinks further as Israel grabs more land to expand its colonies it is Israel itself who is forcing the inevitability of a one state solution upon itself. It doesn't need Palestinians to enunciate it. It looks like all the Palestinians will be left with is a few bantustans with Israel de facto annexing the whole of the West Bank (as they have in effect for the last 50 years anyway), continuing with their checkpoints and total control of Palestinian lives without giving them equal human and civil rights... in effect apartheid.

People globally will react accordingly as this situation becomes crystal clear to the world community. I think external pressure is the only thing that will make Israel come to its senses. As you have frequently said, you can't see any Israeli poliitcal parties making any radical difference in the near future.

Perhaps, but there's quite a gap between seeing it as a possible long term process caused by Israel's policies and your previous assertion ("I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state"). The former can be claimed regardless of one's positions, while the latter is more along the lines of Western thinking, and does not reflect Palestinian sentiment.

The problem with the outlook suggested is that it includes a lengthy period of additional suffering, under possibly even worse conditions. All very well for someone who is not directly involved to promote and idealize, but perhaps not in the actual best interests of the people themselves. I think that many of those advocating the appliance of international pressure on Israel, do not fully appreciate the consequences for the Palestinians, or the effect this would have on Israel's political scene. It also ignores certain trends in European and Arab politics, which might prove less accommodating for the Palestinian cause.

What I actually say is that there is there is a leadership crisis on both sides, that contrived blind-spot with regard to any instance implying Palestinian accountability notwithstanding. The Israeli political system and society do not exist in a vacuum. Disregarding the effects of Palestinian attitudes, rhetoric and violence on Israeli politics is not a sustainable position, even if one justifies the Palestinians.

[Morch]

Italian PM Renzi and King Abdullah II want a long-term solution to the turmoil in the Middle East and a unified strategy to combat terrorism? A good first step would be to boycott the rogue state of Israel until they agree to stop building illegal settlements and live within their 1967 borders. International condemnation eventually brought the necessary changes to apartheid South Africa... it could do the same to the radical Zionist leadership of Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a core issue when it comes to addressing Daesh.

But the double standards and hypocrisy the USA and the west practise when it comes to turning a blind eye to Israel's abuse and denial of human, economic and civil rights in one arena while proclaiming the fight for freedom against Daesh in another, is not lost on observers and is an element in radicalizing extremists.

How is the West turning a blind eye to Israel's actions? Practically every topic on this forum that mentions Israel includes international, and often Western, criticism. Which observers would these be? Posters on TVF? Citizens of Western countries? Arab, Muslims or Middle Eastern people? As usual, broad brush statements without much content. Whether it is an major element in Daesh's attempts at "radicalizing extremists" (aren't extremists already...,?) I have no idea. What I am sure of, is that when it suits the agenda some tie the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Daesh, only to cry foul when this is applied in other ways.

The notion that somehow resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be the cure for many of the woes that plague the Middle East is a illusions. It is often used as an instrument to avoid responsibility, accountability and direct tackling of other issues.

[dexterm]

As usual, seeking simple answers to complex issues.

The Israeli government, as well as the Israeli public, was split on the question of how to handle the newly conquered territories. The Prime Minister at the time, Eshkol, was a dovish, while certain elements of his wide coalition (both within his party and outside) held other views. There were a series of discussions, resulting in what was referred to as "the secret decision". Basically, it expressed willingness for an Israeli withdrawal, in return to acknowledgment, peace agreements, and security arrangements. To be clear, this did not include Jerusalem, nor were all the formulations completely identical - but the underlying notion was that the newly conquered territories were bargaining chips, to be traded. The reasons this was kept secret at the time (and years later), was due to the hawkish positions expressed in the Khartoum Deceleration, the unfavorable public view and the domestic political balance.

The USA was made aware of this government decision, and at the time, considered it a generous proposal (as far as potential negotiations were concerned).

While the government decision was not changed, hawkish elements did not fully endorse it either. This became an accepted practice when Golda Meir became the next Prime Minister.

Nothing is as revealing that the views you express got little to do with actual Palestinian sentiment as "I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state". The notion of one-state solution, based on equality, is not a major theme among Palestinians. When it is mentioned, there is usually a reference to Palestinians becoming a majority and payback time for wrongs done. The other reference is to a one-state sans Israelis (or sometimes, Jews). Further, the notion that the Palestinians will renounce their claim for a Palestinian State, and ask for Israeli citizenship, is quite out there - can't offhand thing of any Palestinian of import actually suggesting this openly. This road was open for years, when it came to Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem - not that many went this way.

While any possible future Palestinian state shrinks further as Israel grabs more land to expand its colonies it is Israel itself who is forcing the inevitability of a one state solution upon itself. It doesn't need Palestinians to enunciate it. It looks like all the Palestinians will be left with is a few bantustans with Israel de facto annexing the whole of the West Bank (as they have in effect for the last 50 years anyway), continuing with their checkpoints and total control of Palestinian lives without giving them equal human and civil rights... in effect apartheid.

People globally will react accordingly as this situation becomes crystal clear to the world community. I think external pressure is the only thing that will make Israel come to its senses. As you have frequently said, you can't see any Israeli poliitcal parties making any radical difference in the near future.

Perhaps, but there's quite a gap between seeing it as a possible long term process caused by Israel's policies and your previous assertion ("I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state"). The former can be claimed regardless of one's positions, while the latter is more along the lines of Western thinking, and does not reflect Palestinian sentiment.

The problem with the outlook suggested is that it includes a lengthy period of additional suffering, under possibly even worse conditions. All very well for someone who is not directly involved to promote and idealize, but perhaps not in the actual best interests of the people themselves. I think that many of those advocating the appliance of international pressure on Israel, do not fully appreciate the consequences for the Palestinians, or the effect this would have on Israel's political scene. It also ignores certain trends in European and Arab politics, which might prove less accommodating for the Palestinian cause.

What I actually say is that there is there is a leadership crisis on both sides, that contrived blind-spot with regard to any instance implying Palestinian accountability notwithstanding. The Israeli political system and society do not exist in a vacuum. Disregarding the effects of Palestinian attitudes, rhetoric and violence on Israeli politics is not a sustainable position, even if one justifies the Palestinians.

Israeli politicians may be a bit smarter than the anger filled frustrated Palestinian throwing a stone or wielding a knife. But as I have said in previous posts, Israel seems to be sleep walking into a one state solution. The roadmap to peace is a roadmap to nowhere. It is just a smokescreen so that Israel can steal more land creating facts on the ground. If they were really genuine about the roadmap they wouldn't be expanding illegal colonies.

If Israel is not about to present the Palestinians with a just two state solution (we have discussed the details thorny though they may be before), and the Palestinians will not accept a patchwork quilt of bantustans as their homeland, and the Israelis do not have the stomach to ethnically cleanse 2.5 million Palestinians, then what is left?

[dexterm]

Italian PM Renzi and King Abdullah II want a long-term solution to the turmoil in the Middle East and a unified strategy to combat terrorism? A good first step would be to boycott the rogue state of Israel until they agree to stop building illegal settlements and live within their 1967 borders. International condemnation eventually brought the necessary changes to apartheid South Africa... it could do the same to the radical Zionist leadership of Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a core issue when it comes to addressing Daesh.

But the double standards and hypocrisy the USA and the west practise when it comes to turning a blind eye to Israel's abuse and denial of human, economic and civil rights in one arena while proclaiming the fight for freedom against Daesh in another, is not lost on observers and is an element in radicalizing extremists.

How is the West turning a blind eye to Israel's actions? Practically every topic on this forum that mentions Israel includes international, and often Western, criticism. Which observers would these be? Posters on TVF? Citizens of Western countries? Arab, Muslims or Middle Eastern people? As usual, broad brush statements without much content. Whether it is an major element in Daesh's attempts at "radicalizing extremists" (aren't extremists already...,?) I have no idea. What I am sure of, is that when it suits the agenda some tie the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Daesh, only to cry foul when this is applied in other ways.

The notion that somehow resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be the cure for many of the woes that plague the Middle East is a illusions. It is often used as an instrument to avoid responsibility, accountability and direct tackling of other issues.

You have got to be kidding? How many times in the UN has the US used its veto to protect Israel. The west knew that in 1948 Israel had just committed a war crime contrary to the Geneva Convention by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians, and not allowing them to return to their homes...but have done nothing about it. The world is not unaware that the helicopter gunships and missiles used to kill Palestinians are a gift from Uncle Sam.

I disagree with you. The Palestinian Israeli conflict is part and parcel of the West's interference in the Middle East. A just peace agreement would go a long way in taking the wind out of the sails of other extremist groups.

The observers are all of the above. When I see what Israel does to Palestinians it makes me angry. I hate all bullies.If I can see that the Israeli Palestinian injustice is another part of the west's interference in the Middle East, along with creating mayhem in Iraq through a completely unnecessary war, then others can too.

But I am not about to join Daesh. I am an atheist and Daesh are bullies as well. But others with different backgrounds may see things differenly and be radicalized.

[dexterm]

Getting back to the OP. If readers really want to understand what rights King Abdullah is talking about, I suggest you view

It is a very calm account by a Jewish American about her experience in occupied Palestine, listing the human, civil and economic rights that Israel is denying the Palestinians under occupation. She is an advocate of non violent passive resistance.

[FangFerang]

Israelis really believe God gave them their land. The Palestinians have the same view.

Both sides hate and thrive on the conflict simultaneously.

And I have seen bumper stickers that said: "No peace Mideast until Jesus comes."

Everyone declares their success equates with wisdom, and their bank accounts are proof God loves them more than the poor.

It's a crock of crap being served up as soup. No thanks. I'm not hungry

for that.

[Steely Dan]

The tide is going out for Palestinian rejectionism. Jordan have just signed a $500 million joint agreement with Israel for a water pipeline. Gulf states are queuing up to buy Israeli military technology. Newspaper editorials in the Arab world are starting to posit Israel is not their enemy. Then we have this.

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-king-holds-chanukah-candle-lighting-in-palace/

I know how upsetting the prospect may be to European leftist and U.S regressives but there is de facto peace between Israel and many Arab states, the Palestinians are in danger of going back to being the pariahs of the Arab world. This could paradoxically be good news for the Palestinian people if they are forced into appointing pragmatic leaders who will settle for what they can get rather than river to the sea delusions.

[dexterm]

The tide is going out for Palestinian rejectionism. Jordan have just signed a $500 million joint agreement with Israel for a water pipeline. Gulf states are queuing up to buy Israeli military technology. Newspaper editorials in the Arab world are starting to posit Israel is not their enemy. Then we have this.

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-king-holds-chanukah-candle-lighting-in-palace/

I know how upsetting the prospect may be to European leftist and U.S regressives but there is de facto peace between Israel and many Arab states, the Palestinians are in danger of going back to being the pariahs of the Arab world. This could paradoxically be good news for the Palestinian people if they are forced into appointing pragmatic leaders who will settle for what they can get rather than river to the sea delusions.

Just because corrupt regimes make deals with Israel, doesn't make it right.

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

How are you going to force Palestininas to accept for an unviable state a miniscule patchwork quilt of bantustans left after Israeli land thefts. Why should they accept? It won't improve their rights or their lives. There will still be Israeli checkpoints every 5 miles between the bantustans making a 30 mile journey last a whole day of humiliation.

And if they don't accept, what are you going to do with the 2.5 million Palestininas in the West Bank?

The one state solution will become a reality, and then Israel either grants equal citizenship to the Palestinians or enforces an aparthied regime controlling every aspect of Palestinian lives but without a vote.

At that stage EU sanctions will bring Israel to its knees.

Edited December 12, 2015 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

That is a blatant lie. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel or renounce their genocidal charter and they rule much of what may someday be Palestine. There can be no permanent peace treaty without them. Why do you have to constantly rely on dishonest statements to make your point?

[dexterm]

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

That is a blatant lie. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel or renounce their genocidal charter and they rule much of what may someday be Palestine. There can be no permanent peace treaty without them. Why do you have to constantly rely on dishonest statements to make your point?

This is your old chestnut debunked many times before that you usually resurrect to deflect from the topic which is the denial of Palestinian human ,civil, and economic rights under occupation.

Do a search if you are interested in replies to your red herring.

Edited December 13, 2015 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

In other words. It is a FACT that Hamas will not recognize Israel and Fatah can not act alone.

timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-denies-group-could-recognize-israel

Edited December 13, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

The tide is going out for Palestinian rejectionism. Jordan have just signed a $500 million joint agreement with Israel for a water pipeline. Gulf states are queuing up to buy Israeli military technology. Newspaper editorials in the Arab world are starting to posit Israel is not their enemy. Then we have this.

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-king-holds-chanukah-candle-lighting-in-palace/

I know how upsetting the prospect may be to European leftist and U.S regressives but there is de facto peace between Israel and many Arab states, the Palestinians are in danger of going back to being the pariahs of the Arab world. This could paradoxically be good news for the Palestinian people if they are forced into appointing pragmatic leaders who will settle for what they can get rather than river to the sea delusions.

Just because corrupt regimes make deals with Israel, doesn't make it right.

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

How are you going to force Palestininas to accept for an unviable state a miniscule patchwork quilt of bantustans left after Israeli land thefts. Why should they accept? It won't improve their rights or their lives. There will still be Israeli checkpoints every 5 miles between the bantustans making a 30 mile journey last a whole day of humiliation.

And if they don't accept, what are you going to do with the 2.5 million Palestininas in the West Bank?

The one state solution will become a reality, and then Israel either grants equal citizenship to the Palestinians or enforces an aparthied regime controlling every aspect of Palestinian lives but without a vote.

At that stage EU sanctions will bring Israel to its knees.

You are as delusional as the Palestinians you pretend to support if you think EU sanctions will force Israel to do anything. Aside from trade with the GCC we have China, India and Japan all queuing up to do the same. Even the most rabidly anti-Israel Scandinavians are quietly working behind the scenes with Israel, the Norwegian's recently found a go between to circumvent their own ban on arms sales to Israel. The population canard has previously been debunked due to high Israeli birth rates and rapidly falling Arab ones.

All in all the Palestinians were idiots not to accept the 97 or 98% of the 67 borders that Olmert offered, whether they want a single failed state for themselves or a collection of Bantustans depends largely on how quickly they see reason.

[Rancid]

Bloody Palestinians already have the right to be bombed into the stone age, they have the right to be arrested by the occupying force, they have the right to keep losing more land especially of strategic or fossil fuel value.

What more rights do the whingers want? Any more rights and they'll be a footnote in history, and that is already not on their side.

[dexterm]

The tide is going out for Palestinian rejectionism. Jordan have just signed a $500 million joint agreement with Israel for a water pipeline. Gulf states are queuing up to buy Israeli military technology. Newspaper editorials in the Arab world are starting to posit Israel is not their enemy. Then we have this.

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-king-holds-chanukah-candle-lighting-in-palace/

I know how upsetting the prospect may be to European leftist and U.S regressives but there is de facto peace between Israel and many Arab states, the Palestinians are in danger of going back to being the pariahs of the Arab world. This could paradoxically be good news for the Palestinian people if they are forced into appointing pragmatic leaders who will settle for what they can get rather than river to the sea delusions.

Just because corrupt regimes make deals with Israel, doesn't make it right.

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

How are you going to force Palestininas to accept for an unviable state a miniscule patchwork quilt of bantustans left after Israeli land thefts. Why should they accept? It won't improve their rights or their lives. There will still be Israeli checkpoints every 5 miles between the bantustans making a 30 mile journey last a whole day of humiliation.

And if they don't accept, what are you going to do with the 2.5 million Palestininas in the West Bank?

The one state solution will become a reality, and then Israel either grants equal citizenship to the Palestinians or enforces an aparthied regime controlling every aspect of Palestinian lives but without a vote.

At that stage EU sanctions will bring Israel to its knees.

You are as delusional as the Palestinians you pretend to support if you think EU sanctions will force Israel to do anything. Aside from trade with the GCC we have China, India and Japan all queuing up to do the same. Even the most rabidly anti-Israel Scandinavians are quietly working behind the scenes with Israel, the Norwegian's recently found a go between to circumvent their own ban on arms sales to Israel. The population canard has previously been debunked due to high Israeli birth rates and rapidly falling Arab ones.

All in all the Palestinians were idiots not to accept the 97 or 98% of the 67 borders that Olmert offered, whether they want a single failed state for themselves or a collection of Bantustans depends largely on how quickly they see reason.

It's a bit of a lousy business plan to isolate yourself from nearby trading neighbors and rely on countries halfway around the world.

Israelis are pretty idiotic also not to have gone an extra 2% in land swaps. They would now have peace, and a state of their own with a mainly Jewish character within internationally recognized borders. Instead they have civil unrest and a burgeonng Palestinian population still under occupation after 50 years, a situation condemned by the world.

I believe Morch pointed out the flaws in your Israeli birthrate argument, in that it is mainly ultra Orthodox Jews who have such rates.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/872869-israeli-and-palestinian-casualties-follow-further-stabbings-in-west-bank/

post #10120135

It is a geographic inevitability that Israel will eventually be forced to absorb their Palestinian population and grant them equal human and civil rights. The sooner the better.

Edited December 13, 2015 by dexterm

[Morch]

As usual, seeking simple answers to complex issues.

The Israeli government, as well as the Israeli public, was split on the question of how to handle the newly conquered territories. The Prime Minister at the time, Eshkol, was a dovish, while certain elements of his wide coalition (both within his party and outside) held other views. There were a series of discussions, resulting in what was referred to as "the secret decision". Basically, it expressed willingness for an Israeli withdrawal, in return to acknowledgment, peace agreements, and security arrangements. To be clear, this did not include Jerusalem, nor were all the formulations completely identical - but the underlying notion was that the newly conquered territories were bargaining chips, to be traded. The reasons this was kept secret at the time (and years later), was due to the hawkish positions expressed in the Khartoum Deceleration, the unfavorable public view and the domestic political balance.

The USA was made aware of this government decision, and at the time, considered it a generous proposal (as far as potential negotiations were concerned).

While the government decision was not changed, hawkish elements did not fully endorse it either. This became an accepted practice when Golda Meir became the next Prime Minister.

Nothing is as revealing that the views you express got little to do with actual Palestinian sentiment as "I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state". The notion of one-state solution, based on equality, is not a major theme among Palestinians. When it is mentioned, there is usually a reference to Palestinians becoming a majority and payback time for wrongs done. The other reference is to a one-state sans Israelis (or sometimes, Jews). Further, the notion that the Palestinians will renounce their claim for a Palestinian State, and ask for Israeli citizenship, is quite out there - can't offhand thing of any Palestinian of import actually suggesting this openly. This road was open for years, when it came to Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem - not that many went this way.

While any possible future Palestinian state shrinks further as Israel grabs more land to expand its colonies it is Israel itself who is forcing the inevitability of a one state solution upon itself. It doesn't need Palestinians to enunciate it. It looks like all the Palestinians will be left with is a few bantustans with Israel de facto annexing the whole of the West Bank (as they have in effect for the last 50 years anyway), continuing with their checkpoints and total control of Palestinian lives without giving them equal human and civil rights... in effect apartheid.

People globally will react accordingly as this situation becomes crystal clear to the world community. I think external pressure is the only thing that will make Israel come to its senses. As you have frequently said, you can't see any Israeli poliitcal parties making any radical difference in the near future.

Perhaps, but there's quite a gap between seeing it as a possible long term process caused by Israel's policies and your previous assertion ("I think the time is coming when Palestinians will give up their call for a separate state"). The former can be claimed regardless of one's positions, while the latter is more along the lines of Western thinking, and does not reflect Palestinian sentiment.

The problem with the outlook suggested is that it includes a lengthy period of additional suffering, under possibly even worse conditions. All very well for someone who is not directly involved to promote and idealize, but perhaps not in the actual best interests of the people themselves. I think that many of those advocating the appliance of international pressure on Israel, do not fully appreciate the consequences for the Palestinians, or the effect this would have on Israel's political scene. It also ignores certain trends in European and Arab politics, which might prove less accommodating for the Palestinian cause.

What I actually say is that there is there is a leadership crisis on both sides, that contrived blind-spot with regard to any instance implying Palestinian accountability notwithstanding. The Israeli political system and society do not exist in a vacuum. Disregarding the effects of Palestinian attitudes, rhetoric and violence on Israeli politics is not a sustainable position, even if one justifies the Palestinians.

Israeli politicians may be a bit smarter than the anger filled frustrated Palestinian throwing a stone or wielding a knife. But as I have said in previous posts, Israel seems to be sleep walking into a one state solution. The roadmap to peace is a roadmap to nowhere. It is just a smokescreen so that Israel can steal more land creating facts on the ground. If they were really genuine about the roadmap they wouldn't be expanding illegal colonies.

If Israel is not about to present the Palestinians with a just two state solution (we have discussed the details thorny though they may be before), and the Palestinians will not accept a patchwork quilt of bantustans as their homeland, and the Israelis do not have the stomach to ethnically cleanse 2.5 million Palestinians, then what is left?

Why would anyone assume Israeli politicians are smarter than the Palestinians? Enough morons to go around on both sides, and that's a fact. Seems like the phrase "leadership crisis" does quite get through to some posters.

The generalizations offered are nonsensical - there is no unity of positions and thinking when it comes to Israeli politicians, and Israel is not a hive-mind. That this would be coupled with comments on being "genuine" is a laugh.

What is left is that under current conditions things will just continue being what they are, gradually getting worse. This goes for both sides, and will contribute to people adopting hard-line positions. You own vision of massive international pressure brought to bear on Israel, might be a factor in the long term, but unlikely that it would be free of detrimental effects as well. I believe that peace agreements forced by coercion are less likely to hold, and that they might bear the seeds of future conflagrations.

Those wishing to contribute to a resolution brought about by higher degree of mutual acceptance, would be better off finding roadways to similar forces on the other side, formulating realistic ways in which conditions satisfying the needs of both people can be met, avoid demonizing the other side to a degree where no interest in peace can exist. Obviously, more where that came from, but not a very popular commodity or stance with most posters.

[Ulysses G.]

It is a geographic inevitability that Israel will eventually be forced to absorb their Palestinian population.

This nothing but wishful thinking by supporters of Islamic terrorism.

[Morch]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a core issue when it comes to addressing Daesh.

But the double standards and hypocrisy the USA and the west practise when it comes to turning a blind eye to Israel's abuse and denial of human, economic and civil rights in one arena while proclaiming the fight for freedom against Daesh in another, is not lost on observers and is an element in radicalizing extremists.

How is the West turning a blind eye to Israel's actions? Practically every topic on this forum that mentions Israel includes international, and often Western, criticism. Which observers would these be? Posters on TVF? Citizens of Western countries? Arab, Muslims or Middle Eastern people? As usual, broad brush statements without much content. Whether it is an major element in Daesh's attempts at "radicalizing extremists" (aren't extremists already...,?) I have no idea. What I am sure of, is that when it suits the agenda some tie the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Daesh, only to cry foul when this is applied in other ways.

The notion that somehow resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be the cure for many of the woes that plague the Middle East is a illusions. It is often used as an instrument to avoid responsibility, accountability and direct tackling of other issues.

You have got to be kidding? How many times in the UN has the US used its veto to protect Israel. The west knew that in 1948 Israel had just committed a war crime contrary to the Geneva Convention by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians, and not allowing them to return to their homes...but have done nothing about it. The world is not unaware that the helicopter gunships and missiles used to kill Palestinians are a gift from Uncle Sam.

I disagree with you. The Palestinian Israeli conflict is part and parcel of the West's interference in the Middle East. A just peace agreement would go a long way in taking the wind out of the sails of other extremist groups.

The observers are all of the above. When I see what Israel does to Palestinians it makes me angry. I hate all bullies.If I can see that the Israeli Palestinian injustice is another part of the west's interference in the Middle East, along with creating mayhem in Iraq through a completely unnecessary war, then others can too.

But I am not about to join Daesh. I am an atheist and Daesh are bullies as well. But others with different backgrounds may see things differenly and be radicalized.

The USA is not the whole of "the West", and using a veto right is anything but turning a blind eye - it actually draws more attention to whatever is being vetoed. The "West" (not quite clear now what that signifies in this context) did also fail to intervene when the Arabs rejected the UN Partition plan and resolution, same goes for the plight of Jews living in Arab countries.

You often "disagree", what of it? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict being related to Western involvement in the Middle East is not debated, but that does not quite make the argument that the conflict fuels Daesh, or plays a major role in motivating recruitment. Parroting King Abdullah without supplying any basis for the assertions made, while ignoring (talk about turning a blind eye...) his own interests and agenda is not very convincing.

The "observers" are "all of the above"? And they all share the same vision, reservations and conclusions? Lumping everyone together does not strike me as very insightful or correct,

Until you can actually demonstrate these assumptions, how's about treating them as such, rather than serving them as belonging to reality?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

@ Dexterm

Re-mandatory propaganda clip:

The OP is a contrived editor choice to highlight one part of King Abdullah's speech.

Your post is a contrived attempt to crusade for your usual agenda.

Presenting Anna Baltzer (or whatever is her surname on any given day) as less than heavily biased, or as supporting non-violence is, again, contrived.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Morch

[Morch]

The tide is going out for Palestinian rejectionism. Jordan have just signed a $500 million joint agreement with Israel for a water pipeline. Gulf states are queuing up to buy Israeli military technology. Newspaper editorials in the Arab world are starting to posit Israel is not their enemy. Then we have this.

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-king-holds-chanukah-candle-lighting-in-palace/

I know how upsetting the prospect may be to European leftist and U.S regressives but there is de facto peace between Israel and many Arab states, the Palestinians are in danger of going back to being the pariahs of the Arab world. This could paradoxically be good news for the Palestinian people if they are forced into appointing pragmatic leaders who will settle for what they can get rather than river to the sea delusions.

Just because corrupt regimes make deals with Israel, doesn't make it right.

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

How are you going to force Palestininas to accept for an unviable state a miniscule patchwork quilt of bantustans left after Israeli land thefts. Why should they accept? It won't improve their rights or their lives. There will still be Israeli checkpoints every 5 miles between the bantustans making a 30 mile journey last a whole day of humiliation.

And if they don't accept, what are you going to do with the 2.5 million Palestininas in the West Bank?

The one state solution will become a reality, and then Israel either grants equal citizenship to the Palestinians or enforces an aparthied regime controlling every aspect of Palestinian lives but without a vote.

At that stage EU sanctions will bring Israel to its knees.

So, when King Abdullah speaks about Palestinian rights he is righteous, but when he cooperating with Israel he's a "corrupt regime"? According to the same "logic", international pressure is key to resolving the conflict, but apparently, only if it is directed at Israel. Note that I do not subscribe to SD's view regarding the prospects of the Palestinians being "forced" to appoint a pragmatic leadership. In my opinion, external pressure got a fair chance to push the receiving party to harden their positions.

No, the PLO, headed by Arafat agreed to recognize Israel, and Israel agreed to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians. There was formal agreements on borders, and there was not even a formal agreement regarding Palestinian statehood. However you wish to spin it, it was not conditioned as described. A lot happened since then, and no, not all the Palestinians subscribe to agreements signed.

As someone not salivating over the prospects of prolonged human suffering it would be refreshing to know what realistic (as opposed to wishful thinking) steps could be taken to promote the resolution of the conflict. Bearing in mind realistic constraints, and not indulging in fantasies, diatribes and denunciations.

[Scott]

An off-topic, inflammatory post has been removed.

[Morch]

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

That is a blatant lie. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel or renounce their genocidal charter and they rule much of what may someday be Palestine. There can be no permanent peace treaty without them. Why do you have to constantly rely on dishonest statements to make your point?

This is your old chestnut debunked many times before that you usually resurrect to deflect from the topic which is the denial of Palestinian human ,civil, and economic rights under occupation.

Do a search if you are interested in replies to your red herring.

The topic is not "the denial of Palestinian human ,civil, and economic rights under occupation". Rather, it deals with a part of King Abdullah''s address at a regional convention. This is an editorial choice, and it ignores both the broader scope of the speech and the motivations for bringing up the Palestinians in this context. Similarly, it seems that any deviation from the OP, or even the topic at hand is alright, as long as it allows promotion of your pet agenda.

If you choose to stray into the recognition debate, don't be surprised if posters comment on the usual inaccuracies.

[Morch]

The tide is going out for Palestinian rejectionism. Jordan have just signed a $500 million joint agreement with Israel for a water pipeline. Gulf states are queuing up to buy Israeli military technology. Newspaper editorials in the Arab world are starting to posit Israel is not their enemy. Then we have this.

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-king-holds-chanukah-candle-lighting-in-palace/

I know how upsetting the prospect may be to European leftist and U.S regressives but there is de facto peace between Israel and many Arab states, the Palestinians are in danger of going back to being the pariahs of the Arab world. This could paradoxically be good news for the Palestinian people if they are forced into appointing pragmatic leaders who will settle for what they can get rather than river to the sea delusions.

Just because corrupt regimes make deals with Israel, doesn't make it right.

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

How are you going to force Palestininas to accept for an unviable state a miniscule patchwork quilt of bantustans left after Israeli land thefts. Why should they accept? It won't improve their rights or their lives. There will still be Israeli checkpoints every 5 miles between the bantustans making a 30 mile journey last a whole day of humiliation.

And if they don't accept, what are you going to do with the 2.5 million Palestininas in the West Bank?

The one state solution will become a reality, and then Israel either grants equal citizenship to the Palestinians or enforces an aparthied regime controlling every aspect of Palestinian lives but without a vote.

At that stage EU sanctions will bring Israel to its knees.

You are as delusional as the Palestinians you pretend to support if you think EU sanctions will force Israel to do anything. Aside from trade with the GCC we have China, India and Japan all queuing up to do the same. Even the most rabidly anti-Israel Scandinavians are quietly working behind the scenes with Israel, the Norwegian's recently found a go between to circumvent their own ban on arms sales to Israel. The population canard has previously been debunked due to high Israeli birth rates and rapidly falling Arab ones.

All in all the Palestinians were idiots not to accept the 97 or 98% of the 67 borders that Olmert offered, whether they want a single failed state for themselves or a collection of Bantustans depends largely on how quickly they see reason.

The point is that there are no real EU sanctions in place, and, despite some posters wishing for them, it is unlikely to come about in any instantaneous or dramatic departure from the ongoing relations. There could be a shift in EU position to the degree that certain steps will be taken against Israel, but the EU being the EU, it moves slowly, and decisions are may be subject to many setbacks and workarounds. On the other hand, Israel shifting its economic balance to new markets is a slow process as well, and no necessarily a smooth a proposition as some make it to be. Overall, economic ties often carry bilateral effects, and are not all that easily severed, nor do new economic ties mature overnight.

The population "canard" is somewhat more complex than presented - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/872869-israeli-and-palestinian-casualties-follow-further-stabbings-in-west-bank/?p=10120135

The Palestinians were not "idiots" to reject Olmert's offer. Or at least, not in the way suggested. Firstly, I do not believe that the Palestinian public (as opposed to, say, Abbas) is normally treating issues using a rational approach, but an emotional one. Thus, certain lines of argument may not be as obvious or compelling as they might seem to outsiders. This might help in explaining the insistence on certain points. Secondly, Olmert was a political goner by the time, and did not have the clout to push his offer through (the same holds for Barak's offer). The Palestinian "idiocy", if one wishes to call it that, was in not accepting the offer, to later capitalize on the Israeli side's inability to deliver. Of course, such an acceptance could have been political suicide for any Palestinian leader - support on their side wasn't much to write home about either.

[Morch]

The tide is going out for Palestinian rejectionism. Jordan have just signed a $500 million joint agreement with Israel for a water pipeline. Gulf states are queuing up to buy Israeli military technology. Newspaper editorials in the Arab world are starting to posit Israel is not their enemy. Then we have this.

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-king-holds-chanukah-candle-lighting-in-palace/

I know how upsetting the prospect may be to European leftist and U.S regressives but there is de facto peace between Israel and many Arab states, the Palestinians are in danger of going back to being the pariahs of the Arab world. This could paradoxically be good news for the Palestinian people if they are forced into appointing pragmatic leaders who will settle for what they can get rather than river to the sea delusions.

Just because corrupt regimes make deals with Israel, doesn't make it right.

Since 1993 the Palestinians have agreed to recognize Israel within approximately the 67 lines, if Israel will do likewise.

How are you going to force Palestininas to accept for an unviable state a miniscule patchwork quilt of bantustans left after Israeli land thefts. Why should they accept? It won't improve their rights or their lives. There will still be Israeli checkpoints every 5 miles between the bantustans making a 30 mile journey last a whole day of humiliation.

And if they don't accept, what are you going to do with the 2.5 million Palestininas in the West Bank?

The one state solution will become a reality, and then Israel either grants equal citizenship to the Palestinians or enforces an aparthied regime controlling every aspect of Palestinian lives but without a vote.

At that stage EU sanctions will bring Israel to its knees.

You are as delusional as the Palestinians you pretend to support if you think EU sanctions will force Israel to do anything. Aside from trade with the GCC we have China, India and Japan all queuing up to do the same. Even the most rabidly anti-Israel Scandinavians are quietly working behind the scenes with Israel, the Norwegian's recently found a go between to circumvent their own ban on arms sales to Israel. The population canard has previously been debunked due to high Israeli birth rates and rapidly falling Arab ones.

All in all the Palestinians were idiots not to accept the 97 or 98% of the 67 borders that Olmert offered, whether they want a single failed state for themselves or a collection of Bantustans depends largely on how quickly they see reason.

It's a bit of a lousy business plan to isolate yourself from nearby trading neighbors and rely on countries halfway around the world.

Israelis are pretty idiotic also not to have gone an extra 2% in land swaps. They would now have peace, and a state of their own with a mainly Jewish character within internationally recognized borders. Instead they have civil unrest and a burgeonng Palestinian population still under occupation after 50 years, a situation condemned by the world.

I believe Morch pointed out the flaws in your Israeli birthrate argument, in that it is mainly ultra Orthodox Jews who have such rates.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/872869-israeli-and-palestinian-casualties-follow-further-stabbings-in-west-bank/

post #10120135

It is a geographic inevitability that Israel will eventually be forced to absorb their Palestinian population and grant them equal human and civil rights. The sooner the better.

It's no one's "business plan", in the same way that there are no sanctions.

Them 2% wouldn't have mattered anyway. There was no public support for the relevant plans on both sides. Leaders could not have surmounted this reality. Turning it into yet another one of your rosy instant peace that was missed is disconnected from facts, and does not even correspond to any halfway serious analysis of possible outcomes.

It is an inevitability only if one assumes current condition persist. Soon it ain't going be.

[dexterm]

It is a geographic inevitability that Israel will eventually be forced to absorb their Palestinian population.

This nothing but wishful thinking by supporters of Islamic terrorism.

One day it will happen.

In the long term, it's a geographic inevitability when two neighboring peoples's lives are so intertwined for eternity.

In the short term, Israel will be shamed into ending its denial of Palestinian human rights. Unless some wiser israeli heads prevail that will be in a one state solution, which I am favoring more and more.

I do not support islamic terrorism. Straw man and ad hominem fallacies.

[dexterm]

sorry thread full.

Morch wrote...

"It's no one's "business plan", in the same way that there are no sanctions.

Them 2% wouldn't have mattered anyway. There was no public support for the relevant plans on both sides. Leaders could not have surmounted this reality. Turning it into yet another one of your rosy instant peace that was missed is disconnected from facts, and does not even correspond to any halfway serious analysis of possible outcomes.

It is an inevitability only if one assumes current condition persist. Soon it ain't going be."

SD bought up the Olmert Plan not I.