Israel and Palestinians engage in rare UN shouting match

[Steely Dan]

Excellent.

It's no longer "Next Year in Jerusalem" but "This year we're home" for so many modern Jews.

Next year in Jerusalem - Passover \ Pesach song from the Haggadah

The hateful Israel demonization agenda is really pushing it when they suggest Jews don't belong in Israel or that Jews are not INDIGENOUS to Israel.

They try to push this ignorant lie that Jews in Israel are "colonialist" equivalents to what the Belgians were in the Congo.

Here is the oldest known Haggadah dating from the tenth or eleventh century. Looks like the Jews have been singing the same tune for a millennium, as oppose to since 1948 or 1967.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/pages/index.cfm?so_id=2242

[Morch]

The Itchy and Scratchy show.

Same old, sorta like these topics on TVF.

Danny Danon is a Likud party graduate, and got his post solely on the merit of posing a bit of an inter-party electoral threat to Netanyahu. Not really well suited for the job.

Most of his rhetoric and drama are aimed at future potential voters.

Riyad Mansour got over 20 years experience in the UN. Not a shining orator as well, but less issues with the powers that be back home. If he was a bit more restrained in his reaction, Danon would have come off worse.

[Morch]

To mass address some of the usual posts:

There is no current leadership, on either side, willing or able to go through with the necessary hard decisions a compromise (aka peace agreement) entails. This state of things is a reflection of prevailing public attitudes among Israelis and Palestinians. Leaders are more worried about political survival and not dropping the ball, rather than actually leading - especially when this means going against public sentiment.

The notion that a peace agreement could be forced on the sides (or, for that matter, forced by one of the sides), and still be maintained long term is a fantasy. Applying too much pressure will most probably result in further extremism. Anyone advocating this obviously does not care much for the people on both sides, but is more focused on the idea of winning.

Proclaiming to wish for peace is free. But then, peace could mean a whole lot of different things to different people at different times. There is often a disconnect between various concepts of peace. When it comes to forum posts, seems there's a specific brand, confusing personal ideas and imaginary peace plans with actual (or possible) versions closer to reality.

Bringing up the litany of (pseudo) historical woes and wrongs, each and every time any aspect of the conflict is discussed is futile (re: the OP, posts above and previous topics). Serves well for preaching to the converted, stalling any chance of dialogue and preparing the ground for a rehash of the same. The same goes for the demonizing rhetoric applied in even parts to and by all parties (and some of their faithful representatives on these pages). It is not the truth, it's simply a sure way to get nowhere.

The idea that there is a simple solution for the conflict, and that it is within grasp - nothing but blowing smoke. If someone is having trouble with this assertion - read the post again.

[Morch]

But for Israeli greed, Israel could have had peace for the last 2 decades too.

There is absolutely no evidence of that - other than your wishful thinking.

No, it's not wishful thinking.

It is proven by the fact that the Israelis are occupying land outside their 1967 borders.

The continued land grabs and building of illegal settlements is what provokes the violence.

Zionist spinmeisters - on this forum and elsewhere - go into contortions to refute that obvious truth.

Unless I read it wrong, the "wishful thinking" bit in UG's post referred to the assertion that there could have been peace "for the last 2 decades".

If not wishful thinking, ignorance or refusal to address certain issues are to blame. There was no assured magic solution.

[Morch]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

They were interested in peace until they were removed from the land and homes they had occupied for 2000 years. Negotiating with Israel is a case of chasing the shifting goal posts. You line up to score and they move them elsewhere.

Extremists on both sides muddy the waters. Big power politics adds poison to the brew.

Would a return to the 1967 borders be an reasonable compromise? Maybe for reasonable people, but there are few of them involved in this mess.

The Palestinians did not exist, certainly not as a people, 2000 years back. Lets keep it real. On the same score, there was no overwhelming interest in "peace" (re previous post regarding definitions) from the Palestinian side even prior to the UN partition plan.

As for Israel not being straight up about peace negotiations, fair enough, but cuts both ways (same as comments on extremists and reasonable people).

[Morch]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

They were interested in peace until they were removed from the land and homes they had occupied for 2000 years. Negotiating with Israel is a case of chasing the shifting goal posts. You line up to score and they move them elsewhere.

Extremists on both sides muddy the waters. Big power politics adds poison to the brew.

Would a return to the 1967 borders be an reasonable compromise? Maybe for reasonable people, but there are few of them involved in this mess.

How many Jews are living over the 1949 armistice lines? I have read 800,000. Even moving half this number is a pipe dream. There was huge civil unrest just moving 6,000 out of Gaza. In proportion to the overall population it would be like the U.S moving 15million people. Does anyone for a millisecond think the U.S can send even the 11million illegal immigrants packing.

It's a pipe dream which will never happen. How about the West taking all the displaced Palestinians, they seem to have a voracious appetite for displaced Syrians so what's the difference? Sounds reasonable to me.

Saying it is hard to accomplish is different than saying we won't do it.

No current semi-realistic plans even talk about the 1948 lines, so why go there?

Even the 1967 lines are being used as a starting point for reference, not necessarily meaning the line will be exactly followed.

Most plans refer to territorial exchanges which will go around some of the population issues, but obviously these geographical maneuvers can go so far.

If push comes to shove, sure that resistance by the illegal settlers (and portions of the Israeli public) will be more widespread and extreme compared with previous instances.

The question if there is even a leadership willing to contemplate the idea, work to minimize the hardships and, if necessary, make some unpopular moves.

A leadership afraid to tackle issues is not much of leadership.

[Morch]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

I don't know where you are from, Ulysses but lets imagine that your country or state was taken from your people and many of the inhabitants had to run to neighbouring countries where they had to stay for years as refugees (and still stay there). Would you and your people be happy with this?

Would you be happy with continued occupation, impoverishment, controls on movement etc? And when the occupying power continues to install "settlements" on your land, would that create in you a desire for peace?

When you have answered these questions, perhaps you might not be so quick to judge those who experience this every day.

That's a fair enough description of some Palestinian attitudes.

Palestinians have their right to feel resentment, hatred and animosity toward Israel and Israelis.

They also have a right to have their own state.

The two statements above cannot co-exist to the max, there's a trade-off. The more of the first, the less of the second.

It is not fair.

Things could have been different had the partition plan been accepted, or if meaningful negotiations were conducted in 1949 (or 1967). The illegal settlements in the West Bank represent a real grievance and can be laid solely at Israel's feet. The military occupation, and the plight of the Palestinian refugees could be chalked for the Palestinian leadership's failures as well.

[cdnvic]

Stick to the actual topic, a heated exchange between Israeli and Palestinian representatives at the UN.

The historical arguments between the same people has been repeated ad-nausem over the years and none of you have changed, nor are you likely to change each other's minds. Give it a rest and get back on topic. Further off topic posts will be removed.

[cdnvic]

Those of you who missed the above warning and kept up the off topic arguments (removed) are reminded that the next option is to remove the offenders.

[Trouble]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

I don't know where you are from, Ulysses but lets imagine that your country or state was taken from your people and many of the inhabitants had to run to neighbouring countries where they had to stay for years as refugees (and still stay there). Would you and your people be happy with this?

Would you be happy with continued occupation, impoverishment, controls on movement etc? And when the occupying power continues to install "settlements" on your land, would that create in you a desire for peace?

When you have answered these questions, perhaps you might not be so quick to judge those who experience this every day.

Are you even aware of the Jewish Nakba that happened all over the Middle East and North Africa? It's so ONE SIDED for the Israel demonization agenda. They also fail to acknowledge the truth that JEWS are indigenous people to the Israel region, much earlier than Arabs/Muslims.

A few notes about history. The religious version of events is that Israel existed after the exodus from Egypt when Joshua supposedly conquered the land of the Canaanites. The Jewish state therefore existed between about 1300 BC (exodus of Jews from Egypt to 587 BC when the Babylonians conquered the area and at that time the Jewish population was dispersed mainly to what was then Babylonia (Iraq). (First mention of Israel is on the Egyptian stele from 1200 BC.) So in essence the "Jewish" state as such lasted about 700 years and went out of existence in 587 BC about 2600 years ago. That's sort of the biblical version. Later history refers to Judea as a province of later conquering empires and the various goings on would take a volume to explain. Modern archeology has found many problems with the story of Joshua and most believe that the story of Joshua was written not as a historical perspective (since it was written some 600 years later) but as a later story justifying how the nation of Israel comes about and is a blessed nation given to the Jewish people by God. What is known is that there was a nation Israel living in the land of Canaan but no evidence of how it got there. Many scholars believe that the Jews (or people that came before the term Israelite) were nomads that ultimately became more settled and became a monotheistic population. The sad part of this whole issue is that the peoples of the area don't seem to understand that more recent studies of DNA seem to indicate that Jews share DNA with Palestinians and other christian and muslim peoples of the area. Results seem to indicate that Moslem Arabs and Jews are descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times. So to say, "that the JEWS are the indigenous people to the Israel region, much earlier than the Arabs/Muslims" is basically incorrect and is not exactly a testament to justification for today's Israeli State. It is difficult to talk about the Jews without referencing it as ethnicity vs. religion. But in effect the Palestinians with their specific DNA would seemed to have inhabited the area much longer than the "Jews" with DNA influence from Southern Europe, Europe, and other Middle Eastern regions who came primarily in the 20th Century. Fact is that the whole idea of a Jewish homeland came from Theodore Herzl. The state of Israel is strictly a modern day instrument of politics in the 20th Century and to tie it to an historical land of some 2600 years ago is fallacious reasoning at best. Although Jews have continually inhabited the area since they developed a monotheistic religion so have the other inhabitants of the area with religious beliefs predating Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

That being said, Israel exists, has the right to protect itself and provide for its defense. I do however believe that there are those Israelis who view the building of settlements as a God given right whereas much of the world sees it as a land grab. Had the Israelis kept the land as open space between the two populations I don't think this would have developed into what has happened and that in the end some compromise could have eventually been worked out. Unfortunately the settlement building has irrevocably tainted an ability to reach compromise. The creation of Israel and the problems with its neighbors are strictly a phenomena of early 20th Century politics after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Israel's conduct of its policies since the 1967 war. It won that war and it would win again. To hold onto the conquered territory has not been the general trend of victorious armies in the 20th Century. To equate the "Jewish Nabka" certainly is not a rational justification for building settlements on conquered territory which has only served to inflame the problems. Israel's right to exist is not a question with the general world community and it is foolish to even try to tie it to ancient history. It is only right for the Israelis to work now with the Palestinians that will lead to a Palestinian state. Israel still holds the ability to win a war with them so what have they got to loose by trying to negotiate something? The alternative is facing another 50 years of this continuing violence. The sad thing about this conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is that if they were at peace they could together probably develop an economic powerhouse for the region. I wonder if the Israelis had been magnanimous in victory in 1967 whether the war of 1973 and subsequent events would have happened. Israel has always had the capacity to react to provocations. Who would have ever believed after WWII that Germany and Japan would become among our strongest part partners on the global stage?

[Credo]

There are a lot of things I don't like about Israel, but it would help if there was a lot more tolerance for Jews outside of Israel. Most of the ME countries have persecuted and purged their countries of Jews, except for a few small populations. Europe purged itself of Jews and there is still a significant amount of anti-Jewish feeling. Russia has been less than kind to Jews.

As millions of people flee the entire ME region, the Jewish people continue to immigrate. I think that says a lot.

[Cats4ever]

Danon reiterated that when the Palestinians end their "campaign of hate and violence," and teach respect for all people in their schools, "they will find a partner ready to work with them for the promise of peace."

This has been true for at least 70 years. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not really interested in peace.

I don't know where you are from, Ulysses but lets imagine that your country or state was taken from your people and many of the inhabitants had to run to neighbouring countries where they had to stay for years as refugees (and still stay there). Would you and your people be happy with this?

Would you be happy with continued occupation, impoverishment, controls on movement etc? And when the occupying power continues to install "settlements" on your land, would that create in you a desire for peace?

When you have answered these questions, perhaps you might not be so quick to judge those who experience this every day.

Are you even aware of the Jewish Nakba that happened all over the Middle East and North Africa? It's so ONE SIDED for the Israel demonization agenda. They also fail to acknowledge the truth that JEWS are indigenous people to the Israel region, much earlier than Arabs/Muslims.

I presume you strongly support the Celts retaking all of the British Isles and parts of western Europe? The Native Americans resuming control of North and South America. Aboriginals kicking the newcomers out of Australia etc.