Biden: 'Overwhelming frustration' with Israeli govt

[Morch]

As I've said I don't see much wrong with what Biden said, but I do think the implied "threat" Israel will stop being Israel just based on Arab demographics is a leftist SCARE tactic, and not actually real. Sure that would happen if Israel made all Arabs in West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, but that suggests they would ever consider doing that. Doing that would be national suicide. I don't see the Israelis committing national suicide. In other words, I think Israel will continue to do what they need to remain a majority Jewish demographic state and that Israel will continue to be successful doing that, because that is not negotiable and a vital CORE value of why Israel exists in the first place. You can't have a homeland for the Jewish people if the majority of people in that nation state are not Jews. That is basic and obvious.

What Vice President Biden was saying is that Israel has a choice coming up in the very near future: it can be a Jewish state or it can be a democracy. The demographics won't allow for both to be true.

That is basic and obvious.

Pretty much, other than the "very near future" bit.

[Jingthing]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Jingthing

[arjunadawn]

Diplomatic speak has serious ramifications when magnified through the prism of foreign perception and motivations. Biden's statement does not just pointedly condemn Israel, a US ally, it significantly empowers Israel's enemies. While on the one hand the statement is meant to express his futility with efforts, it also incidentally reveals Biden's own inability to manage problems. After all, he is at the center of his own observations. If Biden is so "overwhelm[ed]" he should recuse himself from further input or seek help from a counselor. Americans did not seek leaders who get "overwhelm[ed]" and "frustrat[ed]" and then telegraph their deficiency to leverage an outcome.

[up-country_sinclair]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one?

You can't be a little bit pregnant.

And just to clarify, I disagree with the Vice President. With two sets of laws for two sets of people, Israel isn't even a democracy at this moment.

[Jingthing]

Diplomatic speak has serious ramifications when magnified through the prism of foreign perception and motivations. Biden's statement does not just pointedly condemn Israel, a US ally, it significantly empowers Israel's enemies. While on the one hand the statement is meant to express his futility with efforts, it also incidentally reveals Biden's own inability to manage problems. After all, he is at the center of his own observations. If Biden is so "overwhelm[ed]" he should recuse himself from further input or seek help from a counselor. Americans did not seek leaders who get "overwhelm[ed]" and "frustrat[ed]" and then telegraph their deficiency to leverage an outcome.

I think you're being entirely too literal in your analysis. The point was dealing with Bibi has been a frustrating pain in the tuchus. That sounds believable.

Anyway, leadership on both sides isn't really there, or even CLOSE to being there on good faith negotiations for a two state solution.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

Biden is probably obliged to balance his speech when he criticizes Israel to appease the other great lobby group AIPAC. What is interesting is that the US is breaking its taboo about showing its disenchantment with Israel in any form at all, especially in an election year. Maybe the writing is on the wall.

Interesting article on the OP in the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/finally-israel-and-palestine-is-a-us-election-issue-the-last-taboo-is-not-broken-but-it-s-a6994156.html

Must be my eyesight but could swear that the headline in the linked article says "is not broken".

Fisk is blowing a whole lot of interpretation into nothing on the scale alluded to. Bottom line this is election time, when illusions and promises are thrown about. I doubt that the next president would feel committed or that a major shift in USA policy is in the cards. The attitudes Fisk refers to got more to do with demographic changes pertaining to the USA electorate, and it would still be some time before their effects could be assessed.

There is no basis for assuming Biden was "obliged" to balance his speech. He is, for sure, critical of and frustrated by the Israeli government's policies, but hardly on board with the all of the ideas and tone expressed in your posts. Most likely, he was sent to play J Street, while HRC worked AIPAC.

No need to be rude. Note I used the present continuous tense, and so does Fisk in the essence of the article. He says Biden's criticism means the taboo has not yet been broken but it is splintering.

Edited April 25, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

More euphemisms for Israeli oppression. The imperfect democracy you have in mind: votes and full citizenship rights for West Bank Jews, but not for the Palestinians whose daily lives Israel controls in almost every way is not democracy; it's called apartheid.

This is exactly what Biden is pointing out.

One state solution with full human and civil rights for all = non starter you say. "dangerous" Biden calls it.

One state solution without granting Palestinians equal rights = apartheid; non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

One state solution by ethnically cleansing Palestinians = non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

leaves only...

Two state solution. Must be just and viable. Otherwise no deal and no permanent peace, Palestinians say.

Better get a move on before one of first 3 options becomes a reality. Biden says.

Edited April 25, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

It is impossible to claim democracy and indefinitely deny millions of people basic rights. Maintaining the current situation indefinitely is not a viable proposition.

Up until the Oslo Accords, there was no dialogue between sides, and hence no applicable solution. The Oslo Accords changed that by essentially implying an acceptance and a recognition that the situation ought to and will change. So long as the framework of dialogue was maintained, the state of things could be seen as work in progress, with the end result conforming (more or less, some will never be satisfied) with accepted concepts of democracy. For a whole lot of reasons things went pear shaped (both sides could be blamed for that), resulting in a new stalemate. As the Israeli government gives the impression that its ongoing indecisiveness is a decision by itself, it gets harder to maintain the position that this is still a work-in-progress phase. Of course, the Palestinian side bears its share of the responsibility for how things stand, but that does not quite solve the Israeli dilemma.

My reference to imperfect democracy is two-fold - first, in the sense that democracies in general are not identical nor do all exhibit all the ideals associated with the concept. Second, as applied to Israel, it is an acceptably imperfect democracy in as much as control over the Palestinians is not an indefinite state of affairs (with acknowledgement of realistic resolution being difficult and the Palestinians role in making it so). Israel's control of the Palestinians aside or assuming a post two-state solution Israel, it would still be an imperfect democracy. That stems from its definition as a Jewish state while incorporating other minorities. While there is no way to fully reconcile the two ideas, it would be a far more acceptable state of things.

There could be a time when Israel's Arab minority (as in, within 1967 lines etc.) will become prominent enough to bring about another round of the same dilemma. It could be argued that Israel's best shot of delaying (or even avoiding) this eventuality is a two-state solution, projected to have various relevant effects on Israel demographics.

[Morch]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one?

You can't be a little bit pregnant.

And just to clarify, I disagree with the Vice President. With two sets of laws for two sets of people, Israel isn't even a democracy at this moment.

That problem with simplistic analogies....cherry picked black and white world view at its best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_index_by_country_.282015.29

[Jingthing]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one?

You can't be a little bit pregnant.

And just to clarify, I disagree with the Vice President. With two sets of laws for two sets of people, Israel isn't even a democracy at this moment.

That problem with simplistic analogies....cherry picked black and white world view at its best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_index_by_country_.282015.29

Of course.

And, as always the "curious" specific focus on the imperfection of Israeli democracy by the obsessive Israel demonization agenda. So many targets of imperfection. Let's make it all about Israel! Sure thing.

[Jingthing]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

It is impossible to claim democracy and indefinitely deny millions of people basic rights. Maintaining the current situation indefinitely is not a viable proposition.

Up until the Oslo Accords, there was no dialogue between sides, and hence no applicable solution. The Oslo Accords changed that by essentially implying an acceptance and a recognition that the situation ought to and will change. So long as the framework of dialogue was maintained, the state of things could be seen as work in progress, with the end result conforming (more or less, some will never be satisfied) with accepted concepts of democracy. For a whole lot of reasons things went pear shaped (both sides could be blamed for that), resulting in a new stalemate. As the Israeli government gives the impression that its ongoing indecisiveness is a decision by itself, it gets harder to maintain the position that this is still a work-in-progress phase. Of course, the Palestinian side bears its share of the responsibility for how things stand, but that does not quite solve the Israeli dilemma.

My reference to imperfect democracy is two-fold - first, in the sense that democracies in general are not identical nor do all exhibit all the ideals associated with the concept. Second, as applied to Israel, it is an acceptably imperfect democracy in as much as control over the Palestinians is not an indefinite state of affairs (with acknowledgement of realistic resolution being difficult and the Palestinians role in making it so). Israel's control of the Palestinians aside or assuming a post two-state solution Israel, it would still be an imperfect democracy. That stems from its definition as a Jewish state while incorporating other minorities. While there is no way to fully reconcile the two ideas, it would be a far more acceptable state of things.

There could be a time when Israel's Arab minority (as in, within 1967 lines etc.) will become prominent enough to bring about another round of the same dilemma. It could be argued that Israel's best shot of delaying (or even avoiding) this eventuality is a two-state solution, projected to have various relevant effects on Israel demographics.

OK, I get what you're saying now.

Something's got to give, eventually, eventually could be 100 years from now, and that something still doesn't necessarily mean granting full Israeli citizenship to W.B. and Gaza Arabs who everyone knows would later vote to destroy the existence of Israel.

The Israel demonization agenda cheerleading for "perfect" democracy has a transparent goal ... that would "perfectly" vote to end the existence of Israel. You see their poisonous rhetoric here most everyday. Suggesting Jews don't belong there. Suggesting they should go back wherever they came from. How about Poland? Wild overestimating the percentage of Israelis with dual nationalities ... wildly underestimating the percentage of native born SABRAS.

Nice try, no cigar.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Biden is probably obliged to balance his speech when he criticizes Israel to appease the other great lobby group AIPAC. What is interesting is that the US is breaking its taboo about showing its disenchantment with Israel in any form at all, especially in an election year. Maybe the writing is on the wall.

Interesting article on the OP in the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/finally-israel-and-palestine-is-a-us-election-issue-the-last-taboo-is-not-broken-but-it-s-a6994156.html

Must be my eyesight but could swear that the headline in the linked article says "is not broken".

Fisk is blowing a whole lot of interpretation into nothing on the scale alluded to. Bottom line this is election time, when illusions and promises are thrown about. I doubt that the next president would feel committed or that a major shift in USA policy is in the cards. The attitudes Fisk refers to got more to do with demographic changes pertaining to the USA electorate, and it would still be some time before their effects could be assessed.

There is no basis for assuming Biden was "obliged" to balance his speech. He is, for sure, critical of and frustrated by the Israeli government's policies, but hardly on board with the all of the ideas and tone expressed in your posts. Most likely, he was sent to play J Street, while HRC worked AIPAC.

No need to be rude. Note I used the present continuous tense, and so does Fisk in the essence of the article. He says Biden's criticism means the taboo has not yet been broken but it is splintering.

I'd say rudeness is continuously trying to create the impression that every headline, OP or quote are in line with your point of view. Hiding behind semantics notwithstanding.

[Morch]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

More euphemisms for Israeli oppression. The imperfect democracy you have in mind: votes and full citizenship rights for West Bank Jews, but not for the Palestinians whose daily lives Israel controls in almost every way is not democracy; it's called apartheid.

This is exactly what Biden is pointing out.

One state solution with full human and civil rights for all = non starter you say. "dangerous" Biden calls it.

One state solution without granting Palestinians equal rights = apartheid; non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

One state solution by ethnically cleansing Palestinians = non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

leaves only...

Two state solution. Must be just and viable. Otherwise no deal and no permanent peace, Palestinians say.

Better get a move on before one of first 3 options becomes a reality. Biden says.

Read my post above - that's the sort of thing I was referring to.

Biden's speech is not "exactly" what you say, nor do the Palestinians say what you claim them to say.

There was not mention a one state solution by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the only reason to bring it up is to demonize.

Biden's speech DID include references to the Palestinian side, which you continuously ignore.

The last line is both bogus (there are no 3 options) and conveys your disregard for the people actually facing these realities (Palestinians and Israelis alike).

[Morch]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

It is impossible to claim democracy and indefinitely deny millions of people basic rights. Maintaining the current situation indefinitely is not a viable proposition.

Up until the Oslo Accords, there was no dialogue between sides, and hence no applicable solution. The Oslo Accords changed that by essentially implying an acceptance and a recognition that the situation ought to and will change. So long as the framework of dialogue was maintained, the state of things could be seen as work in progress, with the end result conforming (more or less, some will never be satisfied) with accepted concepts of democracy. For a whole lot of reasons things went pear shaped (both sides could be blamed for that), resulting in a new stalemate. As the Israeli government gives the impression that its ongoing indecisiveness is a decision by itself, it gets harder to maintain the position that this is still a work-in-progress phase. Of course, the Palestinian side bears its share of the responsibility for how things stand, but that does not quite solve the Israeli dilemma.

My reference to imperfect democracy is two-fold - first, in the sense that democracies in general are not identical nor do all exhibit all the ideals associated with the concept. Second, as applied to Israel, it is an acceptably imperfect democracy in as much as control over the Palestinians is not an indefinite state of affairs (with acknowledgement of realistic resolution being difficult and the Palestinians role in making it so). Israel's control of the Palestinians aside or assuming a post two-state solution Israel, it would still be an imperfect democracy. That stems from its definition as a Jewish state while incorporating other minorities. While there is no way to fully reconcile the two ideas, it would be a far more acceptable state of things.

There could be a time when Israel's Arab minority (as in, within 1967 lines etc.) will become prominent enough to bring about another round of the same dilemma. It could be argued that Israel's best shot of delaying (or even avoiding) this eventuality is a two-state solution, projected to have various relevant effects on Israel demographics.

OK, I get what you're saying now.

Something's got to give, eventually, eventually could be 100 years from now, and that something still doesn't necessarily mean granting full Israeli citizenship to W.B. and Gaza Arabs who everyone knows would later vote to destroy the existence of Israel.

The Israel demonization agenda cheerleading for "perfect" democracy has a transparent goal ... that would "perfectly" vote to end the existence of Israel. You see their poisonous rhetoric here most everyday. Suggesting Jews don't belong there. Suggesting they should go back wherever they came from. How about Poland? Wild overestimating the percentage of Israelis with dual nationalities ... wildly underestimating the percentage of native born SABRAS.

Nice try, no cigar.

To clarify, my "eventually" is not a 100 years from now. Much nearer, while not being right around the corner. Actions by sides, regional and global developments could certainly effect the time frame.

There are games being played with figures pertaining to demographics by all parties involved. But there's no long term projection which does not make maintaining control over the Palestinians an even bigger problem for Israel.

[Jingthing]

The demographic scare rhetoric is used to apply political pressure on Israel to get their act together before it's too late. What parallel scare rhetoric is directed at the Palestinian side to put political pressure on THEM to seek DIRECT negotiation with Israel?

[Steely Dan]

J'street are a Soros funded bunch of barely concealed BDS supporters. It won't be long before any Jew who still desires an independent Israel will feel obliged to vote Republican.

http://www.jstreetexposed.com/j-street-s-anti-israel-positions.html

The fact Biden spoke to Jstreet is hugely revealing of the current U.S stance.

That prediction has been around for a long time now. And only about 31 percent of American Jews think the US isn't supportive enough of Israel. Which roughly corresponds to the percentage of Jews who call themselves Republicans.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/comparisons-between-jews-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

Last election 22% of UK Jews voted Labour, with their current cluster of antisemitism problems they will be lucky to get half that next election. The progressive left in the US is heading in the same direction as their UK counterparts the only question in my mind is how long it takes US Jews to wake up and smell the coffee.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/135130/death-jewish-liberalism-daniel-greenfield

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262493/70-russian-jews-may-vote-republican-2016-daniel-greenfield

Edited April 25, 2016 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

Well, it's not going to be an issue in this current election, likely Clinton vs. Trump or Clinton vs. Cruz.

Sanders would have been more of a problem as far as retaining the overwhelmingly Jewish support for the democratic party. But he lost.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

The demographic scare rhetoric is used to apply political pressure on Israel to get their act together before it's too late. What parallel scare rhetoric is directed at the Palestinian side to put political pressure on THEM to seek DIRECT negotiation with Israel?

Demographics, in this case, are not exactly scare rhetoric, but real issues which need to be addressed. The scare rhetoric got more to do with how things are presented and discussed.

Prolonging the obviously hurts the Palestinians on a very basic level, as can be evident from a multitude of news stories. It also contributes directly to further radicalization (in terms of politics, religion and violence) on both sides, which serves to fuel the conflict. A side effect of the this radicalization is general lawlessness, which manifests in many ways and taints Palestinian society (pretty much as the ongoing occupation effects Israeli society). These are matters for concern both in the sense that they make resolution harder, and its outcome doubtful.

Typically, ardent one-sided "supporters" of either side tend to ignore the price both sides pay for their respective intransigent stances. A change is not likely to come by adhering to the who's-wrong set of mind, but when the focus will shift to more constructive how-can-this-mess-be-sorted.

While I do see negotiations, especially bilateral ones, as a core element in any resolution of the conflict, it takes two to tango. Re Biden's reference to both sides lacking in willingness to engage.

[Jingthing]

Yes, exactly. It's about BOTH sides and neither are there, so demonization agendas that only focus all the blame on ONE side are totally bogus.

Not saying Biden did that. Because he didn't.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

More euphemisms for Israeli oppression. The imperfect democracy you have in mind: votes and full citizenship rights for West Bank Jews, but not for the Palestinians whose daily lives Israel controls in almost every way is not democracy; it's called apartheid.

This is exactly what Biden is pointing out.

One state solution with full human and civil rights for all = non starter you say. "dangerous" Biden calls it.

One state solution without granting Palestinians equal rights = apartheid; non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

One state solution by ethnically cleansing Palestinians = non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

leaves only...

Two state solution. Must be just and viable. Otherwise no deal and no permanent peace, Palestinians say.

Better get a move on before one of first 3 options becomes a reality. Biden says.

Read my post above - that's the sort of thing I was referring to.

Biden's speech is not "exactly" what you say, nor do the Palestinians say what you claim them to say.

There was not mention a one state solution by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the only reason to bring it up is to demonize.

Biden's speech DID include references to the Palestinian side, which you continuously ignore.

The last line is both bogus (there are no 3 options) and conveys your disregard for the people actually facing these realities (Palestinians and Israelis alike).

Biden used the word "dangerous" for a one state solution. Not sure exactly what he meant by that. Note I used the words "and I would imagine Biden" for options 2 and 3. Misrepresenting me yet again. Not such far fetched possibilities when Israel has conducted 2 rounds of ethnic cleansing so far to maintain a majority, the present situation is de facto apartheid, and when you consider the racist attitudes of most Israeli Jews and Netanyahu's cabinet.

"Nearly half of Jewish Israelis want to expel Arabs, survey shows Pew study finds 79% believe Jews should get preferential treatment over Arab citizens"

http://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/

In the past you have expressed support for a two state solution. I have also previously suggested a 5th option. A confederation of 2 countries with separate passports in which each others' citizens can work, live and worship in each other's countries but can't vote in each others' elections. Mischief makers could be deported back to the countries of their second passport or subject to strict internal exile.

That's 5 options. What are yours? Anything else besides the 2 state solution which you have outlined in the past?

Palestinians are the victims here. It's they that got invaded by uninvited European colonists intent on their dispossession, not the other way around. That's why I don't feel obliged to criticize Palestinians or agree with Biden's, although I am sure their leadership may have made mistakes along the way.

Edited April 25, 2016 by dexterm

[stillbornagain]

J'street are a Soros funded bunch of barely concealed BDS supporters. It won't be long before any Jew who still desires an independent Israel will feel obliged to vote Republican.

http://www.jstreetexposed.com/j-street-s-anti-israel-positions.html

The fact Biden spoke to Jstreet is hugely revealing of the current U.S stance.

That prediction has been around for a long time now. And only about 31 percent of American Jews think the US isn't supportive enough of Israel. Which roughly corresponds to the percentage of Jews who call themselves Republicans.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/comparisons-between-jews-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

Last election 22% of UK Jews voted Labour, with their current cluster of antisemitism problems they will be lucky to get half that next election. The progressive left in the US is heading in the same direction as their UK counterparts the only question in my mind is how long it takes US Jews to wake up and smell the coffee.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/135130/death-jewish-liberalism-daniel-greenfield

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262493/70-russian-jews-may-vote-republican-2016-daniel-greenfield

Actually, you've got it in reverse. Someday the British Jews are going to wake up and realize that Labor is Israel's best friend and vote accordingly. And you know what else, this statement is just as baseless as yours. The difference is that I know it.

[Jingthing]

From what I've read the U.K. Labour party is riddled with Jew haters and Israel demonizers. No thanks!

Those kind of issues in the U.S. left are simply not as severe and not likely to become as severe.

Even on campuses, just not as bad.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

It looks like more than 80% of the U.S senate is feeling no frustration, or at least not sufficient to stop them urging Barack Obama to sign a new improved military aid package.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Large-majority-of-US-Senate-pushes-Obama-to-boost-Israel-aid-452254

I wonder how Richard Falk can spin this?

[seedy]

Flaming post Removed

Answer the post - do not attack the Poster

[Morch]

Why can't it be a democracy, albeit not a perfect one? The idea of giving Israeli citizenship to Arabs in the west bank and Gaza is madness. What's stopping Israel from remaining a Jewish majority state, short or long term? I still don't get the demographic scare tactic.

As far as two state solution, the holy grail, that happens to be not on the cards of the leadership or public on EITHER side.

More euphemisms for Israeli oppression. The imperfect democracy you have in mind: votes and full citizenship rights for West Bank Jews, but not for the Palestinians whose daily lives Israel controls in almost every way is not democracy; it's called apartheid.

This is exactly what Biden is pointing out.

One state solution with full human and civil rights for all = non starter you say. "dangerous" Biden calls it.

One state solution without granting Palestinians equal rights = apartheid; non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

One state solution by ethnically cleansing Palestinians = non starter the world says, and I would imagine Biden.

leaves only...

Two state solution. Must be just and viable. Otherwise no deal and no permanent peace, Palestinians say.

Better get a move on before one of first 3 options becomes a reality. Biden says.

Read my post above - that's the sort of thing I was referring to.

Biden's speech is not "exactly" what you say, nor do the Palestinians say what you claim them to say.

There was not mention a one state solution by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the only reason to bring it up is to demonize.

Biden's speech DID include references to the Palestinian side, which you continuously ignore.

The last line is both bogus (there are no 3 options) and conveys your disregard for the people actually facing these realities (Palestinians and Israelis alike).

Biden used the word "dangerous" for a one state solution. Not sure exactly what he meant by that. Note I used the words "and I would imagine Biden" for options 2 and 3. Misrepresenting me yet again. Not such far fetched possibilities when Israel has conducted 2 rounds of ethnic cleansing so far to maintain a majority, the present situation is de facto apartheid, and when you consider the racist attitudes of most Israeli Jews and Netanyahu's cabinet.

"Nearly half of Jewish Israelis want to expel Arabs, survey shows Pew study finds 79% believe Jews should get preferential treatment over Arab citizens"

http://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/

In the past you have expressed support for a two state solution. I have also previously suggested a 5th option. A confederation of 2 countries with separate passports in which each others' citizens can work, live and worship in each other's countries but can't vote in each others' elections. Mischief makers could be deported back to the countries of their second passport or subject to strict internal exile.

That's 5 options. What are yours? Anything else besides the 2 state solution which you have outlined in the past?

Palestinians are the victims here. It's they that got invaded by uninvited European colonists intent on their dispossession, not the other way around. That's why I don't feel obliged to criticize Palestinians or agree with Biden's, although I am sure their leadership may have made mistakes along the way.

During the span of this topic you have managed to claim it was a speech you could have written and exactly something you recently posted. Later accepted intentionally ignoring parts of the speech not fitting your point of view, and now "not sure exactly" what Biden meant. Similarly, definitive statements made referring to Palestinian attitudes and positions, only to be backtracked later on.

Biden does not fully share your opinion, and his motivations are not your own. Twist it all you wish, he is no hater of Israel, and does hold at least as critical position with regard to the Palestinian. Cherry picking quotes from the OP do not make a sound foundation for the over reaching comments, nor are they an accurate representation of the Biden's position.

Biden did not mention ethnic cleansing, the OP doesn't mention it, there is no major political force in Israel advocating it and there is quite a gap between the poll in the link provided, and ethnic cleansing. So more of the same, hyperbole, demonization, and statements based on misleading premises. Not a huge surprise that you do not bother referring to Palestinian attitudes (mirror image and worse), or that these are deemed justified. Double standards are the norm when it comes to that.

If the "past" is a few posts up the topic, then yes - a two state solution is the way forward for both Israelis and Palestinians. Wasn't aware there's a competition for how many bogus scenarios can be presented, sorry. As for the the confederation illusion - even more complicated to apply than a two state solution, does not provide good enough security assurances, adds more daily friction between sides, and ultimately just another backdoor attempt at a one-state solution.

Everyone gets it that you think the Palestinians cannot do wrong. While appreciating the moral acrobatics needed to maintain such a position, claiming and/or ignoring that Biden does not share this view is intentionally misleading.

"No matter what legitimate disagreements the Palestinian people have with Israel, there is never justification for terrorism," Biden said. "No leader should fail to condemn as terrorists those who commit such brutalities."

[Jingthing]

It looks like more than 80% of the U.S senate is feeling no frustration, or at least not sufficient to stop them urging Barack Obama to sign a new improved military aid package.

http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Large-majority-of-US-Senate-pushes-Obama-to-boost-Israel-aid-452254

I wonder how Richard Falk can spin this?

But not Bernie Sanders.

[dexterm]

@Morch

I was of course referring to Biden's warnings about the dangers of Israel drifting into a one state solution. Which I have been emphasizing in posts here for the last 2 years.

I feel in no way obliged as Biden does to appease AIPAC, the tail that wags the dog, by condemning Palestinians. They are the ones who have been invaded and occupied, not the other way around.

No competition about the number of options Israel faces. My 5 options was merely a response to your "there are no 3 options".

Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has been proposed by some of the nastier members of Netanyahu's cabinet, so no hyperbole there. To quote Gila Gamliel, Minister of Social Equality [and Irony it would seem]..

"The Gaza Strip can annex itself to Egypt, some of the Palestinians can annex themselves to Jordan."...and if they wont go?..

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/fr/originals/2013/08/israeli-politician-annex-palestinians-jordan.html#ixzz46t9UyZkJ

I agree with you that for now the most practical way forward is in a just and viable two state solution. If the terms are not acceptable, then the Palestinians will reject them, the conflict festers, and Israel's demographic problems increase.

But Netanyahu and his cabinet one way or another reject the two state solution while he himself pays lip service to it. So you have to ask yourself: what other options do they have in mind?

"The two-state solution is dead

Just ask Israel's own ministers."

Moshe Yaalon who once called for the use of "chemotherapy" against the "cancer-like" Palestinian threat: "We should find another way, not just talking about the 1967 lines and a Palestinian state."

Naftali Bennett, education minister "I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state."

Ayelet Shaked, justice minister [more irony] who once referred to Palestinian children as little snakes "We should manage the conflict and not give up on any centimetre of land."

...and more.. at

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/05/state-palestine-israel-zionist-150527070943455.html

It is no wonder that Biden is frustrated.

Edited April 26, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

@dexterm

You were claiming that you could have written Biden's speech, now turns out you mean cherry picked bits of the speech. Quite a difference there. First the enthusiastic "hear, hear, Joe", and now "obliged....to appease AIPAC" (never mind that the venue was J Street). Doesn't strike me as the most consistent or honest bit of posting.

And on we go - hyperbole extrapolations "based" on posting a link which does not directly support your claims. As said earlier, the only one bringing up ethnic cleansing is you. And your only motivation in doing so is demonizing. "And if they wont go?" is not answered by "ethnic cleansing", and notably, you ignore the very same question when applied to Israeli Jews. I suppose Egypt and Jordan's actual annexation of Palestinian territories was "ethnic cleansing" as well, then?

For someone who self admitted lack of familiarity with Palestinian attitudes, you sure do have strong opinions on what their negotiation positions and moves will be like. There may, or may not, be a peace agreement which will satisfy some (not all, never) of the Palestinians, but I seriously doubt this would have much effect on your position. Can always claim that the Palestinians were coerced or tricked as you did on this topic and others. If the Palestinians will not accept a solution which incorporates painful concessions and compromises (which might not be in line with your version of just and viable) things will indeed grow worse. But seeing as this is a two way street, thing will not improve for the Palestinians as well. Granted, this eventuality does pose much of an issue for some ideological keyboard warriors.

Netanyahu and Israel's right wing politicians are what they are. Positions are well known. Implying that this represents the whole range of Israeli political spectrum is nonsense. Presenting it without the context of the Palestinians own intransigence (actually referred to in by Biden and ignored by yourself) is simply dishonest propaganda. Same goes for quoting views of Israeli right wing politicians without reference to similar (and worse) attitudes expressed by various Palestinian leaders.

""There is at the moment no political will that I observed from either Israelis or Palestinians to go forward with serious negotiations," Biden said."

[dexterm]

@dexterm

You were claiming that you could have written Biden's speech, now turns out you mean cherry picked bits of the speech. Quite a difference there. First the enthusiastic "hear, hear, Joe", and now "obliged....to appease AIPAC" (never mind that the venue was J Street). Doesn't strike me as the most consistent or honest bit of posting.

And on we go - hyperbole extrapolations "based" on posting a link which does not directly support your claims. As said earlier, the only one bringing up ethnic cleansing is you. And your only motivation in doing so is demonizing. "And if they wont go?" is not answered by "ethnic cleansing", and notably, you ignore the very same question when applied to Israeli Jews. I suppose Egypt and Jordan's actual annexation of Palestinian territories was "ethnic cleansing" as well, then?

For someone who self admitted lack of familiarity with Palestinian attitudes, you sure do have strong opinions on what their negotiation positions and moves will be like. There may, or may not, be a peace agreement which will satisfy some (not all, never) of the Palestinians, but I seriously doubt this would have much effect on your position. Can always claim that the Palestinians were coerced or tricked as you did on this topic and others. If the Palestinians will not accept a solution which incorporates painful concessions and compromises (which might not be in line with your version of just and viable) things will indeed grow worse. But seeing as this is a two way street, thing will not improve for the Palestinians as well. Granted, this eventuality does pose much of an issue for some ideological keyboard warriors.

Netanyahu and Israel's right wing politicians are what they are. Positions are well known. Implying that this represents the whole range of Israeli political spectrum is nonsense. Presenting it without the context of the Palestinians own intransigence (actually referred to in by Biden and ignored by yourself) is simply dishonest propaganda. Same goes for quoting views of Israeli right wing politicians without reference to similar (and worse) attitudes expressed by various Palestinian leaders.

""There is at the moment no political will that I observed from either Israelis or Palestinians to go forward with serious negotiations," Biden said."

1st paragraph. Nitpicking pedantry. You are troll baiting.

2nd paragraph. Israel demonizes itself. We only get a fraction of the full story from the odd news article on this forum. Suggest readers view Maan News. Israel is ethnically cleansing already on a daily basis evicting Palestinians from their homes to expand Jewish only colonies.

3rd paragraph. Why is it the Palestinians who must accept painful concessions and compromises? They have conceded enough. Why not the European colonizers? They are the invaders who have stolen Palestinian land?

As I have said in the past: if the majority of Palestinians find any peace deal acceptable, who am I to disagree? Pure demonizing fantasy on your part to presume to know how I would react.

4th paragraph. The OP read Biden: 'Overwhelming frustration' with Israeli govt. If he feels obliged to attack Palestinians, up2him. I will not do Israel's dirty work for it.

Edited April 26, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

@dexterm

You were claiming that you could have written Biden's speech, now turns out you mean cherry picked bits of the speech. Quite a difference there. First the enthusiastic "hear, hear, Joe", and now "obliged....to appease AIPAC" (never mind that the venue was J Street). Doesn't strike me as the most consistent or honest bit of posting.

And on we go - hyperbole extrapolations "based" on posting a link which does not directly support your claims. As said earlier, the only one bringing up ethnic cleansing is you. And your only motivation in doing so is demonizing. "And if they wont go?" is not answered by "ethnic cleansing", and notably, you ignore the very same question when applied to Israeli Jews. I suppose Egypt and Jordan's actual annexation of Palestinian territories was "ethnic cleansing" as well, then?

For someone who self admitted lack of familiarity with Palestinian attitudes, you sure do have strong opinions on what their negotiation positions and moves will be like. There may, or may not, be a peace agreement which will satisfy some (not all, never) of the Palestinians, but I seriously doubt this would have much effect on your position. Can always claim that the Palestinians were coerced or tricked as you did on this topic and others. If the Palestinians will not accept a solution which incorporates painful concessions and compromises (which might not be in line with your version of just and viable) things will indeed grow worse. But seeing as this is a two way street, thing will not improve for the Palestinians as well. Granted, this eventuality does pose much of an issue for some ideological keyboard warriors.

Netanyahu and Israel's right wing politicians are what they are. Positions are well known. Implying that this represents the whole range of Israeli political spectrum is nonsense. Presenting it without the context of the Palestinians own intransigence (actually referred to in by Biden and ignored by yourself) is simply dishonest propaganda. Same goes for quoting views of Israeli right wing politicians without reference to similar (and worse) attitudes expressed by various Palestinian leaders.

""There is at the moment no political will that I observed from either Israelis or Palestinians to go forward with serious negotiations," Biden said."

1st paragraph. Nitpicking pedantry. You are troll baiting.

2nd paragraph. Israel demonizes itself. We only get a fraction of the full story from the odd news article on this forum. Suggest readers view Maan News. Israel is ethnically cleansing already on a daily basis evicting Palestinians from their homes to expand Jewish only colonies.

3rd paragraph. Why is it the Palestinians who must accept painful concessions and compromises? They have conceded enough. Why not the European colonizers? They are the invaders who have stolen Palestinian land?

As I have said in the past: if the majority of Palestinians find any peace deal acceptable, who am I to disagree? Pure demonizing fantasy on your part to presume to know how I would react.

4th paragraph. The OP read Biden: 'Overwhelming frustration' with Israeli govt. If he feels obliged to attack Palestinians, up2him. I will not do Israel's dirty work for it.

Pointing out the contradictions evident in your posts is not nitpicking, nor troll baiting. My point there is that you contentiously attempt to present any bit related to the conflict as support for your views. This is often done at the price of accuracy, consistency and honesty.

There's a gap between Israeli actions, views of Israeli politicians, Israeli attitudes and the hyperbole versions you present. The links provided do not quite support your fear and hate mongering statements.Maan is far from being an objective source, nor a very reliable one (at least two demonstrated instances on this forum come to mind). And on again with the contradictions - claiming both ethnic cleansing and assured demographic victory.

It was not claimed that only the Palestinians would need to accept painful concessions and compromises. This is something required of both sides in order for the conflict to achieve resolution. The simplistic view presented earlier, under which the Palestinians will reject any offer not to their liking is not how negotiations go. That your seem to think that under any future agreement there will not be any Palestinian obligations, or that they will get all their wishes, is an illusion. The same goes for the Israeli side. Never claimed otherwise. Negotiations are a two way street, and both sides will have to face that, eventually.

The majority of the Palestinians will not be consulted, hence your statement is bogus. There was no referendum with regard to previous agreements, and some were accepted or denounced by non-elected leaderships. Hiding behind the "majority of Palestinians" allows for different figures (if including the Arab citizens of Israel and/or Palestinians living in other countries). Even the current representation of the "majority of Palestinians" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip amounts to a dubious proposition. All that without there being an agreed upon mechanism in place (legal and operational) to conduct such inquiries.

In my opinion, you will have objections to any peace agreement no incorporating the eventual eradication of Israel as a home for the Jewish people. This is based on view expressed earlier on this topic and previous ones. As said, I do not see your views as pro-Palestinian per se, in that they seem to be focused less on solving the conflict through pragmatic realistic compromise, but rather opt for idealistic victories, regardless of cost.

Quoting the headline while ignoring the content of the OP itself is yet another instance of the posting practices denounced previously. Thanks for making my point.