Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election

[Naam]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Don't even bother with such idiotic, disingenuous personally baiting posts.

You're a smart person -- you know perfectly well I did not say wearing a yarmulke was disgusting so why would I explain something I never said. 

I said YOUR COMMENT was disgusting.

 

don't even bother to try with your usual twisted and arrogant diction to hide any paranoia. you know exactly that your shot from the hip was ridiculous but you are obviously not man enough to admit that although these kind of comments are quite common in a public forum where controversial topics are discussed.

[Jingthing]

 

don't even bother to try with your usual twisted and arrogant diction to hide any paranoia. you know exactly that your shot from the hip was ridiculous but you are obviously not man enough to admit that although these kind of comments are quite common in a public forum where controversial topics are discussed.

Again your post was disgusting. You can try to deflect and spin it anyway you like. It's not paranoia when it's in your face in black and white.

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

 

Time is on the side of Palestinians, not Israel. 

 

 

You keep repeating this big lie, but no one who knows anything about the Middle East is going to buy it. In the 70 years since Israel was born, they have accomplished so much and the Palestinians have accomplished nothing. It is very obvious that Israel is already the victor.

[DaddyWarbucks]

No country in the Middle East is a victor.

The whole region is a bloody quagmire.

[Johpa]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

You seem to ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to negotiating peace: Israel is the occupier, not the occupied; Israel is the only one with a powerful army; Israel holds most of the cards. And as such Israel can dictate any terms it likes, but the Palestinians are not obliged to accept them.

 

And when Palestinian rejectionism of the crumbs of a patchwork quilt of Bantustans that Israel offers (who can blame them for dismissing that?) runs out, all you are left with is an eventual one state solution, or unilateral declaration of a greater Israel which of course does not equal permanent peace in borders recognized by the world community....the only kind of peace worth having.

 

Time is on the side of Palestinians, not Israel.
 

 

Time is not on the side of the Palestinians if rejection and belief in hopes of demographic change will force Israel into becoming a non-Jewish State, which means in a Islamic context death to or a return to exile for the Jews. That is not going to happen, Israel is a historical fait accompli that is not going away, so the only result can be more misery for the Palestinians while awaiting a false Messiah.  There is no doubt that the situation in Hebron is in an apartheid-like  state, and the situation there is intolerable and why I support BDS.  But most of the West Bank is under Palestinian control, there are no Bantustans, that is a false analogy.

 

The whole Palestinian paradigm is flawed. The Palestinian Authority should be seeking rapprochement with their brethren on the east side of the Jordan and stop fighting an unwinnable battle with historical forces that were, and are, beyond their control.  It is a tragedy that the three crazy monotheistic religions arising out of the historical Levant see time as being on their side while awaiting their respective Messiahs.  Time is neutral and does not take sides or produce messiahs.

[dexterm]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

<deleted> sorry TV misbehaving...dont know what happened to the Cancel box.

Trying to reply to Johpa

 

[dexterm]

@Johpa

(Sorry, TV kept posting JT to reply to... a Cancel and start again button would be handy)

 

Israel is not a fait accompli. After 70 years it still does not have defined or internationally recognized borders, nor does it have peace with its neighbors.

 

>>But most of the West Bank is under Palestinian control, there are no Bantustans, that is a false analogy.
 .... I suggest you take a look at a map of the West Bank. Google:  west bank settlements peace plan map 

 

At Partition in 1947 Jews were unfairly handed by foreigners without asking the resident Palestinian population 55% of the land even though they were a minority of illegal European immigrants in numbers and landowners. Prior to 1967 Israel stole more land to increase that portion to 78%

 

Palestinians are willing to compromise and settle for the remaining 22% of their historic home, but Israel has since greedily encroached on even more territory leaving Palestinians a mere 14% of their historic homeland, and you are suggesting Palestinians should roll over and accept that. That is not going to happen either.The Palestinians are there to stay too. The problem for Israel is what to do with them, when they actually outnumber Jews.

The whole world is watching this time via the social and international media, so "involuntary transfer" is out of the question.

 

All 3 major religions are waiting for messiahs, so that is irrelevant.

 

The 68 years of the Nackba of Israel's existence is a mere pinprick in history. Time is on the side of Palestinians and one way or another Israel will eventually become Israelistine.

 

Whoever becomes US President would be a better friend to Israel if they addressed these problems, since the current Israeli government seems to be unwilling to, and is sleep walking into an eventual one state solution.

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

Time is not on the side of the Palestinians if rejection and belief in hopes of demographic change will force Israel into becoming a non-Jewish State, which means in a Islamic context death to or a return to exile for the Jews. That is not going to happen, Israel is a historical fait accompli that is not going away, so the only result can be more misery for the Palestinians while awaiting a false Messiah.  There is no doubt that the situation in Hebron is in an apartheid-like  state, and the situation there is intolerable and why I support BDS.  But most of the West Bank is under Palestinian control, there are no Bantustans, that is a false analogy.

 

The whole Palestinian paradigm is flawed. The Palestinian Authority should be seeking rapprochement with their brethren on the east side of the Jordan and stop fighting an unwinnable battle with historical forces that were, and are, beyond their control.  It is a tragedy that the three crazy monotheistic religions arising out of the historical Levant see time as being on their side while awaiting their respective Messiahs.  Time is neutral and does not take sides or produce messiahs.

The time is on the side of the Palestinians is hilarious.

Jews have a narrative. Palestinians have a narrative. They are competing narratives and time is a factor of them. 

Jews were  cyclically persecuted in the diaspora for thousands of years before establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. 

The diaspora means Jews outside of their homeland of origin -- Israel.

Palestinians -- get back to us in thousands of years. Jews in Israel ain't going anywhere! 

Much better -- give up on the idea that you're going to kill Israel, stop teaching your kids to hate Jews,  and come to the peace talks table seeking a real two state solution in GOOD FAITH. Yeah, I know, impossible pipe dream, so back to those THOUSANDS of years. Mazel tov! 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The time is on the side of the Palestinians is hilarious.

Jews have a narrative. Palestinians have a narrative. They are competing narratives and time is a factor of them. 

Jews were  cyclically persecuted in the diaspora for thousands of years before establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. 

The diaspora means Jews outside of their homeland of origin -- Israel.

Palestinians -- get back to us in thousands of years. Jews in Israel ain't going anywhere! 

I am not suggesting the Jews in Israel should go anywhere but Israel. I am suggesting that Palestinians who were born there should also have the right to live in their own homes too whence they were ethnically cleansed in 48 and 67.

 

Thing is:  most of world Jewry have voted with their feet and don't want to live in Israel. It is an increasing headache, liability and source of anti Semitism for them. Even after the Holocaust most wanted to go to USA.

 

[Johpa]

20 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am not suggesting the Jews in Israel should go anywhere but Israel. I am suggesting that Palestinians who were born there should also have the right to live in their own homes too whence they were ethnically cleansed in 48 and 67.

 

Thing is:  most of world Jewry have voted with their feet and don't want to live in Israel. It is an increasing headache, liability and source of anti Semitism for them. Even after the Holocaust most wanted to go to USA.

 

 

Alas there are now other people residing due to historical displacement. And to imply there was "ethnic cleansing" by one side is simply your Jew hatred appearing again as you bandy about that term so loosely you insult the memories of victims of true ethnic cleansings in recent modern history. I for one have yet to see a pattern of intentional wholesale slaughter of innocents in the area.  Israel was not intended to be home to all Jews, but was to serve as a refuge to those in need.  World Jewry may be divided regarding internal Israeli politics, but it has clearly voted with it capital to support the Jewish state.  And yes, many, not sure if most, of the displaced after WWII would have preferred to come to the US, but ultimately that was not an option and would not have provided refuge for all in the future.  I work with Burmese refugees here in the US and admissions are very limited now as they were in the post WWII years.

[SheungWan]

On 14/09/2016 at 10:39 PM, SheungWan said:

 

The interesting point as far as a thread of this type is concerned is not so much that old style neo-Nazis pop out with their Rothschild conspiracy theory nonsense, it is rather that erstwhile left-wing and other supporters of the Palestinian cause give the extreme right a free pass and not a peep of opposition to what has been said. Under the aegis of 'taking sides' they think they are taking a principled position while at the same time catching fleas from their new friends (see the list of contributors following the above comments). Its a giveaway.

 

23 hours ago, dexterm said:

I believe that such garbage as the Protocols of Zion are racist and hogwash. 

 

But I also know that powerful pro Israeli lobby groups such as AIPAC are a driving influence on US policy. There is no other explanation for the US seeming blind support of a racist, undemocratic, repressive regime 6,000 miles from American shores that repeatedly bites the hand that feeds it.

 

The inability to answer my point about the Left holding hands with the extreme right is not surprising notwithstanding the Protocols reference, but then that is more thrown in as a misdirection and poor self-justification. Where the Left really disregards and gives a free pass to the extreme right is as I pointed out (and do again) is the Rothschild reference. Now why is that? Because the Rothschild conspiracy nonsense is expressed in terms of anti-finance capital, anti-American imperialist terms and the Left these days is not only rather weak in distinguishing between historical International Socialist and National Socialist ideology but demonstrate that in practice as I have said by giving a free pass to the extreme right and its right here in this thread. The conspiracy angle is getting to look the same from both extremes now. And you know what? They don't mind.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Johpa said:

 

Alas there are now other people residing due to historical displacement. And to imply there was "ethnic cleansing" by one side is simply your Jew hatred appearing again as you bandy about that term so loosely you insult the memories of victims of true ethnic cleansings in recent modern history. I for one have yet to see a pattern of intentional wholesale slaughter of innocents in the area.  Israel was not intended to be home to all Jews, but was to serve as a refuge to those in need.  World Jewry may be divided regarding internal Israeli politics, but it has clearly voted with it capital to support the Jewish state.  And yes, many, not sure if most, of the displaced after WWII would have preferred to come to the US, but ultimately that was not an option and would not have provided refuge for all in the future.  I work with Burmese refugees here in the US and admissions are very limited now as they were in the post WWII years.

"historical displacement" ...that's a nice euphemism for what Jews did to Palestinians at the point of a gun in 1947-48, and again in 1967.

 

Perhaps it's time you did a little more research and questioned the perfect Israeli narrative.

 

The Israeli apologists will of course say that refugees all left of their own accord.

That myth has long since been debunked despite Israeli attempts to keep all the archives secret.

 

"The file in the state archives contains clear evidence that the researchers at the time did not paint the full picture of Israel's role in creating the Palestinian refugee problem."

"Most historians today − Zionists, post-Zionists and non-Zionists − agree that in at least 120 of 530 villages, the Palestinian inhabitants were expelled by Jewish military forces, and that in half the villages the inhabitants fled because of the battles and were not allowed to return. Only in a handful of cases did villagers leave at the instructions of their leaders or mukhtars ‏(headmen‏)."

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/catastrophic-thinking-did-ben-gurion-try-to-rewrite-history.premium-1.524308"

You see the Zionist narrative always has to be perfect, making the Israelis the victim, to make it a biblical David and Goliath struggle. Because if the world faced the truth, they would be appalled.

 

Well, lets for a moment forget all that controversy. This though is a fact:  if there is debate about what Israelis did to Palestinians in 1948 was a war crime or not, it is incontravertibly a war crime in 2016 not to allow refugees to return to their homes, according to the Geneva Convention to which Israel and the USA are signatories.

 

That is why I find US support for Israel so disgusting and hypocritical.

Edited September 16, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

"historical displacement" ...that's a nice euphemism for what Jews did to Palestinians at the point of a gun in 1947-48, and again in 1967.

 

Maybe the Palestinians and other Arabs shouldn't have started WARS with Israel over and over again. They made their own bed.

[dexterm]

20 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Maybe the Palestinians and other Arabs shouldn't have started WARS with Israel over and over again. They made their own bed.

That myth has been debunked many times also. Israel has initiated every single conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, apart from 1973, when Egypt caught the IDF napping.

 

Moreover, it is irrelevant. This is the 21st century with the rule of international law, not Attila the Hun's.

 

But I won't be entering into your deflection. Another more suitable thread, another time maybe.

 

Perhaps we should get back on topic, and look for solutions in the future.

 

I have a feeling that Clinton and who knows even Trump may try to claim their place in the history books for posterity by solving this 100 year old conflict.
A pity Bernie did not get the nomination.

 

Whatever, the problem is not going away, and as the Palestinian population increases it is only being exacerbated

Edited September 16, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, dexterm said:

That myth has been debunked many times also. 

 

 Baloney. It is a historical FACT that 5 Arab armies attacked Israel when it accepted the UN solution and declared independence. The Palestinians refused the chance to form their own state. Any other assertion is bizarre fiction. 

[Steely Dan]

Whatever happens with the U.S elections I firmly believe the west reached peak stupidity some time in 2015. Now the slow realization that the Israelis were right all along. Europe has imperiled itself through suicidal immigration policies, but there appears to be a gathering realization that Israeli policies actually work. Slowly the pious lecturing has given way to adopting Israeli security measures. Only yesterday for the first time ever a French politician visited an Israeli jail to see how things are done there. The Palestinians goose is cooked, they can't avoid being lumped in with the worst elements of the Muslim world when sundry opinion polls show Palestinians favor Sharia law more than almost all other Muslin nations.

In a nutshell, the more the west drops its blinkers on Islamic extremism the worse it will get for the Palestinians.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Steely Dan]

Hot off the press this, donations to Gaza by nation show how the Arabs are ahead of the curb in rumbling what the Palestinians are about.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/09/so-why-arent-arab-states-paying-their.html


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

Whatever happens with the U.S elections I firmly believe the west reached peak stupidity some time in 2015. Now the slow realization that the Israelis were right all along. Europe has imperiled itself through suicidal immigration policies, but there appears to be a gathering realization that Israeli policies actually work. Slowly the pious lecturing has given way to adopting Israeli security measures. Only yesterday for the first time ever a French politician visited an Israeli jail to see how things are done there. The Palestinians goose is cooked, they can't avoid being lumped in with the worst elements of the Muslim world when sundry opinion polls show Palestinians favor Sharia law more than almost all other Muslin nations.

In a nutshell, the more the west drops its blinkers on Islamic extremism the worse it will get for the Palestinians.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Your Islamophobic linkless rant has got nothing to do with the topic, which is about US elections and future Presidential relations with Israel and Palestine. 

[Morch]

Most posters seem unable to accommodate the notion that accountability for how things got to where they are, and responsibility for the shape things will take in the future, are not unilateral issues. There are enough instances, on both sides, of making counter-productive, ill serving decisions. The obsession some posters express with laying all blame on one side or another is pretty much characteristic of the conflict itself. The motto seems to be not to budge an inch, and not to concede any talking point, however bogus. This goes hand in hand with ignoring, or whitewashing any wrongdoing committed by the supported side.

 

One got to thankful that actual contacts between Israeli and Palestinian representatives do not resemble TVF "discussions". The latter bear more resemblance to public addresses by politicians. 

 

Anyone with a wee bit of common sense can understand that time if on neither side's side. If current conditions remain, both societies are heading toward cloudy futures. One side's predicament not cancelling the others, nor assures "victory".

 

The OP is an opinion piece by an extremely biased author, which fails to take into account the many factors effecting the Palestinians. With all due respect to the minute variations in US Middle East policy, I doubt it is currently the central element determining Palestinian fortunes.

[Morch]

On 9/13/2016 at 11:25 PM, Naam said:

 

i know a number of Israelis who don't agree with you. plus the status quo and dealing with it means a terrible waste of manpower, material and other precious resources which could boost Israel's GDP to unknown heights. more settlements and occupied areas are as stupid as Hamas rockets and suicide bombers.

 

The illusion that the status quo can be maintained without serious long term consequences is indeed a myth. Apart from the economic, diplomatic and military price paid, the ongoing occupation deepens already existing rifts within Israeli society. If memory serves, this was even directly addressed by the IDF Chief of Staff as being the gravest threat to Israeli national security. Similar things could be said with regard to the Palestinian side. The obvious grievances and hardships appearing on this forum are real enough, but long term, the ongoing status quo's main effect is a fracturing of Palestinian society.

 

Both societies go through a gradual process of extremism, often coupled with a religious bent. Along the way, both societies are also becoming more violent, sectarian and closed for change. 

 

It is possible that at some point one side will prevail, but doubtful that it will retain its current identity.

 

 

[Morch]

On 9/14/2016 at 1:25 AM, Ulysses G. said:

 

Totally agree. Israel would like to make peace, but as long as the Palestinians keep refusing, they are only hurting themselves.

 

There is no "Israel", in the same sense that there are no "Palestinians". There are those on either side which support a peaceful resolution of one kind or the other. There's hardly any general agreement as to details, nor is it a given that when push comes to shove a pro peace majority would be achieved.

 

It is easy enough to say "would like to make peace", but in truth, even those pro-peace factions on either side would actually like to make "a peace". The trouble is that these different peace(s) do not come together.

 

The Palestinians might be hurting themselves, but not "only". Israel's future and fortunes are not indifferent to the conflict remaining unresolved.

[Morch]

On 9/14/2016 at 3:29 AM, dexterm said:

Both people's economies would boom as a result of a viable peace deal.

 

UN: Israeli occupation stunts Palestinian economy
"New UN report finds Palestinian economy would double in size without Israeli occupation.

'Asymmetric trade dependence' with Israel renders occupied Palestinian territories 'a captive market', according to the UN 

The economy of the occupied Palestinian territories would be at least twice as large if the 49-year-old Israeli occupation was lifted, a new United Nations report has found."

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/israeli-occupation-stunts-palestinian-economy-160909151839441.html
 

 

That might be the case, if one believes that the Palestinians would be able to optimally conduct their economic affairs. It also ignores that even without the Israeli occupation, the Palestinian economy would still be tied to Israel's and that certain restrictions are not likely to disappear.

 

IMO, the short term consequences of any agreement would not be beneficial to either side. Costs involved in sorting out the mess are staggering, and any gains are likely to be swallowed up by multinational corporations. If there's a prospect for prosperity it lies in the long term, trouble being that disillusion with promised economic miracles might serve to rekindle the conflict.

[Morch]

On 9/14/2016 at 5:52 AM, dexterm said:

Everyone (except Israel) agrees that the conditions for a permanent peace deal have been on the table since 2002..we have been here many times before on this forum. They are outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative...the main ones being land swaps, a deal over Jerusalem, and compensation or repatriation for Palestinian refugees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

 

It is not a level playing field between occupied and occupier. In Palestine, Israel is the only one with a powerful standing army. The Palestinians haven't got one. Israel holds most of the cards.

 

If you dont believe me listen to other major world players..

 

"The report by the Quartet entities sponsoring the stalled peace process - the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - said the Israeli policy "is steadily eroding the viability of the two-state solution."

"This raises legitimate questions about Israel's long-term intentions, which are compounded by the statements of some Israeli ministers that there should never be a Palestinian state," according to the eight-page report."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-should-stop-building-settlements-says-quartet-report-a7114911.html

 

No dichotomy between over population and ethnic cleansing. If Israel wants a mainly Jewish state and a democracy, it has to have a Jewish majority...simple math. You either make yourself a majority by creating a separate viable Palestinian state, or you ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population and steal their land as Israel did in 48 and 67.

 

I have a feeling that it will be quite pointless discussing the issue with you. If one disagrees with the current Israeli government, one is either accused of being anti semitic or in the case of the UN biased. Old ploys that don't work any more. The whole world is watching this time.

 

One would think that after bringing up the same old link to the Arab Peace Initiative, you'd bother to actually read it and address the points usually raised:

 

- The Arab Peace Initiative was rejected by Hamas and Iran (relevant as it control Hezbollah).

 

- Three of Israel's neighbors are currently in no state to sign anything due to domestic issues (Lebanon,

   Syria and the Palestinians).

 

- The same could apply to other members of the Arab League (Iraq, Libya).

 

- The proposal was rather ambiguous with regard to the so-called Palestinian Right of Return. There were 

  more recent reports of    certain clarifying amendments made, though.

 

- The proposal is big on supposed goodwill, and short on enforcement mechanisms. Not a healthy 

  situation with regard to the ME.

 

- Israel already got long standing and reasonable stable peace agreements with two of its neighbors 

  (Egypt, Jordan). These remained in place despite the conflict with the Palestinian remaining unresolved.

   Reports tend to suggest increased levels of cooperation with other ME countries, even under current

   conditions.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Morch

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

One would think that after bringing up the same old link to the Arab Peace Initiative, you'd bother to actually read it and address the points usually raised

 

He often links to sources that directly contradict the points that he's making. I have no idea why - hoping that no one will bother to read them?

[Morch]

On 9/15/2016 at 6:24 AM, dexterm said:

I believe that such garbage as the Protocols of Zion are racist and hogwash. 

 

But I also know that powerful pro Israeli lobby groups such as AIPAC are a driving influence on US policy. There is no other explanation for the US seeming blind support of a racist, undemocratic, repressive regime 6,000 miles from American shores that repeatedly bites the hand that feeds it.

 

The US supports many countries which fail to live up to its ideals (well, even the US doesn't always live up to them). As usual, the bulk of your criticism is reserved for one particular country. Non of Israel's neighbors would fare better on your imaginary good morals scale, this includes the Palestinians and the future Palestinian State.

 

Moralizing is often irrelevant to foreign policy considerations. It is unlikely that it will become otherwise regardless of which candidate gets into the White House.

 

 

 

[Morch]

On 9/15/2016 at 5:48 PM, dexterm said:

You are spot on in your first paragraph IMO ....with the addendum the racist supremacist Zionist* state of Israel does not deserve to exist and I hope that regime will one day end, when Israel becomes a true multi cultural, secular democracy. Nor would I call criticism of Israel demonization. Israel demonizes itself with its diabolical behavior.

 

[* defined as (and I think I am in the good company of the person who first coined the word)  those who believe in the free migration of Jews into Palestine based solely on their race/religion, while denying similar rights to Palestinians who were born there. ]

 

The rest of your post was the usual Zionist propaganda mythology that Israel the aggressor and occupier is somehow the victim.

 

The Amos Oz interview was interesting although I disagree with his opinion of BDS.

 

You obviously disagree with him also on the demonization issue. Even for your usual inflammatory rhetoric "diabolical" is a bit over the top, plus adding an unnecessary religious tone. Asserting that Israel ought to not have existed in the first place is household in your posts, but again, quite contrary to Oz's view.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, dexterm said:

@Johpa

(Sorry, TV kept posting JT to reply to... a Cancel and start again button would be handy)

 

Israel is not a fait accompli. After 70 years it still does not have defined or internationally recognized borders, nor does it have peace with its neighbors.

 

>>But most of the West Bank is under Palestinian control, there are no Bantustans, that is a false analogy.
 .... I suggest you take a look at a map of the West Bank. Google:  west bank settlements peace plan map 

 

At Partition in 1947 Jews were unfairly handed by foreigners without asking the resident Palestinian population 55% of the land even though they were a minority of illegal European immigrants in numbers and landowners. Prior to 1967 Israel stole more land to increase that portion to 78%

 

Palestinians are willing to compromise and settle for the remaining 22% of their historic home, but Israel has since greedily encroached on even more territory leaving Palestinians a mere 14% of their historic homeland, and you are suggesting Palestinians should roll over and accept that. That is not going to happen either.The Palestinians are there to stay too. The problem for Israel is what to do with them, when they actually outnumber Jews.

The whole world is watching this time via the social and international media, so "involuntary transfer" is out of the question.

 

All 3 major religions are waiting for messiahs, so that is irrelevant.

 

The 68 years of the Nackba of Israel's existence is a mere pinprick in history. Time is on the side of Palestinians and one way or another Israel will eventually become Israelistine.

 

Whoever becomes US President would be a better friend to Israel if they addressed these problems, since the current Israeli government seems to be unwilling to, and is sleep walking into an eventual one state solution.

 

Reality check:

 

Israel does have peace with two (Egypt, Jordan) of its five neighbors. The other three (Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians) are divided among themselves and are currently in no state to sign anything viable.

 

Israel does have mutually acknowledged border with two of its neighbors (Egypt. Jordan). The border with Lebanon is set, apart from minor disagreement which involves Syria as well. Most formulations acknowledge the 1967 lines (or thereabout) as the possible future border with a Palestinian state. The border with Syria is indeed unrecognized internationally. Then again, not something which is going to be sorted anytime soon.

 

Neither ordinary Jews nor Arabs were consulted when the partition plan was voted on. Large tracts of the areas allocated for the future Jewish state were arid desert lands, which were not heavily populated. By and large, the Jews living under the British Mandate were not illegal immigrants (unless one subscribe to your own retroactive versions of what's illegal). Lands were not "stolen" but were won in war.

 

As noted earlier, your notion of "time is on the side of the Palestinians" assumes that the Palestinian side remains as it is. Very unlikely, IMO.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

Whatever happens with the U.S elections I firmly believe the west reached peak stupidity some time in 2015. Now the slow realization that the Israelis were right all along. Europe has imperiled itself through suicidal immigration policies, but there appears to be a gathering realization that Israeli policies actually work. Slowly the pious lecturing has given way to adopting Israeli security measures. Only yesterday for the first time ever a French politician visited an Israeli jail to see how things are done there. The Palestinians goose is cooked, they can't avoid being lumped in with the worst elements of the Muslim world when sundry opinion polls show Palestinians favor Sharia law more than almost all other Muslin nations.

In a nutshell, the more the west drops its blinkers on Islamic extremism the worse it will get for the Palestinians.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

I don't know that it has to do much with a realization that "Israel was right". There seems to be a global trend, or shift, to the political right. Such things can be said to be tied with economic trends and anticipated social changes.

 

No idea how things will pan out in the US, quite a circus and perhaps more showmanship involved compared to Europe. But as to political sides, HRC is Left mainly on TVF. In European context more like Center.

 

Surely the immigrant crisis and the ISIS fears did little to strengthen European support for the Palestinians. Whether this translates into support of Israel is doubtful, though.

 

Would be interesting to see how the next US president deals with things like the French Peace Initiative (and at  the same time, how will this initiative fare the next general elections in France).

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

One would think that after bringing up the same old link to the Arab Peace Initiative, you'd bother to actually read it and address the points usually raised:

 

- The Arab Peace Initiative was rejected by Hamas and Iran (relevant as it control Hezbollah).

 

- Three of Israel's neighbors are currently in no state to sign anything due to domestic issues (Lebanon,

   Syria and the Palestinians).

 

- The same could apply to other members of the Arab League (Iraq, Libya).

 

- The proposal was rather ambiguous with regard to the so-called Palestinian Right of Return. There were 

  more recent reports of    certain clarifying amendments made, though.

 

- The proposal is big on supposed goodwill, and short on enforcement mechanisms. Not a healthy 

  situation with regard to the ME.

 

- Israel already got long standing and reasonable stable peace agreements with two of its neighbors 

  (Egypt, Jordan). These remained in place despite the conflict with the Palestinian remaining unresolved.

   Reports tend to suggest increased levels of cooperation with other ME countries, even under current

   conditions.

Nitpicking and obfuscation again.

 

I was replying to the oft repeated by Israeli apologists mythological red herring  on this forum that the Arabs don't want peace with Israel.

 

I wrote: [the conditions for peace] "are outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative...the main ones being land swaps, a deal over Jerusalem, and compensation or repatriation for Palestinian refugees." Obviously Israeli security concerns have to be addressed too.

 

They are not set in concrete, and I believe they are very close to the discussion items on the US and EU agenda for their 2 state solution. So you tell us what the conditions for an acceptable permanent peace would be approximately. Or is that as usual in the too hard basket.

 

The rest of your post is a silly obfuscatory dissection of each country as a stumbling block to the big picture...the road to peace.

 

As you point out, Israel has made separate peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. So why not a separate peace deal with West Bank Palestinians?

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The US supports many countries which fail to live up to its ideals (well, even the US doesn't always live up to them). As usual, the bulk of your criticism is reserved for one particular country. Non of Israel's neighbors would fare better on your imaginary good morals scale, this includes the Palestinians and the future Palestinian State.

 

Moralizing is often irrelevant to foreign policy considerations. It is unlikely that it will become otherwise regardless of which candidate gets into the White House.

 

 

 

Deflection. We are not discussing other countries. The topic is US Presidential relations with Israel and Palestine.

 

Israel is rather a special case in that the US has just given it the largest foreign defense package in history.