Forum turned upside down?

[Naam]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Take a clue ... Israel is NEVER going to voluntarily abandon all of East Jerusalem. You can pass another million U.N. resolutions abou that ... won't make any difference. 

because of "eternal" rights

Quote

Danny Danon, Israeli Ambassador the UN responded by asking:
“Who gave you the right to issue such a decree denying our eternal rights in Jerusalem?

 

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am not sure of where the boundaries of a Palestinian East Jerusalem capital would be anyway.

 

Your comparison is dishonest. 2,000 Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem in 1948. 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in the same year.

 

>>There will not be a full return of all Palestinians, that's pretty much a given.

Why so? I predict that one day they will return. If the Israel right wing get their way with Trump's endorsement for a one party state, it may be sooner than you think.

 

>>Pretty much the same as Jews not being able to return to Arab countries in which they resided.
...A cheap shot. Don't blame Palestinians for what other Arab nations may have done. That's dishonest.

 

I understand that you need to repeat your agenda driven nonsense, but please...don't twist my words and don't attribute to me comparisons that I did not make. You were the one making a comparison, I pointed out it was inane.

 

That you predict something doesn't make it likely or accurate. A few years and thousands of posts in the same vein can attest to that. There is no peace solution formulation which seriously includes these figures, and the country (two stated or otherwise) does not have the capacity to absorb them. That you project a one state solution around the corner is lovely, but meaningless.

 

Hardly a cheap shot, treating all the decedents of original refugees until whatever generation as retaining the same "rights" is absurd, and is not generally applied toward other groups. Putting it another way, these countries could in turn neutralize Palestinians already living in-country instead of granting Jews the right to return. 

Edited December 25, 2016 by Morch

[dexterm]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I understand that you need to repeat your agenda driven nonsense, but please...don't twist my words and don't attribute to me comparisons that I did not make. You were the one making a comparison, I pointed out it was inane.

 

That you predict something doesn't make it likely or accurate. A few years and thousands of posts in the same vein can attest to that. There is no peace solution formulation which seriously includes these figures, and the country (two stated or otherwise) does not have the capacity to absorb them. That you project a one state solution around the corner is lovely, but meaningless.

 

Hardly a cheap shot, treating all the decedents of original refugees until whatever generation as retaining the same "rights" is absurd, and is not generally applied toward other groups. Putting it another way, these countries could in turn neutralize Palestinians already living in-country instead of granting Jews the right to return. 

Presumably you would include 500,000 illegal Jewish settlers to be repatriated too to the 67 borders of Israel, if it is a "given" that Palestinians have no right to return where they once lived.

 

>>treating all the decedents of original refugees until whatever generation as retaining the same "rights" is absurd, and is not generally applied toward other groups.
..would that messianic ultra nationalist Zionists claiming the West Bank as their own after an absence of 2000 years felt the same as you! Their "absurd" rationale is the cause of the entire problem and as you said previously a major obstacle to peace.

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, Naam said:

because of "eternal" rights

 

Easy to mock.

 

Quote

 

Jerusalem’s status won’t be as easy to settle as other real estate deals. Here’s why.

 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/25/jerusalems-status-wont-be-as-easy-to-settle-as-other-real-estate-deals-heres-why/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_israelun-756am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.334497ab4fa5

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, optad said:

That helps. I imagine that domestic israeli politics is the unsaid here. And is fair enough. Impossible to know. I guessing, with guidance, that sometimes you have to choose a path and strong arm  policy benefits on the body politic. CAn this be done in  israel?

 

Not exactly strong arm, as such. But leaders who are able to identify the national interest and act (or sway the public) accordingly, even at the cost of losing popularity. One example would be Ben-Gurion who said something like "I do not know what the people want, but I know what the country needs". Does it does sound less than the democratic ideal? Yes. But most times it did not breach democracy (or not by too much). 

 

It is a somewhat of a conundrum, but generally speaking, leaders who are perceived as militaristic, security-oriented receive wider public support for such moves. This was true of Ben-Gurion, Begin and Rabin. This makes it somewhat easier for a right wing leader to muster the needed support, as the opposition will back him up. When the places are reversed, the opposition (right wing) will cry treason over pretty much anything. On the Palestinian side, things aren't all that different. Hawks or perceived hawks get more public credit than doves. Hence Arafat could, and Abbas cannot. If Hamas was interested in peace, they'd have a better shot (no pun intended) of pulling it through.

 

What's to be done? It's Sisyphean. Educate people, work for better understanding, focus on those things that can result in immediate results which may later lead to better levels of trust. It's hard to achieve as extremists on  both sides aren't interested, and easy to derail any such efforts.

 

On a political level? Highlight the carrots in a realistic manner, less threats with sticks. I think most Israelis do not see any immediate benefits from a peace agreement. And to a degree, that's a correct perception. The nonsense peddled instant bonanza is false. The same as unrealistic expectations that the implementation will be anything but a bumpy ride.

 

The rhetoric employed by many posters does nothing but serve as "proof" for right wing politicians that "everyone is against us". The over the top things aired aren't helpful, they just push people to the wrong places. 

 

Edit (forgot):

There was an article by Daniel Kahneman, about a couple of years back, detailing how major political moves are often the result of leadership decisions rather than popular ones. Linked it on a previous topic, but can't seem to find the link. Shouldn't be impossible to track down, and makes a good reading.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I think you have previously stated (opined?) in other threads that most Palestinians are not keen on a one state solution. Now you are saying Palestinians were or are not fully committed to the idea of a peaceful two state solution either.
Which is it?

 

Not an either/or question. And not exactly meant in the way presented.

 

The kumbaya one-state solution you often go on about is not really something that popular with Palestinians. Put it down to history with Israel or to their cultural heritage, but either way - it doesn't feature. The more commonly held view of one state solution involves Palestinian dominance, which if expressed by Israelis would be outright denounced. Another thing noted was that Israeli Arabs (also Palestinians) are not that keen on a one state solution if that means it would be run like any of the neighboring countries, or the PA itself. Supporting their brothers yes, losing their own liberties, not so much.

 

With regard to the two state solution - the Palestinians are not fully committed. This attitude is not separate from Israel's actions, of course, but it not solely dependent on them either. A two state solution requires the will to make permanent sacrifices and concede certain terms, public support for this is far from impressive and leadership seems powerless to push it forward. That's without even getting into the issue of the Fatah-Hamas split, which basically makes the whole thing academic.

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, optad said:

You are so defensive on this topic, you cannot even recognise the moderate when it comes along. I have read those links but asked you to direct differently.

 

A parable of this story, on this day, on this topic.

 

Wouldn't know about defensive, and wouldn't know about moderate - that usually takes a while to establish. Forming the question as "why Israel does not want..." is a way of making it all about Israel. The actions and views of either side are effected by those of the other, so most question put this way aren't constructive.

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Presumably you would include 500,000 illegal Jewish settlers to be repatriated too to the 67 borders of Israel, if it is a "given" that Palestinians have no right to return where they once lived.

 

>>treating all the decedents of original refugees until whatever generation as retaining the same "rights" is absurd, and is not generally applied toward other groups.
..would that messianic ultra nationalist Zionists claiming the West Bank as their own after an absence of 2000 years felt the same as you! Their "absurd" rationale is the cause of the entire problem and as you said previously a major obstacle to peace.

 

If and when an agreement will be reached, I think most of the settlers would indeed have to be repatriated within Israel's borders. What the future Palestinian state would do inside its borders is another issue. There is no conceivable way it could absorb all the Palestinian diaspora (even if all were to return, doubtful). My main focus is less with absolute justice and more with practical solutions. Most of what you're on about is the exact opposite, and a sure recipe for further trouble.

 

Did you read anything posted by me which reflects in a supportive or positive manner on the Israeli illegal settlements? Doubt it. Did you read anything posted by my which asserts or supports the claim of Israeli illegal settlers? Doubt it. Barking up the wrong tree.

[off road pat]

17 hours ago, JoePai said:

It's about time they were reined in - in typical fashion they try to encroach more and more and in doing so cause more trouble. Well done the US for at last seeing the light

Problem is, they didn't see the light, Obama just wanted to make more problems for Trump....

Obama had all the time to do this in he's 8 years !!! but just did it he's last weeks in power.

He knew he would get in a lot of trouble with the Israel lobby doing this...

[pegman]

49 minutes ago, off road pat said:

Problem is, they didn't see the light, Obama just wanted to make more problems for Trump....

Obama had all the time to do this in he's 8 years !!! but just did it he's last weeks in power.

He knew he would get in a lot of trouble with the Israel lobby doing this...

More so the Israel lobby owned Congress of both parties.

[bandito]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

More likely they'll get cocky and start initiating annoying but ultimately meaningless legal actions internationally with the result of Israel reacting by getting even more right wing (most of the world against them, so what choice?). The resolution makes peace even harder, especially the strong language about East Jerusalem. 

Take a clue ... Israel is NEVER going to voluntarily abandon all of East Jerusalem. You can pass another million U.N. resolutions abou that ... won't make any difference. 

 

Amen!  Happy Hanukah.

[yardrunner]

18 hours ago, dexterm said:

Never say never, especially as that very proposal of illegally occupied (see the UN resolution ..http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761030  well worth a read) East Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital while Israel keeps the West was on the table a mere 8 years ago.

 

All that is needed is a more realistic permanent peace leaning government in Israel, and perhaps US too, although Trump has said he will adhere to whatever the Israel people want.

And Trump will become the main impediment to peace in the middle east

[yardrunner]

14 hours ago, optad said:

Hyperbole.

I kept it simple.

 

You still have not answered the question.

 

Does Israel want a two state solution? If so, how do you get there? 

 

Israeli right wingers seems to want a single state solution with no place for the Palestinians, remember what happened in the Balkans in the late 20th century do we want the same problem in Israel with war crimes being committed