Israel’s PM slams US Secretary of State’s speech

[Morch]

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Makes sense.  Then let's have the US give the same amount of aid to Israel and Palestine.  Equal equal.  I think it'd be good if the US disassociated itself a bit from this mess.

 

How would getting involved with one more ME player will contribute to US dissociating itself from the mess? And an unstable one, at that. I don't see how pouring more weapons into a conflict will help things much. What the US could do (but probably won't, under Trump) is be less hesitant about using aid as leverage.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So you're co-opting Kerry now too? Funny how he wasn't such a great guy when his words didn't quite suit your views. And as per script, not a word in your post about the Palestinians, even though they were mentioned, and not necessarily in a positive tone, in Kerry's speech. In your world, it is all about Israel (cue the usual slogan response, I guess).

 

Peace is a two way street, and it is not that the Palestinians are ready and willing. Far from it. Ignoring this is just another dishonest way to address the issues.

 

There is no denying the obvious dilemmas right wing policies spell for Israel. And it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of rational thinking involved among the more extremist of the lot, but that's to be expected from zealots.

 

In realistic terms, it is somewhat doubtful that things on the international arena will dramatically change anytime soon, as certain posters seem to fantasize. For one thing, like it or not (I don't) Trump is going to be the next US president, and he's not on board any of this. So no effective sanctions and no UNSC resolutions for the next few years. Europe is going through a phase seeing rise of right wing parties (even without them winning elections all over) - a good example will be France (hosting and promoting the upcoming peace conference). The EU may not crumble, but lost quite a bit of pull and cohesion of purpose, it seems. Russia and the PRC aren't usually into sanctions, doubt that will change.

 

The more relevant changes will be those related directly to both Israel and the Palestinians. In Israel,  encouraged by Trump's supposed support, the extreme elements of right wing politics might gain strength. That's bad news - both for Israel and the Palestinians. A full blown annexation is still not in the cards in terms of public support, even among right wing voters. But other, more limited steps which could still make matters worse are a likely possibility. How far will this go, and how far it will push the Palestinians is anyone's guess. I expect that if Netanyahu rides this wave, he will concentrate efforts in further crippling opposition and media, before anything else.

 

On the Palestinian side, thing could get messier. Abbas isn't popular and these are his swan song days, one way or another. As if the ongoing Fatah-Hamas split isn't enough (and isn't going anywhere), there are now rifts between supporters of various would-be Abbas successors, that could get out of hand. Until the Palestinian sort their own house, it would be almost impossible to imagine any from of meaningful negotiations, even if the Israeli government was interested. One worry is that either through "succession wars" or through the inertia of the conflict remaining unresolved, the Palestinians will be further torn apart by even more internal strife. This ain't good for no one, not even the Israelis.

 

Please don't use sarcasm in your first paragraph to bait me. We can have a reasonable discussion without being rude.

 

I am not co-opting anyone. The conditions for an acceptable two state solution have been public knowledge for decades.

In a BBC item re Kerry's speech today

"Others suggested that while there was nothing remotely original about the solutions Mr Kerry offered - anyone familiar with recent decades of Arab-Israeli diplomacy will have recognised the formulas on settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, etc - the timing rendered the whole exercise futile."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38462466

 

>>A full blown annexation is still not in the cards in terms of public support, even among right wing voters.
..but US recognition of the annexation of Jerusalem is, which is a huge step undermining any possibility of a two state solution. I would not be at all surprised if emboldened by that the right wing cabinet moves towards complete annexation of the West Bank, and convince their voters likewise, however reluctant you claim them to be. The US ambassador Friedman has already approved the move, and Trump would rubber stamp it.

"In interview with Haaretz, David Friedman, Trump's chosen ambassador to Israel, says Trump doesn't believe Palestinian state is 'an American imperative.' He's also not concerned over possibility of binational state: 'Nobody really knows how many Palestinians live there.[sic!]"
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.726779

 

All that aside, you simply have to look at the phenomenal curve of the increase in settlement expansion under Obama. Looks like that will go parabolic under Trump. It makes a one state solution inevitable.

 

IMO Israel is shooting itself in the foot by undermining the possiblity of a 2 state solution and its Zionist dream of a predominantly Jewish State. Time could have healed the rift with the two peoples gradually getting used to living next door to one another within appropriate security checks and balances.

 

So I too have just about resigned myself to a one state solution. It is an inevitability anyway. Trump will simply fastrack the process.

 

Looks like over the next 4 years we will be debating on this forum whether we can use the A-word or not. Let's hope there's a smooth transition to equal citizenship for 2.8 million Palestinians. (I have my theories about how that could be achieved painlessly, but maybe discuss that in a more appropriate thread).

 

Shalom. Happy New Year.

Edited December 30, 2016 by dexterm
punctuation

[Cook my sock]

Being just a couple of years after the holocaust, how do you think this affected the mentality of Jewish settlers in designated Israel and the initial conflicts? Serious question

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, Cook my sock said:

Being just a couple of years after the holocaust, how do you think this affected the mentality of Jewish settlers in designated Israel and the initial conflicts? Serious question

 

 

It pissed them off and they kicked butt and took the names of those percecuting them. Never again!

[Cook my sock]

 
 
It pissed them off and they kicked butt and took the names of those percecuting them. Never again!

Do you think it's a classic case of the abused turning abuser

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

It pissed them off and they kicked butt and took the names of those percecuting them. Never again!

Really?  I'll have to brush up on my WWII history again. LOL

[Ulysses G.]

Not sure why you think WW2 is the topic. 1948 was a few years later "after the Holocaust". That is where never again comes in. 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

On 12/29/2016 at 9:56 AM, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps defusing the situation would help them to get rid of the extremists?

 

The so-called "extremists" are in full control of the Gaza Strip, which is geographically separated from the West Bank. I do not believe that you suggest supplying the PA with arms that could reach Hamas controlled territory, or that Israel will take kindly to such use of its airspace. The so-called "extremists" are also rather popular in the West Bank, despite Fatah efforts to limit their activities, so it is not necessarily that the local populace will by overjoyed by a wide campaign aimed at their destruction. These sort of moves are tantamount to declaring a Palestinian civil war, perhaps not an improvement on the current situation.

[Morch]

On 12/29/2016 at 11:05 AM, Credo said:

US support for Israel will remain intact.   US support for some of Israel's policies will not and in the case of the expanding settlements, they need to reigned in.   It stokes for the fires and for no good reason.   

 

As far as discontinuing aid to Israel and alliances with Israel it would be a major problem.   I would much rather see the US and Israel on reasonable terms.   I would not want to have Israel as an enemy.   

 

Overall, US policy tends to support democracies where possible.   Israel, for all its faults, is a democracy and support is in everyone's best interest.   

 

Getting mixed up with the various alliances within the Palestinian sector would be a mistake.  If there is one lesson to be learned it is that Western pressure, both diplomatic and militarily  have not been productive with the Arab world and this is complicated by the fact that the Palestinians are basically pawns in the Arab world.   

 

Mostly agree.

 

No idea if the US support mentioned alludes to specific administration (in which case, seems like it will also endorse quite a bit of the Israeli right wing government's policies), future administrations in general or public sentiment (with reference to these two, the above seems more accurate).

 

The US does tend to support democracies, even if these fall short of the ideal. Israel's democracy is imperfect to a degree that's still acceptable on the US part. However, if Israeli government policies will lead to the country being less democratic, US acceptance might be put to the test.

 

The Palestinians may be the Arab world's diplomatic pawn at times, but they also exhibit their own motivations and their own differences. The reason I would have cited with regard to avoiding entanglement relies simply on previous US experience (read failures) engaging ME factions in this manner.

[Morch]

On 12/29/2016 at 2:03 PM, dexterm said:

Al-Nakba very good documentary series, with some excellent footage and eye witness accounts from both sides in later episodes.

 

4 episodes available on Youtube

Part 1 here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7FML0wzJ6A
 

 

It is a "documentary" series produced by Al Jazeera, not particularly known for having an impartial or objective views when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[bandito]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Somehow don't see the same enthusiasm for sticking to topic when it comes to comparing Israel to any "evil" country and regime, present or past. Or when discussing the merits of various sources, unrelated past incidents, or ancient history. Seems like anything goes but the OP.

 

As for the supposedly off topic point raised. If it makes it easier, replace it with A and B. The damage inflicted by A on B is not necessarily a measure of B's righteousness or of A's vileness.

 

That's telling him, but as a first class Jew hater he will find some kind of link to contradict you.

Drive him up the wall, wish him Happy Hanukah.

[Morch]

On 12/29/2016 at 0:37 PM, gamini said:

There is no hate for Israel. It's hate for the zionist facist government and thier treatment of the Palistinians. I have many Jewish friends and they deplore the government in Israel and are embarrassed by their actions.  Your support and consistent posts for the Zionists shows that it's you that has all the hate and racism  against the Palestinians. You call their freedom fighters terrorists, we call them heroes.

 

The above nonsense was peddled countless times on these topics. Doesn't get any more convincing, especially for those following these topics and familiar with the standing arguments and positions of the regular posters.

 

There is hate for Israel. And it is expressed on these topics repeatedly. Denying it would not change facts. Making it about Zionism (with or without the unnecessary "fascist" (etc.) monikers is either a guise or a display of ignorance. In most cases, some of both. Zionism is not a singular, unified movement, but a multifaceted one. There are, undeniably, Zionists which hold unsavory notions (for example, many of the illegal settlers in the West Bank), and then there are those Zionists who oppose government policy and do not see the occupation as manifesting their ideals. If this was about hatred for the Israeli government's policies, then the Zionist "angle" is redundant, or at the very least, inaccurate.

 

Similarly, not all Palestinians are terrorists, and not all Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters, let alone heroes.

[bandito]

11 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Really?  I'll have to brush up on my WWII history again. LOL

 When Ulysses

 

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The above nonsense was peddled countless times on these topics. Doesn't get any more convincing, especially for those following these topics and familiar with the standing arguments and positions of the regular posters.

 

There is hate for Israel. And it is expressed on these topics repeatedly. Denying it would not change facts. Making it about Zionism (with or without the unnecessary "fascist" (etc.) monikers is either a guise or a display of ignorance. In most cases, some of both. Zionism is not a singular, unified movement, but a multifaceted one. There are, undeniably, Zionists which hold unsavory notions (for example, many of the illegal settlers in the West Bank), and then there are those Zionists who oppose government policy and do not see the occupation as manifesting their ideals. If this was about hatred for the Israeli government's policies, then the Zionist "angle" is redundant, or at the very least, inaccurate.

 

Similarly, not all Palestinians are terrorists, and not all Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters, let alone heroes.

 But all terrorists are Palestinians.

[Morch]

On 12/29/2016 at 0:30 PM, gk10002000 said:

  I am not sure Israel should be arguing too much publicly or slamming their allies.  Israel is in a tough spot.  But what would you expect when you force the creation of a nation right in the middle of surrounding arab states?  I do not mean to support nor attack the formation of the country.  I am just saying that it is probably an untenable situation and the worst is yet to come.  Several Arab nations have tried a few times to get rid of Israel in the past.  I just don't see any peaceful resolution or agreement on borders happening.  Peace would be nice, but extremists and population issues will probably assure that peace won't happen.

 

It is also a matter of expectations. Those envisaging peace as it is experienced in Europe will be dismayed with whatever the results may be, even if an agreement is reached. This is the ME, and different rules apply. For example, Israel does have stable, long lasting peace agreements with two of its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan). It does not mean that relations between the countries are particularly warm at the best of times, but the peace is kept and areas of mutual interest are addressed (to an extent). Some would find it lacking, but perhaps it is the best that can be achieved. Still an infinite improvement over the previous state of things.

[Morch]

 

@craigt3365

 

The issue with the sources you quote aren't necessarily the figures (albeit some of these can be debated as well). It is more to do with lack of context. This doesn't mean squat from the point of view of the casualties and their families, nor is it a defense of killing innocents. It simply addresses that reality is somewhat more complicated than figures and graphs.

 

Example - Hamas somehow finds enough construction materials and funds allowing the building of an underground network of tunnels under the Gaza Strip. All are aimed at military operations against Israel or smuggling operations from Egypt. None are used to provide protection for the local populace. Moreover, civilian residences and public buildings are used to store arms or serve as staging positions.

 

Example - The Palestinian Authority does very little to discourage minors from partaking in certain activities (such as rock throwing or attending violent demonstrations). Parental responsibility is hardly an issue discussed. Victims are praised as martyrs.

 

Example - US does not provide military aid to the Palestinians. As discussed in other posts - what would that achieve? Cutting back or leveraging the military aid given to Israel, alright - but still doesn't have anything to do with the Palestinians not getting any.

 

Example - Number UN resolutions targeting Israel vs Palestinians. What does this show other than the UN being governed by interest groups?

 

Example - Political prisoners and detainees. These figures will include convicted murderers and terrorists, calling them all "political" doesn't change that.

 

This is just a cursory comment, not by any means a detailed review. All of these issues were, at one point or another, flogged to death on previous topics. 

 

As far as sources on the history of region and the conflict go, there aren't any which are uniformly accepted. Even when details and facts are agreed upon, their interpretation and significance is often debated. Many of those available online are either partisan or deal with specific issues. My advice, other than doing a whole lot of comparative reading, and getting acquainted with authors and sources, would indeed be the trove of information presented on relevant Wikipedia pages. Not that it a great source by itself, but good enough for getting something of a handle on things. It's main attractions are the various links and sources cited, as well as links to other related issues.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

My experience with your views posting style does not encourage treatment of your posts constituting reasonable discussion. If you do not like the fact that posts you made are referenced, that's too bad. Fact of the matter is that you seem unable or unwilling to seriously address anything reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side. Even when these issues are incorporated in a speech you praise, these parts are glossed over and ignored. Making it all about Israel and its actions is neither a reasonable approach, nor much of discussion.

 

UK’s May slams Kerry for focus on settlements

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/UKs-May-slams-Kerry-for-focus-on-settlements-476942

 

Theresa May criticises John Kerry's hardline stance on Israel

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/israel-latest-donald-trump-theresa-may-john-kerry-barack-obama-jewish-settlements-middle-east-a7501496.html

 

A further observation is that your perception of the political maps of both sides is lacking. Ever ready to pronounce that the sky is about to fall, or to present stereotypical assumptions based on quoted statements, without much by way balance of knowledge of underlying issues. Jerusalem and the West Bank are not "same same" when it comes to Israeli public opinion. The former is, generally speaking, well within public consensus, while the latter is controversial. The Palestinian population of Jerusalem will neither tilts the demographic situation nor presents a huge flaw in terms of democracy. That you insist on a blanket, placard representations of the positions on Israeli's right wing, or assuming that the Israeli government is somehow subservient to the wishes of the intended US ambassador does not indicate possessing much insight.

 

And again, not a word, not a single word about the Palestinian side. As if they are but a passive player in all of this. Nothing said about their own intransigence, their own leadership failures, their internal divides and entrancement of violence. All of which, and more, where included in Kerry's speech. A one state "solution" pretty much ends the hopes and dreams of the Palestinians as well, no matter what form it will come in. And yet, somehow even this doesn't seem to make it into any of your posts.

[Morch]

23 hours ago, Trouble said:

That may well be the case, but I would bet that after the Security Council vote we will see more countries start to back off from Israel as they will just become worn out from the intransigence of Israel. Palestine does not need a Security Council vote to make it a country. There are over 150 nations that recognize Palestine as a state. Palestinians might not have complete sovereignty over their state, but that does not keep it from being a state just because Israel occupies by force. Further, keep in mind that even within Israel there are two different camps. Unfortunately at the moment those pushing for settlements are winning the fight.  I'm not a big fan of Kerry but he sure did nail the situation very clearly in my mind. The continued building of settlements is nothing more than a land grab, hindering true progress in negotiating  a peace agreement. 

 

Which countries are about to "back off" from Israel? The US? The UK? Post election France? Russia? The PRC?

 

Israel have exhibited intransigence and so did the Palestinians, this was clearly presented even in Kerry's speech. Choosing to focus on either is a choice, not necessarily an objective one.

 

The imagined Palestine, which does not exist de facto, is currently a double act, with two rival factions ruling each part. Repeated attempts at reconciliation met with failure. General elections, btw, were canceled again recently, as the expected results would have favored the extremist faction. Seems like even the Palestinians themselves have some troubles with the concept of statehood and what it entails.

[dexterm]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

My experience with your views posting style does not encourage treatment of your posts constituting reasonable discussion. If you do not like the fact that posts you made are referenced, that's too bad. Fact of the matter is that you seem unable or unwilling to seriously address anything reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side. Even when these issues are incorporated in a speech you praise, these parts are glossed over and ignored. Making it all about Israel and its actions is neither a reasonable approach, nor much of discussion.

 

UK’s May slams Kerry for focus on settlements

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/UKs-May-slams-Kerry-for-focus-on-settlements-476942

 

Theresa May criticises John Kerry's hardline stance on Israel

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/israel-latest-donald-trump-theresa-may-john-kerry-barack-obama-jewish-settlements-middle-east-a7501496.html

 

A further observation is that your perception of the political maps of both sides is lacking. Ever ready to pronounce that the sky is about to fall, or to present stereotypical assumptions based on quoted statements, without much by way balance of knowledge of underlying issues. Jerusalem and the West Bank are not "same same" when it comes to Israeli public opinion. The former is, generally speaking, well within public consensus, while the latter is controversial. The Palestinian population of Jerusalem will neither tilts the demographic situation nor presents a huge flaw in terms of democracy. That you insist on a blanket, placard representations of the positions on Israeli's right wing, or assuming that the Israeli government is somehow subservient to the wishes of the intended US ambassador does not indicate possessing much insight.

 

And again, not a word, not a single word about the Palestinian side. As if they are but a passive player in all of this. Nothing said about their own intransigence, their own leadership failures, their internal divides and entrancement of violence. All of which, and more, where included in Kerry's speech. A one state "solution" pretty much ends the hopes and dreams of the Palestinians as well, no matter what form it will come in. And yet, somehow even this doesn't seem to make it into any of your posts.

You are entitled to your opinion; I am entitled to mine, which I try to support as often as possible with links for other readers to verify. I thought that was the idea of a public forum .

 

Using hyperbole, sarcasm, and being rude to me and others does not aid reasonable polite discussion.

 

Zionists are the invaders and occupiers. I don't feel obliged to do their dirty work for them by criticizing their victims.

 

May's criticism of Kerry is pretty rich coming from the PM of a country that is responsible for the entire conflict.

Edited December 30, 2016 by dexterm

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   I think enough has been posted about the USS Liberty.  

[Jingthing]

Don't worry Bibi -- Kerry's speech doesn't exactly reflect mainstream American public about Israel --

 

 

[Morch]

On 12/31/2016 at 6:57 AM, dexterm said:

You are entitled to your opinion; I am entitled to mine, which I try to support as often as possible with links for other readers to verify. I thought that was the idea of a public forum .

 

Using hyperbole, sarcasm, and being rude to me and others does not aid reasonable polite discussion.

 

Zionists are the invaders and occupiers. I don't feel obliged to do their dirty work for them by criticizing their victims.

 

May's criticism of Kerry is pretty rich coming from the PM of a country that is responsible for the entire conflict.

 

No one said you are not entitled to your opinions, and in the same way no one said your opinions are to be held in high regard by all. That too, is part of posting on a public forum.

 

Hyperbole, sarcasm and rudeness all feature in your own posts, when it suits you. Spare me the hypocrisy. As pointed out, I do not see most of your posts as being "reasonable", "polite", or constituting a discussion. Repetitive one-sided over-the-top hate-filled rants are non of these.

 

It is acknowledged that you are perfectly able to ignore anything which does not fit with your agenda and narrative. And as you admit above, objectivity got no place in your posts.

 

Details (or rather, reality) are a distraction. Fantasy is preferred to knowledge. And criticism of your views and posting style is rude. Here are two words, free of charge: Grow up.