frail old men like Biden or Trump. — ssu
It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. If you went to a forum that had completely the other side, you may feel the same… — schopenhauer1
Certainly, the Likud has all had this strategy where a two state solution would be a capitulation to the enemies of Israel. — ssu
You simply cannot deny that the occupied/occupier issue does matter here. It is imbalanced, because one being the occupier and the other side being the occupied with very limited resources is imbalanced! — ssu
Trying to push your own Islamic revolution in muslim countries and that's why pick a fight with Israel? This is the classic case where a revolution had to go to desperate lengths to get that enemy they can then show they are so good to everybody else. In reality many young Iranians are totally OK with America, so pretty urgent to make your own "axis-of-evil" with US-Israel. — ssu
It seems much easier to ask Israel to create the conditions that would allow the Palestinians to emancipate themselves from radical islamism. — Echarmion
But c'mon ssu, this is exactly the framework the whole time I have been questioning and trying to get others to question. It is this exact way of framing the issue that is being questioned as to if it is proper to even speak in those terms. It is a narrative that exists. I get that. It is a narrative you might hold. I get that. But it might not be THE narrative, if you know what I mean. We have went over the history. Wars fought to wipe out Israel and that failed. The Oslo process and how that failed. The Israeli shift to the right as a RESULT of those attempts and failures. Then we have both agreed Hamas is no good all around. We even agree that Netanyahu and Likud is no good. But this whole "occupied/occupier" is ridiculous. Of course Israel at this point would not want a fully weaponized and armed Palestine UNLESS it was a peaceful neighbor! That would go for any prime minister, Netanyahu or otherwise! Even the most liberal peacenik would want that. Because afterall, what even IS statehood? It means nothing. You can call Palestine a state right now if you want. It's about recognizing borders, autonomy, etc. That takes peaceful overtures from both leadership and population. The population has to hold leadership accountable and vice versa. But see, these are all issues beyond the reductionist and biased "occupied/occupier". — schopenhauer1
Why?But this whole "occupied/occupier" is ridiculous. — schopenhauer1
Egypt is fully weaponized and fully armed. And so actually is Jordan, even if it has a far smaller armed forces.Of course Israel at this point would not want a fully weaponized and armed Palestine UNLESS it was a peaceful neighbor! — schopenhauer1
Annexation of territory is the whole issue. — ssu
But are somehow for you the Palestinians totally uncapable or unfit of doing what Jordanians and Egyptians have been able to do? — ssu
Well, I guess if your country annexed and occupied Finland, I bet we would be as bothersome as the Palestinians and would all the time crying about that Finland is for Finns. Especially if you wouldn't do anything to integrate the Finns into their new country they belong to.No, leaving peaceably with the neighbor in that annexed territory is the issue. — schopenhauer1
Well, I guess if your country annexed and occupied Finland, I bet we would be as bothersome as the Palestinians and would all the time crying about that Finland is for Finns. Especially if you wouldn't do anything to integrate the Finns into their new country they belong to.
As I've said, I see no peaceful resolution to this. — ssu
What chance did the open air prison have?Gaza had its chance. — schopenhauer1
What chance did the open air prison have?
Oh right, they could be in the same situation as the Palestinians in the West Bank, I guess. — ssu
That is the strategy possible for every people that have ever been occupied and their territory annexed by another country. Be this invader either a colonizer or simply the country neighboring you. Yet it's very common for people to resent the foreigners and not surrender.You know, another strategy would have been for them to actually work with the Israelis. — schopenhauer1
But notice that Finland still has sovereign territory, even if the border is now just a few kilometers from my countryplace (which it wasn't for my grandparents before 1944). And all those Finns that lived in the annexed territories were relocated to other places in Finland. The conflict would totally different if there would have been a huge number of Finns that would have become Soviet citizens.If Finland had a deal which gave it nearly all it wanted and they said no thanks, we rather be in perpetual war than take that, then yeah. — schopenhauer1
The Parameters offered the Palestinians substantially more than the proposals made at Camp David, seemingly providing everything most observers thought would satisfy the Palestinians:[1]
- Creation of an independent Palestinian state with contiguity on 94-96% of the West Bank with additional compensation from a land swap with Israel of 1-3%, resulting in close to an equivalent 100% of the West Bank, and 100% of Gaza. The plan also called for a dedicated link between the West Bank and Gaza.
- Jerusalem divided under the principle that existing Arab areas would be Palestinian and Jewish ones Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well, which would thus be divided.
-Regarding the Temple Mount/Haram, the Parameters acknowledged that there were a number of formulations already discussed and Clinton suggested two more. The Parameters envisioned some form of control or sovereignty of the Temple Mount by the Palestinians, the Western Wall by Israel, and a shared arrangement under the Mount. The Parameters acknowledged that some of the formulations were more about the wording and less about day-to-day control.
-Palestine would be a non-militarized state, with certain security guarantees for Israel.
-On the issue of refugees and “Right of Return” the Palestinian refugees would not be able to “return” to locations inside Israel without Israeli approval, instead, they could return to the new State of Palestine. This formulation would be “consistent with the two-state approach…the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian People and the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.” Clinton referred to refugees returning to “historic Palestine,” but only to the portion comprising the new Palestinian state, to satisfy that the “Right of Return” had been met.
-End of conflict agreement that would end to all claims and satisfy all relevant U.N. resolutions.
Clinton asked each side for a yes or no response by December 27th. It was made clear that a “yes” meant agreement within the Parameters and that a non-response, a maybe, or acceptance outside the Parameters would all be considered rejections. Clinton presented the Parameters as take-it-or-leave it, and if not accepted, they would all be off the table once Clinton left office on January 20, 2001.
But notice that Finland still has sovereign territory, even if the border is now just a few kilometers from my countryplace (which it wasn't for my grandparents before 1944). And all those Finns that lived in the annexed territories were relocated to other places in Finland. The conflict would totally different if there would have been a huge number of Finns that would have become Soviet citizens. — ssu
this isn't either on the table with Bibi as the negotiations were held by Ehud Barak and the Labor party, which now isn't in power and is a very small party in the Knesset — ssu
Meaning that the loss of territory isn't such a traumatic experience when you don't loose the people also. And you don't have families separated etc.Not sure what you mean here. — schopenhauer1
Well, I haven't understood why for you it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation. You haven't made that clear for me and answered that question.Ah right, always goes back to Israel failing. I’ve already understood and addressed the shape of and pattern of your arguments. — schopenhauer1
refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Deeply concerned at the situation prevailing in Jerusalem as a result of the measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City,
1. Considers that these measures are invalid;
2. Calls upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking action which would alter the status of Jerusalem;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly and the Security Council on the situation and on the implementation of the present resolution not later than one week from its adoption.
Recognizing that peace is indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the question of the Middle East must be based on a comprehensive solution under the auspices of the United Nations, which takes into consideration all aspects of the Middle East conflict, including, in particular, the enjoyment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, as well as the total withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967,
1. Reaffirms that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and therefore all territories thus occupied must be returned;
2. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories in violation of the Charter of the United nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions;
3. Requests all States to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid as long as it continues to occupy Arab territories and deny the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people
Meaning that the loss of territory isn't such a traumatic experience when you don't loose the people also. And you don't have families separated etc. — ssu
And one shouldn't forget c) there are a whole variety of UN Resolutions — ssu
Well, I haven't understood why for you it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation. You haven't made that clear for me and answered that question.
Besides, just as it's easy for Israel to go with the de-facto situation, it's also easy for the Palestinian not to accept compromises. After all, there's a) Iran and b) Saudi-Arabia and other states, that basically still tow the line of the Arab league's 1967 decision from the Khartoum summit of the three no's (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel). — ssu
Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War.Why don't you have UN Resolution 181 listed, the start of it all? — schopenhauer1
Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations.You have actors like Qatar, Bahrain, etc. who have normalized relations with Israel. — schopenhauer1
Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War. — ssu
Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations. — ssu
And you haven't answered why it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation and occupied territories. — ssu
at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, — schopenhauer1
Well, forget then the UN. But a lot of countries do not simply kick out that 'rules based order', so forgive me if I, just as in the case of Ukraine,hold up this kind of "nonsense" of a rules based order. But for consistency, then one should never then refer to international laws or anything like that. Just picking up them when it's suits your position is inconsistent... or basically just propaganda. (Like, uh, some countries do...)Again, the UN lost the thread of the narrative after the Arab nations (how many was it?) attacked and lost to destroying the notion of an independent "Zionist" (Jewish) state. So I'm sorry, but anything else after that is just token gestures as the game played on without them. — schopenhauer1
Just to correct a small mistake in order that the discussion gets things right. It's actually crucial to get the real picture. Even if Qatar is a tiny nation, it has a lot bigger role in the Middle East.Oh god, sorry, the nations involved in the Abraham Accords. Don't use an inconsequential error (mentioned wrong normalized Arab country) for an error in the argument. C'mon man.. — schopenhauer1
Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Qatar has transferred more than $1.8 billion to Hamas. In 2012, Qatar hosted the Hamas party leadership when Hamas head Khaled Meshal relocated from Syria to Qatar. The current head of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, has resided in Doha since 2016. Qatar has been called Hamas' most important financial backer and foreign ally.
Indeed. Even if the inflow from Russia and Eastern Europe after the Cold War ended helped the Jewish demographics. That's why drawing the borders in an ethnic/religious style gerrymandering would be so important. If someone would really think the two-state solution is possible now or in the future.The true reason why Israel could never be a true democracy is because say in 1948 it establishes itself, then the population already living there would have ruled through democratic majority. — Vaskane
I've already stated more than a few times on the thread what I think Israel must do to end the status quo of oppression: — 180 Proof
No doubt - no contest - some on both sides have done some bad things. But does that make them equal? Or if unequal, who is the categorical oppressor? Don't be confused here: my issue is with your characterizations and the faults I find therein. Turning this ground or clearing it won't itself lead to any solutions, but may seal off some of the rabbit holes and traps some fall into. The "elephant" - so to speak - is the unrelenting hostility of Israel's neighbors; just as similarly the US elephant is some 400 years of unrelenting racial discrimination. And I have discussed this subject with a several people of African descent, and they all come close to agreement on this assessment: To be African is a fine thing. To be of African descent is a fine thing. To be an America of African descent puts such a person at risk of a kind of disease, namely just that of being an American of African descent. I leave to you your assessment of this conclusion, but I buy the notion that the US will not be put right on race until - and unless - as Lincoln expressed,Both are to blame for reciprocating atrocities but, between oppressor and oppressed, who can be responsible for the cessation of oppression? And, therefore, who is ultimately to blame for not fulfilling that responsibility? — 180 Proof
I am under the impression that occupation did end, but that Arafat had zero interest in peace - am I wrong? And I do not agree that occupiers are by definition oppressors. Can be, obviously, but not necessarily.The oppressor and the oppressed make this determination. Sharon and Arafat, for instance, had agreed on the term and need for the State of Israel to end the "occupation" (i.e. occupiers, by definition, are oppressors). — 180 Proof
Well, they can die, and they seem not to like that so much, when it's their turn to do it.and Palestinians nothing to lose by fighting apartheid repression and imperialist colonization by any means necessary. — 180 Proof
Israel the master? Of what? And occupation by whom, exactly? Are you forgetting Hamas and its precursors? Oppression of Gaza would seem to be nothing less than Hamas et al claiming that Palestinians are oppressed because the Israelis try to protect themselves from being murdered in their beds, in their sleep, in their buses and restaurants, on their streets, in their schools, wherever, whenever found."Peace" (i.e. win-win conflict resolution) is Israel's choice alone because it is the master; absent that, the Palestinians have no choice but that of the slave: death by war or death by subjugation. Who here denies that if s/he were a member of a Palestinian community & family subjugated under decades of Israelis Occupation you would choose war? — 180 Proof
To this, in sum, your bookkeeping is incomplete, skewed, wrong. And until you get it right, your comments are mere rant. If you like - Or if you don't - the Israelis at the moment are just exactly what their oppressors have made them! So you need to check your understanding of history to see who the oppressors are - and the meaning of the word itself.Before the oppressor (and his patrons/apologists) can legitimately criticize and condemn the oppressed for their means and methods of resistance, he must completely dismantle the entire state-apparatus of oppression now. Until then, the logic of oppression entails that there cannot be "innocents" in the oppressor's camp, especially in so far as the oppressor tactically discounts them – his own noncombatant civilians – as potentially "acceptable losses", that is, the necessary cost of maintaining his stratagem of oppression. In order to survive, the oppressed must resist – always have and always will – by any means necessary. (Foot's on his neck, certainly that's what the oppressor would do – what everyone's ancestors at some time or another have done!) So if any oppressor-state is serious about stopping "terrorism", that oppressor-state should begin by giving up its own policies of state-terrorism and military-economic support for client/proxy-terrorism. — 180 Proof
Indeed it does (and I credit you with having read all of #17). To my way of thinking it summons truth, not to be confused with untruth, non-truth, partial truth, lies, propaganda. And that is what I call you to. My proposition being that the Palestinians, to use your terminology, are f***ed first by themselves, and then in order by those who "represent" them and then their "friends." And I suspect that their real friends, whom so far they and others insure that they cannot enjoy as friends, are just the Israelis themselves. And not the least reason being that the Israelis generally prefer to leave them alone except when due to extreme provocation, they cannot afford to, which turns out to be most of the time.tim wood, the crack'd bell fuckin' tolls for thee. Choose! "The banality" – silence / acquiescence / indifference – of "the good people" is, in fact, always the clear and present atrocity. Do you believe Gandhi, King, X, Mandela, Tutu, Wiesel, ... Ho Chi Mihn ... are wrong? :brow: — 180 Proof
Speaking of which....You make a few unwarranted assumptions about my rather conventional observations as well as me personally, tim, which reeks of special pleading and gassy ad hominems. :mask: — 180 Proof
No doubt.I cannot keep up with you. — tim wood
Intense Israeli air strikes hit the south of the Gaza Strip on Monday, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians, including in areas where Israel had told people to seek shelter, residents and journalists on the ground said.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.