Palestinian Solidarity Campaign disrupts Israeli Concert. Yeah!!!

For what it's worth, the Palestinian Authority's bid for UN recognition would be a foundational stepping stone from which to proceed in regard to further negotiations with the Zionists regardless of the fact that presently the PA lack an honest negotiating partner given the Zionist's present ruling party's (LIKUD) intransigence.

Izzythepush's linked Guardian article Palestinian statehood: can the UN vote be more than just symbolic recognition? includes a link to an opinion blog: Bitterlemons/Palestinian and Israeli preparations for September/September can still produce something useful in which the writer views the PA's UN bid as a territorial solution, which would be the beginning of a negotiation process which along with the territorial issues includes those of the Palestinian's Right of Return, and control of East Jerusalem and the Holy Sites.

". . .Are we headed for a general deterioration of Israeli-Palestinian relations against a backdrop of Palestinian triumph, or for a series of non-events that fizzle and lead nowhere?

The latter outcome would be a pity, because Ramallah's UN move could actually produce something useful, despite Israeli and American mismanagement of the Palestinian challenge. Neither Washington nor Jerusalem appears to recognize that, in taking his case for statehood to the UN, Abbas is effectively agreeing to a partial settlement of his final status claims that could be highly advantageous for the cause of a stable two-state solution. Abbas is asking the UN for a territorial solution: a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with its capital in Jerusalem. He is not asking the UN to rule on the right of return or the "ownership" of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem--the real "deal breakers" when the two parties sit down to direct negotiations.

When Abbas returns to the negotiating table as president of a newly-recognized state of Palestine, he will be representing in the best case the Arab residents of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. He will no longer be speaking to Israel on behalf of a liberation organization that represents primarily the Palestinian diaspora. The border issues mandated by recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines will be far easier to negotiate on a state-to-state basis than they are now when they are linked to the more intractable final status issues championed by the PLO. Indeed, all outstanding issues will be easier to negotiate between two states.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu presumably ignores these advantages of the current Palestinian approach to the UN because he cannot acquiesce in either the 1967 borders or a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. He is not a partner for substantive negotiations either before or after the UN in September. As for Washington, internal electoral considerations will apparently continue to shunt aside any serious initiative regarding the Palestinian issue for at least 15 more months."
more. . .

1 Reply

You can access the International Crisis Group's detailed report analyzing the ramifications of the Palestinian Authority's UN bid for statehood HERE.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

American pressure on Palestinians to drop bid.

...

Obama confirmed the US would veto any request brought before the security council, describing the Palestinian push as "counterproductive". But the White House wants to avoid such a step, knowing it will play badly among Arabs whose own moves for self-determination this year Obama has endorsed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/14/palestinians-pressure-united-nations-statehood

Did the word 'hypocrisy' exist before the US became a nation? Of course there are a lot of other little hypocrites looking to put the brown on their noses.

And let's forever bury that unbelievably fatuous notion that the US plays these brutal games with people's lives in order to advance democracy and human rights.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Meanwhile, Brooklyn and Queens just elected a Republican (Bob Turner) to replace Anthony Weiner. The first time in eons that a Republican took the district. It was meant to be a referendum of discontent with Obama's Israel policy, his policies economically, and his policy towards gay marriage.

Since you said something about Kaufmann being a Jew recently, The Jewish Chronicle wrote about that:
Quote:
In a major upset for President Obama's party, voters in New York's ninth district chose a 70-year-old Catholic businessman with little political experience, over a 56-year-old Orthodox Jew, who a few years ago would have been a shoo-in.

Doesn't it bother you not to give your opinion of what you post as newsworthy? Do you identify with Paul Revere from the American Revolution spreading the news?

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

Meanwhile, Brooklyn and Queens just elected a Republican (Bob Turner) to replace Anthony Weiner...

That's the sort of a cat which, once let out of the bag, isn't ever going back in it again. The deal between American Jews and the demoKKKrat party is now broken beyond fixing. Whatever problems Jews might have in life they aren't basically stupid, and sooner or later they had to figure this **** out.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Oh, please Finnbar, the Gaza Strip was turned over unilaterally, a grand gesture to conceal the fact it was all about Greater Israel. The (illegal) settlements on the Gaza Strip were too costly to police, Israel was consolidating its control of the (illegal, and constantly expanding) settlements on the West Bank.

Gaza was turned over as an experiment, once it became apparent that the Palestinians are violent thugs who refuse to negotiate.

The idea was that maybe if the Palestinians are just left to their own devices, they will form their own country instead of trying to murder Israelis.

Had it worked, Israel would have also withdrawn from 90% of the West Bank -- not East Jerusalem or 1967 borders like the Palestinians could have gotten from negotiations, but more than enough for a viable Palestinian state.

However, it didn't work. The Palestinians did not react to the pullout from Gaza by beginning to form their own country. The Palestinians instead turned Gaza into an artillery battery for firing on Israeli civilians.

0 Replies

@BDV,

BDV wrote:

They deserve their own state, and theres no reason why not.

Sure there is.

The reason is: The Palestinians are murdering thugs who do nothing but wage war and try to murder people.

BDV wrote:

Terrorism (Or freedom fighting) will only stop when one side takes the upper hand and stop murdering the other.

Terrorism and freedom fighting are two very different things. Terrorists intentionally kill civilians. Freedom fighters might choose to use terrorism as a tactic, but they also might not.

As for the Palestinians, they are the only ones in this conflict engaging in terrorism or trying to murder people. All Israel is doing is trying to defend themselves.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The state of Israel will always struggle with legitimacy whilst it continues to oppress the Palestinians.

Israel doesn't struggle with legitimacy. Only anti-Semites think Israel is illegitimate.

It is hardly "oppression" to tell a Palestinian that he can't murder children.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Still no response to Josef cv's threads I see.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Or we could just suggest that Israel abandons the illegal settlements on occupied territories and let the Palestinians get on with their own lives.

Tried that in Gaza. The Palestinians didn't get on with their lives. They got on with turning Gaza into an artillery battery for firing on Israeli civilians.

I can see why someone like you would want the West Bank turned into an artillery battery for firing on Israeli civilians, but it's not going to happen.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The United Nations considers the blockade to be legal,

There would be no question that the blockade is legal no matter what the UN said.

Setanta wrote:

which does not mean that boarding a ship at sea with commandos from a helicopter was either legal or wise.

There is no question that boarding the ship was legal. It clearly was.

Wise? Perhaps not.

Using an anti-ship missile to instantly kill everyone on board and sink the ship would also be unquestionably legal. It would also have been a far wiser course of action.

Let's hope Israel is wiser next time, and simply eradicates the next ship from a distance.

Setanta wrote:

The West Bank and the Golan Heights are occupied territories, which Israel acknowledges, and it is therefore a violation of the Fourth Geneva convention to build settlements in those territories. The consensus view of the international community and the UN is that the settlements are illegal.

No more illegal than the Palestinians' perpetual refusal to make peace.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The reason is: The Palestinians are murdering thugs who do nothing but wage war and try to murder people.

Why not review the murderous actions of the various terrorist gangs, eg. Stern Gang, who sought to create a new country?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree that much of what is touted as "InternationaL Law" either isn't law at all, even in principle, or fails to meet the practical test for international law: namely that it is a provision that affected sovereign nations accept and will act to enforce.

All that said, the fact that Israel has continued to exercise defacto control of about 75% of the former West Bank territory of Jordan since 1967, and has as yet granted no political rights to its Palestinian inhabitants, - all while establishing numerous settlements occupied by hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers who do have political rights the original inhabitants still lack, and connecting those settlements with limited-access roads, thereby isolating the original inhabitants - opens the door to breeches of many aspects of law and international treaties which Israel has signed. Setanta has already noted the illegality of settlements of occupied territory. There are likely more.

The Palestinians have no political rights in Israel because they are not Israeli citizens.

If they want political rights, they need to make peace and form their own state.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Sure there is.

The reason is: The Palestinians are murdering thugs who do nothing but wage war and try to murder people.

I still maintain there is a difference between barbarians and savages. The difference is that you would search the history books in vain for any mention of Mongols or Huns using their own women and kids as human shields while perpetrating terrorist ****. The palesavages are at least three centuries from working their way up to anything you could properly call barbarism.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Another typically ludicrous excursion into Foofie Fantasy--and one which does not at all address what was quoted. Not only have i not suggested that Israel "fold up its tent," i've pointed out that i do not suggest, nor do i see anyone else in this thread suggesting that the Israelis be driven from their nation.

It isn't what you are advocating, but the ultimate goal of this campaign against Israel is to make Israel defenseless while the Palestinians wantonly murder Israeli civilians, until ultimately the Jews flee their homeland.

Setanta wrote:

Your vaunted Israeli military could not stop the Egyptians from crossing the Suez canal in 1973,

The Israeli government did not react to the invasion preemptively like they did in 1967. Had they reacted preemptively, they may well have prevented it.

Setanta wrote:

nor throw them out when they had established a bridgehead there, which was what gave Sadat a strong bargaining position for the Camp David accords, which returned the Sinai to Egypt.

That is completely incorrect.

Had the Egyptians remained near the Suez Canal where they had cover from Egyptian anti-aircraft missiles, possibly the Israelis might not have dislodged them.

However, the Egyptians eventually decided to advance into the Sinai, away from their anti-air cover, and when they did that the Israeli military decisively eradicated the entire Egyptian invasion.

Sadat didn't have a strong bargaining position. The reason he got the Sinai back was because he made a genuine offer of peace.

I expect that Israel will soon be reclaiming the Sinai.

Setanta wrote:

When the Israelis attempted their invasion of the Lebanon recently, it was a miserable failure, with the troops themselves complaining of a logistical nightmare in which they couldn't even get food and water. The IDF completely failed to accompish its objectives, although, typically, they slaughtered at least hundreds, if not actually thousands, of unarmed civilians.

The objectives were pretty unrealistic. The war would only be considered a success based on those objectives if Israel had managed to eradicate 100% of Hizballah.

Pretty much any military has trouble uprooting an insurgency. The Israeli military is no better or worse than any other military in this regard.

Israel did manage, however, to do a great job of smashing Lebanon to smithereens, and Lebanon seems to have learned their lesson. So if you don't hold the war up to impossible standards, it wasn't all that bad.

I'm sure Israel learned some lessons over their logistical hiccups and made some improvements though.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It would pathetically hilarious how stupid and irrelevant your contention about Jews just wanting to live by themselves and be left in peace is, were it not for the tens of thousands, indeed, the hundreds of thousands, of Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians and Egyptians--and i refer only to the non-combatants--who have been slaughtered in Israel's imperialistic wars.

Israel's wars are defensive, not imperialistic.

Those non-combatants would not have become collateral damage had Israel not needed to defend themselves.

Setanta wrote:

If Jews had just wanted to live in peace by themselves, why did they settle in Palestine?

Because the West Bank is their ancient homeland.

Setanta wrote:

No matter how Jews were treated for two thousand years, that is no justification for the slaughter of Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptian non-combatant men, women and children--

The fact that such people are collateral damage from self defense, however, justifies it completely.

Setanta wrote:

which seems to be the preferred outdoor sport of the Zionists.

Hardly sport. They just do what is necessary to prevent the Arabs from massacring them.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The Palestinians did not invade the land, they were already there when the Zionists showed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28637%29

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It's not a question of boredom, and as usual, you just don't get it. No matter what someone else has done to Jews, that does not legitimize the oppression and murder of Palestinians.

Self defense is neither oppression nor murder.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It is a foolish ipse dixit on your part to say that wisdom consists in acquiescing in the oppression and murder--you don't even offer the fig leaf of an alleged logical reason.

How about the reason that it is neither oppression nor murder in the first place?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The most intelligent negotiators have got nowhere, because nobody is prepared to put pressure on Israel. It is as simple as that.

Nope. They got nowhere because the Palestinians refuse to make peace.

izzythepush wrote:

The Israeli position is to pretend to negotiate, whilst creating facts on the ground, and the West has let them get away with it.

Nope. The Israelis would be willing to negotiate were the Palestinians actually willing to make peace. And the West merely refuses to blame Israel for the fact that the Palestinians refuse to make peace.

Those "facts on the ground" are only facts because, due to the Palestinians' refusal to make peace, Israel will never have to return to 1967 borders.

izzythepush wrote:

Turkey's president is visiting Egypt tomorrow, Israel is losing allies hand over fist.

Turkey and Egypt will likely soon be demolished by Israel.

I imagine Israel will be reclaiming the Sinai as well.

0 Replies

Palestinian Solidarity Campaign disrupts Israeli Concert. Yeah!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know