4
   

Israel's truths, and omissions, on Palestine state vote

 
 
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2011 01:19 pm
Israel has demonstrated it's opposition to a Palestine State by not honestly negotiating with the Palestine government. Yet they insist that negotiation is the only method acceptable. That assures Israel will never agree to a Palestine state. The other part of the Palestine government problem is that there are really two governments in Palestine. One desiring to negotiate with Israel and the other blocking every attempt. Both parties are guilty, but Israel is guilty of stealing Palistine land with their policies to rid "their land" of all Muslims. Just as the White South Africans established Apartheid having racial separation, domination in domestic politics, and great restrictions. It's time the United States admits Israel's Apartheid intent. ---BBB

September 19, 2011
Commentary: Israel's truths, and omissions, on Palestine state vote
By Andres Oppenheimer | The Miami Herald

Now that most Latin American and Caribbean countries have announced that they will join Islamic nations in voting for the creation of a Palestine state along the 1967 borders at the United Nations General Assembly later this month, the proposed motion is almost certain to pass by a comfortable majority of at least 120 votes.

With the exception of Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica and Guatemala, whose votes have not yet been announced, Latin American countries — led by Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela — have come out strongly in support of the Palestinian motion.

So what’s wrong with the U.N. voting for creation of a Palestinian state, I asked Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon in a recent interview.

Ayalon responded that creation of a Palestinian state should be the result of negotiations between Israel and Palestinians, and not imposed by the outside world. That’s the way South Sudan was created recently, and the way former Soviet states were created in the 1990’s: first reaching agreements with their neighbors, then going to the United Nations for recognition, he said.

“The only solution can come through negotiations between the two parties,” Ayalon said. “You cannot turn things on its head.”

Palestinian leaders say they have no alternative because Israel is not willing to negotiate, I noted. Furthermore, they argue that getting a U.N. resolution does preclude them negotiating later, I added.

“It’s an oxmymoron,” Ayalon responded. “It’s a resolution that they will dictate because they have an automatic majority at the U.N. It will set the terms (of the issues in dispute) according to their own capricious wills. It will lock the Palestinians into an intransigent position, and they will not negotiate.”

But what other option do they have, if Israel doesn’t make concessions? I asked.

“We have been doing a lot, and we are willing to do more,” he said, citing the fact that since negotiations started in 1992, Israel helped create the Palestinian Authority, supported it economically, and returned 42 percent of the West Bank, and 100 percent of the Gaza strip.“Everybody is asking what Israel is willing to do, but nobody is asking what the Palestinians are willing to do.”

What should they do? I asked.

“They should give up what they call ‘the right of return’ of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Refugees should go back to their own state. Why are we creating for the first time in history a Palestinian state? So they have a state for the Palestinians,” he responded.

Second, Palestinians should reach an agreement with Israel on borders so that Israel is not attacked anymore, he said. Third, the two sides should reach an agreement on Jerusalem, he said.

“Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years,” Ayalon said. “Jerusalem is mentioned in our Judeo-Christian Bible 700 times, and not one single time in the Quran.”

I suggested to Ayalon that a U.N. General Assembly resolution would be largely symbolic, because only U.N. Security Council resolutions are binding, and the Obama administration has already said it would veto it at the Council. So what’s the big deal? I asked.

“The big deal is that by bridging agreements — the Oslo agreements — that we will not go to the United Nations, but solve our problems through bilateral negotiations, they are choosing conflict and friction over cooperation and negotiation,” Ayalon said.

My Opinion: Ayalon conveniently plays down the fact that Israel’s hard-line government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making negotiations harder by continuing to expand settlements in Arab territories.

But Ayalon is right in saying that a U.N. proposal to create a Palestinian state along the Palestinian terms — which would allow 4.5 million Palestinians, most of them descendants of 1940’s refugees, to move back to Israel’s territory — would be an indirect way of destroying Israel as a Jewish state.

If the U.N. General Assembly votes for a resolution supporting the general concept of creating a Palestinian state, so that Palestinians can have their much-deserved homeland, it should be supported by everybody. But if it doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and includes the Palestinian demands for “the right of return” of refugees, it will amount to supporting the slow-motion destruction of the state of Israel, and should not be supported by any country.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated columnist and a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He also won the 1999 Maria Moors Cabot Award, the 2001 King of Spain prize, and the 2005 Emmy Suncoast award. He is the author of Castro's Final Hour; Bordering on Chaos, on Mexico's crisis; Cronicas de heroes y bandidos, Ojos vendados, Cuentos Chinos and most recently of Saving the Americas.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/19/124221/commentary-israels-truths-and.html?storylink=MI_emailed#ixzz1YQVraf4G
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2011 04:55 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quoting Israel Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, Andres Oppenheimer wrote:
Quote:
"Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years,” Ayalon said. “Jerusalem is mentioned in our Judeo-Christian Bible 700 times, and not one single time in the Quran."


Jewish religious mythologies and Zionist chauvinism (as well as Christianist Zionist theology for that matter) do not justify the discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian people.

Oppenheimer goes on to write:

Quote:
If the U.N. General Assembly votes for a resolution supporting the general concept of creating a Palestinian state, so that Palestinians can have their much-deserved homeland, it should be supported by everybody. But if it doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and includes the Palestinian demands for “the right of return” of refugees, it will amount to supporting the slow-motion destruction of the state of Israel, and should not be supported by any country.


For Israel to exist as a Jewish state the Palestinians would have to renounce their rights to return to their land and accept their own repression in the name of indulging the Zionists desire for an ethnocentric state. Where does that leave the Palestinian Israelis who in a few generations are going to outnumber Jews in Israel? Why should any country support the existence of Israel as a necessarily discriminatory and oppressive ethnocentric state? The enabling of Israel's dysfunctional behavior resulting from Ethno-religious chauvinism and bigotry and their attendant socio-psychological pathologies is hardly a reason to prop this nation. These pathologies can be much better addressed and dealt with through positive and progressive means like the creation of more egalitarian and pluralistic states in the stead of Israel as a Zionist state.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2011 06:51 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Jewish religious mythologies and Zionist chauvinism (as well as Christianist Zionist theology for that matter) do not justify the discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian people.



But, one can't sneeze at 60 million Christian Zionist votes. They are more Zionist, in some respects, in my opinion, than Jews. They have more to lose than Jews actually, since their theology values bible prophecy. Jews have been practicing their religion outside of Israel for two millenia. Jews just had to discard the obsolete High Priests and they functioned fine with Rabbinical Judaism. Can Christian Zionism function with an Israel luke-warm with a pluralistic population?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2011 07:41 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Israel has demonstrated it's opposition to a Palestine State by not honestly negotiating with the Palestine government.


Wrong. Israel tried negotiating fairly with the Palestinians back in the 1990s.

Negotiations collapsed because the Palestinians kept sending wave after wave of suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians.

It is hard to say the current Israeli government is not honestly negotiating, when the Palestinians have prevented all negotiations from even taking place to begin with.



BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Yet they insist that negotiation is the only method acceptable. That assures Israel will never agree to a Palestine state.


Were the Palestinians to engage in peaceful negotiations (that means no murdering Israeli children), Israel would agree to such a state.



BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
The other part of the Palestine government problem is that there are really two governments in Palestine. One desiring to negotiate with Israel and the other blocking every attempt. Both parties are guilty, but Israel is guilty of stealing Palistine land with their policies to rid "their land" of all Muslims.


Israel is guilty of nothing of the sort. Israel only captured the land in a just war of self defense, and they have since been more than willing to return the land in exchange for peace.

What Israel is not willing to do though, is return the land without a peace agreement.



BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Just as the White South Africans established Apartheid having racial separation, domination in domestic politics, and great restrictions. It's time the United States admits Israel's Apartheid intent. ---BBB


Falsely accusing Israel of Apartheid is anti-Semitism of the most vile sort. You should be ashamed!



Quote:
September 19, 2011
Commentary: Israel's truths, and omissions, on Palestine state vote
By Andres Oppenheimer | The Miami Herald

Now that most Latin American and Caribbean countries have announced that they will join Islamic nations in voting for the creation of a Palestine state along the 1967 borders at the United Nations General Assembly later this month, the proposed motion is almost certain to pass by a comfortable majority of at least 120 votes.

With the exception of Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica and Guatemala, whose votes have not yet been announced, Latin American countries — led by Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela — have come out strongly in support of the Palestinian motion.

So what’s wrong with the U.N. voting for creation of a Palestinian state, I asked Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon in a recent interview.

Ayalon responded that creation of a Palestinian state should be the result of negotiations between Israel and Palestinians, and not imposed by the outside world. That’s the way South Sudan was created recently, and the way former Soviet states were created in the 1990’s: first reaching agreements with their neighbors, then going to the United Nations for recognition, he said.

“The only solution can come through negotiations between the two parties,” Ayalon said. “You cannot turn things on its head.”

Palestinian leaders say they have no alternative because Israel is not willing to negotiate, I noted. Furthermore, they argue that getting a U.N. resolution does preclude them negotiating later, I added.


Note that it is the Palestinians who toppled negotiations in 2000 by sending wave after wave of suicide bombers to murder Israeli children.

Note also that it is the Palestinians who refuse to return to the negotiating table now.



Quote:
“It’s an oxmymoron,” Ayalon responded. “It’s a resolution that they will dictate because they have an automatic majority at the U.N. It will set the terms (of the issues in dispute) according to their own capricious wills. It will lock the Palestinians into an intransigent position, and they will not negotiate.”

But what other option do they have, if Israel doesn’t make concessions? I asked.


When negotiations collapsed in 2000/2001, Israel was offering the Palestinians: 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and East Jerusalem as their capital.



Quote:
“We have been doing a lot, and we are willing to do more,” he said, citing the fact that since negotiations started in 1992, Israel helped create the Palestinian Authority, supported it economically, and returned 42 percent of the West Bank, and 100 percent of the Gaza strip.“Everybody is asking what Israel is willing to do, but nobody is asking what the Palestinians are willing to do.”

What should they do? I asked.

“They should give up what they call ‘the right of return’ of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Refugees should go back to their own state. Why are we creating for the first time in history a Palestinian state? So they have a state for the Palestinians,” he responded.

Second, Palestinians should reach an agreement with Israel on borders so that Israel is not attacked anymore, he said. Third, the two sides should reach an agreement on Jerusalem, he said.

“Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years,” Ayalon said. “Jerusalem is mentioned in our Judeo-Christian Bible 700 times, and not one single time in the Quran.”

I suggested to Ayalon that a U.N. General Assembly resolution would be largely symbolic, because only U.N. Security Council resolutions are binding, and the Obama administration has already said it would veto it at the Council. So what’s the big deal? I asked.


The big deal is that the Palestinians should be negotiating and compromising to get their state, instead of trying to get it unilaterally.

And if such unilateral moves are no big deal, then no complaints when Israel unilaterally annexes East Jerusalem and unilaterally annexes the land that most of the settlers reside on.



Quote:
“The big deal is that by bridging agreements — the Oslo agreements — that we will not go to the United Nations, but solve our problems through bilateral negotiations, they are choosing conflict and friction over cooperation and negotiation,” Ayalon said.

My Opinion: Ayalon conveniently plays down the fact that Israel’s hard-line government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making negotiations harder by continuing to expand settlements in Arab territories.


But the reality is that the Palestinians are refusing to negotiate out of their own intransigence.

The halt to settlement construction is something the Palestinians would have achieved at the negotiating table, had they been willing to negotiate.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2011 07:43 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Quoting Israel Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, Andres Oppenheimer wrote:
Quote:
"Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years,” Ayalon said. “Jerusalem is mentioned in our Judeo-Christian Bible 700 times, and not one single time in the Quran."


Jewish religious mythologies and Zionist chauvinism (as well as Christianist Zionist theology for that matter)


That the West Bank is the ancient homeland of the Jews (with Jerusalem as their capital) is neither religion nor theology. It is a basic historical fact.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 05:58 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quote:
Israel has demonstrated it's opposition to a Palestine State by not honestly negotiating with the Palestine government. Yet they insist that negotiation is the only method acceptable. That assures Israel will never agree to a Palestine state. ...


Animals don't have or need states.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 06:11 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quote:
Israel has demonstrated it's opposition to a Palestine State by not honestly negotiating with the Palestine government. ..


Dealing with the palesavages in an honest manner, that is, formulating an honest and rational assessment of their nature and their intentions and acting on that assessment, would amount to genocide. You sure they (the palesavages) WANT that??
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 09:32 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Los Angeles Times Commentary:
By Reza Aslan
September 15, 2011

Later this month, the Palestinian Authority intends to go before the United Nations to request recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Although there is strong backing for the bid, the United States, in the name of supporting Israel, has stated its willingness to use its Security Council veto power to keep the Palestinians from joining the U.N. as a full voting member. The U.S. has also refused to join in a more symbolic General Assembly vote that could change the Palestinians' status from a "nonvoting observer entity" to a "nonvoting observer state."

Here are five reasons why the U.S. should support the Palestinian bid and not exercise its veto at the U.N.

Negotiations have failed.

Two decades of negotiations have not brought the Palestinians a state of their own. Israelis and Palestinians blame each other for the current impasse.

But the question of who is at fault is irrelevant. What matters is that in 1993, when the Oslo accords set up a framework for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, there were a little more than 100,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. Now that number stands at more than 300,000. According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state. Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain.

The current Likud-led Israeli government is unlikely to ever agree to a sovereign Palestinian state.

A decade ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, vying for Likud Party leadership, made his position clear in a speech to the group's central committee: "My friends," he said in 2002, " we must present the situation in the clearest possible way: We won't lend a hand to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.... We must vote as one in favor of the draft resolution against a Palestinian state."

It is true that seven years later, under intense pressure from the Obama administration, Netanyahu, as Israeli prime minister, grudgingly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in principle. But the unprecedented conditions he called for — that it have no military, no control over its borders, no capital in East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees and that it recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" — seemed deliberately designed to negate the possibility of true Palestinian sovereignty.

Even if Netanyahu were to begin pushing for a Palestinian state, it is highly unlikely that his ultra-right-wing coalition would allow him to succeed. Indeed, immediately after Netanyahu's 2009 speech, powerful members of his party demanded that he retract his statement entertaining the possibility of a Palestinian state. As one of Likud's most influential Knesset members, Danny Danon, vowed: "I will attempt to cause this sentence, which was said under American pressure, never to come into being."

President Obama has utterly failed to advance the Middle East peace process.

Obama came into office vowing a more active and evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Yet beyond a few lofty speeches about Palestinian suffering, he has offered no substantive policy shifts or specific proposals for moving negotiations forward. Obama's attempt to temporarily stop Israel from building settlements in the occupied territories backfired when he caved in to Israeli intransigence. The administration then had the nerve to veto a nonbinding U.N. resolution condemning the very settlements Obama himself had condemned. The president's barely newsworthy suggestion that negotiations for a two-state solution be based on the 1967 borders with land swaps (which, as the basis for the Oslo accords, has been the principle advanced, if not publicly announced, by every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter) was ridiculed by the Israeli prime minister, and in the Capitol building, no less. The president's kowtowing to Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing has made the U.S. look weak on the global stage. If for no other reason than to prove to the world that the U.S. is not Israel's lap dog, the president should refrain from vetoing a Palestinian state.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not political suicide to defy the will of Israel.

There is no doubt that American public opinion remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But polls show that the majority of Americans believe the U.S. should not favor one side over the other in the conflict. Among thoughtful leaders in the media, military and foreign affairs, there has been a consensus that our policy toward Israel is severely damaging America's interests and image around the world. According to a 2008 J Street poll, 78% of American Jews said they supported a two-state solution and 81% wanted the U.S. to pressure both sides to end the conflict.

Of course, the Republicans will try to paint Obama and the Democrats as "anti-Israel" if the president fails to veto the U.N. vote. But this has been a consistent strategy on the part of the GOP for years, and it has always failed. In any case, the same J Street poll found that only 8% of Jews cite Israel as an issue in deciding whom to vote for for president.

Palestinians are doing almost exactly what Israelis did 60 years ago.

Israel maintains that the Palestinians cannot declare statehood and seal it through the U.N. Yet the Palestinians are merely following the trail blazed by Israel six decades ago. In 1948, after the U.N. voted for the partition of Palestine, debate among the world powers about how to divide the land dragged on and violence between Jews and Arabs grew worse. The Jewish Agency simply preempted negotiations and unilaterally declared the state of Israel; the United States immediately recognized it, and the U.N. accepted Israeli sovereignty the following year.

The Palestinian Authority has come to the same conclusion that the Jews apparently came to in 1948: Negotiations will not lead to an independent state; the only way forward is unilateral action. By rejecting that strategy outright, Israel is not only being hypocritical; it is invalidating its own existence as a state.

There is one more reason to support the Palestinians' bid at the United Nations. It is the moral thing to do. During his first presidential campaign, Obama said, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Now, he has the opportunity to live up to his own beliefs and promises, and to provide the Palestinian people with the same sense of dignity that Harry Truman gave Israel 60 years ago.

Reza Aslan is the founder of AslanMedia.com and the author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam."
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 10:31 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwajalein_Atoll
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 06:20 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quote:
Los Angeles Times Commentary:
By Reza Aslan
September 15, 2011

Later this month, the Palestinian Authority intends to go before the United Nations to request recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Although there is strong backing for the bid, the United States, in the name of supporting Israel, has stated its willingness to use its Security Council veto power to keep the Palestinians from joining the U.N. as a full voting member. The U.S. has also refused to join in a more symbolic General Assembly vote that could change the Palestinians' status from a "nonvoting observer entity" to a "nonvoting observer state."

Here are five reasons why the U.S. should support the Palestinian bid and not exercise its veto at the U.N.

Negotiations have failed.

Two decades of negotiations have not brought the Palestinians a state of their own. Israelis and Palestinians blame each other for the current impasse.

But the question of who is at fault is irrelevant.


Wrong. It is completely relevant. The Palestinians have continuously sabotaged negotiations, and now think they are going to use the absence of negotiations to just get what they want without negotiation or compromise.

As soon as the Palestinians start making unilateral grabs, Israel will be free to make unilateral grabs of their own (such as the annexation of East Jerusalem and the annexation of the land that most of the settlers reside on).



Quote:
What matters is that in 1993, when the Oslo accords set up a framework for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, there were a little more than 100,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. Now that number stands at more than 300,000. According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state. Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain.


First, that characterization is disingenuous. Most of that settlement expansion is on areas that will be transferred over to Israel in land swaps. The illusion that the entire West Bank is on the verge of being overrun by settlers is nonsense.

Second, the Palestinians could achieve a halt to settlement construction by compromising at the negotiating table. If they really want to stop settlement expansion, they know how to do it.



Quote:
The current Likud-led Israeli government is unlikely to ever agree to a sovereign Palestinian state.

A decade ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, vying for Likud Party leadership, made his position clear in a speech to the group's central committee: "My friends," he said in 2002, " we must present the situation in the clearest possible way: We won't lend a hand to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.... We must vote as one in favor of the draft resolution against a Palestinian state."


Perhaps. But the only reason he's in power is because when there was a pro-negotiation Labor government in Israel, the Palestinians sent wave after wave of suicide bombers to murder Israeli children until both the negotiations and that Labor government collapsed.

And when Obama was trying to restart negotiations, it wasn't Netanyahu who continuously sabotaged negotiations and even refused to show up for talks. That was the Palestinians.



Quote:
It is true that seven years later, under intense pressure from the Obama administration, Netanyahu, as Israeli prime minister, grudgingly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in principle. But the unprecedented conditions he called for — that it have no military, no control over its borders, no capital in East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees and that it recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" — seemed deliberately designed to negate the possibility of true Palestinian sovereignty.


Yes, the Palestinians will have to be a demilitarized state, and there isn't going to be a right of return. Might as well get used to the idea if you want there to be a Palestinian state.



Quote:
Even if Netanyahu were to begin pushing for a Palestinian state, it is highly unlikely that his ultra-right-wing coalition would allow him to succeed. Indeed, immediately after Netanyahu's 2009 speech, powerful members of his party demanded that he retract his statement entertaining the possibility of a Palestinian state. As one of Likud's most influential Knesset members, Danny Danon, vowed: "I will attempt to cause this sentence, which was said under American pressure, never to come into being."


If everyone stopped attacking Israel, and started making a genuine effort to make peace, the Israeli voters would provide a much different government.



Quote:
President Obama has utterly failed to advance the Middle East peace process.

Obama came into office vowing a more active and evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Yet beyond a few lofty speeches about Palestinian suffering, he has offered no substantive policy shifts or specific proposals for moving negotiations forward. Obama's attempt to temporarily stop Israel from building settlements in the occupied territories backfired when he caved in to Israeli intransigence.


First, "more evenhanded" is anti-Semitic code for "screw over Israel". The US was already 100% evenhanded in the normal usage of the word.


Second, the article is contradictory, first saying there was no major policy shift, then naming a major (albeit ill-advised) policy shift.


Third, the halt to settlement construction was a bad idea all around. The Palestinians were demanding a major concession for free instead of negotiating for it at the negotiating table.

There were/are any number of things wrong with that. To begin with, there is the sheer injustice of giving the Palestinians concessions for free as a reward for collapsing the negotiations with their violence.

Then there is the practical concern, if we give in to the Palestinian demands this time, they will soon be back insisting on getting even more concessions for free instead of negotiating for them.

And finally, there is the problem of destabilizing the Roadmap For Peace. If we gave the Palestinians a halt to settlement construction for free, when it came to the point in the Roadmap For Peace when the Palestinians were supposed to get that concession in exchange for a concession of their own, the Palestinians would find themselves giving their own concession for free without anything to balance it. Pretty easy to see the Palestinians refusing to go along with that.


And fourth, the nonsense about Israeli intransigence is an outright lie.

Despite all the reasons why this free halt to settlement construction was a bad idea all around, Obama bullied Israel into doing it. Israel halted settlement construction for 10 months, and Obama then tried to get the Palestinians to come to negotiations.

It was a learning experience for Obama. He finally came to realize that the Palestinians were the bad guys.

Even with the halt to settlement construction, the Palestinians absolutely refused to participate in any negotiations. It was only when the 10 month period was on the verge of ending that the Palestinians showed up, and they only showed up to demand an extension of the halt to settlement construction.

Needless to say, Obama was disgusted and disillusioned with the Palestinian mind games, and that was the end of the move to give the Palestinians concessions for free instead of having the Palestinians negotiate for them.



Quote:
The administration then had the nerve to veto a nonbinding U.N. resolution condemning the very settlements Obama himself had condemned. The president's barely newsworthy suggestion that negotiations for a two-state solution be based on the 1967 borders with land swaps (which, as the basis for the Oslo accords, has been the principle advanced, if not publicly announced, by every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter) was ridiculed by the Israeli prime minister, and in the Capitol building, no less. The president's kowtowing to Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing has made the U.S. look weak on the global stage. If for no other reason than to prove to the world that the U.S. is not Israel's lap dog, the president should refrain from vetoing a Palestinian state.


Obama's scheme was doomed for failure when he set off at the beginning to be unfair to Israel. He has learned his lesson, and is not going to compound his earlier errors by allowing this terrible resolution to pass the Security Council.



Quote:
Contrary to popular belief, it is not political suicide to defy the will of Israel.

There is no doubt that American public opinion remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But polls show that the majority of Americans believe the U.S. should not favor one side over the other in the conflict. Among thoughtful leaders in the media, military and foreign affairs, there has been a consensus that our policy toward Israel is severely damaging America's interests and image around the world. According to a 2008 J Street poll, 78% of American Jews said they supported a two-state solution and 81% wanted the U.S. to pressure both sides to end the conflict.


The author is trying to pretend that they are representing the balance supported by the American voters.

In reality the author is representing the call to treat Israel unfairly, contrary to the will of the American voters.



Quote:
Of course, the Republicans will try to paint Obama and the Democrats as "anti-Israel" if the president fails to veto the U.N. vote. But this has been a consistent strategy on the part of the GOP for years, and it has always failed. In any case, the same J Street poll found that only 8% of Jews cite Israel as an issue in deciding whom to vote for for president.

Palestinians are doing almost exactly what Israelis did 60 years ago.

Israel maintains that the Palestinians cannot declare statehood and seal it through the U.N. Yet the Palestinians are merely following the trail blazed by Israel six decades ago. In 1948, after the U.N. voted for the partition of Palestine, debate among the world powers about how to divide the land dragged on and violence between Jews and Arabs grew worse. The Jewish Agency simply preempted negotiations and unilaterally declared the state of Israel; the United States immediately recognized it, and the U.N. accepted Israeli sovereignty the following year.

The Palestinian Authority has come to the same conclusion that the Jews apparently came to in 1948: Negotiations will not lead to an independent state; the only way forward is unilateral action. By rejecting that strategy outright, Israel is not only being hypocritical; it is invalidating its own existence as a state.


Keep in mind, that when unilateral action replaces negotiations, the Israelis get to undertake unilateral action as well.

One possible move is the annexation of East Jerusalem, and of the land that most of the settlers reside on.



Quote:
There is one more reason to support the Palestinians' bid at the United Nations. It is the moral thing to do. During his first presidential campaign, Obama said, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Now, he has the opportunity to live up to his own beliefs and promises, and to provide the Palestinian people with the same sense of dignity that Harry Truman gave Israel 60 years ago.

Reza Aslan is the founder of AslanMedia.com and the author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam."


No, there is nothing even remotely moral about rewarding Palestinian intransigence by giving them concessions for free.

The moral position is to tell the Palestinians to stop fighting and get back to the negotiation table.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 10:00 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
But, one can't sneeze at 60 million Christian Zionist votes.

60 million Christian Zionist votes do not justify the discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian peoples either.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 10:02 am
@InfraBlue,
So true!

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  2  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2011 10:06 am
@InfraBlue,
So true!

Benjamin Netanyahu constantly states his goal is to make an "Israel state" with no Muslims in it.

BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 10:05 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Israel is at it again, yet they insist they are trying to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Shame on Netanyahu's lies. ---BBB

September. 27, 2011
Israel approves 1,100 new homes in east Jerusalem
JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel granted the go-ahead on Tuesday for construction of 1,100 new Jewish housing units in east Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ruled out any freeze in settlement construction, raising already heightened tensions after last week's Palestinian move to seek U.N. membership.

Israel's Interior Ministry said the homes would be built in Gilo, a sprawling Jewish enclave in southeast Jerusalem. It said construction could begin after a mandatory 60-day period for public comment, a process that spokesman Roi Lachmanovich called a formality.

The announcement drew swift condemnation from the Palestinians, who claim east Jerusalem as their future capital. The United States, European Union and United Nations all expressed disappointment with Israel's decision.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Israeli announcement was counterproductive to efforts to relaunch Mideast peace talks. She said both Israel and the Palestinians should avoid provocative actions, and that international mediators will remain focused on guiding the two sides back to direct negotiations.

Richard Miron, a spokesman for U.N. Mideast envoy Robert Serry, said the announcement "sends the wrong signal at this sensitive time."

The Palestinians have demanded that Israel halt all settlement construction in east Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank — territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — as a condition for resuming peace talks.

Since capturing east Jerusalem, Israel has annexed the area and ringed it with about 10 Jewish enclaves that are meant to solidify its control. Gilo, which is close to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem, is among the largest, with about 50,000 residents. Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized.

Meir Margalit, a Jerusalem city council member who is critical of east Jerusalem construction, said city officials had given initial approval to the Gilo project more than a year ago.

Margalit said he didn't expect the project to be "an obstacle of peace" since it is in an existing Jewish area that is widely expected to remain part of Israel in any peace deal. But he said Interior Minister Eli Yishai, leader of the hawkish Shas Party, appeared to have timed the approval as a response to the Palestinian statehood gambit. Yishai declined an interview request.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said the Israeli decision amounted to "1,100 no's to the resumption of peace talks."

He urged the United States, Israel's closest and most important ally, to change its position and support the Palestinians in their quest for U.N. membership. The United States has repeatedly called on Israel to cease settlement construction on land that could constitute a Palestinian state, but says the U.N. is not the proper place to resolve the conflict.

With peace talks stalled for the past three years, the Palestinians last week asked the U.N. Security Council to recognize an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip. Although the move won't change the situation on the ground, the Palestinians believe international support will boost their position in future peace negotiations.

The U.S. has vowed to veto the Palestinian request in the Security Council. Both Israel and the U.S. say a Palestinian state can be established only through negotiations.

In an interview published Tuesday, Netanyahu ruled out any settlement freeze, arguing that a 10-month moratorium on new housing construction last year had failed to yield results.

The Palestinians, saying his limited freeze was insufficient, agreed to resume negotiations just weeks before the moratorium ended. Netanyahu then refused a U.S.-backed Palestinian demand to extend it, and the talks quickly collapsed.

"The Palestinians, by coming back to the issue of the settlement freeze, indicate that they don't really want to negotiate," Netanyahu told the Jerusalem Post. "They use it again and again, but I think a lot of people see it as a ruse to avoid direct negotiations."

Netanyahu has called for the resumption of peace talks without preconditions. He has dismissed demands that a Palestinian state be based on Israel's 1967 prewar lines — putting him at odds with the Obama administration.

Seeking to break the deadlock, the international Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.S., EU, U.N. and Russia — last week called on Israelis and Palestinians to resume negotiations without preconditions. It called for a peace agreement to end the more than 60-year-old conflict by the end of next year and urged both sides "to refrain from provocative actions."

The fate of east Jerusalem is the most explosive issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The sector is home to Jerusalem's Old City, which houses sensitive Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites.

Netanyahu says he will never relinquish east Jerusalem, which Israel considers an integral part of its capital. The Palestinian leadership has vowed it will not accept a state without key parts of east Jerusalem as its capital.

In all, about 200,000 Jews live in east Jerusalem areas that Israel calls neighborhoods and the Palestinians call settlements. Squeezed between them are Arab neighborhoods that are home to some 250,000 Palestinians.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 06:51 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Israel is at it again, yet they insist they are trying to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Shame on Netanyahu's lies. ---BBB



Netanyahu is not lying, but I think you misunderstand what he means.

Netanyahu is not so much "trying to negotiate" as he is "willing to negotiate" if the Palestinians should ever decide to turn up and start negotiating.

As for the settlement construction, the Palestinians would be able to achieve a halt to settlement construction if they ever turned up at the negotiating table and bargained for it.

Absent such a negotiated outcome, Israel is free to expand settlements as they see fit.
0 Replies
 
RileyRampant
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2011 12:02 am
@oralloy,
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/palestine-is-still-the-issue/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Israel's truths, and omissions, on Palestine state vote
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 08:20:03