Palestinian Statehood, a Travesty

@RST,

RST wrote:

Looking at our economy, aren’t you just asking American Jews to be Jews first and Americans second, even if it’s a mirror-image of the Israel-first approach to being Jews first and Americans second (seeing that maybe American Jews feel they have more of responsibility to do something about Israel-Palestine relation than about any other foreign policy issues),

I am not asking anything of American Jews.

RST wrote:

does this cancel out or take precedence over responsibility to address other foreign policy problems at hand which are more urgent and important?

There is no conflict between our support of Israel, and any other foreign policy problems.

RST wrote:

All I can say is that if this support continues, it is only because zionism beliefs penetrate the inner works of U.S. government, some corporate entities, as well as in the very large gray area between the corporate and the governmental.

No, the support will continue because we Americans are not anti-Semites, and we recognize that Israel are the good guys.

RST wrote:

It isn't even logical or democratic decision,

Sure it is.

RST wrote:

your tried and failed method of calling anyone an antisemite, if they don't agree to your pathetic logic on the issue at hand.

You're the last person who should be complaining about logic.

And your anti-Semitism has nothing to do with me. You are the source of your own evilness.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim is particularly sensitive because Israeli construction there may cut off Palestinians from their aspirational capital in east Jerusalem in a future peace accord.

Settling the E-1 area will certainly do that.

It will also give Israel a solid block of settlements all the way from Jerusalem to the rim of the Jordan River Valley, cutting the Palestinian West Bank into northern and southern halves for all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E1_Plan

Mr. Green

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It will also give Israel a solid block of settlements all the way from Jerusalem to the rim of the Jordan River Valley, cutting the Palestinian West Bank into northern and southern halves for all time

jews can be moved/removed like anyone else, they are not that special.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Thankfully, Obama isn't insanely pro-israel (by that I mean providing carefree, and unquestioned support for Israeli governments) as right-wing, hawkish American and Israeli Jews, and most Republicans want the president to be. I mean naturally how could they? Obama is a liberal, while Netanyahu is a conservative and personally they don’t seem to trust each other or like each other very much, which was clearly in their meeting in 5/2011.
Then again, neither are many American Jews, nor even Israelis for that matter, who blindly support the Netanyahu government, unlike some oralboy here.

Listen to the a word of advice by British Prime Minster Lord Palmerton, famously heralded: "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests" This adage has become a one of the leading realistic approach to foreign affairs.
Don't be too comforted in the message conveyed in the AIPAC conference in may 22 2011 that "The bonds between the United States and
Israel are unbreakable." I say that because it evades the basic reality of the matter that both states are guided by their perceived national interests.

Both so far have some similar interests in the middle east:
>both oppose Iran’s nuclear program and want to weaken Tehran’s regional influence
> they both want to counter the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the region
> they both want to stop Islamist-inspired terrorism (whether by al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or other Islamist and jihadist groups)
> they both want to support pro-Western regimes, such as Jordan’s, and maintain some kind of stability in the region.
> in principle, both also want a peaceful resolution of the Arab—Israeli conflict, involving‘‘two states for two peoples’’ (i.e., a Jewish state and a Palestinian state) and‘‘normalization’’ between the Arab world and Israel.

Differences in interest comes into play based on how America and Israel prioritizes the issues:
> both sides believe that the policies of the other are undermining their national interests.
> Obama openly talked about the linkage between the Israeli—Palestinian conflict and other U.S. interests in the Middle East, suggesting in an interview this conflict does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a
resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant
jihadists to engage in unforgivable actions, and so it is in the best interest of America's national security that this issue be left to fester.
> Israel’s primary concern and biggest threat is from Iran's nuclear program, not its conflict with the Palestinians, while to America Iran’s nuclear program, although a major challenge, is not as great a threat as it is to Israel.
> both have different goals in the Arab Spring seeing that Israel appears to be supporting for the survival of the ruling Arab autocrats because of fear that without the Arab dictators it'll be hard to keep the protests under control , while the United States has leaned to favor Arab masses in the streets demanding dignity and change by supporting Arab democracy and winning Arab hearts and minds in the process appeals to the deeply held optimism and democratic faith of America (albeit slowly, dubiously, and very selectively).
-----> Basically Arab Spring, has increased the divergence, and in a way is a growing wedge between U.S. and Israeli. (ex: Israel sees Obama administration’s support for uprisings in Egypt, is widely seen in Israel as naive and somewhat reckless.)

Quote:

There is no conflict between our support of Israel, and any other foreign policy problems.

>Proved wrong. So ignorant you are.

Quote:

And your anti-Semitism has nothing to do with me. You are the source of your own evilness.

Why don't you go back to Fox news and brush up more on your ignorance?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It will also give Israel a solid block of settlements all the way from Jerusalem to the rim of the Jordan River Valley, cutting the Palestinian West Bank into northern and southern halves for all time

jews can be moved/removed like anyone else, they are not that special.

Absent peace negotiations, they aren't going anywhere.

And the UN just abrogated the Oslo Accords.

0 Replies

@RST,

RST wrote:

Then again, neither are many American Jews, nor even Israelis for that matter, who blindly support the Netanyahu government, unlike some oralboy here.

You engage in name-calling because you are too stupid to come up with anything intelligent to say.

And there is nothing blind about it. I support Israel because they are very clearly the good guys in this conflict.

RST wrote:

oralloy wrote:
There is no conflict between our support of Israel, and any other foreign policy problems.

>Proved wrong.

Hardly.

RST wrote:

So ignorant you are.

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own ignorance.

RST wrote:

Why don't you go back to Fox news and brush up more on your ignorance?

What is it about you low-IQ types that makes you babble about Fox News?

0 Replies

@RST,

Good post. Accurate, balanced and informative.

0 Replies

"Statehood" is going to come back and bite the Palestinians on the ass.
Now, Israel has every right to close their borders to anyone from "Palestine".
They can totally close their borders to the Gaza Strip, on the recognized theory that any state does NOT have to trade with any other state.
They can stop shipments of food, fuel, medical supplies, or anything else from going into Gaza through Israel.

Also, exactly who is the govt?
Hamas claims to represent the Palestinians, but they only have control of Gaza.
The elected govt in the West Bank, while they claim to represent the Palestinians, only have control of the West Bank.
So exactly who represents the Palestinian people?

Now, with the UN giving the Palestinians statehood, its up to the Palestinian govt to improve the standard of living of their people, its not up to Israel to do it or even cooperate.

I seriously think that the Palestinians are going to regret this decision, at least once the joy of the moment wears off.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

"Statehood" is going to come back and bite the Palestinians on the ass.
Now, Israel has every right to close their borders to anyone from "Palestine".
They can totally close their borders to the Gaza Strip, on the recognized theory that any state does NOT have to trade with any other state.
They can stop shipments of food, fuel, medical supplies, or anything else from going into Gaza through Israel.

I think Israel was already able to do that. The Palestinians may not have been a state, but Israel still had the right to close their borders to whatever was outside them.

The way this is truly going to backfire on the Palestinians is, it killed 1967 borders. Now, Israel gets to draw the borders of the Palestinian state and impose them unilaterally.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I think Israel was already able to do that. The Palestinians may not have been a state, but Israel still had the right to close their borders to whatever was outside them.

The way this is truly going to backfire on the Palestinians is, it killed 1967 borders. Now, Israel gets to draw the borders of the Palestinian state and impose them unilaterally.

Indeed, Israel has been doing all these things without significant interruption since 1967. It is a cynical and heartless oppression that, in view of the growing majoity of Palestinians in their combined populations, is likely to backfire on an Israel, which has far fewer friends and allies now than it did when all this began, now 45 years ago.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Also, exactly who is the govt?
Hamas claims to represent the Palestinians, but they only have control of Gaza.
The elected govt in the West Bank, while they claim to represent the Palestinians, only have control of the West Bank.
So exactly who represents the Palestinian people?

Exactly that government which represented Palestine until now in the UN as "entity" wil represent it from now onwards as "non-member state".

Why, do you think, mm, is there a difference in representation? And would that mean that the more than 60 diplomatic representative offices/missions are in the wrong country now? Or the Palestinian embassies and missions in foreign countries aren't real?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Indeed, Israel has been doing all these things without significant interruption since 1967. It is a cynical and heartless oppression that, in view of the growing majoity of Palestinians in their combined populations, is likely to backfire on an Israel, which has far fewer friends and allies now than it did when all this began, now 45 years ago.

not to mention it must be now much more difficult now than it was 45 years ago to get in front of that mirror in the morning and admit to being a Israeli Jew.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Indeed, Israel has been doing all these things without significant interruption since 1967.

That had been very different decades before:
Palästina, a monthly magazine in German "for the country's cultural and economic improvement" ...

Quote:

... mentioned in 1927, in the issue 10-11 on page 546, that ...

Quote:

[/IMG]

... the governments of the bordering countries of Palestine, Transjordania, Syria, Najd and Hejaz had agreed and signed a treaty that no custom duty had to be paid an agricultural products and food which were traded between these countries. An excempted were tobacco and spirits.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I think Israel was already able to do that. The Palestinians may not have been a state, but Israel still had the right to close their borders to whatever was outside them.

The way this is truly going to backfire on the Palestinians is, it killed 1967 borders. Now, Israel gets to draw the borders of the Palestinian state and impose them unilaterally.

Indeed, Israel has been doing all these things without significant interruption since 1967. It is a cynical and heartless oppression that, in view of the growing majoity of Palestinians in their combined populations, is likely to backfire on an Israel, which has far fewer friends and allies now than it did when all this began, now 45 years ago.

Israel closing their own borders is hardly "cynical and heartless oppression". That's silly.

I would not be surprised if the Palestinians believed that it was likely backfire on Israel. But it's not going to.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Israel closing their own borders is hardly "cynical and heartless oppression". That's silly.

Immediately after the end of the 1967 war, Israel abbounced it would forever retain control of the high ground west of the Jordan Valley and a buffer Zone along the Lebanese Border. These, with the Golan Heights, effectively isolated the West Bank from the rest of the world, stifling trade and independent economis development there. Since then Israel has fenced out well over 30% of the West Bank for exclusively Israeli settlement and development, further isolating pockets of Palestinian population.

All this has amounted to something very similar to the "Bantustands" of Israel's old ally, the now departed aparteit state of South Africa.

The reality is very different from what you imply in your self-serving distortions and selective interpretations of the facts.

oralloy wrote:

I would not be surprised if the Palestinians believed that it was likely backfire on Israel. But it's not going to.

How do you know ? Israel is already isolated in an area of the world that is increasingly hostile towards it. The former "friendly" Moslem states(chiefly Egypt & Turkey) are turning distinctly unfriendly. I believe the day is long past in which the United States would enter hostilities in Israel's behalf. Moreover, it is very likely that our financial aid will be reduced owing to fast diminishing popular support for Israel in this country and our own budget issues.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover, it is very likely that our financial aid will be reduced owing to fast diminishing popular support for Israel in this country and our own budget issues.

I don't believe there ever was popular support for Israel in the U.S., in my opinion, beyond the Evangelicals and many American Jews. Again, in my opinion, the support for Israel was to allow Britain not to go down in history as making a foolish decision in the fruition of the Balfour Declaration.

Such a small country with so much media attention. It boggles the mind.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Israel closing their own borders is hardly "cynical and heartless oppression". That's silly.

Immediately after the end of the 1967 war, Israel abbounced it would forever retain control of the high ground west of the Jordan Valley and a buffer Zone along the Lebanese Border. These, with the Golan Heights, effectively isolated the West Bank from the rest of the world, stifling trade and independent economis development there. Since then Israel has fenced out well over 30% of the West Bank for exclusively Israeli settlement and development, further isolating pockets of Palestinian population.

The Palestinians were given an opportunity to have all of the West Bank in one contiguous block, but they decided that they would rather murder innocent people.

georgeob1 wrote:

All this has amounted to something very similar to the "Bantustands" of Israel's old ally, the now departed aparteit state of South Africa.

Not even remotely similar. At the worst, all Israel is doing is breaking the Palestinian West Bank into northern and southern halves.

georgeob1 wrote:

The reality is very different from what you imply in your self-serving distortions and selective interpretations of the facts.

What distortions? Can you show a single thing I've been wrong about?

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I would not be surprised if the Palestinians believed that it was likely backfire on Israel. But it's not going to.

How do you know ? Israel is already isolated in an area of the world that is increasingly hostile towards it. The former "friendly" Moslem states(chiefly Egypt & Turkey) are turning distinctly unfriendly.

When Turkey and Egypt start their war with Israel, the result of that war is going to be: Turkey suffering a heavy and sustained air bombardment, and Israel reclaiming the Sinai Peninsula and rebuilding settlements there.

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the day is long past in which the United States would enter hostilities in Israel's behalf.

You are wrong. We would if they needed us.

They won't need us though. Israel can demolish Egypt and Turkey on their own.

(We'll of course help Israel by providing them with weapons, and with intelligence against Egypt and Turkey.)

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover, it is very likely that our financial aid will be reduced owing to fast diminishing popular support for Israel in this country and our own budget issues.

The likelihood of that is exactly zero.

Also, popular support for Israel is not diminishing fast. The anti-Semites always claim that they speak for everyone, but they don't. They never have and they never will.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

When Turkey and Egypt start their war with Israel, the result of that war is going to be: Turkey suffering a heavy and sustained air bombardment, and Israel reclaiming the Sinai Peninsula and rebuilding settlements there.

I suppose, you meant "if". But in that case .... you do know that Turkey is a NATO member, don't you?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
When Turkey and Egypt start their war with Israel, the result of that war is going to be: Turkey suffering a heavy and sustained air bombardment, and Israel reclaiming the Sinai Peninsula and rebuilding settlements there.

I suppose, you meant "if". But in that case .... you do know that Turkey is a NATO member, don't you?

I could be wrong (I don't claim any skill at predicting the future), but I believe that Turkey and Egypt will start a war with Israel.

NATO is a defensive alliance. No one is bound to help Turkey when they are the one who starts the war.

0 Replies

My. A lot of pathetic whining from the UN and France and the UK on the news this morning.

Apparently these clowns actually thought that if they walked up to Israel and kicked them in the balls, Israel would just dust themselves off and pretend it never happened.

I'd think they would have known better. Guess not.

The funniest stuff was their silly whining about "this ending the two-state solution".

The two-state solution didn't end.

What ended was the negotiated two-state solution, where both Israel and the Palestinians would compromise and come to an agreement (and that didn't end because of Israel; it was the UN that ended it).

What ended was a two-state solution that is based on 1967 borders. The only way that was ever going to happen is through negotiations, which the UN just put a permanent end to.

There is still gong a two-state solution. But Israel is going to draw the borders as they please and then impose the borders through military force.

Specifically, look at the path of the Separation Fence. Everything west of the Fence will become part of Israel. Everything east of the Fence will be available to the Palestinians, if they ever feel like creating their state.

0 Replies

Palestinian Statehood, a Travesty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know