Palestinian Statehood, a Travesty

@oralloy,

"oralloy" wrote:

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

There are many;
1. After the 1967 war the Palestinians were never "given the opportunity to keep the West Bank in oue contiguous block". In fact they were never offered anything at all. Instead Israel promptly announced it would permanently sever the West Bank from Jordan by fortifying and keeping the West Bank of the Jordan Valley and the hills above it (this violated the UN resolution that established the Israeli State and its borders with Jordan). In addition, the Israelis soon afterwards established a fortified buffer zone along the Lebabnese border. Together these actions isolated the West Bank from any independent contact with the rest of the world. Worse it enabled the Israelis to oppress and exploit the population of the land and reduce the Palestinian population as described below, relatively free from other eyes.

oralloy wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
The reality is very different from what you imply in your self-serving distortions and selective interpretations of the facts.
Not even remotely similar. At the worst, all Israel is doing is breaking the Palestinian West Bank into northern and southern halves.

2. Since then Israel has established numerous settlements throughout the West Bank and connected them with limited acess roads, thus further isolating the Palestinian population in ever smaller enclaves. Finally Israel build a wall enclosing the West Bank Palestinian population in about half of the former West Bank territory. The Ghetto and Bantustand analogies I posted are entirely accurate, contrary to your assertion.

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. ...Israel can demolish Egypt and Turkey on their own

If such a war occurs Israel will face much more serious military capability than it has in any of its previousd wars. Moreover the tradeoffs politically and interms of our other external relations will be very challenging. Israeli air power will not be able to deter the Turks if they are serious, or even necessarily gain air superiority at all. Turkey is well-armed and is a NATO ally. Israel can fight an effective short war, but has neither the manpower, the industrial capacity or the resources for a long conflict. First use of nuclear weapons would be the end of israel in the international community.

I believe you are also far too certain of the continued rather unqualified support for Israel by the united States. Precisely he Political classes here that were once its staunchest supporters are now decidedly opposed to continued support for such a predatory and oppressive state. Often the current Administration continues to spout the standard rhetoric that nothing has changed, however their actions make it very clear that our suport for Israel has become very conditional and is far from assured. Moreover this is an increasingly popular view here, as you can perhaps note from the views expressed on this and other like threads.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Why do these two phrases seem to be your go to statement when someone disagrees with you?
Even if you are correct about whatever you are debating, when you use these lines it ruins your credibility and your case.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, Don't you already know? When a poster resorts to ad hominems over providing credible challenges, they've already admitted they lost.

1 Reply

If Israel claims to be a Zionist State, what type of state will a Palestinean state claim to be? Meaning, will only Palestineans live there? Juden frei (Jew free)? So, how come there are non-Jews that live in the Zionist state with citizenship. Something might be wrong with this picture, for those that are intellectually honest. Help me out here.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

"oralloy" wrote:
What distortions? Can you show a single thing I've been wrong about?

There are many;
1. After the 1967 war the Palestinians were never "given the opportunity to keep the West Bank in oue contiguous block". In fact they were never offered anything at all.

Wrong. In the 1990s there was something called the Peace Process. It resulted in negotiations where Israel offered the Palestinians: 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and East Jerusalem as their capital.

Negotiations collapsed before there was a deal, due to the Palestinians massacring huge numbers of Israeli civilians, but the Palestinians did receive the offer.

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
The reality is very different from what you imply in your self-serving distortions and selective interpretations of the facts.

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

2. Since then Israel has established numerous settlements throughout the West Bank and connected them with limited acess roads, thus further isolating the Palestinian population in ever smaller enclaves.

Those small settlements deep in the West Bank do not isolate the Palestinians. And those small settlements will be withdrawn as soon as the Palestinians ever decide to make peace.

georgeob1 wrote:

Finally Israel build a wall enclosing the West Bank Palestinian population in about half of the former West Bank territory.

Wrong again. The Separation Fence will only carve off about 10% of the West Bank, leaving the other 90% to the Palestinians.

georgeob1 wrote:

The Ghetto and Bantustand analogies I posted are entirely accurate, contrary to your assertion.

Not at all. The Separation Fence will break the highlands into northern and southern halves for the Palestinians, but that hardly makes for a Ghetto or Bantustand.

georgeob1 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. ...Israel can demolish Egypt and Turkey on their own

If such a war occurs Israel will face much more serious military capability than it has in any of its previousd wars.

They're good for it.

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover the tradeoffs politically and interms of our other external relations will be very challenging. Israeli air power will not be able to deter the Turks if they are serious, or even necessarily gain air superiority at all. Turkey is well-armed and is a NATO ally.

Being in NATO will not save Turkey when they start a war with Israel.

NATO is a defensive alliance.

georgeob1 wrote:

First use of nuclear weapons would be the end of israel in the international community.

I can't imagine any threat from Turkey and Egypt that would require nuclear weapons, but no. Any reaction to the use of nukes would take context into account.

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe you are also far too certain of the continued rather unqualified support for Israel by the united States. Precisely he Political classes here that were once its staunchest supporters are now decidedly opposed to continued support for such a predatory and oppressive state.

Israel is neither predatory nor oppressive. And no, mainstream America is not against Israel.

georgeob1 wrote:

Often the current Administration continues to spout the standard rhetoric that nothing has changed, however their actions make it very clear that our suport for Israel has become very conditional and is far from assured.

Obama's support for Israel is hardly "conditional and far from assured".

Early in his first term, Obama did foolishly try to pressure Israel into halting settlement construction for 10 months without compensation, but he quickly learned that he doesn't have the power to bully Israel or treat them unfairly, and he modified his position to giving them a large stockpile of 5000-pound bunker busters in exchange for the 10 month freeze, which they then agreed to.

Since that first gaffe, Obama has been pretty reasonable in his support of Israel.

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover this is an increasingly popular view here, as you can perhaps note from the views expressed on this and other like threads.

Anti-Semites like IzzyThePush are certainly loud when they screech their hate, but that loudness should not be confused for popularity.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own stupidity

oralloy wrote:
You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own evilness.

Why do these two phrases seem to be your go to statement when someone disagrees with you?

It probably seems that way because you are not paying much attention to what I am replying to.

I have never used those lines in response to "someone disagreeing with me".

mysteryman wrote:

Even if you are correct about whatever you are debating, when you use these lines it ruins your credibility and your case.

I disagree.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

What's wrong with Palestine being a modern, multi-cultural democracy that isn't based on one ethnicity?

(I would ask the same question for Israel.)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, Don't you already know? When a poster resorts to ad hominems over providing credible challenges, they've already admitted they lost.

It is so funny to see you say that. You are always casting ad hominems. What a hypocrite you are!

1 Reply

@Advocate,

I agree with you there.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

If Israel claims to be a Zionist State, what type of state will a Palestinean state claim to be? Meaning, will only Palestineans live there? Juden frei (Jew free)? So, how come there are non-Jews that live in the Zionist state with citizenship. Something might be wrong with this picture, for those that are intellectually honest. Help me out here.

You make a pretty good point there, in that the Islamists among the Palestinians are just as sectarian as the Orthodox Jews. However, you can't deny Israels concerns about maintaining the strong demographic and political dominance of Israel by Jews and its permanent status as "a homeland for Jews". There were substantial numbers of Christians ( Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic) in Palestine before the conflict started, but the majority has since fled - and this has occurred more in Israel than in the Palestinian areas.

Horrible as it was, the Holooucaust was not a unique event in the sad history of Humanity (except perhaps for the macabre 'modern efficiency' with which the murders were done). Many cities, tribes or other populations have been wiped out in wars and conquests over the last millenium. The key issue here is does the occurrence of such an event justify the permanent oppression of other people who had little to do with the original crimes. I think the answer to that is clear.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Horrible as it was, the Holooucaust was not a unique event in the sad history of Humanity (except perhaps for the macabre 'modern efficiency' with which the murders were done). Many cities, tribes or other populations have been wiped out in wars and conquests over the last millenium. The key issue here is does the occurrence of such an event justify the permanent oppression of other people who had little to do with the original crimes. I think the answer to that is clear.

The Palestinians are not being oppressed, much less permanently.

If the Palestinians had been willing to make peace before today, they would already have a state based on 1967 borders.

If the Palestinians are ever willing to make peace in the future, they'll be able to have a state on the land left over after Israel takes what they want.

If the Palestinians are never willing to make peace, the consequences of that are their own fault.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The Palestinians are not being oppressed, much less permanently.

The Palestinian population in the West Bank (or what is left of it) lives in a fictitious state with no direct physical contact with any state other than Israel. Israel controls it air and water rights, and the movement of people and goods through it. Fot the first 40 years after the 1967 war the IDF controlled every aspect of the lives and movements of the Palestinian population without ever giving tem a voice in their governance. That is oppression.

oralloy wrote:

If the Palestinians had been willing to make peace before today, they would already have a state based on 1967 borders.

That is a lie. Israel NEVER proposed to hand over the West Side of the Jordan Valley and the western heights above it, the city of Jerusalem, or the buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. Israel routinely exaggerates the size of the portions of the West Bank it "offers" in a Peace settlement. The now famous Barack offer during the Clinton Presidency widely touted as 90% of the West Bank turned out to be 90% of what Israel decreed as negotiable, but only 50% of the area of the West Bank.

oralloy wrote:

If the Palestinians are ever willing to make peace in the future, they'll be able to have a state on the land left over after Israel takes what they want.

Here you have, perhaps inadvertantly, revealed Israel's real strategy. Unfortunately what Israel wants appears to grow with time.

oralloy wrote:

If the Palestinians are never willing to make peace, the consequences of that are their own fault.

That's very close to Hitler's rationalizations of his program for the Jews of first Germany, and later all of Europe. That too provides an insight to this matter. In a truly ghastly irony, Israel is imposing on the Palestinians who had no role in the European oppression of Jews, a pretty good imitation of what was inflicted on them in Europe, and is rationalizing it with very similar rhetoric.. The attitudes towards Palestinian human beings implicit in your remrks are every bit as hateful as were those expressed by the Nazis.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If the Palestinians are never willing to make peace, the consequences of that are their own fault.

That's very close to Hitler's rationalizations of his program for the Jews of first Germany, and later all of Europe. That too provides an insight to this matter. In a truly ghastly irony, Israel is imposing on the Palestinians who had no role in the European oppression of Jews, a pretty good imitation of what was inflicted on them in Europe, and is rationalizing it with very similar rhetoric.. The attitudes towards Palestinian human beings implicit in your remrks are every bit as hateful as were those expressed by the Nazis.

Ghettoization? But no Zyklon-B. No crematoriums. No worked to death.

Let's not get carried away with your possible penchant for dramatic comparisons, please.

In my opinion, you do not seem to have a need to empathize with the effects of having one's family barely survive the Zyklon-B/crematoriums/work camps. Jews had survived ghettoization since the Middle Ages, when Christianity (aka, Catholicism) considered them persona non grata. And today, many still consider them dispensable. Who said, "how ye sow, so shall ye reap"?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

If the various west bank enclaves are not like a ghetto, I don't know what is.

I should have made a distinction between Hitler before the war and the final solution and the extermination that followed.

My point remains: the oppression of others is not a lasting remedy for previous injuries inflicted on the perpetrators. Moreover the world is moving past tribal or even ethnic states. For Israel the "Two State Solution" is merely a euphamism for continued plundering of Palestinian property, land, and life. Israel's present course is a guarantee of lasting hostility, and, in view of the relative fertility of the peoples it will not work over time. All if this is quite obvious.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If the various west bank enclaves are not like a ghetto, I don't know what is.

Splitting the highlands into northern and southern blocks for the Palestinians does not make either block an enclave or a ghetto.

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel's present course is a guarantee of lasting hostility, and, in view of the relative fertility of the peoples it will not work over time. All if this is quite obvious.

The hostility is no problem. In the extremely unlikely event that Israel ever faces an invading army that they cannot handle conventionally, they have atomic artillery shells.

As for the Palestinians, the separation fence will keep them from causing anyone much harm.

And there's not much Israel can do about the fact that the Palestinians have no intention of ever making peace. The only thing Israel can do about the hostility is defend themselves when they are attacked.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The Palestinians are not being oppressed, much less permanently.

The Palestinian population in the West Bank (or what is left of it) lives in a fictitious state with no direct physical contact with any state other than Israel. Israel controls it air and water rights, and the movement of people and goods through it.

That's basic self defense. If the Palestinians did not insist on murdering everyone, they would not have to be controlled like that.

georgeob1 wrote:

Fot the first 40 years after the 1967 war the IDF controlled every aspect of the lives and movements of the Palestinian population without ever giving tem a voice in their governance.

Wrong. The Palestinians were granted autonomy in the 1990s, back when people foolishly believed they were capable of peace.

They retain that autonomy today.

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If the Palestinians had been willing to make peace before today, they would already have a state based on 1967 borders.

That is a lie.

Wrong. A true statement cannot be a lie.

Unless it is a half truth of course, but as usual I stated the entire truth.

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel NEVER proposed to hand over the West Side of the Jordan Valley and the western heights above it, the city of Jerusalem, or the buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon.

Wrong. In late 2000 and early 2001 Israel offered the Palestinians 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and East Jerusalem as their capital.

Unfortunately the Palestinians were too busy murdering civilians to pay much attention to the negotiations, which soon collapsed.

Every bit of land under Israeli control on the Lebanese border, is legitimately Israeli land (except for the Golan Heights of course, but that isn't about Lebanon). Of course Israel isn't going to hand their own land over to anyone.

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel routinely exaggerates the size of the portions of the West Bank it "offers" in a Peace settlement. The now famous Barack offer during the Clinton Presidency widely touted as 90% of the West Bank turned out to be 90% of what Israel decreed as negotiable, but only 50% of the area of the West Bank.

Wrong. Israel offered the Palestinians 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and East Jerusalem as their capital.

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If the Palestinians are ever willing to make peace in the future, they'll be able to have a state on the land left over after Israel takes what they want.

Here you have, perhaps inadvertantly, revealed Israel's real strategy. Unfortunately what Israel wants appears to grow with time.

It is more of a fallback strategy.

What Israel wants has remained pretty consistent.

As far as what they "want", they'd clearly like the entire West Bank, given the fact that it is their ancient homeland.

But all they are planning to "take" is the 10% of the West Bank that is west of the Separation Fence.

georgeob1 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If the Palestinians are never willing to make peace, the consequences of that are their own fault.

That's very close to Hitler's rationalizations of his program for the Jews of first Germany, and later all of Europe.

Not close at all.

Hitler's victims were innocent people who never harmed anyone. The Palestinians like to murder civilians for fun.

And Hitler systematically exterminated his victims. All Israel does is engage in lawful self defense when people attack them.

georgeob1 wrote:

That too provides an insight to this matter. In a truly ghastly irony, Israel is imposing on the Palestinians who had no role in the European oppression of Jews, a pretty good imitation of what was inflicted on them in Europe, and is rationalizing it with very similar rhetoric..

Nope. Israel's self defense against Palestinian aggression is not even remotely like anything the Nazis did.

georgeob1 wrote:

The attitudes towards Palestinian human beings implicit in your remrks are every bit as hateful as were those expressed by the Nazis.

The Palestinians refuse to make peace, and they murder civilians for fun. My comments just reflect that reality.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Wrong. Israel offered the Palestinians 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and East Jerusalem as their capital.

Even if you take the Israelian view: your response IS wrong! Barak stated that he offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with some Palestinian control ("custody")over Eastern Jerusalem.Source

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Even if you take the Israelian view: your response IS wrong! Barak stated that he offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with some Palestinian control ("custody")over Eastern Jerusalem.Source

That article refers to an offer from the summer of 2000 (July 18 specifically, according to the article).

The offer of "custody" was regarding the Temple Mount. The July 18 offer would have allowed the Palestinians to have East Jerusalem as their capital.

The 97% offer came later, around January 2001.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

...Moreover the world is moving past tribal or even ethnic states...

This morning I woke to BBC news telling of the burning of the homes of 300 Moslems by Buddhists. I forgot where, since I was just waking up.

I do not agree with your statement above. In fact, it is the tribal identities that function in place of a national identity in quite a few places on Earth. Peace on Earth may only be on the lips of certain people.

In my opinion, you seem to give little credence to the intractability of virulent anti-Semitism in the world. So, as long as there are people of Jewish descent that choose to subscribe to their minority religion, a Zionist state is quite valuable as a survival tool. And, if their neighbors (aka, Arabs) think that those Jews are just sitting on their land, the problem will go on.

Lastly, your post above, in my opinion, is sort of autocratic, since it just implies that all should get with the program of your version of modernity. Not exactly a toleration for the ambiguity of human groups. We cannot all be one big Mason Lodge, so to speak.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

I agree that sectarianism and tribal intolerance are not dead in this world. Indeed they appear particularly virulent in the Islamic world right now.

However, the modern world is increasingly relatively indifferent to these things. It's not that benign tolerance is growing there, rather that it is becoming indifferent to these distinctions. A result is that Israel's stance puts it in increasingly stark contrast to the rest of the modern world, though perhaps in keeping with the prevailing temperment of its neighborhood.

I guess my point is that this is likely not an advantageous situation for Israel, either relative to the modern world, or to the (hopefully) emerging class of modern folks in the Islamic world, who will increasingly guide its future.

2 Replies

Palestinian Statehood, a Travesty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know