|
If Right of Return is off the table then there will need to be some other way of compensating the Palestinians not in the West bank or Israel.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why can't Israel set a limit on the number of returnees in that case?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The Palestinian people are in a deeply unenviable position. Even so, having governance (limited) over their territories is a huge first step to becoming fully independent. I am sure if I looked I could find concessions that Israel has made, token and otherwise. Regardless, working with Israel is their only hope of achieving true independence. They achieved limited governance over their own territories as part of the Oslo Accords and that is genrally regarded as a large scale set-back for Palestinian independence. It legitimised the Israeli occupation and although this was supposed to be a temporary measure with the palestinians being granted independence by 1999, that obviously never happened and the limited governance over their own territories involved the trade off of entrenching the far more expansive governance of their territories by Israel - the exact opposite of what they wanted. quote:In my assessment the Camp David offers were sincere. And failing to achieve an agreement because of East Jerusalem and Right of Return are poor reasons not to have an agreement. The right of return wasn't one of the larger sticking points at Camp David and Arafat was willing to trade-off there in return for compromises (which didn't appear). East Jerusalem was an issue, as were settlements in the West Bank, the status of the Haram Al-Sharif and other areas. This is because these issues are very very important to Palestinians and in some cases Muslims everywhere such as with there Haram Al-Sharif where no Palestinian leader is likely to make concessions there because it would be viewed as selling out all of Islam. You also seem to be implicitly blaming the Palestinians here, which is ridiculous when an agreement is a bi-lateral process. Israel also rejected the Palestinian offers and the Israelis were the ones asking for things which have for decades been deemed as illegitimate basis for peace by the international community. quote:But I am so far removed from this conflict that I just don't have any emotional investment in it at all. If the Palestinian people feel that violence is their best course of action then so be it. But we will still be having this exact same conversation ten years from now. They will not achieve independence through violence. They have a chance with diplomacy, it will suck and it will hurt a lot but the path is there. Israel is currently lead by a PM who has been filmed bragging about how he ruined any chance of the Oslo peace accords working and campaigned for re-election on the basis of no peace. I feel it is absolutely naive and ill-informed to think that peace is available and the Palestinians are just choosing not to take it. Also in many conflicts like Northern Ireland and South Africa peace has been attained by using violence to push the opposing force towards a situation where they are willing to compromise. quote:Considering the tone of this thread I doubt I will post here again. The idea that Israel is actively pursing a policy of genocide I find to be just so absurd. Personally I don't say they're going for genocide, although I am happy to point out the very clear evidence that they're enacting a policy of ethnic cleansing. However arguments of genocide aren't that far out there and I think there are two fairly obvious arguments to make in regards to Israel enacting genocide (even if I don't support them personally): 1) Using the maximalist definition of genocide. The exact definition of genocide has never really been codified and some experts go for very broad definition which doesn't require huge eprcentages of the population to be wiped out. 2) Looking at the expected results of their policies. For instance the destruction of their infrastructure, control over natural resources and the ongoing siege have contributed to a situation where Gaza is expected to be uninhabitable within a few years. If you're trapping people within a giant open air prison then rendering that area uninhabitable to human life - the end result is genocide. There is still time for things to change, but the current direction and set of policies enacted by Israel could end up causing a genocidal situation. I feel it is possible to disagree with the notion that Israel is pursuing a policy of genocide, but I would by no means call it absurd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
happy rosh hashanah
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Incidentally كل عام و انتم بخير. Its Islamic new years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
It's a conflicting, probably mutually exclusive goal if your focus is on ending settlements and establishing a state. If that's what you want to do, a centrist party can realistically win an Israeli election on a platform from withdrawing from most of area C, supporting a two state solution, and a financial compensation package for refugees. There's no scenario where a coalition supporting a full right of return could win a Knesset majority. Therefore, supporting it or tactics like BDS just enables the Israeli right. The status quo in American and hence world politics will not change - Clinton is significantly more pro-Israel than Obama, and any Republican challenger in four years will be doubly so. Therefore, in terms of maximizing Palestinian quality of life and maintaining the best chance for an independent state, Abbas's strategy is markedly correct in the face of dubious counterfactuals. Better to have a chance at something than to be guaranteed nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Funny, the way I see it, the whitewashing of the Israeli occupation by the Democratic establishment is all the more reason to speak out for what is right. Seriously, what are you advocating? For the proponents of peace to shut up and hope the scumbags who've led us down this road will somehow lead us to a better future?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
i am nothing but a jew
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:A good post and respectful post. I could have a decent and functional discussion with you. Would probably learn a few things too. But considering the new avatar I earned, I'm just not. Its a shame. Enjoy your echo chamber. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's a conflicting, probably mutually exclusive goal if your focus is on ending settlements and establishing a state. If that's what you want to do, a centrist party can realistically win an Israeli election on a platform from withdrawing from most of area C, supporting a two state solution, and a financial compensation package for refugees. There's no scenario where a coalition supporting a full right of return could win a Knesset majority. Therefore, supporting it or tactics like BDS just enables the Israeli right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Funny, the way I see it, the whitewashing of the Israeli occupation by the Democratic establishment is all the more reason to speak out for what is right.  Obama tells Netanyahu of U.S. concern on settlements, urges peace quote:President Barack Obama told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday he had concerns about Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank and hoped the United States could still help to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace. Doesn't get more establishment than the President, does it? Nor is this the first time Obama has publicly emphasized his concerns over Israeli settlement activity. And the official position of the United States on the settlements for decades has been that they're illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I could have a decent and functional discussion with you. Would probably learn a few things too. But considering the new avatar I earned, I'm just not. Its a shame. Edit: Doesn't change the fact that a good number of people in power in the Democratic Party are rabidly resistant to anything that might be seen as pressuring Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/nyregion/cuomo-new-york-israel-boycott-bds-movement.html?_r=0 quote:Wading into a delicate international issue, Mr. Cuomo set executive-branch and other state entities in opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or B.D.S., which has grown in popularity in some quarters of the United States and elsewhere, alarming Jewish leaders who fear its toll on Israel’s international image and economy. Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Palestinians overwhelmingly support right of return and consider it a key issue. For Palestinian politicians or negotiators, dropping right of return is the same as political suicide. I find it a bit annoying that whenever these threads pop up, a lot of people argue exclusively with the political will of the US and Israel in mind, leaving out Palestinians almost completely and minimising their agency. Palestinians don't just exist in relation to Israel. I'm making a descriptive claim, not a normative one. Palestinians are largely irrelevant to US political discourse, and the US has a veto over world affairs. Hence, they have no ability for redress and that is unlikely to change. Beyond that, regardless of abstract public opinion, Fatah has proven willing to negotiate away this point. And if you think this direct choice was presented, what would the public choose? Cugel the Clever posted:Funny, the way I see it, the whitewashing of the Israeli occupation by the Democratic establishment is all the more reason to speak out for what is right. If you're a proponent of peace, e.g., the cessation of hostilities, then why argue for something that is literally the definition of an obstacle to peace? If you look at any international consensus on the framework of a deal, the majority have them caving on this. Your position is akin to saying that there should be permanent conflict. Your logic also makes no sense. Gaza is pretty strong evidence that Abbas's tactics in the West Bank are masterful in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The Palestinian people are in a deeply unenviable position. Even so, having governance (limited) over their territories is a huge first step to becoming fully independent. I am sure if I looked I could find concessions that Israel has made, token and otherwise. Regardless, working with Israel is their only hope of achieving true independence. The Camp David offers sucked - they were just a particularly "generous" flavor of the one-and-a-half-state solution, and the "Palestine" they proposed would have been divided into four or five separate pieces separated by strips of Israeli territory (complete with checkpoints and border police) and would have lacked control over its own foreign borders, among other things. Self-governance, by itself, isn't a step toward anything - it's a long-preferred colonialist tactic, along with encouraging sectarian divisions and then playing kingmaker among them. It's a tactic that goes back hundreds of years, setting up collaborationist governments reliant on the occupier's support. Kim Jong Il posted:It's a conflicting, probably mutually exclusive goal if your focus is on ending settlements and establishing a state. If that's what you want to do, a centrist party can realistically win an Israeli election on a platform from withdrawing from most of area C, supporting a two state solution, and a financial compensation package for refugees. There's no scenario where a coalition supporting a full right of return could win a Knesset majority. Therefore, supporting it or tactics like BDS just enables the Israeli right. Wait, are you saying Israel, which chased out the Palestinians in the first place, isn't keen on letting them return? What a shocker! Especially since you list such generous conditions like "willing to let the Palestinians have most of the land they currently control".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:
"Here are tons of money and weapons. By the way, we don't like what you're doing, but we will unconditionally support you on all your endeavors, even those we officially disapprove of. Have a free missile refill."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Here are tons of money and weapons. By the way, we don't like what you're doing, but we will unconditionally support you on all your endeavors, even those we officially disapprove of. Have a free missile refill." I've said it before and I'll say it again...the most likely outcome of the I/P issue is that the world powers allow Israel to continue to annex Palestinian land with settlements until there is nothing left, since nobody has the political will to stop them otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Here are tons of money and weapons. By the way, we don't like what you're doing, but we will unconditionally support you on all your endeavors, even those we officially disapprove of. Have a free missile refill." I think it clear that to term the President's numerous public statements expressing concern over settlements while maintaining official US government policy deeming them illegitimate a "whitewashing" is a clear mischaracterization. Even for someone who adopts a more extreme position on the issue and who finds the US's policy towards Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict profoundly wrong should be able to concede that. R. Mute posted:Palestinians overwhelmingly support right of return and consider it a key issue. For Palestinian politicians or negotiators, dropping right of return is the same as political suicide. I find it a bit annoying that whenever these threads pop up, a lot of people argue exclusively with the political will of the US and Israel in mind, leaving out Palestinians almost completely and minimising their agency. Palestinians don't just exist in relation to Israel. While this is, on balance, incorrect I agree that there is a tendency to emphasize Israeli decision-making. But that's the inevitable byproduct of their overwhelming military superiority, Israel has the power to enforce its desired solution on Palestinians rather than the other way around. So any real consideration of a peace plan has to give a great deal of weight to what Palestinian demands the Israelis will accede to, and it goes without saying that an unrestricted or maximalist 'right of return' is not one of those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I think it clear that to term the President's numerous public statements expressing concern over settlements while maintaining official US government policy deeming them illegitimate a "whitewashing" is a clear mischaracterization. Even for someone who adopts a more extreme position on the issue and who finds the US's policy towards Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict profoundly wrong should be able to concede that. Kim Jong Il posted:If you're a proponent of peace, e.g., the cessation of hostilities, then why argue for something that is literally the definition of an obstacle to peace? If you look at any international consensus on the framework of a deal, the majority have them caving on this. Your position is akin to saying that there should be permanent conflict.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I think it clear that to term the President's numerous public statements expressing concern over settlements while maintaining official US government policy deeming them illegitimate a "whitewashing" is a clear mischaracterization. Even for someone who adopts a more extreme position on the issue and who finds the US's policy towards Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict profoundly wrong should be able to concede that. The settlements are a core part of a policy by which the native inhabitants of the land are forced off of it to be replaced by an alternate ethnically and religiously homogeneous group which is supported by the state. This is a policy of ethnic cleansing. President Obama is concerned about the settlements. This is an example of whitewashing because simply stating that you are concerned is not the appropriate reaction to an abhorrent war crime. Especially when this is looked at in the wider context of things like providing Israel with massive amounts of military aid to help them continue their ethnic cleansing and providing them with political cover so they don't have to come to a peaceful accommodation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Are you saying the Emperor of the Imperial United States of America doesn't get to define foreign policy according to his desires?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
If Obama was really concerned about the settlements, he'd suspend financial and military aid to Israel until said settlements are dismantled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
If it's about caring, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose that your President has more important things to care about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
The standard Democratic position on the settlements is to nominally oppose them, while vehemently opposing any attempt to hold Israel accountable for continuing to build them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:If it's about caring, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose that your President has more important things to care about. Obviously not, because this cropped up because Obama is already getting involved. He was "raising concerns" about the settlements and gave a record breaking military aid packages to Israel. He can obviously fit this into the list of things he manages to care about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If Obama was really concerned about the settlements, he'd suspend financial and military aid to Israel until said settlements are dismantled. Because those are things that are not legislatively set, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because those are things that are not legislatively set, obviously. Aren't they? I would expect at least some of it is done through the executive branch, like State/Defence Department's Foreign Military Sales program.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Aren't they? I would expect at least some of it is done through the executive branch, like State/Defence Department's Foreign Military Sales program. There are eligibility requirements (iirc if we determine there was a coup they're ineligible, for example) but it's not really clear that the executive branch can just deny service. Another thing to keep in mind is that the funding acts as a carrot, not as a stick - There's not much reason why Israel couldn't just as easily align itself with Russia, be neutral to Iran, and start denouncing the Saudis as the global threat, for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Israel always maintained good relations with Russia (a lot of Israeli are of ex-soviet origin after all), but they'd have a hard time pivoting on their position wrt. Iran. Iran itself doesn't really seem inclined to become friendly with Israel all of a sudden.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because those are things that are not legislatively set, obviously. The executive has its ways. For example, in the most recent military aid deal, there was a clause saying that if Congress gave Israel more money than the deal stipulated, Israel would return the extra.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Happy Jewish New Year from MK and Former Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIU2TdGdyU8 Trigger warning: these are quite literally the ramblings of a man struggling against the onset of dementia, it's also 17 minutes long, you can find the transcript here: https://www.facebook.com/AmbassadorOren/videos/1223095051087560/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED Apparently thinking that God opposes the settlements is a form of paganism or some poo poo, dude's bananas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Happy Jewish New Year from MK and Former Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren - Hahaha I saw this on Facebook. This is Jewish Evangelism, I'm pretty sure. Dude has serious issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Obviously not, because this cropped up because Obama is already getting involved. He was "raising concerns" about the settlements and gave a record breaking military aid packages to Israel. He can obviously fit this into the list of things he manages to care about. Waging what amounts to a political civil war both with your own party and the legislative assemblies of the state takes a bit more than going down a list "ooh, I haven't done this yet". I don't think it's fair to blame the man for not managing both that and efficient management of the state at the same time. I thought you'd have learned a lesson about the actual political mobility of the American state with that congress budget crisis thing a while back, and yet here you are demanding leadership from a leader without power to even pass a budget without prolapsing the whole political apparatus along the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Waging what amounts to a political civil war both with your own party and the legislative assemblies of the state takes a bit more than going down a list "ooh, I haven't done this yet". I don't think it's fair to blame the man for not managing both that and efficient management of the state at the same time. I thought you'd have learned a lesson about the actual political mobility of the American state with that congress budget crisis thing a while back, and yet here you are demanding leadership from a leader without power to even pass a budget without prolapsing the whole political apparatus along the way. That's not a case of not having time, it's a case of conflicting priorities and choosing to legitimise war crimes and human rights abuses because it's politically convenient. Obama has had some golden opportunities to take a new position and change the narrative on Israel, like in any one of the several episodes where Netanyahu has repudiated the USA and its policies. "It's too difficult to do anything but accept and enable war crimes" is not a valid excuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
"Change the narrative" what the gently caress does that even mean? Make more concerned statements? THreaten to veto legislation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:That's not a case of not having time, it's a case of conflicting priorities and choosing to legitimise war crimes and human rights abuses because it's politically convenient. If there's one thing you should have picked up over the last eight years, it's that Obama does not have the ability to "change the narrative" on anything, and most unilateral action he takes could easily be rolled back by his successor. His own relationship with Netanyahu is notoriously bad, but you've completely departed from reality if you think a president that can't even close Guantanamo is able to single-handedly dismantle our long relationship with Israel. We need a Congress to pull away from Israel, not just the executive. Within the confines of what he is able to do, he's done a decent job of reframing our relationship with Israel - there have been some noteworthy changes in US diplomatic tone toward Israel under his administration, and the recent aid agreement that stipulates that Israel must reject any attempt by Congress to circumvent it is a rare feat indeed. But at this point, we should probably be looking at what the next president means for Israel, rather than the current one. Hillary has generally positioned herself as more pro-Israel than Obama has been, and Trump has been all over the map on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
In the news: a single, half-assed Jihadi rocket leaves a pothole in Sderot, IDF holds Hamas accountable and launches multiple airstrikes.quote:Israeli warplanes struck Hamas sites in the northern and southern Gaza Strip on Wednesday afternoon, in the second such attack of the day after a rocket fired from the coastal enclave struck Sderot, according to Palestinian media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
"anxiety attacks" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:"Change the narrative" what the gently caress does that even mean? Make more concerned statements? THreaten to veto legislation? Main Paineframe posted:If there's one thing you should have picked up over the last eight years, it's that Obama does not have the ability to "change the narrative" on anything, and most unilateral action he takes could easily be rolled back by his successor. His own relationship with Netanyahu is notoriously bad, but you've completely departed from reality if you think a president that can't even close Guantanamo is able to single-handedly dismantle our long relationship with Israel. We need a Congress to pull away from Israel, not just the executive. "Change the narrative" means exactly what it implies. The widely accepted US discourse of Israel needs to be shifted so it's more in line with other Western nations. Here's my logic: 1) Israel is very unlikely to accept peace with the Palestinians unless America draws it's nearly unconditional support. 2) America is very unlikely to withdraw its near unconditional support without significant political backing. 3) Politicians are very unlikely to enable the withdrawal of near unconditional support without popular backing. 4) There is no popular backing for withdrawing near unconditional support from Israel as the population buys into a fairly unique narrative and disproportionately favours Israel in relation to other countries. People in the USA have a disproportionately Pro-Israeli view, being far more positive about Israel than typical Western nations. They are far more likely to not raise issue with Israeli war crimes, to defend Israeli actions as just and to want to continue support Israel. Therefore to enact positive change in regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the US narrative needs to be changed. The POTUS is the most powerful and influential figure in the world, with the world's largest pulpit. Could he magically change everyone's minds? No, obviously not. But would legitimate criticism of Israeli atrocities and war crimes help push the discourse in the right direction after decades of treating Israel with kids gloves and give instant legitimacy to avenues of discourse that would otherwise be ignored? How could it not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Ok that's really cool and it's great that you admit that it's actually the People whose views are the problem here, but I don't really see how those are Obamass responsibility, or how figuratively screaming "come at me bro!" at the pulpit is going to result in anything but political chaos. Democratically elected leaders don't have a responsibility to challenge people's views even if they are wrong. That's the responsibility of the civil society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:In the news: a single, half-assed Jihadi rocket leaves a pothole in Sderot, IDF holds Hamas accountable and launches multiple airstrikes. "Terror installations belonging to the Hamas terror group" A Hamas terror terrorist went to the terror market to buy a new terror toothbrush. Cugel the Clever posted:Because the best way to ensure Hamas has the capacity to fully police the territory it holds and limit the strength of third-parties is to strike Hamas, apparently. They loving did the exact same thing with the PA, bombing prisons, police stations, etc. and then complaining about terrorists escaping from a prison they destroyed and not caught back by the policemen they killed, so they bombed Palestinians some more to teach them a lesson. It's all just a pretext to satisfy their thirst for genocide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:53
|
|