|
Kim Jong Il posted:Violence radicalizes populations. Kim Jong Il posted:We should stop enabling right with ethno-nationalists who exploit violence to win at polls, and You come so close to getting it but then you just drive straight into a loving wall.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's not hard - if Palestinians want to end "pinkwashing", they can try not being virulently anti-gay. Disinterested posted:You can argue about causation but the visit was intended as a provocation and it was taken as one; that it escalated is probably tribute to Arafat's lack of control of Palestinian militants who were more radical and wanted a fight. There was also the fact that the IDF and Israeli police reacted to the resulting protests with terrorism; they opened fire on protesters, killing well over a hundred before any major Palestinian violence erupted. When two reserve IDF officers who got lost in the West Bank were killed by a mob of infuriated Palestinians despite the efforts of PA police to protect them, Israel responded by bombing PA police stations and jails, another act of terror. This also made Palestinian violence inevitable since the entire point of the Oslo arrangement was to make the PA responsible for policing and repressing violence in area A. The subsequent failure of the police forces Israel bombed to maintain order was then used as as a pretext for even further attacks. As Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami put it, Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami posted:Israel’s disproportionate response to what had started as a popular uprising with young unarmed men confronting Israeli soldiers armed with lethal weapons fuelled the intifada beyond control and turned it into an all-out war Also, there is a repeated pattern here: quote:
Kim Jong Il posted:My argument was that the Gaza disengagement was not directly provoked by violence. It was borne of good intentions and self interest in a relative lull. Arafat was gone, Sharon was tired of the occupation and looking to end it. That's not at all what happened. If Sharon's intentions with this strategic withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was to promote peace, why did he do it without consulting the Palestinians and why did he immediately place the Gaza Strip under blockade (well before Hamas' taking power), placing it in an economic death spiral? The purpose of the withdrawal was entirely cynical and had nothing to do with alleviating the colonization of pre-67 Palestine. For one thing, it was accompanied by a massive expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, such that there were more illegal settlers at the end of the year than at the beginning. Gaza was too densely-populated and resource-poor to make a continued land presence sustainable; there was no Jordan Valley and no way to separate the Gaza into segregated, easily-locked-down bantustans liked in the West Bank. Moreover, the withdrawal from Gaza was also seen as a way to further fracture the Palestinian movement and make a peace agreement even more out-of-reach, as Sharon's right hand man admitted: "Dov Weisglass posted:"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz. quote:All violence has accomplished for Gaza and Hamas is a mountain of human suffering. They are materially, unequivocally worse off. The West Bank was utterly peaceful for well over a decade and all they got was more apartheid checkpoints, more walls, more racially-motivated land seizures, more apartheid. The Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in '48 have been waiting peacefully for 69 years for their internationally-recognized right to return home to be recognized by Israel. And yet, all this peacefulness results in nothing but more suffering. Palestinian non-violent protests are regularly met with lethal force and the abduction and torture of political activists. Violence certainly isn't the answer, but Israel ensures that non-violence isn't an answer either. That's because as Amos Gilad put it, "We don't do Gandhi well." BattleMoose posted:Don't polls consistently show that a majority of Israeli's support a two state solution? The devil has always been in the details, East Jerusalem, Right of Return and so on... I always took it in good faith that when people say, "they support a two state solution" that they do in fact mean a real two state solution. In theory, yes. But for there to be a two-state solution, at the very least, Palestine needs to have an undivided West Bank, control over the Jordan Valley and East Jerusalem(its cultural and economic capital, though special arrangements certainly could be made for the Haram Al-Sharif.) Without that, there is no functional Palestinian state or even "state-minus" in Netanyahu's words. Unfortunately, roughly 3/4 of Israeli Jews oppose a meaningful 2-state solution, including a majority of Labour voters. That's why external pressure, such as that of BDS, is absolutely necessary: this apartheid state is not going to reform itself unless it is forced to through the intercession of the international community and a vigorous, non-violent and democratic civil-rights movement among the Palestinians. quote:He first won election in 1996 after a wave of Hamas violence He won after a far right-wing zealot murdered Rabin (who, despite his reputation for being a dove, was also a war criminal responsible for the massacre of Lydda and the violent repression of protests during the 1st Intifada) for signing the Oslo Accords and the Israeli public reacted by voting for his arch-enemy who promised to sabotage the agreement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You're drawing precisely the wrong conclusion. You say this, then go on to explicitly support his conclusion but with as much blame thrown at Hamas for the cause of the violence as possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Why not? East Jerusalem and Right of Return have been the critical issues that have caused every peace talk to fail. Feel free to correct me on the details, but as far as I am aware the Palestinians haven't been prepared to meaningfully compromise on "right of return" or East Jerusalem. You could certainly argue that neither has Israel. In that event, these are issues that neither side is prepared to meaningfully compromise on. You could argue that both sides are torpedoing the peace talks before the even begin because neither side is prepared to compromise on these two issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:East Jerusalem and Right of Return have been the critical issues that have caused every peace talk to fail. Feel free to correct me on the details, but as far as I am aware the Palestinians haven't been prepared to meaningfully compromise on "right of return" or East Jerusalem. You could certainly argue that neither has Israel. In that event, these are issues that neither side is prepared to meaningfully compromise on. You could argue that both sides are torpedoing the peace talks before the even begin because neither side is prepared to compromise on these two issues. While there's more to be said here, one big flaw with your logic is that it only makes sense if the conditions in question are somehow neutral (in the sense of being neither right nor wrong). Regarding Right of Return, at the very least, Israel doesn't really have a leg to stand on. East Jerusalem was also effectively annexed, so Israel doesn't seem to really be in the right there either. Put another way, you also have to examine how reasonable the demands each side makes are. Two sides don't somehow become equally culpable just because they can't resolve a disagreement; that doesn't make any sense. While one could argue that the Palestinians should accept an deeply unfair resolution for pragmatic reasons, it still doesn't make sense to focus criticism on them in such a case. And it always seems that most of the people who feel the need to talk about Palestinians' "unreasonable/unpragmatic" decisions almost never focus on Israel (not necessarily accusing you of this, but it's an extremely common strategy I've seen).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Only one of the parties has a negotiating position contrary to every international agreement and undertaking involving those and practically every other item.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
The question I am trying to answer is, "Is there a viable two state solution that is being (or has been) offered (by either party) or in which there is room for negotiation on?" It hasn't worked because of Demands of "East Jerusalem" and "Right of Return". Neither side is ready to meaningful compromise on these issues, failures for reaching a peace settlement at the very least, belongs in both camps. quote:Regarding Right of Return, at the very least, Israel doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Perhaps, but they won't budge on this issue, for obvious reasons. Is there a viable two state solution which doesn't include "Right of Return"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Palestine refuses to give in to Israel's demand to "stop hitting yourself", we're at an impasse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 07:32
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The question I am trying to answer is, "Is there a viable two state solution that is being (or has been) offered (by either party) or in which there is room for negotiation on?" These aren't the only issues, but, transparently, no. There is no political desire for it in Israel. But to phrase it like you do implies that the blame is entirely collective, rather than examining who is being either unjust or intransigent. The reality is and always has been that the only just and acceptable settlement will have to revolve around the 67 border, a negotiating position more readily accepted by Hamas (of all organisations) than Israel in recent years. Without the United States being willing to force Israel to the table like it did with Madrid, and the collective acceptance of Hamas as a broker, there's no hope at all of a process on that basis beginning. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:These aren't the only issues, but, transparently, no. There is no political desire for it in Israel. How so? To say that there is no political desire for it in Israel I could and equally point out that there is no desire for it in Palestine, for whatever "it" is in this scenario. quote:The reality is and always has been that the only just and acceptable settlement will have to revolve around the 67 border, a negotiating position more readily accepted by Hamas (of all organisations) than Israel in recent years. The specific discussion about borders seem so moot as talks never get past East Jerusalem or Right of Return. quote:But to phrase it like you do implies that the blame is entirely collective, rather than examining who is being either unjust or intransigent Its a negotiation between two very hostile peoples. Israel is very intransigent on right of return. So is Palestine. This did not help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Again, you're acting as if both sides are equally at fault. That is a transparent falsehood that in reality sets up Palestinians to have to do all of the compromise, just in order to achieve a totally hollow settlement.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Also, news flash: the talks do get beyond those issues to borders and Jerusalem is conjoined with the border issue. It's all conjoined. Every disputed element of the talks involved specific grievances of individuals and very specific and concrete borders and rights as defined in numerous instruments. Guess which wants to walk away from this as a basis for determining the outcome of the talks.
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:East Jerusalem and Right of Return have been the critical issues that have caused every peace talk to fail. Feel free to correct me on the details, but as far as I am aware the Palestinians haven't been prepared to meaningfully compromise on "right of return" or East Jerusalem. You could certainly argue that neither has Israel. In that event, these are issues that neither side is prepared to meaningfully compromise on. You could argue that both sides are torpedoing the peace talks before the even begin because neither side is prepared to compromise on these two issues. Arafat was willing to compromise in 2000/2001 on the right of return, allowing only a fairly token return to Israel on the basis that the rest could return to a Palestinian state. I can source the quote for that and check in on how the discussions on East Jerusalem went later when I have some free time, though I might have already posted them in this thread before or one of its predecessors. Also it's faulty to view this as something where both sides are equally in the wrong. Although there will need to be compromises in many areas, that doesn't apply to East Jerusalem certainly and Right of Return arguably where Palestinians are meant to have unalienable rights where there should be no negotiation. In terms of the core matters that need to be agreed, Israel is asking Palestinians to give up their inalienable rights on pain of continued oppression if they refuse. Israel is being asked to stop committing war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:15
|
|
To quote from the definitive take on the talks Clinton led, the failure of which Clinton and mainstream bad journalists have wrongly blamed on Arafat: quote:Seen in the light of international law, it is to be noticed that the “trade-offs” Ross ticks off require fundamental concessions from Palestinians, but none at all from Israel: Disinterested fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Arafat was willing to compromise in 2000/2001 on the right of return, allowing only a fairly token return to Israel on the basis that the rest could return to a Palestinian state. I'll just start up my BattleMoose simulator right here. Have you considered that maybe the Palestinians shouldn't force Israel to commit war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Found it from earlier in the threadteam overhead smash posted:No official details of Arafats peace discussions summit have been released, but two separate journalists released books after speaking to the people on both sides of negotiations which got praise from the Israeli and Palestinian sides for their accuracy. Clayton E Swisher's The Truth About Camp David states: So the Palestinians were certainly willing to compromise on Right of Return. It's also worth mentioning that the Arab Peace Plan that Israel refuses to engage with only calls for a just resolution to the refugee problem, purposely allowing flexibility on the issue rather than calling for a right of return. Disinterested posted:To quote from the definitive take on the talks Clinton led, the failure of which Clinton and mainstream bad journalists have wrongly blamed on Arafat: What's that from?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:42
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Found it from earlier in the thread http://www.palestine-studies.org/jps/fulltext/41832 Finkelstein's review of Ross's book, which has been the most influential take on the talks alongside Clinton's memoir.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
israel is just a chunk of the continental shelf governed by men, and those men like all rulers worship money above g-d. like the rest of the world the tribe of judah is caught in a long and terrible fall. the state of israel is a legal necessity and the land of israel is precious to me, but in the end it's just rock and soil - human blood is always worth more than anything else under heaven
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
ziggurat posted:israel is just a chunk of the continental shelf governed by men, and those men like all rulers worship money above g-d. like the rest of the world the tribe of judah is caught in a long and terrible fall. the state of israel is a legal necessity and the land of israel is precious to me, but in the end it's just rock and soil - human blood is always worth more than anything else under heaven you've been sorely missed. welcome back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
(american) shabbat shalom, friends e: looks like i'm a few hours late but gently caress it i can't be expected to memorise these things
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
Regarding the notion that the 1967 borders (with E Jerusalem included) are a maximalist demand, that always puzzles me, like how? How do people manage to convince themselves that there' s a compromise to be made when the 67 borders were already the result of giving up a ton of ground during the previous 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
in the aftermath of the holocaust we put our faith in land, money and politics, not in g-d; modern israelis will inevitably pay for the crimes of their leaders, each generation of leader crueller and blinder than the less, with the exception of ariel sharon, who in his final years was blessed with insight but unable to remedy the damage he did in his youth with the little time he had left
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Neither the ANC nor the Afrikaner NP are willing to budge on whether black people can leave the bantustans, clearly both sides are equally at fault for apartheid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Regarding the notion that the 1967 borders (with E Jerusalem included) are a maximalist demand, that always puzzles me, like how? How do people manage to convince themselves that there' s a compromise to be made when the 67 borders were already the result of giving up a ton of ground during the previous 20 years. Because the vast majority of the international community supports a two-state solution and does so on the basis of the 1967 borders, making that the effective territorial ground state for negotiating proposals. It's not really an objective standard, but neither would any other starting point be. Disinterested posted:To quote from the definitive take on the talks Clinton led, the failure of which Clinton and mainstream bad journalists have wrongly blamed on Arafat: As has been pointed out, that's just a brief review of the Dennis Ross book by Finkelstein. It's Ross's book which is generally regarded as the "definitive take" and Finkelstein is, unsurprisingly, extremely critical of its conclusions and arguments. Finkelstein's screed isn't the definitive take on Camp David any more than the most important American novel of the 19th century is a Sparknotes study guide for Moby Dick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:40
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Regarding the notion that the 1967 borders (with E Jerusalem included) are a maximalist demand, that always puzzles me, like how? How do people manage to convince themselves that there' s a compromise to be made when the 67 borders were already the result of giving up a ton of ground during the previous 20 years. Firstly, if you're not on the PR offensive you're on the defensive. Casting Palestine as permanently in the wrong, as the intransigent obstacle to peace, obscures the fact that Israel occupies that role. Mutatis mutandis, constantly harping on about how small and surrounded Israel is largely serves to hide the truth that Israel long since put the boot on the other foot and became a gigantic regional superpower capable of easily crushing all of its neighbours. Secondly, the concessions Israel will one day have to make for a just peace do involve concrete losses to Israel and Israelis, and would come at the cost of vast political damage, particularly given the need for Likud to govern in coalition with parties like Shas and Jewish Home. Thirdly, because the United States is a hegemon, and radically influences everyone's perceptions - and the United States has been a very firm friend of Israel. Bill Clinton has gone to great effort to blame the Palestinians for their own misfortune, and ran from the right against HW Bush on a number of policies, including Israel (HW having threatened to refuse to honour Israeli loan guarantees without peace talks -- the most aggressive an American has ever been with Israel). Fourthly, because I think there is a widespread fear that conducting peace talks on the basis of Palestinian legal rights will just inevitably lead to an avalanche of claims against Israel, and that any concessions it makes will only be a first step towards further concessions. Fifthly, because the Palestinians have no leverage, and therefore are utterly exploitable. Lastly, because it is just part of the ideological makeup of Likud and the Israeli security establishment to create and maintain the state of Israel as an irrefutable material fact and to rely on its enemies tiring of fighting it and sullenly admitting defeat. That has been the strategy for a long time. Do the unthinkable, permission or ethics be damned, and let everyone complain afterwards as long as Israel is safe and intact, preferably in as much of Eretz Yisrael as possible. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot Disinterested fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:45
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Because the vast majority of the international community supports a two-state solution and does so on the basis of the 1967 borders, making that the effective territorial ground state for negotiating proposals. It's not really an objective standard, but neither would any other starting point be. Good job on utterly failing to understand the question posed. The Insect Court posted:As has been pointed out, that's just a brief review of the Dennis Ross book by Finkelstein. It's Ross's book which is generally regarded as the "definitive take" and Finkelstein is, unsurprisingly, extremely critical of its conclusions and arguments. Finkelstein's screed isn't the definitive take on Camp David any more than the most important American novel of the 19th century is a Sparknotes study guide for Moby Dick. I note the total lack of content to this criticism in the face of an extremely well-sourced and well-argued takedown of that ghastly book, which alleges that Palestinians have a 'sense of entitlement' and merely a 'perception' that they should be allowed to reclaim even a fraction of what was unarguably stolen from them with the full support of every moral and ethical standard, not to mention the law. At least we can agree that the take down is unsurprising - but it is unsurprising because it is correct. Go away, TIC, you've never had the least thing to offer to the conversation in this thread. The notion, by the way, shared by many on the right wing side of this question, that Finkelstein represents a radical view, is absolutely hilarious. That criticism, when leveled at his academic work, has always been a joke. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I note the total lack of content to this criticism in the face of an extremely well-sourced and well-argued takedown of that ghastly book Given the following two documents: 1) An 800-page book written by a diplomat with first-hand knowledge of the negotiations in question which is generally considered to be one of the best available sources(and which, by the way, criticizes Israeli leaders including Netanyahu extensively) 2) A brief polemical review of said book Then it's difficult to see why #2 should be considered the "definitive take", other than that you prefer the conclusions of #2. quote:The notion, by the way, shared by many on the right wing side of this question, that Finkelstein represents a radical view, is absolutely hilarious. By anything remotely approaching an impartial viewpoint then yes, the author of "The Holocaust Industry" represents a radical view. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Because the vast majority of the international community supports a two-state solution and does so on the basis of the 1967 borders, making that the effective territorial ground state for negotiating proposals. It's not really an objective standard, but neither would any other starting point be. Even by your logic, that makes no sense. How can the "effective territorial ground state" be a maximalist demand? quote:As has been pointed out, that's just a brief review of the Dennis Ross book by Finkelstein. It's Ross's book which is generally regarded as the "definitive take" and Finkelstein is, unsurprisingly, extremely critical of its conclusions and arguments. Finkelstein's screed isn't the definitive take on Camp David any more than the most important American novel of the 19th century is a Sparknotes study guide for Moby Dick. This applies to Disinterested too, but saying something is the definitive take without any evidence is fairly meaningless. Even then something being the definitive take should only be a guideline as it should be detailed and evidenced enough for people to critically analyze it on its own merits. Finkelstein's points seem valid from what I can see. Ross criticising that the Palestinians for viewing the OPT as their territory (albeit under occupation) is particularly mind blowing as according to international law it is Palestinian territory. Personally I'd say either of the two books I quoted further back would be considered the definitive takes on their relevant talks. Put together from details provided by all sides in negotiations and verified as accurate by both Israelis and Palestinians who were there. Seems better than a short book review or a one-sided personal memoir that is written based on a single person's notes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 11:20
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Given the following two documents: Fine, accept the view that I'm editorialising the issue. Then present a single argument about why the Ross book is good with reference to its arguments and not the authors in question, or about why the review is wrong. That review, by the way, was the basis of a monograph.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:By anything remotely approaching an impartial viewpoint then yes, the author of "The Holocaust Industry" represents a radical view. That's not how evidence based arguments work. You don't just decide that someone is a radical and therefore all their views are radical. "The earth revolves around the sun" doesn't become a radical point just because a 'radical' person says it. If either Finkelstein or Ross are making invalid points, it should be possible to quote these points and explain how they are wrong - citing evidence to back up why. In fact this is the very approach Finkelstein took in his review!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
A less editorialising view would be that Shattered Dreams is the bookshelf-filler of choice on this subject, and I should note that that book is also much more critical of Israel than the Ross account. I should note at the same time that other first hand accounts of the talks exist, and that one of is that of Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was minister of foreign affairs, and who is probably more critical of Israel at Camp David than Finkelstein (who largely sticks to the legal issues).
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:
Consulting with Fatah is not necessarily a precursor for peace - Israel could unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow. Is there evidence they didn't talk at all? He did not immediately place Gaza under blockade. There were sanctions after Hamas won elections in 2006, and they were tightened to the current level after Hamas took power. quote:The purpose of the withdrawal was entirely cynical and had nothing to do with alleviating the colonization of pre-67 Palestine. I didn't claim otherwise, and this doesn't contradict my claim. quote:The West Bank was utterly peaceful for well over a decade and all they got was more apartheid checkpoints, more walls, more racially-motivated land seizures, more apartheid. What time period are you referring to? You're not going to win any points by citing "apartheid" or 1948 refugees. They're both political non-starters who serve to torpedo any chances of actually getting Israel to withdraw from the majority of area C. And no, Munich, Black September, Lebanon, etc... don't exactly refer to "waiting peacefully." That doesn't mean they're all guilty, but it doesn't mean they're all European social democrats like you're implying. quote:Violence certainly isn't the answer, but Israel ensures that non-violence isn't an answer either. That's because as Amos Gilad put it, "We don't do Gandhi well." Actual non-violence worked very well in the 1990s. There's been a lot of violence since then, and actual non-violence has been crowded out by fake solutions that necessitate massive ethnic cleansing, like the goals of the BDS movement in returning refugees and establishing a binational state. quote:He won after a far right-wing zealot murdered Rabin (who, despite his reputation for being a dove, was also a war criminal responsible for the massacre of Lydda and the violent repression of protests during the 1st Intifada) for signing the Oslo Accords and the Israeli public reacted by voting for his arch-enemy who promised to sabotage the agreement. Peres pulled a Theresa May. He had a huge lead due to the sympathy vote over Rabin, that was destroyed by Hamas bombings. You can argue that Israel provoked the Hamas bombers by assassinating one of their leaders, but to deny that Peres had a lead and the bombings made him look weak and lose support, and that voters were equivocally endorsing assassinating Rabin is laughable. Netanyahu still barely won. If we're going to exclude all former terrorists, then Arafat could never participate in government, Mandela never could, Abbas was a Holocaust denier, etc... It doesn't matter what they did before, it matters constructively what they can do now. Otherwise, I'd love to hear why you think Barghouti should rot in jail for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The question I am trying to answer is, "Is there a viable two state solution that is being (or has been) offered (by either party) or in which there is room for negotiation on?" Of course there is. Oslo continued with Barak, it was back under Olmert, and the Obama administration was trying to revive it two years ago. It's not brain surgery what the deal will have to look like. There are some stickling points like the exact Jerusalem municipal maps and what settlements Israel gets to keep (e.g., it's not realistic for them to keep Ariel.) Israel is going to trade parts of the Galilee and Negev for the settlement blocs in East Jerusalem and right across the Green Line. Most of Al Quds is going to be the Palestinian capital, including the Temple Mount, while Israel keeps the Western Wall, Jewish Quarter, Mount Scopus, etc... Only a small symbolic amount of Palestinian refugees will be allowed to return to Israel. There will be a fund set up for refugee claims on both sides. To think any other outcome would or could ever happen is preposterous, which is why it's so infuriating that this has gone on forever with such an outrageous humanitarian cause. There is only one solution that could ever possibly work, anything else is just outlandish posturing by right wing ethno nationalists on both sides. Disinterested posted:To quote from the definitive take on the talks Clinton led, the failure of which Clinton and mainstream bad journalists have wrongly blamed on Arafat: This argument would only work if the ICLJ has binding powers to do anything. Those are indeed significant concessions by Israel because they have de facto control, which there are countless precedents in international relations to show is a really important thing. Do you think Turkey will sign a peace treaty on Cyprus without getting concessions? Russia will on Transnistria, Ukraine, South Ossetia, etc..? Never mind cases like Kurdistan, Tibet, Turkestan, etc... which are clearly unjust but allowed due to the current conventions of international statecraft. We negotiate with unjust aggressors all the time, this is an established principle. You yourself said that the Palestinians have no leverage, and I haven't seen anything realistic to suggest that the US will turn on Israel any time soon despite a lot of wishful thinking under Obama. The EU has done nothing and has their own problems to deal with. Fatah's erstwhile Sunni allies have grown considerably closer in the last decade with Israel due to Iran and general greed. So where exactly is the roadmap to forcing Israeli concessions? There's no realistic way for peace outside of the Oslo framework.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
All that boils down to, again, is an argument that might is right. The Israelis have made it so there's nothing in it for the Palestinians to accept the terms they offer, so they struggle on in hope of some eventual deliverance. Palestinians have already offered concessions that Israelis refuse to accept as sufficient, including accepting large settlement blocs, most of Israeli control of Jerusalem, and limiting right of return. It's not enough for Israel. That doesn't mean the Palestinians should just accept that the only thing that matters is what Israel wants. Every single set of talks, including Oslo, has involved Palestine negotiating away something to get virtually nothing in return, and all that's done is reduce Palestinian leverage in the next round of talks. They're essentially stuck waiting for America to stop picking up Israel's tab. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Consulting with Fatah is not necessarily a precursor for peace - Israel could unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow. Is there evidence they didn't talk at all? The definition of the word 'unilaterally'. quote:He did not immediately place Gaza under blockade. There were sanctions after Hamas won elections in 2006, and they were tightened to the current level after Hamas took power. Eh, kind of but not the full story. Sanctions and import/export restrictions were in place well before Hamas won the elections and had been for a looooooooong time. Two months prior to the election the restrictions were going to be like loosened somewhat by the Agreement on Movement and Access between Israel and the PA but Israel went back on that and tight end restrictions again following Hamas's victory. quote:I didn't claim otherwise, and this doesn't contradict my claim. When you said that it was done for good intentions, some may have thought you were referring to respect for the basic dignity of Palestinians and he desire to grant them freedoms that are their universal human right. Obvs not and the good intention was to help Israel. quote:You're not going to win any points by citing "apartheid" or 1948 refugees. They're both political non-starters who serve to torpedo any chances of actually getting Israel to withdraw from the majority of area C. What are you talking about? Points? Torpedoing chances with Israel? Do you think something awful forums poster FreshlyShaven is actually negotiating with Israel? He was responding to you and "People tried peace and got massively hosed over", to paraphrase his argument, seems a legitimate rebuttal and not one you can just try to handwave away in this really strange and nonsensical manner? quote:Actual non-violence worked very well in the 1990s. By what metric? quote:There's been a lot of violence since then, and actual non-violence has been crowded out by fake solutions that necessitate massive ethnic cleansing, like the goals of the BDS movement in returning refugees and establishing a binational state. Returning refugees to the country they have been ethnically cleansed from is the opposite of ethnic cleansing, you massive racist idiot. Also BDS doesn't try to establish a binational state. The overarching group leaves it up to the individual branches to decide if they have a stance on the how of refugees returning and anecdotally they tend towards a two state solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:This argument would only work if the ICLJ has binding powers to do anything. Those are indeed significant concessions by Israel because they have de facto control, which there are countless precedents in international relations to show is a really important thing. "I will make the concession of only stealing half your poo poo if you don't call the cops on me" - example of a great concession taking place. So give us these countless precedents then. Also before you go "Oh the USA doesn't give back land to Native Americans" please remember you are meant to be giving examples of international law, with laws not applying retroactively before they were made due to the principle of nulla poena sine lege quote:Do you think Turkey will sign a peace treaty on Cyprus without getting concessions? Russia will on Transnistria, Ukraine, South Ossetia, etc..? Never mind cases like Kurdistan, Tibet, Turkestan, etc... which are clearly unjust but allowed due to the current conventions of international statecraft. We negotiate with unjust aggressors all the time, this is an established principle. You seemed to have missed the point being made, so this isn't really relevant. The quotes not that compromises should not be expected to occur, it's saying that the point of view of the supposedly neutral party acting as an arbiter is skewed and viewing things as compromises when they aren't that at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If we're going to exclude all former terrorists, then Arafat could never participate in government, Mandela never could, Abbas was a Holocaust denier, etc... It doesn't matter what they did before, it matters constructively what they can do now. Otherwise, I'd love to hear why you think Barghouti should rot in jail for the rest of his life. It's like there's a difference between those militants who are in a powerless, defenseless faction fighting against injustice; and militants who are in a powerful, oppressive faction fighting to promote their racial supremacy over their colonial territory, but you know what, I guess both sides are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
I think I found a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. All Israeli Jewish settlers and Israeli Muslims simply switch places, and Israel leaves the West Bank so it can officially become the Palestinian state. In addition Israel gets to pass a law that says only Jews can be citizens of Israel. This is a win for the Palestinians because they get an independent state consisting of the entire West Bank, and a win for Israel because they can finally stop worrying about Israeli Muslims outnumbering Jews and making Israel not a Jewish state anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
qkkl posted:I think I found a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. All Israeli Jewish settlers and Israeli Muslims simply switch places, and Israel leaves the West Bank so it can officially become the Palestinian state. In addition Israel gets to pass a law that says only Jews can be citizens of Israel. This is a win for the Palestinians because they get an independent state consisting of the entire West Bank, and a win for Israel because they can finally stop worrying about Israeli Muslims outnumbering Jews and making Israel not a Jewish state anymore. Thanks qkkl could you write this in crayon and fax to Zionist HQ? Tia
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
The electricity crisis is biting hard in Gaza. Currently down to about 2.5 hours of electricity per day with medical services especially struggling to cope. The situation is expected to get worse in the next few weeks as generator fuel runs out. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2017/06/gaza-electricity-crisis-170618112834986.html Seems to have been caused by an agreement between the PA and Israel this Sunday which helps both sides. PA pays less for Gazan services and both sides have the benefit of weakening and delegitimising Hamas. Shame about the people that will suffer and die! As the occupying force, this is certainly another war crime on Israel's part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 07:48
|
|