Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Political Talk Political Talk Forum - Discuss and debate politics


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 19th, 2011, 10:20 PM   #1
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,865
The Palestinians have forced Israel's hand. Israel, with its brutal and ineffective strategies, hasn't ONE moral leg to stand on. Simply, Abbas is calling Netanyahu's bluff. Abbas is declaring Palestinian independence.



Israel's actions, above all else, have resulted in the isolation of Israel.



And the Obama administration has said it will line up with Israel. Bad move....



Quote:

Diplomats: Israel failed to prepare for Palestinian statehood bid



Diplomatic sources say diverting Palestinian initiative from diplomatic center stage would have been impossible; some commentators say repercussions of initiative could have been toned down.

By Shlomo Shamir





NEW YORK - The neglect and negligence Israel has demonstrated in its activities at the United Nations have helped turn the unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence into an international event, said diplomatic sources in New York on Monday.



There is no doubt that it is impossible to stop the declaration that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to make in his speech on Friday to the UN General Assembly. But veteran commentators in New York are of the opinion that the international repercussions that the Palestinian initiative has created, even before being officially presented, could have been toned down.



PA leader Mahmoud Abbas and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Photo by: AFP



It would have been impossible to divert the Palestinian initiative from the diplomatic center stage and kept it in perspective, said diplomatic sources who asked not to be identified.



"For almost a year, Israel has abandoned the UN forum and not responded to the vigorous activities of the Palestinians and their supporters in New York in preparing for the declaration of independence at the present General Assembly session," said a senior official at the UN.



"The Palestinians have labored for months with the aid of senior representatives from Arab delegations and have prepared the groundwork for support for the declaration of an independent state, and Israel has completely ignored their actions," he added.



Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, is considered an excellent professional diplomat and enjoys a special advantage, as many senior diplomats at the UN know him and remember him fondly from his tenure as director-general of the Foreign Ministry. But Prosor took up his post in New York less than three months ago. When he started his intensive round of meetings with other ambassadors as part of the Israeli attempt to block the rising tide of support for the Palestinian initiative, the Palestinians had already guaranteed the vast majority that is expected to vote in favor of a Palestinian state.



The official responses from Jerusalem to the growing sympathy for the Palestinian cause in the UN were to a large degree responses that demonstrated Israel's unpreparedness for the reality created at the UN - and in some cases reflected hysteria.



"Israel needs to and is capable of responding in a moderate and restrained fashion to the Palestinian initiative; and in that way, it can minimize in advance the enormous support the initiative created," said diplomatic sources in New York.



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to travel to New York and speak in the framework of the General Assembly debate was a mistake and looked more like an act of panic than a carefully thought out move, said the sources.



"The prime minster's presence at the UN and the fact that he will be in New York while the Palestinian president presents his declaration will only strengthen the impression made by the Palestinian leader and strengthen the impression of the Palestinian move as an international event," said the sources in New York.



According to the sources, as head of the Israeli delegation at the UN, Prosor and not Netanyahu should represent Israel. A speech by an ambassador within the framework of the debate was not expected to draw the enormous media exposure that would work in this case against Israel, the sources said. "Netanyahu's rhetorical talents will not help Israel's affairs and will fall on deaf ears," they said.




http://www.haaretz.c...od-bid-1.385407
imaginethat is online now  
Remove Ads
Old September 20th, 2011, 03:16 PM   #2
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
What's the problem with giving Palestine statehood?
garysher is offline  
Old September 20th, 2011, 04:28 PM   #3
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
What's the problem with giving Palestine statehood?


Ask Obama....



Quote:

U.S. Moves to Delay Vote on Palestinian Statehood



UNITED NATIONS—The U.S. and its European allies plan to delay a U.N. Security Council vote on Palestinian membership well beyond this week in a bid to revive direct peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis and sidestep an American veto, said officials briefed on the talks.



President Barack Obama will meet with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders Wednesday in a last-ditch effort to dissuade the Palestinians from seeking U.N. recognition at the Security Council.



...But U.S. and European diplomats said they expected Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to make good on his pledge to formally apply for U.N. membership Friday through the Security Council, after his speech here before the annual General Assembly.



...Palestinian officials said they expected the U.S. to aggressively lobby the Security Council to vote against their initiative, or to abstain from voting, to deny Mr. Abbas the nine notes needed. Mr. Obama and other senior U.S. officials argue that the U.N. initiative would undercut longer-term efforts to forge peace in the Mideast.




http://online.wsj.co...2745601114.html
imaginethat is online now  
Old September 20th, 2011, 04:50 PM   #4
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
I don't get it
garysher is offline  
Old September 20th, 2011, 07:49 PM   #5
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,865
Israel, a very small country with a small population, an "ally" that has never done anything but cause trouble for the US, has a great number of US politicians by the cajones.
imaginethat is online now  
Old September 20th, 2011, 07:55 PM   #6
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Israel, a very small country with a small population, an "ally" that has never done anything but cause trouble for the US, has a great number of US politicians by the cajones.




That part I get but I don't understand why the US opposes making Palestine a state in its own right? We have talked about a two state solution for 20 years why not get it done?



I assume because we don't like Hamas and consider them to be terrorists
garysher is offline  
Old September 20th, 2011, 08:05 PM   #7
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 24,904
This is the promised land. Never mind who the fuck it was promised to.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old September 20th, 2011, 08:49 PM   #8
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1316576957' post='355868

Israel, a very small country with a small population, an "ally" that has never done anything but cause trouble for the US, has a great number of US politicians by the cajones.




That part I get but I don't understand why the US opposes making Palestine a state in its own right? We have talked about a two state solution for 20 years why not get it done?



I assume because we don't like Hamas and consider them to be terrorists


"Terrorist" certainly is in the eye of the beholder.
imaginethat is online now  
Old September 21st, 2011, 07:28 AM   #9
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1316577320' post='355869

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1316576957' post='355868']

Israel, a very small country with a small population, an "ally" that has never done anything but cause trouble for the US, has a great number of US politicians by the cajones.




That part I get but I don't understand why the US opposes making Palestine a state in its own right? We have talked about a two state solution for 20 years why not get it done?



I assume because we don't like Hamas and consider them to be terrorists


"Terrorist" certainly is in the eye of the beholder.

[/quote]





Hamas is responsible for terrorist activities but they are also the democratically elected govt of part of Palestine!



This situation exposes embarrassing inconsistencies in US foreign policy



And by vetoing Palestinean statehood the US appears to be thwarting the positive energy generated by the Arab Spring.
garysher is offline  
Old September 21st, 2011, 10:38 AM   #10
Banned
 
Ray Kaye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: With God....of course!
Posts: 3,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1316576957' post='355868

Israel, a very small country with a small population, an "ally" that has never done anything but cause trouble for the US, has a great number of US politicians by the cajones.




That part I get but I don't understand why the US opposes making Palestine a state in its own right? We have talked about a two state solution for 20 years why not get it done?



I assume because we don't like Hamas and consider them to be terrorists


*** I don't like you and I consider you to be a terrorist.
Ray Kaye is offline  
Old September 21st, 2011, 10:49 AM   #11
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Israel, a very small country with a small population, an "ally" that has never done anything but cause trouble for the US, has a great number of US politicians by the cajones.


Back when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and when he invaded Kuwait, he said that he was going to give Kuwait to the Palestinians. He would have renamed Kuwait at "Province 19". The Palestinians didn't want Kuwait/Province 19. They'd rather be in their own homeland instead, where Israel is. Actress Vanessa Redgrave even suggested that Israel be overthrown.
highway80west is offline  
Old September 21st, 2011, 11:16 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
This situation shows the true colors of our I-P policy.....we really don't support a two-state solution but would rather the Israeli apartheid state continue indefinitely.



If we had a sane foreign policy the US would back the move for independence 100%.
skrekk is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2011, 07:26 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 46
I believe that neither the US, Obama or Israel has much legitimacy here. First of all Obama says that there is no shortcut to Palestinian statehood. But Palestine is already a state even though they are occupied and not recognized by the US or Israel. And if the US veto's they only deny they're right to participate equally in negotiations in the UN both about the Israel-Palestine conflict and about other things not directly related to the conflict. Israel has for decades been responsible for the worst warcrimes in the 21'st century. They have been enforcing apartheid, segregation and discrimination. And they have been occupying a free state and have been working against the democracy of a free country. The US have been supporting Israel in these act against human rights with weapons and public support. Obama has not done anything to stop this.



Palestine is a nation which wants democracy, freedom, sovereignty, safety and peace. True that Hamas is also an elected party and i do strongly condemn they're use of weapons. But they want a state that provides equal right's for the people. And they are not an imperialistic or capitalistic army like the US, NATO and Israel, they are a peoples army. Good cause horrible methods. But let's not let the wrongdoing of Hamas as an army ruin the rest of their'e cause which is good. And let's not forget what is best for the Palestinian people. A state that undermines their'e democracy, tears down their'e houses so they can replace them with Jewish houses, a state that has been sending rockets completely blindly towards their'e cities and that is stopping their'e welfare system. Or a state that wants equal rights for education, health and welfare, power to the people and freedom of speech?



Even though i respects Israels right as a state i would say that they are less of a legitimate state then Palestine. Not to mention the fact that they are denying Palestine's right to get accepted as a state trough the UN even though Israels own existence as a state is down to the fact that the UN just decided to "Remove" Palestine and put in a new state there. Which is much more to ask for than being a recognized as a state that has been existing for decades.
Freedom_42 is offline  
Old September 27th, 2011, 03:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
This situation shows the true colors of our I-P policy.....we really don't support a two-state solution but would rather the Israeli apartheid state continue indefinitely.



If we had a sane foreign policy the US would back the move for independence 100%.


So, let’s say for argument sake, the US votes "YES" for full statehood for Palestine, and the state of Palestine is acknowledged by the UN. What do you think will happen if nothing changes on the ground regarding the current Israeli and Palestinian relationship and Israel's and Palestinian policies and actions in the occupied territories and Israel?



I think Abbas' maneuver will likely jump-start the stalled peace talks, as a result. But, I think Abbas' action at the UN carries a significant risk that, if talks go nowhere, and the status quo remains, the Palestinians will become even more likely to defend Hamas’ more violent approach to this decades-old confrontation.



Indeed, I think Abbas’ action effectively backs the Quartet into a corner in which it has to come up with an agreement at the eleventh-hour that must address a decades-old set of issues…or otherwise millions of Palestinians could become entirely disenchanted with the international system called the “UN” and resort to the only action left for them after negotiations have ceased: violence.



In short, I seriously don't think this UN move by Abbas will secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians any more effectively than peace was secured between the Palestine Mandate Jews and Arabs in '48 when Israel was recognized by the very same international system, the UN.



Instead, Abbas' action at the UN-if the State of Palestine is recognized by the UN, that is-could make the situation in Palestine and Israel much worse.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old September 28th, 2011, 05:31 AM   #15
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1316632582' post='356025

This situation shows the true colors of our I-P policy.....we really don't support a two-state solution but would rather the Israeli apartheid state continue indefinitely.



If we had a sane foreign policy the US would back the move for independence 100%.


So, let’s say for argument sake, the US votes "YES" for full statehood for Palestine, and the state of Palestine is acknowledged by the UN. What do you think will happen if nothing changes on the ground regarding the current Israeli and Palestinian relationship and Israel's and Palestinian policies and actions in the occupied territories and Israel?



I think Abbas' maneuver will likely jump-start the stalled peace talks, as a result. But, I think Abbas' action at the UN carries a significant risk that, if talks go nowhere, and the status quo remains, the Palestinians will become even more likely to defend Hamas’ more violent approach to this decades-old confrontation.



Indeed, I think Abbas’ action effectively backs the Quartet into a corner in which it has to come up with an agreement at the eleventh-hour that must address a decades-old set of issues…or otherwise millions of Palestinians could become entirely disenchanted with the international system called the “UN” and resort to the only action left for them after negotiations have ceased: violence.



In short, I seriously don't think this UN move by Abbas will secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians any more effectively than peace was secured between the Palestine Mandate Jews and Arabs in '48 when Israel was recognized by the very same international system, the UN.



Instead, Abbas' action at the UN-if the State of Palestine is recognized by the UN, that is-could make the situation in Palestine and Israel much worse.


Israel's reaction:



Quote:
Israel approves 1,100 new homes in east Jerusalem





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



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



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



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



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



The Palestinians have demanded that Israel halt all settlement construction in east Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank -- territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war -- as a condition for resuming peace talks.
http://www.boston.co...tlement_freeze/



Good ol' Israel, our "ally...."
imaginethat is online now  
Old October 9th, 2011, 03:07 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Good ol' Israel, our "ally...."




...as if NOT being an ally of Israel would actually change matters much. I seriously doubt it would.





Quote:

Back To The Negotiating Table?



The Palestinians’ UN bid last month doesn’t seem to have done anything to advance the peace process, much less secure a state. If anything, the UN stunt may have set things back.



The UN announcement was never meant as an exercise in state-building – Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad is the one actually doing that work — but as a PR gambit. Frustrated by slow progress in negotiations — where Palestinian weakness has a hard time offsetting Israeli strength on the ground — the Palestinians sought to transfer the action to the UN forum where the Palestinians have more clout. It’s an understandable response to a very difficult situation, and Palestinian leaders like other people have to take their public opinion into account, but the UN can vote all it wants and it won’t get the Palestinians what they really want and need.



The hard work of peace building, which requires forging a competent government and spurring economic development (as Fayyad has done in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza unequivocally does not) and the grind of compromise, is no fun. Many Palestinians believe that twenty years of negotiations since the Oslo agreements have brought them no progress. This is not true: the Palestinian Authority is a proto-state that is steadily achieving attributes of statehood, and the Israelis have made much larger offers than many thought possible when negotiations began.



The road to peace — which will still be winding and long — leads inexorably back to the same negotiating table that the Palestinians walked away from in (again, understandable) frustration. At that table, Israel is the stronger party and, as has been the case in negotiations through history, the relative strength of the parties will inevitably shape the resulting agreement. Israel exists because the Palestinians and their allies have been repeatedly defeated in war, and Palestinians, like it or not, are coming to the table to reach an accommodation following strategic defeat. There is no settlement available on the terms they ‘really’ want; that kind of settlement would only be possible after Israel is defeated by the Palestinians.



The basic Palestinian strategy since 1948 has been to refuse to accept the political consequences of military defeats then and in 1967 while appealing to Arab and world public opinion in the hope that global political pressure will do what more conventional weapons cannot. The basic Israeli strategy has been to hold on to the “facts on the ground” and use its military superiority to threaten the Palestinians with the prospect of more losses of territory if they do not accept what the Israelis are prepared to put on the table.



Palestinians want the final agreement to be about ‘justice’ — as they see it; Israelis have their own ideas about justice, think the two sides won’t agree on that, and in any case want the settlement to be about ‘facts’. This has been the basic argument between vanquished and victor in every negotiation for thousands of years; read how the Athenians and the Melians argued during the Peloponnesian War.



Now we see that Israel is welcoming, with the usual frustrating reservations, the international Quartet’s proposal to restart peace talks. From the Washington Post:


[indent=1]Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says Israel “welcomes the Quartet’s call for direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions” but said it has unspecified “concerns” about the proposal.[/indent]




To go back to the table without a settlement freeze means the Palestinians accept another defeat in their strategy of mobilizing the world against Israel’s policy of ‘facts on the ground’. For many Israelis, to offer a settlement freeze as a precondition for negotiations is to drop what they see as their most effective weapon in getting the Palestinians to negotiate at all.



Both sides have found strategies that inflict significant costs on their opponents. Israel hates the international isolation that Palestinians have been able to create around it. Palestinians fear the settlements that the continued negotiating impasse constructs in what remains of their land. In a sense, both strategies are succeeding and failing at the same time. Israel is more politically isolated than it used to be; Palestine keeps getting smaller. Each suffers the consequences of the others success — but neither is willing to give up the fight.



Both sides continue to see negotiations as a way of conducting their struggle, rather than as a way to end it. Neither side at this point thinks the other really believes in or is ready for a peace their opponents can accept; both are trying to make the international community blame the other side for the absence of an agreement.



There is some chance that a lot of maneuvering and fancy dancing by the US and its partners can get both sides back to some kind of table; there is almost no chance that those talks will lead to peace anytime soon. We can manipulate both sides into pretending to negotiate by finding ways to threaten each side with the appearance of responsibility for continuing conflict; in more than a century the world has not found a way to get these two nations to agree.



Despite the costs, both the Israelis and the Palestinians still seem to believe that they do better sticking to their core strategies than by giving them up. Until that changes, this conflict won’t end.


http://blogs.the-ame...otiating-table/
baloney_detector is offline  
Old October 9th, 2011, 04:52 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,282
I'll add that I think this Palestinian matter at the UN is more of a side show compared to what fallout could occur in Syria when Assad's regime is toppled.



What happens there could send significant rippeling effects throughout the Middle East.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old October 9th, 2011, 07:35 AM   #18
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1317216663' post='357675

Good ol' Israel, our "ally...."




...as if NOT being an ally of Israel would actually change matters much. I seriously doubt it would.





Quote:

Back To The Negotiating Table?



The Palestinians’ UN bid last month doesn’t seem to have done anything to advance the peace process, much less secure a state. If anything, the UN stunt may have set things back.



The UN announcement was never meant as an exercise in state-building – Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad is the one actually doing that work — but as a PR gambit. Frustrated by slow progress in negotiations — where Palestinian weakness has a hard time offsetting Israeli strength on the ground — the Palestinians sought to transfer the action to the UN forum where the Palestinians have more clout. It’s an understandable response to a very difficult situation, and Palestinian leaders like other people have to take their public opinion into account, but the UN can vote all it wants and it won’t get the Palestinians what they really want and need.



The hard work of peace building, which requires forging a competent government and spurring economic development (as Fayyad has done in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza unequivocally does not) and the grind of compromise, is no fun. Many Palestinians believe that twenty years of negotiations since the Oslo agreements have brought them no progress. This is not true: the Palestinian Authority is a proto-state that is steadily achieving attributes of statehood, and the Israelis have made much larger offers than many thought possible when negotiations began.



The road to peace — which will still be winding and long — leads inexorably back to the same negotiating table that the Palestinians walked away from in (again, understandable) frustration. At that table, Israel is the stronger party and, as has been the case in negotiations through history, the relative strength of the parties will inevitably shape the resulting agreement. Israel exists because the Palestinians and their allies have been repeatedly defeated in war, and Palestinians, like it or not, are coming to the table to reach an accommodation following strategic defeat. There is no settlement available on the terms they ‘really’ want; that kind of settlement would only be possible after Israel is defeated by the Palestinians.



The basic Palestinian strategy since 1948 has been to refuse to accept the political consequences of military defeats then and in 1967 while appealing to Arab and world public opinion in the hope that global political pressure will do what more conventional weapons cannot. The basic Israeli strategy has been to hold on to the “facts on the ground” and use its military superiority to threaten the Palestinians with the prospect of more losses of territory if they do not accept what the Israelis are prepared to put on the table.



Palestinians want the final agreement to be about ‘justice’ — as they see it; Israelis have their own ideas about justice, think the two sides won’t agree on that, and in any case want the settlement to be about ‘facts’. This has been the basic argument between vanquished and victor in every negotiation for thousands of years; read how the Athenians and the Melians argued during the Peloponnesian War.



Now we see that Israel is welcoming, with the usual frustrating reservations, the international Quartet’s proposal to restart peace talks. From the Washington Post:


[indent=1]Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office says Israel “welcomes the Quartet’s call for direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions” but said it has unspecified “concerns” about the proposal.[/indent]






To go back to the table without a settlement freeze means the Palestinians accept another defeat in their strategy of mobilizing the world against Israel’s policy of ‘facts on the ground’. For many Israelis, to offer a settlement freeze as a precondition for negotiations is to drop what they see as their most effective weapon in getting the Palestinians to negotiate at all.



Both sides have found strategies that inflict significant costs on their opponents. Israel hates the international isolation that Palestinians have been able to create around it. Palestinians fear the settlements that the continued negotiating impasse constructs in what remains of their land. In a sense, both strategies are succeeding and failing at the same time. Israel is more politically isolated than it used to be; Palestine keeps getting smaller. Each suffers the consequences of the others success — but neither is willing to give up the fight.



Both sides continue to see negotiations as a way of conducting their struggle, rather than as a way to end it. Neither side at this point thinks the other really believes in or is ready for a peace their opponents can accept; both are trying to make the international community blame the other side for the absence of an agreement.



There is some chance that a lot of maneuvering and fancy dancing by the US and its partners can get both sides back to some kind of table; there is almost no chance that those talks will lead to peace anytime soon. We can manipulate both sides into pretending to negotiate by finding ways to threaten each side with the appearance of responsibility for continuing conflict; in more than a century the world has not found a way to get these two nations to agree.



Despite the costs, both the Israelis and the Palestinians still seem to believe that they do better sticking to their core strategies than by giving them up. Until that changes, this conflict won’t end.


http://blogs.the-ame...otiating-table/


That's a good article BD. However, the US does play a role. Israel, a prosperous country, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Israel can count on a US veto in the Security Council on any issue remotely critical to Israel. Short of F/A-22s and B-2 bombers, Israel's arsenal is rich with military technology on a par with ours, thanks to us.



And, before the last decade of "settlement" building, Israel possessed 83 percent of the former Palestine. Now, they build "settlements" in the remaining 17 percent ... breaking promises to US presidents not to do so until a peace agreement is reached.



The Palestinians may have gone to the UN as a PR stunt, but it beats the hell out of blowing up planes or Israeli citizens.



Israel is the more intransigent party here, and its intransigence is a noose it's placed around its own neck, because the millions of Palestinians are a fact, they aren't going away, and having them in their own country rather than their being Israeli citizens in the long run will be preferable for Israel.



However, the Zionists believe that Israel deserves all the territory of ancient Israel, parts of Syria and Jordan. That's never happening, but, they'll never give up believing that it should.
imaginethat is online now  
Old October 11th, 2011, 02:47 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
That's a good article BD. However, the US does play a role. Israel, a prosperous country, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Israel can count on a US veto in the Security Council on any issue remotely critical to Israel. Short of F/A-22s and B-2 bombers, Israel's arsenal is rich with military technology on a par with ours, thanks to us.



And, before the last decade of "settlement" building, Israel possessed 83 percent of the former Palestine. Now, they build "settlements" in the remaining 17 percent ... breaking promises to US presidents not to do so until a peace agreement is reached.



The Palestinians may have gone to the UN as a PR stunt, but it beats the hell out of blowing up planes or Israeli citizens.



Israel is the more intransigent party here, and its intransigence is a noose it's placed around its own neck, because the millions of Palestinians are a fact, they aren't going away, and having them in their own country rather than their being Israeli citizens in the long run will be preferable for Israel.



However, the Zionists believe that Israel deserves all the territory of ancient Israel, parts of Syria and Jordan. That's never happening, but, they'll never give up believing that it should.


Let's say, for argument sake, Israel stopped building settlements.



The next hurdle in the peace process would be the so-called "right of return" to Israel proper for Palestinian refugees who have been refugees for over 70 years...and their descendents. And, if I am not mistaken, this is a demand that the Palestinians hold, including Fatah/PA.



While I think the settlements are very counterproductive actions of Israel, I somehow doubt their ending will somehow bring peace between these (generally) two peoples.



And I fear that Abbas' move at the UN could actually backfire on him, with Palestinians flocking towards Hamas' ways of dealing with this decades-long battle over the Holy Land.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old October 11th, 2011, 09:56 PM   #20
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1318174548' post='360338



That's a good article BD. However, the US does play a role. Israel, a prosperous country, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Israel can count on a US veto in the Security Council on any issue remotely critical to Israel. Short of F/A-22s and B-2 bombers, Israel's arsenal is rich with military technology on a par with ours, thanks to us.



And, before the last decade of "settlement" building, Israel possessed 83 percent of the former Palestine. Now, they build "settlements" in the remaining 17 percent ... breaking promises to US presidents not to do so until a peace agreement is reached.



The Palestinians may have gone to the UN as a PR stunt, but it beats the hell out of blowing up planes or Israeli citizens.



Israel is the more intransigent party here, and its intransigence is a noose it's placed around its own neck, because the millions of Palestinians are a fact, they aren't going away, and having them in their own country rather than their being Israeli citizens in the long run will be preferable for Israel.



However, the Zionists believe that Israel deserves all the territory of ancient Israel, parts of Syria and Jordan. That's never happening, but, they'll never give up believing that it should.


Let's say, for argument sake, Israel stopped building settlements.



The next hurdle in the peace process would be the so-called "right of return" to Israel proper for Palestinian refugees who have been refugees for over 70 years...and their descendents. And, if I am not mistaken, this is a demand that the Palestinians hold, including Fatah/PA.



While I think the settlements are very counterproductive actions of Israel, I somehow doubt their ending will somehow bring peace between these (generally) two peoples.



And I fear that Abbas' move at the UN could actually backfire on him, with Palestinians flocking towards Hamas' ways of dealing with this decades-long battle over the Holy Land.


"Let's say" Israel stopped building "settlements"? No, as Israel's No. 1 source of foreign aid, we make it very well known to Israel what our feelings are. In fact, we do sometimes, but every time Israel does whatever it damn well wants to do all the while counting on critical UN Security Council vetos, and we never disappoint, ever.



Many Americans absolutely refuse to consider how they would feel, if their country, created by UN fiat, had nominal control over about one-third of its originally mandated land, that your "missing" land had been taken from you by another country created by the same UN fiat, and that on the small remainder of you land, still nominally under your jurisdiction or allegedly so but not really, the Israelis continually built "settlements." That's bullshit, in a word.



Abbas has strengthened his hand among the moderate Palestinians, imo.
imaginethat is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Tags
hand, palestinians, press, zionist's


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/28/2013 The White House The White House 0 January 31st, 2013 07:45 PM
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney aboard Air Force One en route Las Vegas, N The White House The White House 0 January 31st, 2013 07:45 PM
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/30/13 The White House The White House 0 January 31st, 2013 07:45 PM
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/31/2013 The White House The White House 0 January 31st, 2013 07:45 PM
PHI and proof that science and God go hand in hand? Dude111 Philosophy 0 August 23rd, 2009 12:53 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.