Israel dragging USA down

[Mr Spinkles]

Given the hostile nature of the "Palestinian" population, I see no other solution.(What? You think I'd advocate death camps?)

Oh, certainly not. You merely advocate what many European monarchs enforced on their indigenous Jewish communities for centuries, long before the Nazi death camps carried the sound logic of antisemitism one step too far.

And I do not accept your sweeping brush strokes which paint an entire population of essentially unarmed people as "hostile". This is the common theme repeated ad nauseum, but the facts show the reality is more complex. The actions of armed Israeli soldiers and settlers can be quite "hostile" towards the indigenous population as documented by Human Rights Watch . Polls show the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are in favor of peaceful means and oppose violent resistance (even more oppose rocket attacks on Israel). More Palestinian *children* have been killed in the last several years than all Israelis killed. Many Palestinians, particularly in Jerusalem, want to have Israeli citizenship and one wonders why Arab Israelis, whose rights are officially respected by the Israeli govt., are so docile, while their culturally and genetically similar brethren, whose rights are officially NOT respected by the Israeli govt., are so "hostile"? Could there be causation underlying this coincidence?

So I do not accept your premise and I also think this treating a civilian population as "hostile" in the way Israeli has chosen is self-fulfilling.

 

[kai]

I don't have the article, but when the Israeli govt. ended the freeze on illegal settlement expansion, and negotiations between Israel and the PA ended, Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post reported Abbas was considering several options. One option was to go directly to the UN. Another option was to start a new Intifadah. Then there was a third option. This option was considered by far the most threatening, from the perspective of the Israeli govt. Do you know what that option was?

That option was for Abbas to give up Palestine's quest for its own state, and simply take the position of an ethnicity oppressed by its own government, and ask to be included as equal citizens of Israel with equal rights. This was an *unthinkable* scenario in U.S./Israeli circles (excluding the Left, I mean) and it was greatly feared Abbas would do this. The drumbeat in American media about Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state (read: Jewish majority) is meant to head-off sympathies which might cause Americans to support democracy.

I would suggest that option 3 would be in effect Abbas signing his own death warrant.

 

[Caladan]

Call me really naive, but why can't Palestinians living in Israel just be given citizenship and equal rights?

They do.
we are talking about the Palestinians who are not living in Israeli territory. and even them through long years of negotiations have achieved control over their territorial affairs.

 

[Caladan]

In a democracy, such demographics would result in a bi-national state of Arabs and Jews and the land would belong equally to all citizens.

First. Israel IS a democracy by all standards. the residents of the west bank and Gaza are people who live on lands which belonged to Egypt and Jordan, just like Egypt and Jordan do not want to take these territories and their residents back into their countries, there is no realistic interest for Israel to take another ethnic group into its territory or country.
look at the former Yugoslavia today, the region is now made up of newly formed modern states. and these people were ALREADY living as one country.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They do.
we are talking about the Palestinians who are not living in Israeli territory. and even them through long years of negotiations have achieved control over their territorial affairs.

Emphasis added. No, that's not true. Israel has control over their territorial affairs (with only nominal power granted to the PA). That's why there is a conflict. As Human Rights Watch (read its report, in the link) and many other groups have extensively documented, permission from Israel must be obtained to build houses, roads, hospitals, to travel even within the territory, etc. and illegal settlements continue to expand over the objections of the West Bank. How can that happen if they control their own territory? If they had control over their own territorial affairs what are all the black triangles (settlements) and pink regions (Israeli control) doing in the West Bank on this map?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

First. Israel IS a democracy by all standards. the residents of the west bank and Gaza are people who live on lands which belonged to Egypt and Jordan, just like Egypt and Jordan do not want to take these territories and their residents back into their countries, there is no realistic interest for Israel to take another ethnic group into its territory or country.
look at the former Yugoslavia today, the region is now made up of newly formed modern states. and these people were ALREADY living as one country.

I agree Israel (not including the occupied territories) is a democracy. I would have no objection if Israel chose not to take another ethnic group into its territory. Unfortunately, Israel chooses to take the territory, while excluding the ethnic group.

 

[Caladan]

Emphasis added. No, that's not true. Israel has control over their territorial affairs (with only nominal power granted to the PA). That's why there is a conflict. As Human Rights Watch (read its report, in the link) and many other groups have extensively documented, permission from Israel must be obtained to build houses, roads, hospitals, to travel even within the territory, etc. and illegal settlements continue to expand over the objections of the West Bank. How can that happen if they control their own territory? If they had control over their own territorial affairs what are all the black triangles (settlements) and pink regions (Israeli control) doing in the West Bank on this map

I expected this kind of post.
but no. you are wrong. through negotiations. the authority over Palestinian territories has been granted to the PA. this mean that Palestinian cities are under full civil and security control of the Palestinian Authority. it means that other areas which have been before under the military administration of Israel have long gone under the administration of the Palestinian authority.
you are taking the steady progress and results of the negotiations and bring it back to the same mantra. the settlements. just like many Israelis take the agreements of the Oslo accords and use it in their political platform. mainly the claims that giving security administration to Palestinian forces has been a disaster. just like giving the Palestinians a state will be a disaster.

 

[Caladan]

I agree Israel (not including the occupied territories) is a democracy. I would have no objection if Israel chose not to take another ethnic group into its territory. Unfortunately, Israel chooses to take the territory, while excluding the ethnic group.

again. you are misinformed. Israel has withdrew from the Gaza strip and Area A in the West Bank. this also goes back to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. and no I am not talking about the disengagement of 2005.
even a decade ago when I was still a soldier, the Gaza strip was under the control of the Palestinian authority for a long time.

 

[Acim]

USA and Israel against the rest of the world seems to be the upcoming situation at the UN. Is the USA reputation going to be damaged by opposing the Palestinian bid for statehood?

What a ridiculous question. This thread has more important things to talk about.

(That are not all that international, really)

 

[Tellurian]

I expected this kind of post.
but no. you are wrong. through negotiations. the authority over the Palestinian territories has been granted to the PA. these territories are now called area A. in these territories it is the Palestinians who administrate Palestinian society, and Palestinian security personnel who are responsible for the security measures.
you are taking the steady progress and results of the negotiations and bring it back to the same mantra. the settlements.

Do you mean the Palestinians have the "authority" to tell the Israel troops of the occupation and the illegal settlers to leave the West Bank Palestinian territories?

 

[Caladan]

Do you mean the Palestinians have the "authority" to tell the Israel troops of the occupation and the illegal settlers to leave the West Bank Palestinian territories?

re-read the post.
The security administration of Palestinian cities has long been ran by the Palestinian Authority, and NOT by Israeli soldiers. it has been done through long negotiations. just like the final aim of the negotiations may be a Palestinian state, fully administrated by the Palestinians with recognised borders which will alter the current recognition of Area A, Area B, and Area C.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I expected this kind of post.
but no. you are wrong. through negotiations. the authority over the Palestinian territories has been granted to the PA. these territories are now called area A. in these territories it is the Palestinians who administrate Palestinian society, and Palestinian security personnel who are responsible for the security measures.
you are taking the steady progress and results of the negotiations and bring it back to the same mantra. the settlements.

again. you are misinformed. Israel has withdrew from the Gaza strip and Area A in the West Bank. this also goes back to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. and no I am not talking about the disengagement of 2005.
even a decade ago when I was still a soldier, the Gaza strip was under the control of the Palestinian authority for a long time.

Area C is under full Israeli control (military and civil) and constitutes 60% of West Bank land, while Area B is under Israeli military control and constitutes 22% of the land. So Israel controls 82% of West Bank territory. You are right to point out PA control of Area A and Gaza but your previous statement was very misleading: "we are talking about the Palestinians who are not living in Israeli territory. and even them through long years of negotiations have achieved control over their territorial affairs."

 

[Caladan]

Area C is under full Israeli control (military and civil) and constitutes 60% of West Bank land, while Area B is under Israeli military control and constitutes 22% of the land. So Israel controls 82% of West Bank territory. You are right to point out PA control of Area A and Gaza but your previous statement was very misleading: "we are talking about the Palestinians who are not living in Israeli territory. and even them through long years of negotiations have achieved control over their territorial affairs."

No. my statement goes with my assumption that people will take it in the context of the Oslo Accords and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. as in people who have actually been following the negotiations for years or decades.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No. my statement goes with my assumption that people will take it in the context of the Oslo Accords and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. as in people who have actually been following the negotiations for years or decades.

Well perhaps this was just a miscommunication then, since you were talking to Kathryn who evidently is not one of those people (hence her question, why can't Arabs in Israel simply have citizenship and equal rights; I don't think the fact that most of the West Bank is controlled by Israel comes across to such an audience when you say "they control their territory".)

I'm curious to know: in your opinion, should the Likud government have extended the freeze on settlement expansion, so that negotiations could continue? Should the US have vetoed Palestinian statehood at the UN?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm curious to know: in your opinion, should the Likud government have extended the freeze on settlement expansion, so that negotiations could continue? Should the US have vetoed Palestinian statehood at the UN?

IMO: yes; no.

 

[Caladan]

Well perhaps this was just a miscommunication then, since you were talking to Kathryn who evidently is not one of those people (hence her question, why can't Arabs in Israel simply have citizenship and equal rights; I don't think the fact that most of the West Bank is controlled by Israel comes across to such an audience when you say "they control their territory".)

I can rephrase my paragraph. those Palestinians who are living inside Israeli territory, meaning where Israeli citizens reside, have an Israeli citizenship. they are commonly called Arab Israelis.
those Palestinians who are living in areas or cities which Israelis do not live in, or even visit, and often are asked about- why doesn't Israel give them back, were already given back during the Oslo agreements. these are the heavily populated areas, which are administrated by the Palestinians on both accounts: civil issues and security measures.

I'm curious to know: in your opinion, should the Likud government have extended the freeze on settlement expansion, so that negotiations could continue? Should the US have vetoed Palestinian statehood at the UN?

I am generally in favour for reasonable compromise as long as negotiations are understood to be the only approach to the mid east conflict, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
as for the US veto on Palestinian state. I believe the US, the western powers, and Israel, by logic need to support the same political version. it would be very hypothetical for the US to go around Israel on this issue. and not just the US, but other influential western countries as creating a Palestinian state must include an agreement with Israel and be a part of the peace process. just like other blocs do the same, perhaps an example would be the Arab league.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can rephrase my paragraph. those Palestinians who are living inside Israeli territory, meaning where Israeli citizens reside, have an Israeli citizenship. they are commonly called Arab Israelis.
those Palestinians who are living in areas or cities which Israelis do not live in, or even visit, and often are asked about- why doesn't Israel give them back, were already given back during the Oslo agreements. these are the heavily populated areas, which are administrated by the Palestinians on both accounts: civil issues and security measures.

Agreed and this is consistent with what I said earlier: Unfortunately, Israel chooses to take the territory, while excluding the ethnic group. I agree with you it's great that the Palestinians have some control over their own affairs, that's progress.

I am generally in favour for reasonable compromise as long as negotiations are understood to be the only approach to the mid east conflict, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
as for the US veto on Palestinian state. I believe the US, the western powers, and Israel, by logic need to support the same political version. it would be very hypothetical for the US to go around Israel on this issue. and not just the US, but other influential western countries as creating a Palestinian state must include an agreement with Israel and be a part of the peace process. just like other blocs do the same, perhaps an example would be the Arab league.

I appreciate your response but I don't think you actually answered my questions. Do you have a position (yes/no) on whether Israel should freeze settlements, and whether the US should have blocked UN recognition?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

IMO: yes; no.

Thanks for your response Jay.

What do you think about Israel's ability to defend itself from attack, if Palestine becomes its own, separate state? When I look at the map, I can see that Israel proper is only 10--20 miles wide around Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. From a strategic perspective, I understand Israel would be interested in maintaining a military presence on the West Bank / Jordan border, or at least keep the West Bank a de-militarized zone. Israel is understandably interested in "buffer" territory that would reduce the effectiveness of any would-be surprise attack by an Arab coalition (as in the 1973 war). Perhaps the PA would be willing to accept an Israeli military presence on the border, or a de-militarized zone?

Israel is the only nuclear power in the region and has the support of the world's only superpower .... so that's a huge deterrent in itself .... and as I understand Israel and Jordan have fine diplomatic relations .... but still, I understand Israel's defense concerns.

What do you think, can those concerns be solved?

 

[YmirGF]

Israel is the only nuclear power in the region and has the support of the world's only superpower ....

Israel is currently the only nuclear power. That could change rather dramatically in the next few years. Likewise, China will likely supplant America in the relatively near future. India is also growing rapidly.

so that's a huge deterrent in itself ....

It's not as big a deterrent as it was, that much is sure. If the US does not manage to fix its internal affairs they will be in no position to either help or dictate policy. It's a harsh reality and one that may take Americans some time to wake up to. Israel isn't so sure and you can hardly blame them.

Iand as I understand Israel and Jordan have fine diplomatic relations ....

For the time being. If the so-called "Arab spring" spreads to Jordan, all bets are off.

but still, I understand Israel's defense concerns.

The irony of this statement hit my funny bone.

I What do you think, can those concerns be solved?

I realize you are asking Jay, but I have my doubts. There is far too much uncertainty in the region to say that any solutions will have lasting results.

 

[credance]

There is a lot going on in the U.S. right now but I don't think people are sitting around worrying about Israel bringing them down.
What is going on now between Israel and Palestine is a religious and cultural struggle I don't think that diplomacy or war will correct.
The refuge camps that have existed for four generations tell me that the Muslim world will never except Palestinians until they have reclaimed the land that they have been led to believe they have lost to Jews and infidels.
It is never acceptable for Muslim lands to revert back to their former state but to have the land that God , from the earliest of recorded history, has had so much activity is beyond unthinkable.
Israel can never give back enough land until they do not exist at all.
Jewish people have made their presence known throughout the world but have always encountered prejudice and segregation.
Their stand now puts them even closer to the precipice then ever before