Israeli PM offers conditional settlements freeze

In my mind the PA should not negotiate as long as Israel is building settlements as they are contrary to international law. Israels borders were set by a UN resolution in 1948. Israel has unlawfully sought to expand those borders ever since. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has recognized the State Of Israel in 1993 as part of the Oslo Accords. They have not disavowed that recognition. For Israel to INSIST the PA recognize Israel as a "Jewish State" is rediculous as it would strip the "Right of Return" from Palestinian refugees with out compensation for their property. In the 90's Israel insisted on the PA recognizing the State of Israel believing they would never do so. Once they did it was necessary for Israel to make a new demand with the belief the PA will refuse to do. This time Israel has guessed correctly .

reply to post by Eliad

What is that principle argument?

Well, a pillar argument is that Israel (or the Zionists in the name of Israel), is stealing Palestinian land and then oppressing the Palestinian people in an effort to drive the Arabs (or Palestinians) off. Israel (Zionists) feel that Israel belongs to them because it belonged to them, according to their religion and written history. By acknowledging Israel as a Jewish country (land), they are basically ceding that argument.

With that being said, I don't think most Palestinians mind that Jews are there, as they got along with the Jews well before the modern era of Zionism, rather they just want the oppression to stop. By ackowledging Israel as a Jewish state, they are acknowledging that the land doesn't belong to them as well.

There is a myth that Palestine wasn't a country but rather a Province of the Ottoman Empire before WWI and thus was up for grabs following the collapse of the Empire. This is partly true, though not entirely. It was a province of the Ottoman Empire but it was not up for grabs. Palestine was a British mandate, one of 16 established by the League of Nations directly after WWI. After WWII, the UN proposed to establish two states out of the old British mandate, with 54% going to the Jews and the rest going to the Palestinian Muslims and Christians (about half).

Granted, the Palestinian Christians and Muslims didn't see this as fair, being that the UN didn't own the land and so had no authority to simply gove their land away to foreigners. The Zionists, having clout in the UN and the sympathy of the world after the Nazi regime (even though they were only a very small portion of the oppressed at the hands of the Nazis) agreed with the partition, though only because they apparently had plans to abolish the partitions in a huge land grab by force to create a Jewish state, at least according to David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister. However, they had a huge problem that wasn't so easily fixed, seeing that the majority of the people in their envisioned Jewish State weren't Jewish at all, rather they were Muslim and some Christian. These Palestinians stood in the Zionist's way of kncking down the UN partitions to create a Jewish state.

Because you can't have a Jewish state with a majority population who is not Jewish, the Zionist leaders organized a mass expulsion, that Israelis know today as "The War of Independence" and "Al-Nakba" or “The Catastrophe" as it is known to the Palestinians, where the majaority of non-Jews were "cleansed" from the area.

In their wake of creating a "Jewish state", they expanded way beyond the 54% that was mandated by their friends in the UN, which has been basically going on up until our current times. However, they are not even close to being done. I personally have been taught (when I was a boy), that Israel will pne day soon, have a complete and whole Israel, as god intended. It is only now, after a college education (where I learned to think objectively) and my own observations of and in the area, that the oppresion and conflict that we see today, is only an expansion of the original Zionist plan to create a Jewish state, at the expense of the non-Jews who call and have called the region "home".

What difference does it make? I mean it's not as if we're waiting for them to call us Jewish to start being Jewish..

Then why is it so important (apparently) to the Zionists (not the Jews)? Again, once you peel back the propaganda and spin that has enshrouded our way of thinking, you see why it is important to both sides. However, unless and until you have objectively weighed the evidence of your own research, instead of what has been spoon-fed to us, that question won't be answered and instead it will just be an anomoly as to why it is so important for the Jews but apparently not for the Palestinians.

This has everything to do with politics, this "recognition of Israel" is symbolic, both leaders know that no matter what the other side says, the situation on the ground won't change.

See, you're leaving out a key component here, as it isn't a "recognition of Israel", rather it is a "recognition of Israel as a Jewish state". Until you can understand the difference, you won't understand the situation and nothing will change on the ground.

In order to successfully negotiate and over-come an obstacle, you must first understand it, either that or obliterate the obstacle all together. Since this obstacle is people, to include innocent women and children, obliteration isn't or shouldn't be an option.

Let's make a bet, you and I, I say this is nothing but a dance between two dogs, each trying to look the strong, and this will not stop the negotiations.

Elliad, I would love to make this bet with you, however it is like betting on a poodle against a pitbull. It would be fun to consider this a dance between two dogs but when one of those dogs is only a mini-poodle, it really is no longer a dance, as the difference between the size and teeth of the two dogs almost ensures that the poodle will be hurt. Of course the pitbulls' owners don't mind the dance because their dog doesn't get hurt and thus is only a win-win for the pit-bull. If they dance then go their seperate ways, the pitbull wins but if they dance and the mini-poodle gets hurt or killed, then again the pitbull wins. In otherwords this dance only threatens the poodle.

I don't know, I'll build a statue of you or something

Now that's almost worth throwing caution to the wind!

Oh it is telling. It tells that most of the people in the settlements are right wing, but they're hardly most of the Israeli people, and they're hardly most of the right wing..

I hate to keep making this connection but I feel it's necessary to make the point: The Nazis were hardly most Germans but when the Nazis weilded influence, we saw what happened. However large a portion of the population that subscribes to something, it is the influence that matter most. However, I believe that Zionism has a mission, according to their history and the behaviors of today. Regardless who is doing what or who believes or subscribes to what, it is the results that make the difference.

If I mail you a hundred dollar bill to feed your family and it somehow doesn't make it for whatever reason, it hardly matters why it didn;t reach you, only that it didn't. You couldn't go to the market with a promise that I mailed you the bill and it got lost somewhere along the way.



I'll respond to the rest of your post after my children's horse riding lessons (That I'm already running late to).


--airspoon

reply to post by Eliad


Seems to me Eliad you are the one that understands "very little" The settlements are ILLEGAL under international law. NO country on Earth says they are legal! NO COUNTRY! It is correct for the Palestinians to insist that Israel conform to international law. It is not politics but rather simple thievery.
Well yes, many Arab States use Islam in their state titles and they are what Israel has become- a Theocracy. By Israel identifying itself as a Jewish state you will one day be ruled by the Talmud as Arab countries are ruled by the Koran. Israel IS the home of Jewish folks but it is also the home of Arab folkes who lived there for several hundred years BEFORE the Jews immigrated from Europe and other areas. I personally see nothing wrong with a "loyalty oath" as long as it is required of ALL citizens.

reply to post by airspoon


Your knowledge on the matter is impressive.

Well, a pillar argument is that Israel (or the Zionists in the name of Israel), is stealing Palestinian land and then oppressing the Palestinian people

I get that, the problem, though, as you've mentioned, is not the land theft that is going on today, but rather the land theft that went on in 1948. The thing is by now both sides know that whatever was taken in 1948 will not be returned, we can go into the reasons why later, the fact is that they won't, Israel is not required by anyone to do so, and it probably won't.

So what this is is basically a "You've taken my land, but I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of saying that you had the right to do so", Nothing more, and that's what bothers me. It's meaningless to both sides, played only as a political tool- "Oh look, the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, oh what a victory, bla bla bla".

rather they just want the oppression to stop.

Agreed. The settlements and basically prejudice from all these years of conflict are the only thing preventing our two nations from coming closer..

with 54% going to the Jews and the rest going to the Palestinian Muslims and Christians (about half).

What's worse is that under the Jewish territory still remained Muslim and Christian villages.
But it wasn't as bad as you think it was.. Most of the Jewish territory was the Negev desert.. An area that's nearly inhabitable, even until this day.. It was considered worthless at the time.. The Arabs on the other hand got the best agricultural areas, if I remember correctly, while the Jews got a desert and a shore line..
It's hard to say what's fair in situations like this, I agree, it's not as fair to the Arabs as throwing all the Jews back to where they came from, but is that fair for the Jews? Colonialism wasn't that far off.. I mean it was only in 1946 that Jordan got its independence, and who ruled it? A Saudi Bedouin sheik that the British brought to rule over everyone.. He wasn't even from that land..

My point is that at the end of the day they did not want to accept the UN's offer, and that's that. If you need a reason than it was not because it wasn't fair, but because it wasn't fair to them.. Both our people could have flourished, had they let the Jewish people live in their desert..

(even though they were only a very small portion of the oppressed at the hands of the Nazis)

Doesn't matter, the Zionists saw what was happening in Europe.. By the time the war was over all the Jews understood the importance of a land of their own.

though only because they apparently had plans to abolish the partitions in a huge land grab by force to create a Jewish state, at least according to David Ben-Gurion,

I highly doubt that, from all I know about David Ben Gurion he was a tolerant man, who respected all of the Arab nations, he wasn't an army man, but more of a thinker, a man of diplomacy.
I'm going to need proof.

Besides, had the Palestinians not had the support of 5 Arab nations, they would have accepted the offer as well, but they were promised by Arab leaders that we will be crushed in the war, and thus the war started.
What do you think was the interest of these Arab nations in this tiny piece of land?

the Zionist leaders organized a mass expulsion, that Israelis know today as "The War of Independence"

Wasn't the war of independence started by Arab nations? And don't tell me that the declaration of independence was the cause and therefor the Jews are to be blamed...
It was started by the Arabs, and after they lost the war they gave us all the land in the following armistice treaty.. Why did they do that if they care so much for the Palestinian people? Why did they agree to give their land to the Jews?

where the majaority of non-Jews were "cleansed" from the area.

Not the majority of non-Jews, the majority of Muslims- The Christian Arabs did not fight us, they welcomed us, the Druze had no issue with us, and so did the Bedouins. Furthermore the Muslim villages who did not attack us and did not oppose us during the war were left to themselves.. Some villages were even evacuated, and then returned later...
So yes, the people who were killing us were "cleansed" as you say.. You fail to mention all the Jewish villages that were cleansed by Arab forces during the war, most were slaughtered en masse and were only able to return after the area was conquered by Jewish forces again.
So what's your point? Why not evacuate the villages that control the access to Jerusalem? Every time a convoy went through it turned into a blood bath, because it got shot at from those villages..
Suggest an alternative.

However, they are not even close to being done

Oh, they were pretty much done. It was only 20 years later, at the end of the 6 day war when things got crazy..

I personally have been taught (when I was a boy), that Israel will pne day soon, have a complete and whole Israel, as god intended.

I'm sure some people still tell that to their children, mostly settlers and maybe religious people who actually care about this stuff... I wasn't told that, I was told that when I grow up there won't be any more wars, and that I wouldn't have to be a soldier. Obviously they were wrong.

Then why is it so important (apparently) to the Zionists (not the Jews)?

As I said, it isn't, it's used as a political tools on both sides.

In otherwords this dance only threatens the poodle.

I get your analogy, and I agree with it, what you don't see is that the leash on both dogs is held by America and Europe, and that dance is only a show for the masses..

Now that's almost worth throwing caution to the wind!

The bet isn't about who would come out stronger in the negotiations, the bet is about the negotiations not stopping due Israel's move, to show that the move is not about stopping the negotiations, but about creating some kind of political leverage so that both sides feel they've gained something.

The Nazis were hardly most Germans but when the Nazis weilded influence, we saw what happened.

Yes, but they were the leading party, they led the state, and by the time they were done with their massive propaganda they had managed to dehumanize the Jews in the eyes of most Germans.
The settlers, on the other hand do not control the country, they do not have control over the media, or the public's opinions, the conflict itself is this conflict's propaganda, both sides have been enemies for years- Wars, drive by shootings, suicide bombings.
There is animosity, on both sides, regrettably.. But it's nothing that can't be fixed once we start co existing without terrorism and settlements.. At least in my eyes.. And I'm not being optimistic, I'm just being realistic.. Settlements out- No reason for conflict with Israelis, terrorism gone- No reason for the IDF to operate in the West Bank... And that's it.. Give it 50 years and it's done.

With respect,
Eliad.

reply to post by gem_man


Was there anything in my posts that suggested that I don't completely agree with everything you said?

The settlements need to be evacuated ASAP It's stupid, ideologically, politically, and in the humanitarian aspect, it doesn't make any sense to stay there..

And I agree that a loyalty oath is fine, as long as it's fair... No actually I still think it's stupid.. Who's going to care about a stupid loyalty oath..

But there's one thing I don't see eye to eye with you- Israel has always been and always will be a Jewish state, it's been Jewish for 62 years now, nothing's going to change, it's not turning into a theocracy, you've been to Israel, you should know better.
Tell me, what have you seen that made you feel like you were in a theocracy?