Printable View
I don't want to start a tumult, I just honestly don't know so I'll ask. Why does the U.S. and Israel not want a Palestinian state. I thought that was what all the interminable peace process talks were supposed to be leading to. (Gently now, I just asked...)
It's so complex, Florence, with so many competing "rights", and peoples, both of whom have legitimate claims, that it is no wonder that not much progress has been made.
The official U.S. position by the Obama administration is support for a Palestinian state, and a "two state" solution, with Palestinians and Israelis able to each have a state, with mutual respect for and good relations with the neighbor. But there are pesky issues about contested territory, illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied areas, places like Jerusalem that both sides are willing to go to the wall to prevent the other from having, etc., that it's hard to know how it can ever be settled.
The U.S. position is that there should be a Palestinian state, but that getting it by the U.N. voting for it, is not the way to go, and that only negotiation between Israel and Palestinians can result in any solution that will work.
It's a very dicey matter for the U.S. right now, and President Obama is having to thread a very narrow needle, between the facts of our support of the "Arab Spring" movements in places like Libya and Egypt, etc., supporting democracy in those areas, but denying Palestinians the support that we give others. And, due to our very strong support for Israel, (and Israel's very dicey position of living among neighbors that hate and wish to destroy them) really complicates everything.
Unfortunately, most other countries are supportive of this move, leaving the U.S. kind of out there, hanging in the wind, caught between our support of Israel, and our desire to promote freedom in the Arab world.
One grave danger from this expected veto by the U.S., should the U.N. grant the Palestinians' request, is probable heating up of the Middle East even more, much more Arab anger against the U.S. and more and more difficulties in other countries we deal with.
Probably the best thing would be for you to go to someplace like Wikipedia and read a bunch of the history, to begin to see what a knotted and tangled ball of yarn this President has been handed, and just how deep the divisions and difficulties are to find any sort of solution of the situation between Palestinians, who have suffered greatly under the Israeli occupation, and the Israelis, who believe, and probably rightly so, that they have only the slimmest hold on existence where they are, and are fighting ferociously to maintain power.
Israel and the Palestinians have not had face to face talks now for many years, and the situation is fraught with landmines for either side, so neither side blinks. It's a mess, and to have the U.N. side with Palestine, when we have such close relationships with Israel causes a huge headache for this President, with untold probable consequences, if it goes through and the U.S. vetoes it.
If, for no other reason than it looks as though we are talking out of both sides of our mouth (wouldn't be the first time), where on the one hand we support democracy, but when people vote in governments we don't like, it turns out that it's really more "The U.S. is supportive of democracy, as long as they decide the 'right' way".......look to a history of U.S. involvement in Central and South America for some headspinning examples of that.......
Hope this helps........it's not a subject that I have real expertise about, but I just noticed that many looked at your post, but no one ventured an answer, so I've tried, with what little I know, to help.
So ask yourself:Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence
Where's that state gonna go? On whose land? What happens to Israel with that state in existence?
Look, in my mind the whole thing is a jumbled mess, but not recognizing legitimate concerns of Israel seems disingenuous. Remember, Arabs want to kill Jews, they are upfront about that. It is some Arabs, granted, but its enough in that part of the world to annihilate Israel or give it a good go, anyway.
Do you think that's ok?
Seriously, we are supposed to give a crap that this "causes a huge headache for this President?" What an odd focus.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
This is an extremely thorny issue, not in the least helped by President Obama's public declarations of support for a Palestinian state. I think that declaration by itself gave Abbas the confidence to force the issue.
The UN can never back a Palestinian state as long as the ruling authority vows to destroy their neighbor and rid the area of all jews. If the reality gives the President a headache, I'd say it's well deserved.
Well, in that sense, when I said "a huge headache for this President", I meant it as a "huge headache for the U.S.", since President Obama is the President of this country, so hence, the person who holds that burden, and has the headache, so to speak.
But, Iris Lily, and Alan, never let it be said that you would not be able to find something to focus on negatively, no matter how hard a person tried to make their explanation of the problems as evenhanded as possible. One thing for sure, you are both blindingly predictable.
Somehow, we do not find it difficult to understand why Iraqis would want to have an occupying force OUT of their lands, yet Israel has occupied Palestinian lands now for more than forty years, and there are several generations of Palestinians who have been born, grown old and died in refugee camps, while Israelis built settlements on land that had been in their families for a thousand years or more.
The reason it is such a complex problem is because there is right on both sides, each side believes they alone have rights to that land, and so much damage has been done over the years because of both mistreatment of the Palestinians by the occupying forces of Israel, and the attacks and bombings of Israelis by the Palestinians that we now have several generations of people on both sides that hate the others' guts.
Sometimes, although I have strong understanding of the precarious position in the area that Israelis hold, amid neighbors who hate them and wish them dead, the Israelis almost remind me of a person who grew up with an abusive and alcoholic father, who swears as a child that he will never, ever treat his children as he has been treated, yet when he grows up, continues the patterns and becomes an abuser himself.
It is a common pattern, and one wonders at the Jews, who have suffered so much injustice, abuse and mistreatment at the hands of others in the past, are unable to see the abuse and mistreatment they have handed out to the Palestinians over the years, as continuing a pattern of doing unto others what was done unto them. Very sad.
Another reason, Florence, which will probably be apparent here, that this has been such a huge problem in the U.S., with the U.S. unable to really act as an honest broker, trusted by both sides, is that polarity on this issue, similar to polarities on a number of other issues, divide this country, with Republicans and conservatives solidly in support of Israel, regardless of their actions, and Democrats and liberals, while having some support of Israel, not willing to give them a pass and ignore the damage and mistreatment of the Palestinians, so our political landscape is as divided on this Israeli/Palestinian issue as it is on other hot button issues from abortion to gun rights, etc.
It takes a lot of reading and understanding to try to tease out some real understanding untainted by political posturing by all sides. Which probably is going to be hard to find, and probably definitely not able to be gotten here. I'm sorry.
Florence, I forgot a couple of things. IF the U.N. were to grant Palestine's request, one important thing that would happen would be that the new Palestinian state would return to the borders Israel and Palestine shared before the War of 1967, which means the Palestinian state would include the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, which are currently occupied by Israel, and Israel is currently building illegal settlements in the occupied areas of the West Bank and Gaza, which would REALLY become a problem.
Also, once Palestine became a state, they would have standing to bring crimes they feel that Israel has committed against them before international courts.
It isn't going to happen, because the U.S. is going to exercise its veto power to prevent it, but that veto is not going to be seen positively by most of the world, and the U.S. will find itself, once again, not aligned with most of their allies and other democratic nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
OK, I will accept your explanation of what you meant, that you didn't mean, literally, our President's got so much on his plate that it's a shame for those Jews to cause him so much grief.
Yes, indeed, Israel's vulnerability to Arab aggression is a problem for the United States, not just our President.
Palestine didn't share a border with Israel before the war of 1967. Sinai and Gaza was Egyptian territory, The West Bank was Jordanian territory and the Golan Heights was Syrian territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
The Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians left in the territories are today's Palestinians who were abandoned by their home countries.
Of course, this whole thing could have been averted if those three countries, along with Iraq, hadn't amassed several hundred thousand troops on their borders in preparation for an invasion of Israel. And for what? Each of those armies were sent home within a week with their tails between their legs, almost certainly thinking, gee that was a huge mistake. Not only is Israel still there, but we lost some of our land in the process.
My explanation is much simpler. This issue of a Paliestinian/Jewish nation state goes back centuries with major slaughter on both sides to the desired annihilation of each other.
Now here is the key issue - to the best of my knowledge, neither the Jews nor the Muslims believes in forgiveness and letting go of the past.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Africa which experienced terrible atrocities, depended on the agreement to "air the grievances and then forgive and move on". Period!
That is not going to happen in the Mid-east despite the efforts of each and every President whether s/he be orange purple or green politically so partisanship comment on this site makes no sense. Until there is an understanding that history starts today based on "forgive and forget the past", no progress is possible in the Mid-East.
I wonder if the Red/Blue split in the US will ever be resolved. Based on comments on this site, it would seem that the "air grievances-forgive-let go and forget and move-on" won't ever happen in the US either. That is really sad.
What strikes me about this situation is the blatant way Middle East Arabs talk about taking out Israel and killing Jews. It's just shocking to me. I'd think that lying or at least being more subtle about it would be to their advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by razz
That's funny to pair Red/Blue politics on this website with the MidEast conflict and there's some truth in that, haha. But I think there's more personality going on here than politics.
Phew! I do need to do some more reading. It just seems like if everyone wants two states, why not now? Yes, there would have to be some give but wouldn't it be worth it, to just do it and get it over with? I do thank you all for your thoughtful replies.
Not a lot of choices, are there? IMO the US should never back a Palestinian state, but then (also IMO) the US should have never backed Israel to the extent we have. I've gotten to the point of wishing we'd just let all the other peoples of the world settle their own differences without our "help". Keep the humanitarian efforts, but lets quit playing referee/cop/marriage counselor to the world. We have enough things at home that need our attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I can't help but wonder whether the US can claim financial hardship and significantly cut back on the armaments that we provide to Israel and then see what happens.
Well, it looks like one reason that Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state in the UN is that it would allow the Palestinians to bring Israel to the World Court. But I still don't see why the U.S. doesn't; maybe it's in our interest for them to keep squabbling.
If you cut through the b.s. and the rhetoric, it comes down to this: There is nothing about either the Jews or the Palestinians that is fundamentally different from any other group of people. Most people just want to live in peace, most people love their families, most people just want the ability to go about their business with a sense of relative security. That is true of most Jews and most Arabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
That is what should underlie any approach to the peace process. When political leaders foment hatred between groups, they have other goals that do not serve the people they claim to lead. Neither side in this case is operating fully in good faith.
Here's my take on Netanyahu's agenda: The divisions in Israeli society are very serious. The ultra religious are quite inflexible about their standards and have a great deal of control over things like marriage and who is deemed Jewish enough to fall under the law of return. There are economic divisions, racial divisions (Ethiopian Jews have faced rampant discrimination), there are cultural divisions and having a common enemy has served to keep Israel from social implosion from all of these conflicts. It is difficult to maintain political coalitions if everyone's on a different page. I read one Israeli pundit who claimed that Israel had been on the verge of a bitter civil war before the Intifada started. The Intifada shifted attention away from internal issues and unified Israelis against a common enemy.
Somehow Israel made peace with Jordan and Egypt. Netanyahu knows a two state solution is inevitable, but he probably does not want that to be his legacy and he's postponing it as long as possible in order to maneuver Israel into the best bargaining position possible (cram in as many settlements so that it's a fait accomplis by the time his successor actually has to sit down at the table).
Yeah, it's terrible that the majority of Arabs hate Jews, but seriously this notion that such rhetoric is a deal killer is ridiculous. If you wait until all Palestinian political leadership and all the denizens of the West Bank profess to respect Israel and Israelis, you might as well just start a bloodbath now and see which group comes out standing. It's gotta start somewhere. And BTW, plenty of Jewish folks hate Arabs and Muslims. I mean HATE.
I think it is a problem for Obama because he wanted to help broker a deal. He wanted the two state solution to come about as a result of diplomacy. He wants stability and he is ambitious and is obviously a great believer in appealing to reason and compromise. By forcing the issue, the Palestinians are blowing up that process and setting it back. This will force Israel's hand, and will actually unite Israeli society around a common enemy again. In a situation like this, each party wants to come to the table as though it was his idea.
The Israel lobby is so powerful in the U.S. that no one who wants a political future would agree with what Palestine wants through the U.N. The President supports Palestine's desire for an independent state, but onlythrough negotiations with Israel. If Obama supported Abass' efforts through the U.N. it would be political suicide for Obama.
More people vote in the US besides the Jewish block.
It's not just the Jewish people who make up the "Jewish lobby". Many conservatives, including a large number of fundamentalist Christians are strong supporters of Israel for some complicated religious reasons of their own, as well as a number of anti-Arab/anti-Muslim groups and others. And in the political marketplace since 9/11, no one wants to look "soft on Arabs".
Numbers are also not always what gets leaders and legislators to listen. Strong and loud voices often obtain lots of power far in excess of their actual numbers. Also money talks, and a LOT of money flows to campaigns of folks who are strong in their support of Israel.
Not that we SHOULDN'T support Israel, but there is a difference between support and ignoring provocations like the increasing illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian areas.
Sometimes even a weak and scrawny kid can be a huge bully, when he knows he has a strong, protective big brother who will flatten anyone who goes after him. IMHO Israel, secure in the support of the U.S. and its military, and rich in weaponry supplied by the U.S., has stepped over the bounds into "bullyhood", exacerbating the problem, and is something that the "protective big brother" really should have taken a stance and refused to support.
It's a mess. It's a huge mess. And like a lot of other complex, interwoven problems, trying to untangle who is "right" and who is "wrong" is a very messy business, because all have blood on their hands, and both sides, given half a chance would strangle the other, and sometimes that's how I picture them, two guys, each with their hands on the others' throat, and willing to keep squeezing until they are both dead.
I've noticed you parrot this point about "illegal" settlements many times in various threads. Perhaps you could explain to me how settlements in areas which were seized in self defense from countries not involved in the current dispute could be considered illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
As a former Israeli Defense Minister said: "The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law."
Based upon the facts of the matter, the excuses given, and the language used by many, I can only assume that a large part of the international community would like to see the middle east Judenfrei, by any means possible.
Certainly, Alan. They are considered illegal under a number of conventions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement for the full explanation, including the argument for the illegality of the settlements and arguments by Israel for the legality of the settlements. Actually, this whole piece is both eye opening and shows the scope of the problem.
excerpt:
" An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community.[1] Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognize Israel's annexations of these territories.[2] Settlements also existed in the Sinai and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
The International Court of Justice and the international community say these settlements are illegal,[3][4] and no government supports Israel's settlements.[5] Israel disputes the position of the international community.[6] The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[7] Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West bank in 2005.[8]
As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 live in settlements in the Golan Heights [9][10] Settlements range in character from farming communities and frontier villages to urban suburbs and neighborhoods. The three largest settlements, Modi'in Illit, Maale Adumim and Betar Illit, have achieved city status, with over 30,000 residents each.
Israeli policies toward these settlements have ranged from active promotion to removal by force.[11] The ongoing settlement construction by Israel is frequently criticized as an obstacle to the peace process by the United Nations[12] and third parties including the United Kingdom,[13] the European Union,[14] and the United States.[12]"
So, from your link, it would appear that the international community considers the settlements "illegal" because the presence of Jewish people in the disputed territories changes the demographic makeup of the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...t#Legal_status
What do the international community and American progressives have against diversity?
I read it and it the contested legality of the Israeli settlements appears to be related to the Fourth Geneva Convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
"It is a common pattern, and one wonders at the Jews, who have suffered so much injustice, abuse and mistreatment at the hands of others in the past, are unable to see the abuse and mistreatment they have handed out to the Palestinians over the years, as continuing a pattern of doing unto others what was done unto them. Very sad. "
A Chinese national with whom I worked, and who had lived and worked in Israel, related to me that Palestinians were treated horribly there--"worse than you treat black people," was the way they put it.
Israel was created by fiat, so there's no reason Palestine can't be fashioned likewise--preferably with the U.S. well out of it. Expecting any president to untie such a Gordian knot single-handedly is sheer folly.
I'd like to live long enough to see us deal with our own problems first, but I don't have much hope of that happening.
I was a history major as an undergraduate and one of the courses whose content has stayed with methroughout the years is the course I took in Modern Middle East history taught by my advisor and then-chair of my university's history department, Dr. Caroline T. Marshall. Some judicious googling turned up that she recommended this book, now in its 6th edition, which I now recommend to you:
History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Bickerton and Klausner.
The longer history of the region, the oversight of the region in modern times as a British mandate, the history of the persecution of the Jews as a religious minority, and the immediate post-WWII reaction to the magnitude of the Holocaust were significant contributors to the formation of the state of Israel.
Diplomatically, the United States continues to support a two-state solution (similar to that proposed in 1947 under the United Nations partition plan for Palestine, but with the borders to be negotiated by the parties--in other words, this is not a new development): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
The term 'two-state solution' means different things to different people: http://djpressman.wordpress.com/2011...ate-solutions/
Acquiring (or attempting to acquire) territory by settlement instead of through official channels is, historically, a dicey action: see also "Indian Territory"/Oklahoma.
It's an excruciatingly difficult situation and has been for the past century. I don't buy the "well, the Jews have always been at war with the Arabs, so they will always be" line of thought because, in fact, they haven't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_history
I've just spent the past hour or so trying to pick apart just the highlights of what led up to the creation of the state of Israel just from the end of WWI to 1948 - what a complicated mess.
Yes, specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which forbids an "occupying authority" from "deporting" or "transfering" parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
It occurs to me that the "illegal settlement" argument requires a very one-sided reading of the conventions requirements in order to make that case.
I've been reading with interest, but with absolutely no intention of adding to the discussion in a meaningful way because I'm quite ignorant of the complexities you guys have been so eloquently been outlining.
I just want to say from a completely simplistic point of view, that this issue really points out how when people's rights are encroached upon, through conquest or personal liberty, the "sins of the father" last for generations upon generations upon generations. The Jews have met injustice, the Palestinians have met injustice, the blacks have met injustice, the Native Americans have met injustice and for those few examples we have been paying the price, we are paying the price, and we will pay the price for God knows how long.
I have sometimes fantasized that an alien from another planet wants to help us take away this problem, so they pass a magnetic wand over everyone in the world that removes our memory of history. Then they take us in a big spaceship and "sprinkle" us randomly back on earth so we're all mixed up and forced to live side by side with people who are neighbors by pure chance.
What would happen? How long would it be before people form alliances and then wield power over other groups all over again? What do the lessons of history tell us about how these conflicts have been resolved in the past. We don't see any more IRA bombings of London anymore. Unfortunately we aren't threatened by Native Americans because we've killed them and stripped them of their cultural ties. We just can't leave well enough alone--we're still conquistadors.
Who knows the answer? Where do we even start? I think we all have to have some huge spiritual revolution before we can "all just get along" as Rodney King said. Or a really great leader or two. I'm reading that really great book about change by the Heath Brothers called Switch, and maybe some of those principles could be applied to good use here.
OK, now I'll go back to letting you smarter, more informed people hash it out.
I think the primary requirement would be being an "occupied territory", and I think that would be quite debatable in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
In the end, there will be no solution that will be equitable and fair or acceptable to everyone - as far as I can tell there has never been an equitable and fair situation in this region of the world to being with.
Thank you, Catherine, for your sanity.
About a week ago I was able to have a brief conversation with the wife of a Jewish American couple who were about to travel to Israel to visit their children. I got the impression that she wasn't against a Palestinian state. What seemed to concern her was how Israel would be expected to defend itself against its enemies. She pointed out that at one point Israel is only 12 miles wide. She had no answers.
Well, I have to eat my words as being too simple.
I am part way through 'The Next Decade' by George Friedman, the founder of Strafor intelligence and research, and on pages 84-104, he reveiws so much of the info that is applicable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I cannot urge anyone too strongly to read this first to understand the situation as it is so complex and convoluted especially for remote countries like the US to consider their response.
G. Friedman examines issues from both the realist vs idealist approach and how neither is sufficient until itself when one is the President of the major military force in the world. Fascinating reading but a small dose at a time is all I can take in as he covers so much background history that is very readable and concise before conveying a view from that base.
Hello, I have been reading all of your posts with interest as an informal and yet serious student of the Israeli-arab conflict who has met and spoken with many people of the region and a few of the leaders. I want to focus on two or three points raised in the thread which I think are mistaken and what I believe to actually be true. The first is historical. There is a widespread assumption that arabs and jews have been at each other's throats for centuries. Actually there was little violence in what is now Israel, Palestine or Jordan until the nineteen thirties, when British control over the region began to weaken.
The British had made promises to both the arabs and jews as a result of World War I, in essence promising
independence to the arabs and a homeland to the jews clamoring for a state of their own. When neither side recieved something equal to their expectations. They began to organize politically and militarily to fight for what they believed to be their rights. The increasing persecution of jews in Europe made them more desperate to secure some place that was safe and there was an influx of many jewish refugees to Palestine from 1930 on. The arabs felt as if they were being pushed out of their home in a collective sense and being forced to share their land whether they wanted to or not.
I am not sure that there is really an inherent hatred of arabs by jews or vice versa. I believe the world of the thirties with the Great Depression caused people in Europe to embrace Fascism and blame the jews for their problems and the arabs were regarded as colonial subjects whose needs or wishes could be ignored. Palestine was not empty. It had a large number of moslem and christian communities. The total number of people living there was much smaller than today but they had been there for many generations on the whole. There was also a jewish presence dating back many years.
The settlements which have been established across the "Green Line" are an emotional issue because they symbolize the displacement of the Palestinian arabs from what is now Israel and more recently, from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. One can argue whether the settlements are justified or not but they have come to represent much more than mere condominiums or houses to the palestinians. They cannot claim land inside Israel for their needs but Israel can and does claim land across the line for its use. It is hard to find any arabs who support the settlements but it is easy to find people who are rightly concerned about the lack of housing or water accessible to the arabs. Sad to say that have large demonstrations in Israel over the lack of affordable housing by jews while the government spends millions to subsidize the settlements.
The de facto policy of the government seems to be to expand the settlements as much as possible until the Palestinians agree to accept what is left. That is hard bargaining and it's hard to agree to, especially when one is the weaker party. This sense of being a victim or being inferior is a large part of the reluctance of the palestinians to engage in negotiations.
The Palestinians are seeking affirmation of statehood at the UN. Good friends of Israel will support them in the endeavour. The recognition of the new Palestinian State was not to be achieved by a UN
I was just informed that a friend of mine from college just learned that her son and his family were slaughtered like cattle in their home by Hamas yesterday.
Oh, Bae.
Oh no, what terrible news.
Bae, I’m so sorry to hear.
I see a task force centered on the USS Gerald Ford is en route.
That's sad and reprehensible. I don't understand what's to gain by murdering civilians and taking hostages. I imagine there will be heavy price as pay back.