A difference of opinion on policy in Palestine, circa 1947, between the president and the state department does not mean that the state department has a long standing practice of undermining the state of Israel.
What would be an even better start is if you provided some reasoned argument for your position.
So you’d support a two state solution for Israel and Palestine?
That very much depends on the terms of the solution. Apart from the fact that Kurds as a people have ~1500 years history, while “Palestinians” as a people have existed for maybe 50 years if at all.
Well, a significant number of Israelis don’t appear to be in favour of a two state solution because they believe it to be an existential threat to a greater state of Israel. I can see why Turkey might feel the same way about having to relinquish land to establish the state of Kurdistan.
… because Arabs have for a long time (and some still do) had claims on the whole territory of Israel and called for Israel’s detsruction. I am not aware of Kurds having such a claim on the whole territory of Turkey or any Kurdish calls for destruction of Turkey. Can you provide a cite?
We’re not having this fucking conversation.
All I’m saying is that many Turks are at least as reluctant to give up territory to the Kurds as many Israelis are reluctant to give up territory to the Palestinians for a two state solution. Those who oppose such compromises certainly see them as an existential threat to their nation.
Have they got it wrong?
I am not watching a 17 min video. Can you summarize?
Here we go.
It explains the role of the PKK and how Turkey dealt with the threat it posed. Their intial response was to try to eliminate Kurdish culture and language as distinct from Turkish. They labelled the Kurds “mountain Turks”. However, it goes on to describe how this policy has changed in the past years and while they are still at war with the PKK the Kurds now have representation in Turkey and the Turkish state distinguishes between different Kurdish groups. Some they work with, some they fight. The conflicts in Syria and Iraq have changed everything.
Anyway, this is a diversion from the main subject, comparing Turkey as a US ally with Israel. The point is that Turkey had strong reasons for not getting involved with US intervention in Iraq and Syria alongside Kurdish groups as an ally of the US. It was logical position to take given the history of that region.
I don’t agree with Israelis who object to an independent Palestinian country, and I also don’t agree with Turks who object to an independent Kurdish country. (For similar reasons I also think Kashmir, Chechnya, the eastern Ukrainian oblasts, Tibet, etc., should be independent if they so choose).
Having said that, the argument that conservative-minded Israelis would probably give is that Palestinians aren’t an ethnic group, Levantine Arabs are an ethnic group, and there are already at least three Levantine Arab states. There is no independent Kurdish state anywhere. (Again, not an argument I agree with).
Why don’t you agree with the argument? Makes sense to me?
Is it because Israel is not a basket case?
I think even most Conservative Israelis would agree that while the Palestinians may not have been a distinct ethnic group 70 years ago, they are one now. For better or worse, their misfortunes since 1947 have forged a level of national identity that hadn’t existed before.
But to an Israeli, whether or not the Palestinians deserve their country isn’t the question - it’s whether such a country and Israel can live peacefully side by side. Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
The main difference between Israel and Turkey is that the Kurds aren’t demanding Istanbul. They’d be happy to chop off a bit of the country and leave the rest in peace. I can’t say the same about the Palestinians
bolding mine
Except when we do coordinate military exercises with Israel.
If the Palestinians are the bad guys for supposedly wanting Israeli territory, then even worse is regularly taking disputed territory, right?
I don’t recall using the term “bad guys” at any point.
Sure you can. The Palestinians aren’t demanding Istanbul, either. Like the Kurds, they didn’t live in Istanbul for centuries, so they have no reason to demand it. Like the Kurds, they’re demanding only the land that they did live on for centuries, which happens to include Jerusalem.
In fact, they are demanding far less than that. Even though they lived in what is now Israel for centuries, they are willing to give it up. The Arab Peace Initiative, which would recognize and normalize relations with Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from the occupied territories, was endorsed by the Arab League, the OIC (including Iran), the Palestinian Authority, and the majority of the Palestinian people. Hamas, AIPAC, and Israel mostly oppose it, but even they have factions that have shown encouraging signs. If Israel would agree to abide by it, and a multi-national force (including the US) would agree to enforce it (e.g., from bases to be constructed within the Negev), IMO Hamas would be marginalized, and hopefully would cease to exist.
Israel is a key Unites States ally for historical, and geographical reasons. The lone pure Democracy in the Middle East is one of the very few nations that would risk their own if necessary to aid the United States.
In terms of exchanging secrets, Israel could be the USA’s top ally. Their skin is much darker than Amercian Jews due to the climate, meaning they can blend in much better with terrorists like groups or dictators who wish to do the west harm.
Isreal is more willing to fight for the USA than France, Germany or most in NATO. At times I am in awe of their restraint. Could you imagine what would happen to a group of people firing 1000’s of missiles at the USA lands?
Yes–their land is the ultimate hedge for either a pre-emptive strike or hedge just in case Iran develops a nuclear weapon, and decides to use them.
You’ve never been to Florida. There are tons of Jews there who can blend right in.
As long as there is a violent extremist group (no matter how small) that won’t sign on to the Arab Peace iInitiative (and Hamas only agreed to a 10 year ceasefire), Israel can always point to that group and say “see, that’s why we can’t have peace.”
Is it reasonable to expect Israel to risk their security and way of life to prevent or alleviate the suffering of Palestinians? Isn’t preserving the Jewish Identity of Israel more important than any suffering that the Palestinians might endure? After all, the muslims might pass sharia law as soon as they achieve a majority… or something.