The points made in that editorial do not seem to contradict my main objection to a Palestinian State, which is that the Palestinian Arabs seem more interested in knocking down Israel than in building themselves up.
The decline in relations started as a perceived blow to the role Erdogan wanted Turkey to play in the Middle East and it has only snowballed from there. Neither side is making a real attempt to solve the problem.
Given Turkish goals, my take on it is that it actually is similar to zero sum game due to the feelings Arab and Turkish populations have regarding Israel and the Palestinians. It’s like the beacon gets some extra candlepower from the dispute.
I just read the article for the 3rd time and could not find a paragraph that states what you’re talking about. So, as not to pre-judge your resolute blindness and ignorance, could you please point to a paragraph that indeed argues that “Palestinian Arabs seem more interested in knocking down Israel”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “states what you’re talking about.”
Are you saying that the article does contradict my claim?
No such paragraph exists. I think that maybe you misread my post.
Oh, I see, when you say “(…) do not seem to contradict my main objection” you’re essentially saying two things: (1) the perhaps valid points made in that article do not even attempt to address your “objection” therefore it stays on its own and, (2) the obvious absence of any attempt at refuting your “objection” only confirms its validity.
I suspect myriad of articles written in just about last 24 hours all around the World are not attempting to address your “objection”. Could it be that such a humongous body of evidence pointing to an absence of any attempt at refuting your “objection” means that, I don’t know, it bears no objective truth?
The problem here is that the PLO does not rule all Palestinians - and last time the Palestinians had a democratic election, the PLO lost to Hamas, which still in effect rules Gaza. And Hamas is against the statehood bid.
If statehood is granted, how will this work? Will it be granted to the WB only? What about Gaza?
Basically yes.
Not really. But the fact that you haven’t even tried to address my objection does support my position a bit.
Anything is possible, but I would guess that those who support Palestinian Statehood would prefer to ignore the problem I (and others) have pointed out.
Which part are you unsure of? The raid or Turkey’s insistence that Israel apologize? When the UN report was released, it said that Israel used ‘excessive force’ but the people on the boat had weapons and the blockade was legal.
This wasn’t the first time the group had tried to do this. They just happened to have better press – and people died.
A rare moment in history, indeed - Israel vindicated.
By aligning with Egypt and pointing fingers at Israel? Erdogan’s temper tantrum is a big ego-fest.
How is it fruitless and ineffective? Their free trade, military relationship, sharing of intelligence? The Israeli tourists or investors in Turkey? What Turkey is doing right now is reckless and alarming.
One was not dependent on the other.
Yet. They’re perfectly fine in bullying Israel with NATO, though.
I’m completely blown away. Can you please cite for me where the Muslim Brotherhood is ‘secular’?
Still waiting to hear word on Egypt’s new ‘democracy’ and ‘secular government’. Egypt had a coup - one supported by the public, yes, but a military coup nonetheless
.
My point is that Goldberg may agree with one point or another, but I found it an odd thing to cite Goldberg as I assumed from your posts you were several sheets to the left of the guy.
He was also critical - maybe the most critical - of that book that came out a few years back damning the ‘Israel lobby’.
Perhaps I am addressing the wrong Doper?
Agreed.
Not only does the PLO not rule over all Palestinians, but the PLO has a hard time policing its own territory it ‘controls’. If Israel unilaterally pulled out of the region, then a European or an American force would have to step in. They don’t have the stuff of sovereign nations. For Chrissake, the PLO left Gaza in a damned shootout…but at the moment, there stands a Hamas-PLO ‘alliance’. What the hell does that say about ‘ready for statehood’?
Is this our message now? Terrorizm really wurked fer me? :o
Oh, and if this is a predictions thread: I predict sanctions.
Are you suggesting that having a ruling political party bent on refusing peace, denying neighbouring ethnic/religious group their right to a State and trying to acquire ever more land outside of 1967 borders as much as possible is somehow detrimental?
How, then, do you explain success of Likud?
Are you talking about the Likud which agreed to a unilateral 10-month settlement freeze? The Likud which offered to sit down and negotiate directly with the Palestinian Arab leadership with no pre-conditions but was rebuffed? The Likud which announced that it was willing to make generous concessions towards a Palestinian State? The Likud which signed the Wye Accords?
Why not just stop building the settlements? Every U.S President from recent memory has asked Israel to stop building the damned things. If the country is unable to or cannot, why not build up like Japan? It doesn’t matter. The status quo of negotiation between Israel and PLO doesn’t work and hasn’t worked. Time for something different. Maybe the UN is what the doctor ordered.
I would guess it’s because (1) Israel wants to have more strategic depth; (2) the settlers have a lot of political pull in Israel; and (3) the Israelis know that they will be hated regardless of whether they construct settlements.
Consider that Israel uprooted all of the Jewish settlers in Gaza a few years ago and unilaterally withdrew. The world quickly forgot about this concession.
What needs to change is that the Palestinian Arabs need to give up on their dream of putting an end to Jewish Israel. If that happens, there is a real possibility of peace. If that doesn’t happen, there won’t be peace.
We covered this exhaustively on SD before. They did do a settlement freeze, but did not renew it when there was no progress – and then there was much outcry over building in Gilo, which was recaptured after the sixty seven war.
Also, Israel does not consider any of Jerusalem to be a ‘settlement’. Here’s the Guardian mistakenly calling Gilo part of East Jerusalem.
Huh? No, I am suggesting nothing of the sort. The problem is far more fundamental than any distaste I or anyone may have concerning Hamas.
The problem is: how can the UN declare a new “state” where the population is divided into two parts, and only that part ruled by a party which has not been elected (the PLO) and only rules one section (the West Bank) is asking for recognition - and where the party ruling the OTHER part (Gaza) and which HAS been elected (Hamas) has publicly stated they are against the bid?
I mean, how practically will this work? Will the UN allow the PLO to send representatives, but not Hamas? Will the UN make the WB a country, but not Gaza? Minor details like that.
Seems to me this massively puts the cart before the horse. International recognition ought not be based on sentiment, but on recognition of the hard facts - that some group has it together and has the force and will to demonstrate that they are effectively a country. It should not be based on the hope that eventually, someday and somehow, they will do so, perhaps aided by the recognition.
This, BTW, has nothing whatever to do with liking or disliking the government in question. Horrible governments are still governments (and are recognized as such) even if they are horrible. The Palestinians lack a government, or rather have two feuding proto-governments (depending on how much reliance one can put on their “accord” - which, considering that they disagree on this very point, is “not much”). Under these circumstances there is nothing to “recognize”.
Why the Middle East Will Never Be the Same Again
More at source. Good read.
This is part of the reason why Palestinian Statehood will not accomplish anything. The Arabs feel that the Jews “stole” “their” land.
There have been a lot of UN votes concerning Israel and many US vetos. Why is this vote and veto different from all the others?
And what of the announcement that “Palestine” would be completely free of Jews? What about the expulsions of Jews from all over the Arab world in the late 40s? What of the expulsion of Jews from East Jerusalem and Gaza City? Is that an expression of racism too?
Would you mind choosing a non-truther as a source.
To those of us in the reality-based community, truthers are morons who are aggressively in denial of reality and as such make terrible sources.
Now, admittedly many if not most of Israel’s most virulent critics are faith-based thinkers who form opinions based on prejudice and myth rather than facts and most know the answers before they’ve heard the question.
I feel that Germany’s support of Israel has something to do with logistics as well. They are trade and diplomatic partners in a way that Israel doesn’t have with other European countries.
France’s deep ‘angst’ over the ‘suffering’ of Palestinians again has more to do with political posturing in the Arab world (and a touch of anti-Semitism) than for the caring of humanity.
But as long as Palestinians can play the '48 card, Jews have the Holocaust one, I guess.
I doubt it, since it will encourage the Arabs to think they can achieve their dream of destroying Jewish Israel. Giving them anything they can perceive as a victory without requiring concessions in return is counterproductive. It will only embolden them to make more demands and to be more intransigent.