How does this prove your assertion that “whoever it is behind ‘Palestine’ is an aggressor”? Mahmoud Abbas is on record as supporting the existence of Israel. He’s the guy behind the UN vote, you know. And the two sides’ positions on who should or should not be citizens has nothing to do at all with their willingness to accomodate the existence of the other.
Israel’s “every Jew can come on in” position, which extends to giving some people free booze-laden tours of the country (I know Canadians who’ve happily taken advantage of this) is not actually a normal position for a state to take with regard to citizenship. Most countries don’t have anything like that. Israel is free to set whatever rules they want, but it’s not a standard for others to follow.
What a bizarre question. Why do Israelis want statehood? Belgians? The Dutch? Norwegians? Vietnamese? Australians? Brazilians?
If you mean Hamas, no argument here. Hamas and Hizbollah have made themselves quite clear.
But ISTM that Israel is not trying to appease Hamas, exactly. The land-for-peace deal that Arafat turned down, was intended at least in part not to appease those who want Israel to cease to exist, but to empower those who are willing to compromise. I think that is the idea underlying what Malthus and others have said about giving a boost to Abbas. Abbas is presumed to be less unswervingly dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and more dedicated to building an actual state of Palestine with what he can realistically get. How serious he is, and how successful he might be in building such a state, I couldn’t say. I suspect Hamas would kill him as readily as they would kill Israelis if they thought he was succeeding in building support for a Palestinian state that was not based on the ruins of Israel.
I suppose you could still see that as appeasement. But it appears to me to be appeasement with at least some chance of working. Not much chance, as I said - Paalestinians kill colloborators with the same glee as they do Jews. But maybe…
Hamas and the like, probably because they thought they could destroy Israel and grab the land, both in the 40s and now. But the idea should be (IMO) to do what can be done to encourage Palestinians to start building a state, and not trying to grab a state from Israel.
Will it work? Nothing else has worked, so probably not. But nothing else has worked.
And therefore this -
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Israel will build 5000 more houses in the “West Bank”.
[/QUOTE]
is a really bad idea.
So, if the West Bank becomes an independent state, what happens to the Israeli settlements there, 350,000+ Jews surrounded and outnumbered by Palestinians? They won’t leave without a fight. But if they stay, the IDF can’t protect them – if Palestine is really independent, that means it doesn’t have to allow IDF troops within its borders, and sending them in without permission is an act of war and Palestine has a regular army now.
There is a long tradition – “Send in the Marines” – of strong countries using military power to protect their citizens in foreign countries. If all of this happened, and the new state of Palestine started severely mistreating the Israeli minority living there, the IDF could indeed go in to protect them. Sure, it would be an act of war, but, well, so was the invasion of Grenada.
Messing around with the citizens of a powerful country isn’t the wisest course.
Unless they have powerful friends, or an interest bloc, or a treaty organization, well, yeah. Look at the history of Central America and the domination of the United Fruit Company.
Personal much? And, yes, the worm doth turn. Things do change. What’s notably sad is that the people who once were beaten, in their turn, sometimes become bullies themselves. They don’t tend to learn from the experience. The Middle East is the see-saw capital of the world for this kind of thing.
People have been trying to exterminate the Jews for well over a thousand years and they haven’t succeeded yet. What makes you think they will in the future?
Besides why is that something that you “hope” that Trinopus gets to see that?
Or they don’t, or some of them don’t become part of the Palestinian state? Final borders haven’t been determined yet, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of the settlements on the border become part of Israel.
It doesn’t prove it, but it is one (strong) piece of evidence among many pieces of evidence. “Palestine” walks and quacks like someone who wants to destroy Jewish Israel.
Does he support Israel as a Jewish state? Or as a state with Arabs and Jews which will probably be majority Arab once all the so-called “refugees” “return”?
It absolutely does. If the deal is that “Palestine” will have no Jews living there, while Israel has Arabs, including the Arabs who are living in “refugee camps,” everyone knows what will happen. If Abbas supports a position which he knows perfectly well will have the effect of destroying Jewish Israel, is it not reasonable to conclude that he intends that effect?
Of course not, but it sheds light on the parties’ motivation.
To provide a refuge for Jews everywhere. To set up a country where Jews will not be a hated minority, subject to the whims of the majority. Duh.
That’s why Chaim Weizmann famously said that he would take a state even if it were the size of a tablecloth. That’s why the early Zionists were willing to give up Jerusalem. That’s why the descendants of Jewish refugees from Baghdad, Hebron, and Gaza are fully integrated into Israel and not living in “refugee camps.”
I have no idea. Give me the details and context of when these groups lobbied for and/or set up statehood and I will try to guess.
From the details and context of “Palestine,” the motivations are clear.
This would make more sense if you even had a working definition of what “Palestine” is or who’s representing it, but you don’t. Are you talking about the Palestinian Authority? Hamas? Just the general population of the West Bank, Gaza, or both?
I think we can agree the likes of Hamas are murderous in their intent. But Abbas isn’t; he has renounced terrorism and has renounced the destruction of Israel. He has refused to accept Hamas into any government without them first accepting the right of Israel to exist. Hell, he’s even come out and said Palestine should have accepted the 1947 partition plan - in effect, admitting original sin. He wants a two state solution, which is one of only two realistic possibilities and the other (the extermination or driving out of one side or the other) just isn’t morally acceptable.
Abbas is quite honestly trying to achieve peace, which makes him pretty much the first Palestinian leader in forever you can say that about. I would suggest that turning the chance down when it’s here might be a pretty stupid thing to do.
Well I know that “Palestine” has announced (1) that Jews must go; and (2) “Palestinians” will not be offered citizenship, even if they live in refugee camps within the borders of “Palestine.” That alone tells me everything I need to know.
Please answer my question from before:
Does Abbas support Israel as a Jewish state? Or as a state with Arabs and Jews which will probably be majority Arab once all the so-called “refugees” “return”?
Oh really? Then why did he say this on his Facebook page? Is there a problem with Google translate?
If he is “quite honestly trying to achieve peace,” then why won’t he sit down at the negotiating table with Israelis without preconditions?
There’s no question that Abbas doesn’t particularly like Israel that much. But Abbas is probably more committed to peace than any other Palestinian leader. He even, last year, backed off the Palestinian Right of Return for a while, until he had to walk it back.
But, really, your quote there was pretty much, “If the General Assembly recognizes us, I’ll increase our leverage in negotiating by letting us sue Israel for human rights violations.” While I’m sure that’s something Israel wants to avoid, “We’re going to sue you” is different than “We’re going to drive all the Jews into the sea”. Here’s his complete editorial.
But has anyone ever calculated the actual amount of money spend on the Palestine-Israel conflict (including the financial assitance given to the Palestinians, weapons sent in, etc.)?
I’m guessing that thye amount is astronomical-probably enough to give everybody a new apartment.
Sure, but it doesn’t change the fact that (this is more evidence that )he is an aggressor. And perhaps he is an aggressor only because of political pressure, but he’s still an aggressor. A policy of appeasement towards aggressors is counterproductive.
And note that these are just his public, English words. If his real goal were to “drive all the Jews into the sea,” he certainly would not say so in the New York times.
When you say “He’s an aggressor”, I don’t know what you mean, or at least I don’t know what connotations you want to put on the word. He wants to change the status quo to gain lands, rights, and statehood for his people. So his goals are offensive and not defensive. But I think that when you say that he’s an aggressor, you mean more to it than that, because otherwise, saying “A policy of appeasement towards aggressors is counterproductive.”, seems like an overly broad statement.
The reason I’m saying that is that, if Abbas’s goal is simply an independent and internationally recognized Palestinian state in the West Bank, or the West Bank and Gaza, then, regardless of how you feel about that being a good idea or a bad idea, his goals are limited, and once that’s accomplished, he’ll stop. I think what it is, and the reason you’re bringing up appeasement is that, like Hitler at Munich, who said his final goal was the Sudetenland, but really was beyond that, you don’t believe that Abbas’s goal is actually limited to a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but that that’s just a mask for greater goals. Am I right in that?
No, he wants there to not be a Jewish state. If what he really wanted was “lands, rights, and statehood for his people,” then he surely would announce that (1) all Palestinian Arabs living in “refugee” camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the West Bank are welcome as citizens in “Palestine”; and (2) any Jews who happen to be living in “Palestine” are welcome to remain as citizens so long as they behave themselves.
Yes, I’ve made it clear that what the Arab side wants in this dispute is for there not to be a Jewish state. There’s no evidence that Abbas’ aims are substantially different.
The same resolution also approved the creation of an (additional) Arab State. So where are the pictures of Arabs cheering the same UN resolution? I’ve never seen any and I doubt that there are any. Because the Arab side doesn’t actually want a 23rd Arab state. They want for there not to be a Jewish state.
Abbas isn’t responsible for what Arabs in 1948 did or believed. He’s not even responsible for what other people now do or believe. But you can’t say “Well, the Arabs rejected a Palestinian state then, so its clear they don’t want one now.” Abbas was 13 when the partition happened. Most Palestinians weren’t even born then.
And you can’t say “the Arab side”, because there’s not just one Arab side. There are a bunch. There are the various Arab states of the Middle East, there’s Fatah, there’s Hamas, there’s all sorts of different groups and factions with their own interests. Lumping them together as “the Arabs” is counterproductive when it comes to understanding the situation.
