One unnamed guy’s views doesn’t tell you that the reason for the Palestinian observer state bid is to “insult Israel”. That’s the mind-reading I’m accusing you and others in this thread of doing.
Note that not being able to form international agreements was just one of a list of reasons I gave for why not being a country is not conducive to prosperity. Indeed, it was the last thing on the list.
But sure, off the top of my head they can’t join GAFTA.
That isn’t mind-reading, but that’s not what you’re doing here. You find the most anti-zion quote you can, then apply it to all or most Palestinians.
Furthermore, even if all Palestinians wanted Israel off the map, that still wouldn’t tell us what their intent is behind every action, such as the UN status upgrade. But you claim to be able to know such things.
Answered above.
No; of course it is a severe handicap to economic growth for a region to not be a country for all the reasons I gave and you’ve chosen to ignore.
Also you simply bit the bullet and claimed that hours of checkpoint delays in transporting anything around the country would “not really” affect business. I think anyone trying to look at this subject objectively would come to a different conclusion.
Please show me where I claimed that there is such a motivation, i.e. to “insult Israel.”
Looking at all of the Arabs’ statements and actions in context, it’s pretty easy to determine their motivations. Note that Abbas stated the following in writing:
So your mind-reading accusation is that I am basing my opinion about the Arab mentality solely on the words of one senior Fatah official?
And note that the other reasons do not fall under the “trappings of statehood.”
Why not? All of the members of GAFTA recognize “Palestine” as a state, or am I mistaken? What’s to stop them from letting “Palestine” join? I am extremely skeptical of your claim. Please show me proof.
Not at all, I have looked at many different words and actions of the Palestinian Arabs over the years and come to reasonable conclusions about their consensus views.
If you think I am somehow cherry-picking evidence, then feel free to come up with your own evidence which contradicts what I have shown. I suspect the best you can find is a few self-serving quotes from Arab leaders, in English, for gullible Western audiences. And not backed up by any consistent actions.
Then please explain what you mean by the phrase “failed state,” tell me whether the “Palestine” which has been referred to is a “failed state,” and if so, roughly when did it become a “failed state” and why.
I’m unclear on what you mean here. I agree that “perceived past wrongs” are not the only problem. But they are behind the problem(s). They exist as sources of friction, as bases of grievance. They are prominent in everyone’s conscience, and they are very often recited in discussions of the issue.
I want what you have, and you want what I have – and that’s tough enough to negotiate around – but, hey, you killed my grandfather! (And I killed yours, etc.) That makes it much tougher for us to work our way to an agreement.
This is why I recommended the “truth” phase of a “truth and reconciliation” process.
The first war, and the loss of Palestinian land; the intervening decades of terrorist attacks.
Pretty obvious, really. Those are “events in the past” that shouldn’t be forgotten, but which have to be gotten past if there is to be peace. South Africa and Ireland helped point the way.
And the Israelis have demonstrated a complete willingness to shove Palestinians off their land and take it for their own. Neither side has any concern whatsoever for the land or property of the other. The Israelis are just better armed and somewhat more sophisticated in their propaganda on the matter.
Those are not specific examples. Please give me specifics of things the Arabs have done and specific things the Israelis are doing years later which you see as revenge in response. Also vice versa.
It’s not obvious to me. It looks to me like Israeli policy is primarily motivated by self-defense not revenge. For example, Israel is not regularly bombing Syria despite all the Syrian attacks which took place in the 50s and 60s. Israel did apparently bomb a Syrian nuclear project. That seems to me more out of concern for the future than anger over the past.
I guess that’s why Arabs never win in Israeli courts when they have land disputes with Jews, right?
It also explains why there are hundreds of thousands of Arabs living in Israel who could be easily chased out, just like the Arabs chased Jews out of Gaza, Baghdad, and Hebron.
By the way, I would ask that people explain what they mean by “Palestinian Land.”
Do uncultivated parts of the former Ottoman empire count as “Palestinian land”? If non-Arabs immigrated to the area in or around what is now Israel, and started using uncultivated land, have they just misappropriated “Palestinian land”?
After the Arabs chased all the Jews out of Gaza City, Eastern Jerusalem, and Hebron, did those areas become “Palestinian land”? And are they “Palestinian Land” forever?
Are there any places in or around Israel which are NOT “Palestinian land”? If so, what? And how did they become so?
I really would like a clear definition of “Palestinian land.”
I would also like to know if there is such thing as “Jewish land.”
For example, the Jewish National Fund owns many acres of land deep inside Syria. Does that count as “Jewish land”? Is it a problem that Syria is occupying Jewish land?
For centuries there was a Jewish neighborhood in Hebron until the Arabs chased out the Jews in the 1930s. Is that neighborhood “Jewish land”? Is it still Jewish land today?
Similarly, there were Jews living in Gaza City until they were chased out in the late 1940s. Does that mean that Gaza City contains Jewish land?
The theory that it is foreign american aid which differentiates Israel from the rest of the region in terms of wealth is difficult to square with the fact that Israel received little to none prior to 1973 - yet the difference in wealth between Israel and the surrounding nations was already very pronounced.
As for per-capita aid, Palestine itself (that is, the PA - or West Bank) receives significant amounts.
The real reason is the same as the reasons why first-world nations are generally better off than third-world nations: they have cultural, social and political systems that are conducive to generating wealth. The amount of aid received is practically irrelevant to this - cut Israel off from military subsidies, it would not change the nature of Israeli society - increase aid to the Egyptians and you will not change them, either.
American aid to Israel is, on average, slightly less than $3 billion p/annum.
Israel’s GDP in 2011 was $211 Billion p/annum. Once you take into account that about half of the aid is really just a slightly convoluted method used by the US government to subsidize its Arms Industry (it must be spent buying from US companies,) we’re talking roughly 1% of the GDP. Do you really think that is the deciding factor…?
It’s thinking that’s characteristic of a certain type of argument that can only see American foreign politics as an outgrowth of Jewish/Zionist influence/power/control, that only sees Israel’s continued successes as a result of the Zionist Friendlypied Government in America that they see as doing everything that the Israeli right tells them to do, and that sees Dual Loyalty and Media Distortion as the most likely reasons for why Americans don’t agree with anti-Israel positions en masse.
It’s monocausal and mypoic.
But the function of certain ideologies is to try to rationalize support for a prejudged conclusion, and not to analyze the facts for their implications.
The problem is that Jews want Israel to exist and the Palestinians want it not to. It’s as simple as that. As far as the Palestinians are concerned there isn’t really any “Israel”. True, their country, Palestine, has been largely occupied by an invader for 65 years, but that doesn’t change anything in their eyes. There can’t be a two-state solution because the vast majority of Palestinians don’t want the “theft” of their country legitimized. They want it back, if they have to fight forever.
If by ‘little to do with’ you mean ‘is the direct cause of’, sure they’re totally unrelated. US Foreign Military Aid to Israel is to offset the FMA given to Egypt as part of the Camp David accords.
How progressive and insightful. So you’re saying only half the problem is “they’re Arabs”, the other half is “they’re Muslims”.:rolleyes:
Instead, since I’ve already done this, please tell me what your own viewpoint is, as I don’t know what you’re trying to convey. Do you believe that history starts “now,” and the past is of no consequence in moving forward to a peaceful solution? I do not.
I answered your question; your turn to answer mine.