Israel

[Asithappens 974]

1 hour ago, NowThis said:

this is supposedly the BDS 'official' website https://bdsmovement.net/faqs#collapse16233

and their goals... they don't officially want a 1 state or 2 state solution

What does BDS aim to achieve? Does it call for a one state or a two state solution?

The BDS movement aims to pressure Israel to respect international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
International law recognises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel.

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

These are three basic rights without which the Palestinian people cannot exercise its inalienable right to self-determination.

The BDS movement does not advocate for a particular solution to the conflict and does not call for either a “one state solution” or a “two state solution”. Instead, BDS focuses on the realization of basic rights and the implementation of international law.

Those three statements aren't all that bad.

Wrt 1, some (much?) of the land that Israel "occupies" was taken from wars started by the Arabs. 

2. Yep. the Arabs need to have rights in Israel, or else the claim that Israel is a democracy is pretty much a sham. Which I think it is. A sham, that is.

3. I'm probably wrong, but I don't much give a shit for UN resolutions. But then, I think Koffi Annan was an enabler of genocide in Rwanda. Fuck him for not listening to Dallaire.

[NowThis 931]

1. we must overcome the idea that the Arabs "started" the war and that the Jews are entitled to the land because they "won it" and that the Arabs "started it".  Jews were doing ethnic cleansing of Arabs before 1948 and the whole idea of a western imposed nation state on an Arab majority , by gerrymandering the area, was a cause of war. The entire supposition is that the Arabs were evil or immoral to "start it"; well no, that's a premise that should not be universally accepted as it is in the West. 

[hpslugga 4043]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

Yep, to the victor go the spoils. Thems the rules. 

There are no such rules. 

[hpslugga 4043]

1 hour ago, NowThis said:

 Finklestein and Naom Chomsky (also against BDS)

This is silly. They're very much in favor of BDS as a tactic and have said so on numerous occasions. Again, to see major faults in a movement and to point them out does not constitute "opposition." To argue that it does is no less intellectually lazy/dishonest than the oft repeated argument by pro-Israeli hawks that "it's antisemitic to oppose Israeli foreign policy."

I appreciate you posting a reference to that interview that I mentioned, but I think a full-length video would be better than a half-assed summary:

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

That’s not his interpretation; that’s what the law states. That provision of 194 was rendered obsolete by 242 the moment that it insisted “a just settlement of the refugee problem.”

There is absolutely no actual, legal ruling or statement that validates using such strong language as "rendered obsolete". Finklestein is awesome, but don't confuse his interpretations for actual law. There is NOTHING in international law that states or even implies that "just resolution" invalidates 194.

Just so people can see the actual text. These aren't long.

UN Resolution 194 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194)

UN Resolution 242 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242)

Quote

When you cite 194 and not 242, that’s like citing the 18th amendment to justify a new Prohibition.

No. The 18th was formally and explicitly repealed. This is intellectual dishonesty. PROFOUND intellectual dishonesty. UN Resolution 194 has not been rescinded or overruled or rendered obsolete in any way relevant to international law, Norman Finklestein's opinion the selective application of international law notwithstanding.

Quote

194 provided a framework to settling the refugee issue, but 242 is absolutely clear: it only requires a “just settlement.”

And is 194 not a "just settlement"? Why "only" as an adverb here? The presumption that the bar was lowered without that actually defined or outlined in any way in law?

Again, I love Norman Finklestein, but he's not the author of international law.

Quote

What I’m telling you is that BDS as a movement does not take to that position. You might, but they do not. I seriously would like for you to answer these two questions:

1. What is BDS’ position on the state of Israel?

2. Where is the evidence to support the answer to question 1?

1. They don't seem to even have one. Similarly, they don't take a position on the state of Palestine. Finklestein reads a two-state solution into 242, but that's not explicit in 242 at all. There is nothing in there about how many states should be there. 1 state, 0 states, 100 states.

2. Already linked by another poster.

The two-state solution is (to me) the obvious and most likely solution. That does not mean that the two-state solution is a matter of international law. Some BDS people want all Jews dead. Some Jews want all Palestinians dead. I have ZERO interest in trying to define any side by its most extreme elements. It's boring, pointless, and largely relates to bigotry.

Edited March 13, 2019 by bad_teammate

[UncleCharlie 334]

12 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

There are no such rules. 

History disagrees with you.

 

[NowThis 931]

36 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

This is silly. They're very much in favor of BDS as a tactic and have said so on numerous occasions. Again, to see major faults in a movement and to point them out does not constitute "opposition." To argue that it does is no less intellectually lazy/dishonest than the oft repeated argument by pro-Israeli hawks that "it's antisemitic to oppose Israeli foreign policy."

I appreciate you posting a reference to that interview that I mentioned, but I think a full-length video would be better than a half-assed summary:

 

his premise from this 2012 video is that BDS is against the idea of Israel itself and wants to destroy it.  But where does BDS actually say that? Or that BDS wants one state (4:45)?

also, the 1 state solution is gaining a lot of favor since his 2012 interview, so his premise that the world will never accept that, that premise is eroding. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

54 minutes ago, NowThis said:

1. we must overcome the idea that the Arabs "started" the war and that the Jews are entitled to the land because they "won it" and that the Arabs "started it".  Jews were doing ethnic cleansing of Arabs before 1948 and the whole idea of a western imposed nation state on an Arab majority , by gerrymandering the area, was a cause of war. The entire supposition is that the Arabs were evil or immoral to "start it"; well no, that's a premise that should not be universally accepted as it is in the West.  

Palestinian leadership supported Hitler and the Nazis in WWII.

[hpslugga 4043]

3 minutes ago, NowThis said:

his premise from this 2012 video is that BDS is against the idea of Israel itself and wants to destroy it.  But where does BDS actually say that? Or that BDS wants one state (4:45)?

If you were paying attention, he made mention of the fact (and I'd heard this crap since well before that video was posted) that BDS claims agnosticism on Israel. Again, the central theme of that whole thing was that you cannot claim that you're rooted in international law while being agnostic about parts of it.

3 minutes ago, NowThis said:

also, the 1 state solution is gaining a lot of favor since his 2012 interview

According to what? Does it have even a meaningful fraction of favor as compared to the two-state settlement?

Regardless, 1-state isn't a part of international law, so my objection to that still stands: you cannot simultaneously support 1 state and also claim that you're principally rooted in international law. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

- Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, May 15, 1948 (one day after Israel declared independence)

[NowThis 931]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Palestinian leadership supported Hitler and the Nazis in WWII.

ok, so what? doesn't mean the Arabs were wrong to attack Israel. These are two different things. 

[NowThis 931]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

- Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, May 15, 1948 (one day after Israel declared independence)

again, so what?

[NowThis 931]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

If you were paying attention, he made mention of the fact (and I'd heard this crap since well before that video was posted) that BDS claims agnosticism on Israel. Again, the central theme of that whole thing was that you cannot claim that you're rooted in international law while being agnostic about parts of it.

According to what? Does it have even a meaningful fraction of favor as compared to the two-state settlement?

Regardless, 1-state isn't a part of international law, so my objection to that still stands: you cannot simultaneously support 1 state and also claim that you're principally rooted in international law. 

BDS isn't in favor of either of the 1 or 2 state solution.

Yes, 1 state is  growing in favor https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/677100908/poll-american-support-grows-for-one-state-solution-in-israel

Thirty-five percent say they prefer the U.S. to advocate for a one-state solution, and 36 percent say they prefer the U.S. advocate for a two-state solution.

Even the founder of Electronic Intifada is for a 1 state (he's Palestinian) 

[hpslugga 4043]

4 minutes ago, NowThis said:

BDS isn't in favor of either of the 1 or 2 state solution.

Yes, 1 state is  growing in favor https://www.npr.org/2018/12/15/677100908/poll-american-support-grows-for-one-state-solution-in-israel

Thirty-five percent say they prefer the U.S. to advocate for a one-state solution, and 36 percent say they prefer the U.S. advocate for a two-state solution.

Even the founder of Electronic Intifada is for a 1 state (he's Palestinian) 

That's the US. I was asking about the global position

[NowThis 931]

the father of the Tamimi family (i'll do a post about them) - a family who has been murdered by the IDF for years, wants a 1 state 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/13/one-state-solution-gains-ground-as-palestinians-battle-for-equal-rights

He has since given up on the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. “Our society feels like it has lost. And this is the first time that has happened,” he says. The village halted demonstrations in 2015 as too many people were being shot. “Why should Ahed fight for the life I had?” he asks.

Tamimi now advocates for one secular state in all the land shared by Israelis and Palestinians 

 

 

Read more

The idea gaining momentum, even among Palestinian officials who helped negotiate Oslo. When Donald Trump recognised the contested city of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the senior Palestinian politician Saeb Erekat saidthe message was clear: “The two-state solution is over. Now is the time to transform the struggle for one state with equal rights for everyone living in historic Palestine.”

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Addressing the council on Monday after a number of Arab representatives accused Israel of practicing “apartheid,” Hillel Neuer — executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch — issued a scathing rebuke of the charge.

“Everything we just heard — from the world’s worst abusers of human rights, of women’s rights, of freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of speech — is absolutely false and, indeed, Orwellian,” Neuer said.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs, whatever challenges they face, enjoy full rights to vote and to be elected in the Knesset, they work as doctors and lawyers, they serve on the Supreme Court.

Now I’d like to ask the members of that commission, that commissioned that report, the Arab states from which we just heard. Egypt, Iraq, and the others:

How many Jews live in your countries? How many Jews live in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco?

Once upon a time, the Middle East was full of Jews.

Algeria had 140,000 Jews. Algeria, where are your Jews?

Egypt used to have 75,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Syria, you had tens of thousands of Jews. Where are your Jews?

Iraq, you had over 135,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Mr. President, where is the apartheid?

Edited March 13, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[hpslugga 4043]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Again, I love Norman Finklestein, but he's not the author of international law.

That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that he is, nor did anyone even imply it. You knew better.

Edited March 13, 2019 by hpslugga

[David Dennison 18651]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Addressing the council on Monday after a number of Arab representatives accused Israel of practicing “apartheid,” Hillel Neuer — executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch — issued a scathing rebuke of the charge.

“Everything we just heard — from the world’s worst abusers of human rights, of women’s rights, of freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of speech — is absolutely false and, indeed, Orwellian,” Neuer said.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs, whatever challenges they face, enjoy full rights to vote and to be elected in the Knesset, they work as doctors and lawyers, they serve on the Supreme Court.

Now I’d like to ask the members of that commission, that commissioned that report, the Arab states from which we just heard. Egypt, Iraq, and the others:

How many Jews live in your countries? How many Jews live in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco?

Once upon a time, the Middle East was full of Jews.

Algeria had 140,000 Jews. Algeria, where are your Jews?

Egypt used to have 75,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Syria, you had tens of thousands of Jews. Where are your Jews?

Iraq, you had over 135,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Mr. President, where is the apartheid?

Israel. Their Jews are in Israel.

Duh.

[NowThis 931]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that he is, nor did anyone even imply it. You knew better.

why does Finklestein believe BDS is out to destroy Israel? or does he?

[bad_teammate 13132]

Jews are a numerical minority and, if there was only one state, they would lose power. "Israel" is conceptualized as a state in which the Jews hold the majority of power, so Jews being out of power isn't "Israel" even if there was a one-state solution wherein the state was legally called "Israel" if the majority of power were in non-Jewish hands.

[NowThis 931]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Jews are a numerical minority and, if there was only one state, they would lose power. "Israel" is conceptualized as a state in which the Jews hold the majority of power, so Jews being out of power isn't "Israel" even if there was a one-state solution wherein the state was legally called "Israel" if the majority of power were in non-Jewish hands.

there's already a defacto 2 state solution -- Israel and Gaza.  Gaza is Palestine now, end of story. Israel should take the entire west bank and give citizenship. 

[hpslugga 4043]

34 minutes ago, NowThis said:

why does Finklestein believe BDS is out to destroy Israel? or does he?

You'd have to ask him. And I don't say that to be a smart ass, that's just the right answer to your questions and you'd get them if you just shot him an e-mail.

What I see from it is this perpetual refusal to answer some of the most basic questions that an Israeli apologist would ask. When you can't even answer them, your movement cannot gain any traction. The single most important comments he made in that interview, even more than exposing Frank Barat's ignorance of international law, was the fact that the so-called Palestinian Civil Society, which is just a cell within the BDS movement, cannot organize a demonstration of more than a couple hundred people. 

You just said a couple posts ago that "BDS isn't in favor of either of the 1 or 2 state solution." Yeah, that's kind of his (as well as my) point. Israel is a state, Palestine should be one. That's not an opinion, that's the very basis of the whole of international laws since 1948. That's exactly what's proposed in the UNGA nearly every year when that Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question. Again, if you're going to say that you're based in international law, you cannot adopt positions that directly contradict it. There is nothing in international law that supports one state, and I'm pretty sure you knew that. 

There's a reason, among a lot of others, that one state enjoys very little support among serious people; and that is that they know that Palestinians will wind up with the same fate as they would if we continue with the status quo. Israel is committed to the prospect of rendering Palestinian livelihood so unbearable that they'll just pack up and leave, and they've made that a part of official government policy for no less than 31 years. When Arafat introduced that Declaration of Independence in Algiers in 1988, the Israeli response was "Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan."

They simply do not want the Palestinians there, and they'd like to have the Sinai back in their possession as well if they could. For them to squeeze out the Palestinians with continued settlements in the West Bank and its external occupation of Gaza would be even easier under a one-state format than two states because international law does not offer protection to the Palestinians if that ends up being the case. In a two-state arrangement, they'd at least in principle be afforded the kind of protection against the kind of settlements we've been seeing for the last 52 years. They'd have property rights, sovereignty, et al. In a one-state arrangement, they would then become no different than the Arab minority that lives inside Israel, which brings me to this:

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Jews are a numerical minority and, if there was only one state, they would lose power. "Israel" is conceptualized as a state in which the Jews hold the majority of power, so Jews being out of power isn't "Israel" even if there was a one-state solution wherein the state was legally called "Israel" if the majority of power were in non-Jewish hands.

Being a numerical minority does not preclude the kind of shit that goes on in Israel. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by hpslugga

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

You'd have to ask him.

What I see from it is this perpetual refusal to answer some of the most basic questions that an Israeli apologist would ask. When you can't even answer them, your movement cannot gain any traction. The single most important comments he made in that interview, even more than exposing Frank Barat's ignorance of international law, was the fact that the so-called Palestinian Civil Society, which is just a cell within the BDS movement, cannot organize a demonstration of more than a couple hundred people. 

You just said a couple posts ago that "BDS isn't in favor of either of the 1 or 2 state solution." Yeah, that's kind of his (as well as my) point. Israel is a state, Palestine should be one. That's not an opinion, that's the very basis of the whole of international laws since 1948. That's exactly what's proposed in the UNGA nearly every year when that Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question. Again, if you're going to say that you're based in international law, you cannot adopt positions that directly contradict it. There is nothing in international law that supports one state, and I'm pretty sure you knew that. 

There's a reason, among a lot of others, that one state enjoys very little support among serious people; and that is that they know that Palestinians will wind up with the same fate as they would if we continue with the status quo. Israel is committed to the prospect of rendering Palestinian livelihood so unbearable that they'll just pack up and leave, and they've made that a part of official government policy for no less than 31 years. When Arafat introduced that Declaration of Independence in Algiers in 1988, the Israeli response was "Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan."

They simply do not want the Palestinians there, and they'd like to have the Sinai back in their possession as well if they could. For them to squeeze out the Palestinians with continued settlements in the West Bank and its external occupation of Gaza would be even easier under a one-state format than two states because international law does not offer protection to the Palestinians if that ends up being the case. They would then become no different than the Arab minority that lives inside Israel, which brings me to this:

Being a numerical minority does not preclude the kind of shit that goes on in Israel. 

international law isn't helping the west bank people who are subject to slow motion ethnic cleansing, under the current 2 state plan.  A one state plan would be better because they would be Israeli citizens subject to civil law not the military courts that are the case now.  There would be no "settlements" because a Jew building a house in the west bank woudl be the same as if he did that in Tel Aviv. it's all Israel at this point. 

The Israeli Arabs have a much better existence than their occupied brethren. Why not bring them into the fold as well?

Israel is not interested in the Sinai or even Gaza anymore. 

BDS doesn't contradict international law, i haven't seen anything in their 3 main points that would indicate so.  #1 is int law, we both agree. #2 is intl law, not specific to the conflict , but it's universally agreed that minorities anywhere should be respected. # 3 is a stretch of 242 but that can be negotiated.  So BDS isn't 'violating' international law in any aspect.  Not sure wtf Finkelstein is crying about. I think he's a zionist at heart, being Jewish, and cannot fathom the elimination of a Jewish state, even by peaceful democratic means. 

[hpslugga 4043]

1 minute ago, NowThis said:

 I think he's a zionist at heart, being Jewish, and cannot fathom the elimination of a Jewish state, even by peaceful democratic means. 

That’s just pure fantasy

[NowThis 931]

Just now, hpslugga said:

That’s just pure fantasy

does he tolerate the idea of the elimination of Israel?

[hpslugga 4043]

6 minutes ago, NowThis said:

does he tolerate the idea of the elimination of Israel?

One needn’t be a Zionist to not tolerate that. I’m sorry but that’s the juvenile, not to mention reductive, “you’re either 100% with us or you’re against us” mentality at work.

Edited March 13, 2019 by hpslugga

[NowThis 931]

13 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

One needn’t be a Zionist to not tolerate that. I’m sorry but that’s the juvenile, not to mention reductive, “you’re either 100% with us or you’re against us” mentality at work.

what else can explain his opposition to BDS's goals? None of them violate the 'international law' which are UN resolutions only. 

[hpslugga 4043]

Just now, NowThis said:

what else can explain his opposition to BDS's goals? None of them violate the 'international law' which are UN resolutions only. 

It’s not about violating international law, it’s about supporting shit that has nothing to do with international law. Do you really not notice the difference?

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

It’s not about violating international law, it’s about supporting shit that has nothing to do with international law. Do you really not notice the difference?

actually they are supporting shit in full conformity with international law (ie un resolutions)

[hpslugga 4043]

5 minutes ago, NowThis said:

actually they are supporting shit in full conformity with international law (ie un resolutions)

What UN resolution addresses giving equal rights to the Arab minority? I’ve literally read every single resolution there is regarding human rights and Israel, but all of those are couched as “in the occupied territories.”

Edited March 13, 2019 by hpslugga

[NowThis 931]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

What UN resolution addresses giving equal rights to the Arab minority? I’ve literally read every single resolution there is regarding human rights and Israel, but all of those are couched as “in the occupied territories.”

it doesn't have to be within the scope of Israel per se. If we are equating international law with UN resolutions - any resolution can apply, doesn't have to be part of 194, 242, 338 etc. 

take this one from 1948 http://www.un-documents.net/a3r217a.htm  

anything can apply 

[Scooter Monzingo 820]

7 hours ago, hpslugga said:

There are no such rules. 

You live in a country that was built on them rules dumb ass.

[David Dennison 18651]

4 hours ago, NowThis said:

does he tolerate the idea of the elimination of Israel?

Is that similar to or different from the idea of the elimination of Mandatory Palestine?

[hpslugga 4043]

23 minutes ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

You live in a country that was built on them rules dumb ass.

1. I live in a country that was established as a nation in 1789, which is 156 years before international law even existed, so that's an invalid comparison.

2. Article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which was established 22 years prior to the events of 1967, specifically states "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

3. The document that was proposed by the UN in order to settle the conflict immediately after said events of 1967 confirms that.

4. If you're going to use a pejorative term, I demand the courtesy of a correctly spelled one. It's "dumbass." One word.

[NowThis 931]

25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Is that similar to or different from the idea of the elimination of Mandatory Palestine?

not sure what "elimination of Mandate Palestine" means.

[HenryJames 65886]

 

[hpslugga 4043]

38 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Wouldn't you know who won the pony?

[NowThis 931]

Israel does not want a 2 state solution and if the Pals agree to be absorbed into Israel (without Gaza) then we have the solution by weird convergence, the 1 state solution. 

Actually, 2 states as i mentioned earlier -- Israel and Gaza (Hamas). 

[hpslugga 4043]

2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

Israel does not want a 2 state solution and if the Pals agree to be absorbed into Israel (without Gaza) then we have the solution by weird convergence, the 1 state solution. 

That's the thing: Israel doesn't want that either. They want the Arabs to leave, full stop.

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's the thing: Israel doesn't want that either. They want the Arabs to leave, full stop.

well that's not going to happen, so the Pals should demand citizenship and the world will back them. After all, who can be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves? 

[hpslugga 4043]

20 minutes ago, NowThis said:

well that's not going to happen

It's not going to happen in Gaza because it can't. Why? Because those people are literally trapped inside it. They cannot leave. They'd like to, especially given that (among other facts about it) well over 95% of the water is deemed unfit for human consumption.

Quote

so the Pals should demand citizenship and the world will back them. After all, who can be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves? 

They already do back them. Every time when that UNGA resolution comes up, it's always around 164-7 with the dissenters being the US, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau. This is not a contentious issue with the world in the slightest.

Besides, the world hardly ever does shit for repressed minorities. Where was the global community during the Apartheid era in South Africa? Where have they been for Dalits in India? Where were they for African Americans between 1948-1964? Where have they been for the Darfurians in Sudan since 2003? They've been completely absent because there's just not a lot that the UN can do in cases of internal human rights abuses. With the aid of the US, they can't even do anything about what Israel does to Palestine, and that's an external case of human rights abuses. It's the same reason that they couldn't do shit for East Timor when Indonesia was putting them through abject hell for 20+ years. They pass all these resolutions condemning Israel, but those resolutions are always shot down via a US veto no matter how lopsided the vote is. That's the issue. The Palestinians do not need any more help from the global community. 164-7 is about as pure of a consensus as it can possibly be. Hell, it could be 169-2, and we're still here with the same problem as long as the US is one of the two. What they need is for the US to withdraw itself from the conflict. There's no way around that.

However difficult it's been for the global community to intervene on behalf of the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, it'd be that much harder for them to intervene on their behalf as citizens of Israel. Let's not kid ourselves. The only way they could at least theoretically enjoy even the smallest measures of protection is with their own state. The settlements need to be dismantled, the 80% of the wall that's protecting the settlements need to be dismantle, the blockade of Gaza with all of its nasty insanity needs to be withdrawn, and East Jerusalem must be turned over to whatever their legitimate leadership is both in terms of sovereignty and control.

Edited March 14, 2019 by hpslugga

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

They already do back them. Every time when that UNGA resolution comes up, it's always around 164-7 with the dissenters being the US, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau. This is not a contentious issue with the world in the slightest.

Besides, the world hardly ever does shit for repressed minorities. Where was the global community during the Apartheid era in South Africa? Where have they been for Dalits in India? Where were they for African Americans between 1948-1964? Where have they been for the Darfurians in Sudan since 2003? They've been completely absent because there's just not a lot that the UN can do in cases of internal human rights abuses. With the aid of the US, they can't even do anything about what Israel does to Palestine, and that's an external case of human rights abuses. It's the same reason that they couldn't do shit for East Timor when Indonesia was putting them through abject hell for 20+ years. They pass all these resolutions condemning Israel, but those resolutions are always shot down via a US veto no matter how lopsided the vote is. That's the issue. The Palestinians do not need any more help from the global community. 164-7 is about as pure of a consensus as it can possibly be. Hell, it could be 169-2, and we're still here with the same problem as long as the US is one of the two. What they need is for the US to withdraw itself from the conflict. There's no way around that.

However difficult it's been for the global community to intervene on behalf of the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, it'd be that much harder for them to intervene on their behalf as citizens of Israel. Let's not kid ourselves. The only way they could at least theoretically enjoy even the smallest measures of protection is with their own state. The settlements need to be dismantled, the 80% of the wall that's protecting the settlements need to be dismantle, the blockade of Gaza with all of its nasty insanity needs to be withdrawn, and East Jerusalem must be turned over to whatever their legitimate leadership is both in terms of sovereignty and control.

yes, I know the world opinion has little material value on the ground, but what was meant is that right now the world is for a 2 state solution but they will not resist the flip to a 1 state if that is what the Pals want. The material implementation is a different matter , all because the world has no leverage on Israel - due to the US.  

[hpslugga 4043]

2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

yes, I know the world opinion has little material value on the ground, but what was meant is that right now the world is for a 2 state solution but they will not resist the flip to a 1 state if that is what the Pals want. The material implementation is a different matter , all because the world has no leverage on Israel - due to the US.  

And what I just said is the exact reason that the world will probably not back 1-state: because the US will still ally itself with Israel. We don't do that out of some profound adoration for Jews. We back Israel because it's "the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East." All you're suggesting here is dismantling the border between the West Bank and Israel, and I'm telling you straight up that the border is not what encourages the Israeli government to continue to undertake settlement projects. They want that land whether it's nominally Palestinian or not.

Look, I don't fundamentally reject the idea of one state in the long run. But that's what it'd have to be: a long run project. You're never going to sell the Israelis on the concept of becoming a near-numeric minority in the year 2019. Also, the Palestinians will never accept a one-state settlement that only includes the West Bank in the absorption. To them, Gaza and the West Bank are a packaged deal and it doesn't matter what poll you care to trot out, the fact is that's what their understanding of one-state is: absorption of Gaza and the WB into Israel. And with that being said, without factoring in ANY refugees who currently live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, et al, the populations would read around 6.6 million Jews and 6.0 million Arabs. The Jews will never accept that, and they'll also never accept a forfeiture of their right to self-determination, which is what happens when it comes a bi-national state. Self-determination means they have the right to call themselves a Jewish state. While I loathe and detest the idea of states in general, let alone ethnocentric states, that's Israel's legal right under current law. So given that Israelis will never forfeit their right to call their land a Jewish state, and since Palestinians will never accept being second class citizens, you're sitting their with your dick in your hand on this. It's very well to propose one-state, but you can't answer the question "how would it be arranged?" without turning off one side or the other to the point where they walk away.

Yes, in an ideal world, it'd be a true bi-national state, which means:

Bicameral legislature (one chamber controlled by the Jews and the other by the Arabs)
Two de facto "heads of state": President and Prime Minister (basically similar to the US electoral college concept when the VP was the runner up of the EC vote)
The Supreme Court would consist of 7 Arabs, 7 Jews, and a Chief Justice which would be chosen by the Prime Minister (i.e. whoever won the popular vote when there's a vacancy).

But as of right now, that's a huge pie-in-the-sky concept that would take decades of coaxing both sides into, if ever. Like I said, two states is a rotten solution, but it's the least rotten among them. One of the leading reasons that one-state is marginally picking up steam is because people are frustrated with two-states. Well that's a logical error. Two-states isn't failing because it's two-states. Two-states is failing because Israel, with the US backing it, wants it to fail. But again, they want any arrangement that includes Palestinians living in that land to fail. It doesn't matter if it's one state or six. The question isn't "what will Israel agree to?" The question is "what will the Israelis agree to with the Americans removed from the equation?" When the latter question is put to them, their answer has to change because they have no protection in the UN to do whatever they damn well please like they do today.

[David Dennison 18651]

13 hours ago, NowThis said:

not sure what "elimination of Mandate Palestine" means.

Oh. OK.

[Asithappens 974]

Both the Arabs and the Jews are majorly effed up in the middle east. Two sides of the same coin, basically.

But even so, I can't imagine anyone really backing the Palestinians over the Israelis. Yeah, the Israelis have screwed them over. Yet the Israelis themselves have been screwed over. 

Do you think the Palestinians really care about American/western/liberal ideals? Not only do I think they don't care about them, I think they would actively fight those ideals.

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Both the Arabs and the Jews are majorly effed up in the middle east. Two sides of the same coin, basically.

But even so, I can't imagine anyone really backing the Palestinians over the Israelis. Yeah, the Israelis have screwed them over. Yet the Israelis themselves have been screwed over. 

Do you think the Palestinians really care about American/western/liberal ideals? Not only do I think they don't care about them, I think they would actively fight those ideals.

lots of people here back the Palestinians, as do more Euros and of course much of the rest of the world. Did that ever occur to you?

The Israelis have not been screwed over. 

Why does it matter if the Palestinians care about American ideals? Is America the new God? I know it is to you but outside the US , few give a damn. 

[Asithappens 974]

26 minutes ago, NowThis said:

lots of people here back the Palestinians, as do more Euros and of course much of the rest of the world. Did that ever occur to you?

The Israelis have not been screwed over. 

Why does it matter if the Palestinians care about American ideals? Is America the new God? I know it is to you but outside the US , few give a damn. 

What makes you think it hasn't occurred to me? 

Why does it matter if the Palestinians care/don't care about American ideals?

I think you not seeing that point says it all.

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

What makes you think it hasn't occurred to me? 

Why does it matter if the Palestinians care/don't care about American ideals?

I think you not seeing that point says it all.

you need to overcome the self-importance of America.  Much of the world supports the Pal side, you need to discover this fact. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

What makes you think it hasn't occurred to me? 

Why does it matter if the Palestinians care/don't care about American ideals?

I think you not seeing that point says it all.

What American ideals are those?  You think that Palestinians don't desire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Of course they do.  What you're trying to do is apply "less than human" characteristics to them so that you can justify their current condition.

And what you really miss in your assessment is that they actually have no way to achieve those "American" ideals, so many of them lash out in desperation.

[NowThis 931]

11 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What American ideals are those?  You think that Palestinians don't desire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Of course they do.  What you're trying to do is apply "less than human" characteristics to them so that you can justify their current condition.

And what you really miss in your assessment is that they actually have no way to achieve those "American" ideals, so many of them lash out in desperation.

and why the fuck are American ideals so important in the first place?