• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




US Israel-Palestine policy



owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,637
Please


I’m not defending Arab intransigence or BDS.

Please list the powers of these proposed ‘emirates’ so we can judge whether they resemble countries or emasculated county councils more closely.
"Emirates" is a new construction ... "cantons" on the Swiss model was an earlier formulation.

But the "Emirates" would have no (or very weak) collective or collaborative function, and security forces would be under the control of Israel.

Inevitably, the mind is led the to the word "bantustan", a word we had all hoped would have vanished from the world's language ...

Bantustan
noun
HISTORICAL•DEROGATORY
A partially self-governing area set aside during the period of apartheid for a particular indigenous African people; a so-called homeland.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,637
The term "bantustan" has been appropriated from the South African context and it is bandied about willy nilly now in all of the Arab and Leftist propaganda. So predictable. So dishonest.

The situations, the realities involved, are of course completely different. That's obvious if anyone was prepared to actually observe and think for themselves rather than just subscribe to the latest slogan designed to instantaneously call up the requisite demonising sterotype.

Emirates is without any doubt a much more apposite term. And also acknowledging that the traditional form of Arab governance, emirates or city-states, has been the most successful Arab political system in the Middle East.

But yes, it is true that there are exigencies meaning that Israel must maintain control over its eastern frontier with Jordan, to prevent the mass transfer of either light weapons or heavy weaponry to anti-Israel extremists. Also to prevent the unlimited immigration of foreign Arabs, as well as the entry of regular or irregular forces through Palestinian controlled areas into Israel.

It is the only possible way to avoid bloodshed. Quite apart from being needed to provide a foundation for Israel developing positive relations with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world.

But aside from that control, these would be fully self-governing Emirates where each Emirate would independently decide their own form of government, make their own laws, educate their own people, print their own currency if they wish, have their own media, develop their own industry and commerce, and have every other possible thing they may need towards their own self-determination.

Clearly the basic fact here is that accepting any Jewish state in their midst, regardless of where the borders were drawn, has always been unthinkable to the broad Muslim-Arab leadership and especially to jihadists, who have repeatedly assassinated those leaders willing to co-exist with the Jews. And the western so called "leftists" vindicate them.

We need to move on from this.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,478
The basic fact is that this proposal would be a shameless land grab by Israel. That’s what it is, no more no less, a way of seizing the West Bank without the inconvenience of acquiring large numbers of Arab voters. The scheme was hatched by Israeli fanatics and, incredibly, is now being peddled abroad. Given the craven surrender by America to the Netanyahu faction and the betrayal of Palestine by Arab tyrants, it may actually happen.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,637
The basic fact is that this proposal would be a shameless land grab by Israel. That’s what it is, no more no less, a way of seizing the West Bank without the inconvenience of acquiring large numbers of Arab voters. The scheme was hatched by Israeli fanatics and, incredibly, is now being peddled abroad. Given the craven surrender by America to the Netanyahu faction and the betrayal of Palestine by Arab tyrants, it may actually happen.
In what is probably a trial balloon, the US Ambassador to Israel has said Israel "has a right" to annex "some, but unlikely all" of the West Bank.


I presume the Investment conference in Bahrain to to attract investment to the parts Israel will annex, drawing its cheap labour from the remnants of the Palestinian lands.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,478
The international order is trending towards Putinism - if I like it I’ll take it because I’m stronger than you.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,637
... because I’m stronger than you...
Well done anyway for vindicating the Muslim Arab (and other countries and groupings) tactic of using the Palestinians as pawns.

I do wonder just how did the beaten countries of 1967, the "Goliath" of the combined might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, in hand with the PLO and their other Arab and Muslim supporters, know that there would be people like you to vindicate their tactic of ostensibly handing over their fight to Palestinian children with stones and invalids with slingshots etc?

But let's take a little snapshot, just to refresh our memories a little, of the "goliath" that cravenly hides behind the Palestinians, shall we? Peruse this link for example:

 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,637
... drawing its cheap labour from the remnants of the Palestinian lands...
Those tight-fisted, exploitative Jews, eh? :rolleyes:

(As an actual true to life illustration, outside the old anti semitic tropes you seem fond of, a Palestinian would earn 1450 NIS a month employed by the Palestinian Authority, well admittedly a lot more if he martyred himself killing a lot of Jews along with himself. Whereas he would earn 6000 NIS a month at a typical Israeli business providing employment in the West Bank, such as say Sodastream, which the BDS targeted).
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,164
Israel is really pushing its luck demanding US taxpayers register their support for BDS with the IRS.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,478
Well done anyway for vindicating the Muslim Arab (and other countries and groupings) tactic of using the Palestinians as pawns.

I do wonder just how did the beaten countries of 1967, the "Goliath" of the combined might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, in hand with the PLO and their other Arab and Muslim supporters, know that there would be people like you to vindicate their tactic of ostensibly handing over their fight to Palestinian children with stones and invalids with slingshots etc?

But let's take a little snapshot, just to refresh our memories a little, of the "goliath" that cravenly hides behind the Palestinians, shall we? Peruse this link for example:

This is not 1967. Israel is a Goliath now compared to its neighbours, the dominant military power in the region with hundreds of nuclear weapons and some of the most advanced military technology in the world.

Back to the so-called emirates. You’re telling us that Palestinians can’t wait to lose Area C and that this proposal is for their benefit? Do you think anybody believes that?
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,637
... Back to the so-called emirates. You’re telling us that Palestinians can’t wait to lose Area C and that this proposal is for their benefit? Do you think anybody believes that?
I never said that.

To repeat myself, I said that the Zionist side over the decades has repeatedly agreed to a compromise based on partitioning Palestine into two states, one for the Jews, the other for the Arabs—and, just as repeatedly, the Arab side has always rejected the two-state compromise formulas that have been proposed. So it was when the British Peel Commission proposed partition in 1937; so it was when the UN General Assembly proposed partition in November 1947; so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton proposed partition (a two-state solution) in 2000; and so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed partition to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in 2007–08. At each point in time, the Palestinian leader—Husseini, Yasser Arafat, Abbas—rejected the two-state offers and partition (as, consistently, has Hamas, the most powerful and popular of the Palestinian political factions).

Clearly the concessionary, roll over approach hasn't worked, and clearly if you set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank at this point in time - ensuing Arafat's post Oslo intifadas, the later stabbing intifadas, the Iranian interference, incitement, radicalisation, propaganda aimed at the West, the law-fare, and much more, there would be a bloodbath.

So it's time to move on. I know that's a great disappointment for the leftist peanut gallery.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,440
I never said that.

To repeat myself, I said that the Zionist side over the decades has repeatedly agreed to a compromise based on partitioning Palestine into two states, one for the Jews, the other for the Arabs—and, just as repeatedly, the Arab side has always rejected the two-state compromise formulas that have been proposed. So it was when the British Peel Commission proposed partition in 1937; so it was when the UN General Assembly proposed partition in November 1947; so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton proposed partition (a two-state solution) in 2000; and so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed partition to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in 2007–08. At each point in time, the Palestinian leader—Husseini, Yasser Arafat, Abbas—rejected the two-state offers and partition (as, consistently, has Hamas, the most powerful and popular of the Palestinian political factions).

Clearly the concessionary, roll over approach hasn't worked, and clearly if you set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank at this point in time - ensuing Arafat's post Oslo intifadas, the later stabbing intifadas, the Iranian interference, incitement, radicalisation, propaganda aimed at the West, the law-fare, and much more, there would be a bloodbath.

So it's time to move on. I know that's a great disappointment for the leftist peanut gallery.
There are so many out right falsehoods in that post it is staggering. The Zionist project is coy about where it borders end and begin for a good reason. They sabotaged and slimed out of the Oslo process as people predicted they would but Arafat was either too vain or too naive, or most likely a combination of both, to listen them and instead decided to trust the Zionists. They continued the colonization of the West Bank for a reason. You know all this though, you are just doing hasbara (I am not saying you are Hasbara). When will it be too much even for you?
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,478
I never said that.

To repeat myself, I said that the Zionist side over the decades has repeatedly agreed to a compromise based on partitioning Palestine into two states, one for the Jews, the other for the Arabs—and, just as repeatedly, the Arab side has always rejected the two-state compromise formulas that have been proposed. So it was when the British Peel Commission proposed partition in 1937; so it was when the UN General Assembly proposed partition in November 1947; so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton proposed partition (a two-state solution) in 2000; and so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed partition to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in 2007–08. At each point in time, the Palestinian leader—Husseini, Yasser Arafat, Abbas—rejected the two-state offers and partition (as, consistently, has Hamas, the most powerful and popular of the Palestinian political factions).

Clearly the concessionary, roll over approach hasn't worked, and clearly if you set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank at this point in time - ensuing Arafat's post Oslo intifadas, the later stabbing intifadas, the Iranian interference, incitement, radicalisation, propaganda aimed at the West, the law-fare, and much more, there would be a bloodbath.

So it's time to move on. I know that's a great disappointment for the leftist peanut gallery.
I am no leftist, obviously, and you present no convincing evidence there as to why Israel needs to change the status quo in this radical fashion and make a Palestinian state impossible for at least centuries, if not all time.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,637
I am no leftist, obviously, and you present no convincing evidence there as to why Israel needs to change the status quo in this radical fashion and make a Palestinian state impossible for at least centuries, if not all time.
The question is more why do you insist on maintaining the status quo? The status quo of between 1970 and 2013, there having been nine different peace plans (all based on the two-state solution) mediated and driven by the US.

From my perspective as an Irishman trying to learn more about this conflict, and witnessing with horror the antisemitism of my compatriots (along with their denials) the Arabs have never wanted a state for the Palestinians, they used them as pawns.

You know the biggest problem the Palestinians have is not the Jews at all.

Yes, rather I would say it's the Arabs who pit the Palestinians against a much more powerful enemy that has no intention of committing national suicide; who bar the Palestinians in their own countries from 73 job categories including medicine, law, and engineering; who do not allow them to own property, and deny them access to the healthcare system etc.

And the Iranian proxies like Hamas, Hizbollah, and Islamic Jihad who keep the Palestinians down in the sh1t, taking them out of the sh1t only to send them to die, to kill and to die.

And the western "left" (and right) who make their propaganda on the backs of Palestinian deaths and suffering; who destroy good Palestinian jobs towards their aim of demonising and delegitimising their enemy, the Jewish state; who over their dead bodies will allow any other possible solution to the Palestinian refugee problem other than the destruction of the Jewish state etc.

That's the status quo, is it not. So how do we possibly change it is the question to my mind. That's what the Palestinians need more than anything.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,164
ROC is talking bull referring to "antisemitism of my compatriots" unless its some other nation than Ireland he's talking about. It doesnt exist to any major level, unless you define it as criticism of Israel. Unlike the UK or US there is not a powerful Israeli lobby in this country and I hope the purges we've seen in the UK Labour party at the hands of the NEC will not happen here.

The Israeli embassy does not understand Irish history and how it relates to Palestine. It does not understand the natural affinity of separatist nations with each other. It does not understand the parallels between the Jewish quest for a State and that of the Palestinians and indeed Irish. And quite frankly it doesn't care, because the Likud regime only cares about Israel. And that is why its messsage falls flat in Ireland.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,637
ROC is talking bull referring to "antisemitism of my compatriots" unless its some other nation than Ireland he's talking about. It doesnt exist to any major level, unless you define it as criticism of Israel.
Why do you keep repeating and repeating this inanity? This slogan?

How many times do you have to be told criticism of Israel is not antisemitic?

But is comparing Israelis to the Nazis antisemitic?

Is paying homage to unrepetent organisers of terrorism against Israelis antisemitic?

Is consistently displaying a blatant double standard towards Israel possibly antisemitic?

Is supporting a movement that opposes national self-determination for Jews antisemitic?

Is blatant willful ignoring of Arab responsibility for the refugee situation, and placing all bets on flooding Israel with Palestinians to destroy it antisemitic?

Is extremely enthusiastic support of a movement that insists Israel become a binational state where all Palestinian so-called refugees can be brought in to erase the Jewish majority and transform Israel into an Arab state possibly antisemitic?

Is routinely making false claims against Israel, such as claims of genocide, refusing to attribute any fault to Arab terrorists, while encouraging a Palestinian culture where children are systematically taught to hate the Jews antisemitic?

Is rewriting history in order to justify hatred and demonization of the Jewish state possibly antisemitic?

Is always systemically blaming everything on Israel possibly antisemitic?

Is always outright dismissing anyone taking the effort to present the Israelis' case against the accusations flung at them as a "paid Israeli propagandist", "embassy staff", "hasbara", possibly antisemitic?

I could go on. You get the idea. Look around you and take a good note, and discern the sentiment underlying it. It's much more than just about ignorant, wildly inaccurate, ill-informed projections of our own history.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,164
roc said:
Is supporting a movement that opposes national self-determination for Jews antisemitic?
My strain of BDS supports a two state solution, and if thats not possible a bi national state or confederation of two states. The Zionists are opposing their own self determination by turning the Jews into a minority by annexing the Palestinian territories. Bibi is the Ian Paisley of Israel it's always "no no no" with him and unlike Big Ian I can't see him changing his ways.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,637
BDS does not support a two state solution or self determination for Jews.

There is no such strain except in a very dishonest figment of imagination.

Barghouti has also said they are completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,164
BDS does not support a two state solution or self determination for Jews.

There is no such strain except in a very dishonest figment of imagination.

Barghouti has also said they are completely and categorically against binationalism because it assumes that there are two nations with equal moral claims to the land.
Barghouti speaks for himself. Just as there are different strains of Socialism and Conservatism, there are different strains of BDS.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top