Official Israel/Palestine topic

The link I provided did not give the complete speech.

The best part was imo:

"....But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.... "

You got that right, bud!  :notworthy:
 
I do not disagree with that, but unless Isreal is willing to go along with it on their own (which I think was another part of the speech) and the Palestinians are willing to give up thoughts of wiping Israel from the map it is not going to happen.  Until there is some agreement, I think we (the US) needs to back Israel moreso than Palestine.
 
Response from Israel

Israel's prime minister has rejected a key aspect of President Barack Obama's Middle East policy speech, saying that a return to his country's 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish state.

Ahead of a visit to the White House Friday to discuss the peace process, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines "indefensible," in a statement released late Thursday,
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

This should make for a fun meeting tomorrow
 
True and that is where the issue really is, each wants an outcome which harms the other party and neither (with good reason) trusts the other.
 
Five praises and my gratitude to the first person who can point me to a balanced, well-written and short (less than 50 pages) article or "Cliffs Notes"-style primer on the Arab-Israeli conflict up to the present. 
 
Let's remember why Israel came into possesion of the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza strip. They came under attack from Jordan, Syria and Egypt. These are lands that are not kept as trophies, but as strategic defensive positions. They did not belong to Palestine. Gaza belonged to Egypt, the West Bank belonged to Jordan and the Golan Heights to Syria. President Obama gave Israel a slap in the face today by making his request the day before Netanyahu comes for a visit. This is a very calculated decision by the President.

This is utteraly ridiculous request by the President and I do not understand why he would want to weaken a strategic alliance. Is it appeasement? Or does Barack Obama wish to weaken Israel? Does he really think a two state solution is viable? This is a very bad idea.
 
LooseCannon said:
I'm curious...do you think the Palestinians do not deserve their own state?
Click to expand...

I think they should have their own state, but also think Israel has the right to keep it's borders as-is. Borders are and never have been perfect, I think if "deserve" is the criteria, it might make sense to revist some of the 1945 (or even 1919) border changes which moves people out of their homelands.  The further you get away from the point in time where a border change happened, the more it makes sense to try to work with the existing borders.
 
Yes they do, but not at the cost of the security of Israel. I also believe Israel should have jurisdiction over the Old City of Jerusalem, keep the Golan Heights and most of the West Bank.
 
LooseCannon said:
I'm curious...do you think the Palestinians do not deserve their own state?
Click to expand...

Yes.

bearfan said:
I think they should have their own state, but also think Israel has the right to keep it's borders as-is. Borders are and never have been perfect, I think if "deserve" is the criteria, it might make sense to revist some of the 1945 (or even 1919) border changes which moves people out of their homelands.  The further you get away from the point in time where a border change happened, the more it makes sense to try to work with the existing borders.
Click to expand...

This shows a lack of knowledge of how much the Palestinians have suffered over the course of decades. You probably don't know the proportions of their suffering. Way more casualties have fallen on their side compared to the Israeli side.

Check my 2009 post:

Forostar said:
Some stats of this conflict. Read on.

Data taken from this source

The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem commemorated 20 years since its founding with release of data collected by the organization from 1989-2009.

Bloodiest year for the Palestinians: 2009 -> deaths: 1033 (315 minors)
Bloodiest year for Israel: 2002 (second intifadah) -> deaths: 420 (269 civilians incl. 47 minors & 151 members of the military forces)

Year with the lowest level of Palestinian casualties: 1999 -> eight people killed.
Year with the lowest level of Israeli casualties: 1999 -> four people killed.

Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories in the last 20 years killed by Israeli security forces: 7,398 (at least 1,537 minors).
Israelis killed by Palestinians in the last 20 years: 1,483 (139 minors). Of this number, 488 were members of the military forces, and 995 were civilians, killed in Palestinian attacks in Israel and the occupied territories.


Israel demolished at least 4,300 homes in the occupied territories in the years 1989-2009, either for being built without permits, or as punishment. This figure does not include the destruction of property justified by military necessity. This type of demolition includes 3,540 houses demolished during Operation Cast Lead alone, and an estimated 2,700 homes demolished during previous military incursions into Gaza.

In November 1989, 1,794 Palestinians were held by Israel in administrative detention, a detention without trial. Today the number of administrative detainees is 335. The lowest number of administrative detainees, 12, was registered in December 2000. The highest number of those held without trial during the second intifada was 1,007, in January 2003.

The last two decades saw a substantial increase in the number of Israelis living over the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line). In 1989, the settlement population was 69,800 in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), and 118,100 in East Jerusalem. Today, over 300,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, as well as about 190,000 in East Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians are no dogs, and deserve a better way of living.

I am glad you have a President who knows what this is about.
He truly understands the meaning of equality and freedom.
 
But Foro forgets the 7 million Jews murdered by the Nazis.  Not the Palestinians' fault, of course, but you really can't divorce the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question from the Holocaust, which is why the Jews were given land in Palestine in the first place.  Granted, the Israelis have been dickheads to the Palestinians, but there's a reason they reacted differently to being attacked in 1967 than others might have reacted.  My post "deserve's got nothing to do with it," while glib, is pretty much how I feel,  I don't really care what happened in the past, the key is figuring out how to fix it and avoid future violence.  Both sides need to keep their crazies under control.  And if that means talking tough to Israel, probably a good thing.  Obama's speech took balls, I'll give him that. 
 
Israel has been using the Holocaust as a political tool.

Cornfed Hick said:
And if that means talking tough to Israel, probably a good thing.  Obama's speech took balls, I'll give him that.  
Click to expand...

Indeed. Looks like my 2008 wish from the "America: Land of the Free or Home of the Dangerous?" came true.

Forostar said:
More understanding for and dialogue with allies, but sometimes also with enemies.
A more neutral point of view in the Israel-Palestina conflict. Supporting only Israel, and to defend Israel only won't work. Israel still has to fulfill many U.N. resolutions (39 I believe) and this should not be forgotten. I hope the U.S. will push Israel harder, so that the conflict can be judged by international law, in an honest and neutral way.
Click to expand...

And so they did! :ok:
 
Cornfed Hick said:
My post "deserve's got nothing to do with it," while glib, is pretty much how I feel,  I don't really care what happened in the past, the key is figuring out how to fix it and avoid future violence.  Both sides need to keep their crazies under control.  And if that means talking tough to Israel, probably a good thing.  Obama's speech took balls, I'll give him that. 
Click to expand...

I suppose I should extrapolate more on what I meant by my statement. It wasn't meant as a historic construct, but more of the construct of nationhood vs. statehood. The Palestinians compose a distinct diaspora of people that occupy a majority position in areas of Israel. Regardless of the past, this entitles them to consider their own destinies, if you believe in national self-determination (a Wilsonian principle I am fond of, sorry Brits). The past has nothing to do with it: I think that because they are their own people, they deserve the right to choose.

Now, that being said, I am not sure the right to choose can be administered safely. Israel does have a right to exist as well, and a right to exist safely.

Whether or not the Palestinians realize it, their best chance to have their own nation is to be nice and play along and let international pressure do what it primarily wants to do. Fighting, suicide bombing, etc. just gets them deeper in the shithole.
 
Can the Palestinians divorce themselves from Hamas and Hezbollah? It is in both organization's charters that they call for the destruction of Israel. That, I think is the most critical issue of the whole conflict. Israel can not be expected to trade the "disputed" territory for an empty promise of peace. I still can't believe Barack Obama slapped Israel in the face the way he did. Be wary, if the USA is you ally now, because the Obama administration will sell you out.
Forostar said:
Israel has been using the Holocaust as a political tool.
Click to expand...
And unfortunately there are nations on this Earth that would love to put Israel through another one. Politics of appeasement work out in the end. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.
 
Forostar said:
Yes.

This shows a lack of knowledge of how much the Palestinians have suffered over the course of decades. You probably don't know the proportions of their suffering. Way more casualties have fallen on their side compared to the Israeli side.

Check my 2009 post:

The Palestinians are no dogs, and deserve a better way of living.

I am glad you have a President who knows what this is about.
He truly understands the meaning of equality and freedom.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt what you put in your 2009 post, but I think it is not quite right to put this on Israel.  I understand why they are reluctant to give up anything at this point since they have been attacked from the second the state existed. You can question the wisdom of creating Israel where to start with, but it has been there for the lifetime of the majority of the people in the region and most of their territorial gains have been the result of attacks on them.  There are still many states in the region that do not recognize them and call for their destruction.

The crux of the problem is that if Israel gives up land, that opens up new parts of the country to rocket attacks and weakens their defenses.  Until there is a fundamental shift towards Israel, I really do not see them giving up land and I think they would be foolish to do so. 

I recognize that there are innocent Palestinians who are suffering because of this (as there are Israelis), but organizations like Hezbollah, Hammas, the PLO are not exactly helping their cause (not to mention the people of Lebanon).

I think the whole situation is similar to the Cold War (only in closer quarters), there are diametrically opposing forces and until there is a major shift (similar to the fall of the USSR), the short range outcome is relative peace with the current borders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top