General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[JihadJane]

you were CLEARLY insinuating a connection between Islamic-extremist hatred of and anger at Israel, America's support of Israel, and 9-11.

you were CLEARLY alluding to Islamic-extremist anger at the USA for our support of Israel, as being part of the motivation for 9-11.

this is a frequent argument made by Neo-Nazis and Jihadists.

The argument that Isreal's treatment of Palestinians is fuel for al Qeada-type rage is not confined by to "Neo-Nazis and Jihadists" at all.

For example: Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA's) Osama bin Laden unit:

"""Last month, speaking in the U.K., Scheuer said American and British officials including Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron “don’t have a clue” about the terror war or what is going on in the West. “The main recruitment sergeant for al Qaeda is Barack Obama,” he charged.

And according to Scheuer it has nothing to do with America‘s rapidly vanishing freedoms, as the government continues to claim. “We are being attacked in the West and we will continue to be attacked in the West as long as we are in Afghanistan, as long as we support the Israelis, as long as we protect the Saudi police state,” Scheuer told the crowd. “They can’t cope with the fact that it’s nothing to do with the way we live. It doesn’t have anything to do with elections or democracy or liberty.” He asserted that the West was being attacked for “supporting fascism across the Middle East,” not so-called “gender equality” or any such notions."""

 

[Virus]

Why do they suicide-bomb shiites and Arab Christians Jane? Are they funding Israel and fascism in the Middle East?

 

[Thunder]

HoverBoarder:

My so-crazy-it-just-might-work solution is to be found here.

brilliant...the full-Apartheid solution.

 

[Thunder]

Yes i did insinuate there is a connection and support of Israel is one of the stated reasons,...

its a good thing this isn't 2002..otherwise you would be tongue-lashed out of JREF for suggesting a connection between 9-11 and Israel.

 

[JihadJane]

its a good thing this isn't 2002..otherwise you would be tongue-lashed out of JREF for suggesting a connection between 9-11 and Israel.

...the so-called sceptics' forum.

 

[Skeptic]

brilliant...the full-Apartheid solution.

Huh?

 

[Skeptic]

You're less original than you think, HoverBoarder... your version was also suggested by people similar to those who suggested this "Jordanian option" back in the 80s and 90s. Shimon Peres, IIRC, was one of those who floated the idea. It was known back then as the "confederacy" option.

A third, related suggestion is that current Jordan, (most of) the WB, and possibly even Gaza, form three states (as opposed to countries or nations) in a larger "Jordan" or "Palestine", like the USA is formed of fifty different states. Details matter a lot, but the point of all three suggestions is rougly the same -- e.g., a solution that will benefit everybody, or at least benefit most and not hurt others.

Well, now that we solved the ME problems to our own satisfaction, you said something about curing cancer...

 

[Thunder]

I must say, now that I have researched the settlements, I fully support their annexation to Israel, and the rest of the WB given to the Palestinian people.

Why is this? The territory the settlements themselves inhabit, equals only 1% of the West Bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Administration_and_local_government


so, let the Israels annex their 1% of the West Bank, and the Palestinians get the other 99%.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Well Israel would not be adopting the Palestinian Constitution, they would just be using one modified Article of in order to give the Palestinians an easier way to accept Israel's right to exist as well as Israel as a predominantly Jewish State.

Why do you keep bringing up issues of freedom of religion when these laws protecting religious rights and sites already exists decades before this Palestinian constitution. The major difference is that these rights and freedoms actually exist in Israel whilst in the Palestinian territories administered by the PA and Hamas merely exist on paper, and hence lip-service.

I that there are major problems in requiring the Palestinians to accept Israel as a "Jewish State," because it does bring into question the rights of Israelis who are not Jewish. It is a loaded term, and a lot of people are very uncomfortable with it. There are definitely ways to say the same thing in a way that people would not consider inflammatory. I know that you don't think that right for Arab Israelis and all non-Jewish Israelis is an issue, but there are many Palestinians and non-Jewish Israelis who do feel that way.

You keep repeating the issue of having an official state religion as an issue to forwarding the two-state solution, as with the red herring stated above, this is one of the least issues, if its an issue at all, that is detrimental to any final peace solution. Non-Jews are not dhimmis as they are on the PA/Hamas controlled areas. They actually do enjoy rights and freedoms in Israel proper.

I was, however, wrong on one point. Judaism is not Israel's official state religion.

Even if it is redundant, even if they are already given rights, it is still something that should be brought up to show Isreal's commitment to it

You're right. Its redundant that its in Israeli law and is practiced as such for decades already. Making these laws into an official constitution is a redundancy that won't fix the social unrest within Israel. A two-state solution will, to a certain extent, albeit, there will still be elements within Israel that refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a state, even if one removes the 'Jewish' bit from it.

I am talking about Israeli Arabs, other non-Jewish Israelis, and Palestinians.

Alright then. We've established here, as stated above, that this really isn't an issue to begin with, as non-existent in Israeli law.

Now, can we perhaps move this along from the copy-paste bit?

 

[bigjelmapro]

And Hoverboarder, there's this underlying issue here that the Arab league, which Jordan was part of throughout, that instigated wars with Israel on 3 major occasions to snuff it out, regardless if it was King Abdullah I who was part of the instigating.

Its not an issue of whether they will or will not accept Palestinian refugees and the funds (which will be partially financed by international bodies and NGOs, different than UNRWA since they utterly fail to do so, ie resettlement), along with Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., its how many Palestinian refugees that they would have to resettle within their territorial boundaries for their responsibilities in creating this refugee problem in the first place.

As much effort, albeit futile and having a strange justification for it, as you put behind removing Jewish from 'Israel : democratic and Jewish state' as a major obstacle to peace, this is truely one of them.

The Arab league created the brunt of the Palestinian refugees, still unsolved for the most part, and created 750,000+ Jewish refugees (solved by Israel and resettlement overseas), by the '48, '67, and '73 wars, and thus bear the brunt of the responsibility for solving these issues, both monetarily and finding space for them.

As for the Palestinian capital, they will possibly have the northen part of the J'lem district and will never have the Temple Mount to claim as their capital (which lies within the voided Jordanian-occupied 1949 armistice line). Other than that, they can always have Ramallah as the capital.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Why do you keep bringing up issues of freedom of religion when these laws protecting religious rights and sites already exists decades before this Palestinian constitution. The major difference is that these rights and freedoms actually exist in Israel whilst in the Palestinian territories administered by the PA and Hamas merely exist on paper, and hence lip-service.

Well it is something that a majority of people who would be affected by future peace negotiations would consider an issue, and even though you see it as not being important and a non-ssue since you say that Israel already provides rights to non-Jewish citizens in Israel, it is still something that would still have to be addressed.

This is very important to many people who do not perceive Israel as granting equal rights to all Israeli citizens. Granted, some of that is from the propaganda, but it is still a large perception that many people have of a bias in Israel towards Jewish Israeli citizens. This is part of the reason why there is so much opposition to the wording of Israel as a "Jewish State," because it only feeds those perceptions that Israel is a biased State.

My point in using the language in Article 4 of the Palestinian Constituion, is that the same purpose of recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State can be achieved in a way of phrasing the term that many would see as less inflammatory. It can be phrased in a way that would reduce the perception of those who think that Israel is a biased State rather than increase it.

You keep repeating the issue of having an official state religion as an issue to forwarding the two-state solution, as with the red herring stated above, this is one of the least issues, if its an issue at all, that is detrimental to any final peace solution. Non-Jews are not dhimmis as they are on the PA/Hamas controlled areas. They actually do enjoy rights and freedoms in Israel proper.

I was, however, wrong on one point. Judaism is not Israel's official state religion.

Well, I would agree with that.

Not having an official State religion is a very good thing for reducing discrimination. I was just thinking about different ways that you could define Israel as a Jewish State, but making Judaism the official State religion when it is not already would be a step back.

You're right. Its redundant that its in Israeli law and is practiced as such for decades already. Making these laws into an official constitution is a redundancy that won't fix the social unrest within Israel. A two-state solution will, to a certain extent, albeit, there will still be elements within Israel that refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a state, even if one removes the 'Jewish' bit from it.

Alright then. We've established here, as stated above, that this really isn't an issue to begin with, as non-existent in Israeli law.

Now, can we perhaps move this along from the copy-paste bit?

Sure we can move on, I just have a different opinion on this than you do which is fine. I was also not saying that Israel would have to adopt this as part of a new Constitution. This is just a different way of phrasing the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State in a less inflammatory.

 

[Thunder]

Well it is something that a majority of people who would be affected by future peace negotiations would consider an issue, and even though you see it as not being important and a non-ssue since you say that Israel already provides rights to non-Jewish citizens in Israel, it is still something that would still have to be addressed.

Yes, Israel provides rights to non-Jewish citizens.

But they also suffer from wide-spread de-facto and de-jure discrimination.

A non-Jewish Israeli is not treated the same in Israel, as a Jewish Israeli.

 

[bikerdruid]

Actually communism has been antisemitic for a long time. Its founder had denounced his Jewish origins and was disgusted by Judaism (he hoped to convert all ethnic Jews to communism instead). It went downhill from there.

Communist dogma almost by definition must hate Judaism, for various reasons. But since communist dogma is thoroughly-disproved economic hocus-focus which never works, all that is left of it, after a while, is the one enduring part, namely, hatred of Judaism.

please tell us why communists must hate jews.

 

[Thunder]

please tell us why communists must hate jews.

create a new thread about it.

 

[bikerdruid]

create a new thread about it.

good idea, thanks.

are communists necessarily anti-semitic?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211303

 

[HoverBoarder]

You're less original than you think, HoverBoarder... your version was also suggested by people similar to those who suggested this "Jordanian option" back in the 80s and 90s. Shimon Peres, IIRC, was one of those who floated the idea. It was known back then as the "confederacy" option.

A third, related suggestion is that current Jordan, (most of) the WB, and possibly even Gaza, form three states (as opposed to countries or nations) in a larger "Jordan" or "Palestine", like the USA is formed of fifty different states. Details matter a lot, but the point of all three suggestions is rougly the same -- e.g., a solution that will benefit everybody, or at least benefit most and not hurt others.

Well, now that we solved the ME problems to our own satisfaction, you said something about curing cancer...

That's really great background.

There's some really good papers that go more into the idea:

http://www.meforum.org/923/re-energizing-a-west-bank-jordan-alliance

I don't think that the Palestinians should become part of Jordan, but I do think there could be a lot of benefit in having Jordan help to foster the growth and stability of a new Palestinian State in exchange for monetary compensation and desalinization plants.

A secure and prosperous Palestine is in both Israel's and Jordan's interests, and while I don't think that it would be a good idea to make Palestine into a State (or two States) of Jordan, I do think Jordan could do a lot to help, and this situation would be mutually beneficial for all parties.

Someone in all seriousness should hammer out the details and send a letter to Hillary Clinton and Saed Erekat.


So off to curing cancer?

 

[Thunder]

I don't think that the Palestinians should become part of Jordan,

the settlements make up around 1% of the territory of the West bank.

I have no problem if the Israelis annex this 1%, and give the rest to the Jordanians.

The Jordanians have a long-established and respected political system, army, police force, and beauracracy. I trust them much more thaqn I trust the PLO or Hamas.

So yes, give the West Bank back to Jordan.

 

[HoverBoarder]

the settlements make up around 1% of the territory of the West bank.

I have no problem if the Israelis annex this 1%, and give the rest to the Jordanians.

The Jordanians have a long-established and respected political system, army, police force, and beauracracy. I trust them much more than I trust the PLO or Hamas.

So yes, give the West Bank back to Jordan.

Well, there are definitely Palestinians and Jordanians who have serious reservations to it, and I think it is highly doubtful that it would ever happen. Especially not before the Palestinians make a bid at the UN to obtain recognition in September.

I just don't see the PLO or Hamas voluntarily disbanding, and I think the Jordanian annexation plan would create more unrest for the Palestinians than there is now.

Not that there hasn't been some talk of it:

Jordanian official speaks of 'State of two banks'

But it seems that the prevailing view is that Jordan supports an Independent Palestinian Nation.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods7.html

Although Jordan continued to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, King Hussein recognized that the continuing refusal of Israel and the United States to negotiate with the PLO had stonewalled any prospects for movement in the peace process. Therefore, after consulting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, he offered on February 11, 1985 to coordinate negotiations with Israel under a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. The agreement confirmed the principle of confederation between Jordan and an otherwise independent Palestinian state to be set up in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, the Israeli government’s rejection of negotiations, combined with opposition from within the PLO, derailed this initiative.

 

[Thunder]

I don't think Skeptic's plan envisions only annexing the 1% of the West Bank, that the settlements actually occupy. He wants a lot more than that.

Skeptic and his compatriots would probably want to annex all the areas in purple & pink, and give the Palestinians/Jordanians all the rest.

Clearly, such a solution is totally unacceptable.

a much more just and common-sense solution, would be to instead let the Israelis annex just the purple areas, and give the Palestinians/Jordanians everything in white & pink.

Yes, such a solution would mean many dots of Israeli sovereignty within a much larger Palestinian State. But this is the bed the Israelis have made for themselves, by building their settlements in such a way. Nothing prevented them from putting ALL of their settlements into regular-shaped blocks, on the border with Israel. So let them sleep in their bed.


..or they can just go home to Israel.

 

[Thunder]

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-battle-plan-over-palestinian-un-bid-1.366852

Israel: "Recognition of Palestinian state= deligitimization of Israel"


maybe some day, somehow, someone will explain to the rational-world how recognizing a Palestinian state in the West Bank means negating the existence of the State of Israel.

or maybe its just fear-mongering and hyperbole.

what's next, recognition of Palestine= anti-Semitism?