European Union - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 15Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 11-28-2016, 04:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
The reason I'm not talking about those other countries in this thread, quite obviously, is that one of the commenters, tpkyteroo luebeck, started all of this by stating pro-Israel propaganda in which you later joined. Nobody here has stated pro-Saudi, pro-Yemen, Pro-Libya etc. propaganda. Moreover, the reason I am more concerned about Israel than those other countries is not anti-Semitism, as you are obliquely insinuating, but because Israel is much more powerful, has nuclear weapons, and most importantly because Israel exerts a huge amount of influence in my own country, the United States, particularly through the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is probably the most powerful lobbying organization in Washington and has a lot of influence in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Yemen? Not so much. So again, if you'd like to stick with the issues, that's fine. If you're going to use veiled allegations of anti-Semitism to disparage my (accurate) criticisms of Israel, it's just not going to work, with all due respect.
Fair enough. These are valid points you have now brought to the table.

If it's any comfort, Israel has probably had nuclear weapons for 50 years and in that time, their use has never been overtly threatened. I think we have more to fear from nuclear states such as Russia, North Korea, India and Pakistan, perhaps with Brazil and Saudi Arabia joining the group in the not too distant future. Of course if someone in Pakistan decides to pass nuclear weapons/technology to a radical Islamist group, then we can all be very afraid.

As for AIPAC, with your new fellow soon to be in charge in the US, their future and that of other such organisations must be somewhat uncertain don't you think? The US seems to be on a downward spiral as far as power, influence and prestige are concerned and who can possibly guess the consequences the lengthy death throes of such a once powerful nation will bring?

As an aside Dilettante, you've previously mentioned the US vetoing resolutions against Israel so I thought you might be interested in the following info that came from the UNWatch organisation in Geneva on 25 November 2015:

-The U.N. General Assembly’s 2015 session is adopting 20 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism — and only 3 resolutions on the rest of the world combined.

All but one of the texts have already been adopted by the plenary yesterday, or have been approved at the initial committee vote.

The three that do not concern Israel are: one on Syria, a regime that has murdered more than 200,000 of its own people, one on Iran, and one on North Korea.

Not a single UNGA resolution this year (70th session) is expected to be adopted on gross and systematic abuses committed by China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe, or on dozens of other perpetrators of gross and systematic human rights violations.


This is probably why I don't have as much respect for the UN that others may have!

Anyway enough from me. Perhaps you could clarify Dilettante what you want from Israel as far as the West Bank and Gaza are concerned. Do you want a State of Palestine living in peace with its neighbours and how do you see this coming about? Would you have those loveable rogues the Syrian army back on the Golan Heights? The pre-1967 borders did not give peace to the region's countries then and as there is a lot more volatility now, that's even less reason for those concerned to look at the 'question of Palestine' in isolation.

Best wishes

Lv

Last edited by leedsveg; 11-28-2016 at 05:22 AM.
leedsveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 11-28-2016, 08:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
Fair enough. These are valid points you have now brought to the table.

I shouldn't have to explain myself or justify my motives when criticizing Israel. I shouldn't have to "now" have brought points to the table in order for my motives not to be questioned. Unless I give reason to question the purity of my motives when criticizing Israel (which I didn't), my good faith should be assumed, just as when I criticize any other nation.

As for AIPAC, with your new fellow soon to be in charge in the US, their future and that of other such organisations must be somewhat uncertain don't you think? The US seems to be on a downward spiral as far as power, influence and prestige are concerned and who can possibly guess the consequences the lengthy death throes of such a once powerful nation will bring?

Yes, U.S. power and influence is on a downward spiral (though the U.S. is probably not in its "death throes"). With an autocratic ethno-nationalist about to be installed as the U.S. president, the center of the "free world" will shift, at least temporarily and possibly for the longer term, to Europe. Merkel is possibly now going to be viewed as the leader of the the liberal Western democratic bloc. Whether the U.S. might regain its role post-Trump remains to be seen. As for Israel, though, I expect for AIPAC and the other pro-Israeli forces to have even more influence in the Trump era. The far right-wing in the U.S. is even more pro-Israel than the center and center-left is. Also, Trump has a natural affinity for ethno-nationalist autocratic leaders, so Putin, Erdogan, and Netanyahu will all be given wide latitude by Trump.

Anyway enough from me. Perhaps you could clarify Dilettante what you want from Israel as far as the West Bank and Gaza are concerned. Do you want a State of Palestine living in peace with its neighbours and how do you see this coming about? Would you have those loveable rogues the Syrian army back on the Golan Heights? The pre-1967 borders did not give peace to the region's countries then and as there is a lot more volatility now, that's even less reason for those concerned to look at the 'question of Palestine' in isolation.

It's possible that the situation in the West Bank is now unsolvable. If the Israeli left had flourished in the 1990s and Rabin hadn't been assassinated, Israel might have been able to make peace with a stable Palestine existing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Even then, it would have been iffy, because there are extremists on both sides. On the Israeli side, there are extremists who believe they have a divine right to grab all of that land, which they call "Judea and Samaria," as a Jewish homeland. On the Palestinian side, there are extremists who want the nation of Israel destroyed. Still, 20 or even 10 years ago there was at least a chance for a peaceful two state solution.

Today, Israel has allowed so many settlements to be built in the West Bank, that I fear there is no way they could ever realistically pull out. In the long term, that is bad for the Palestinians who are being occupied and confined to ghettos. However, it is also bad for the nation of Israel, because, especially with all of the leeway Trump is about to give Israel to grab that territory, the West Bank is going to begin looking like a part of Israel. That is, the entire area--including Israel and the West Bank--is going to begin looking like one big nation. As that happens, the focus is going to shift from "ending the occupation" to "ending apartheid" or "ending Jim Crow." Over the next half century, Israel will become an international pariah if it continues to keep West Bank Palestinians in ghettos, with no voting rights or other civil liberties. On the other hand, if Israel gives them the right to vote, it will fundamentally alter the nature of Israel. So, it's a conundrum, and one that could have been avoided. But it may be too late to do anything about it now.

Last edited by Dilettante; 11-28-2016 at 09:20 AM.
Dilettante is offline  
#33 Old 11-28-2016, 10:19 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
[I] Unless I give reason to question the purity of my motives when criticizing Israel (which I didn't), my good faith should be assumed, just as when I criticize any other nation.
I'll remember that D. especially when and if you criticise any other state.

Referring to Israel in a context of "apartheid", this is what many detractors already accuse Israel of practising (not you I hasten to add). That people can wear blinkers and ignore the practices and prejudices going on in many Arab/Muslim states is quite ironic.

Some good news I find is that Israel is gradually making allies in the region, although for obvious reasons, it rarely makes the front pages. It seems that other states see Israel as an asset, a bulwark against militant Islamists. They have gradually realised that even if the State of Israel (with all its faults) were to disappear tomorrow, the volatile Middle East would be in an even worse position than it is now. Would the Hamas and PLO leaders be able to come together in harmony to govern a new State of Palestine with Hesbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood as next door neighbours? As if!

Anyway I'm now out of this as I've said what I wanted to. No easy answers where the State of Israel is concerned. Bit like voting for Brexit or voting for Trump and expecting an easy ride!

Lv
leedsveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 11-28-2016, 11:10 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
I'll remember that D. especially when and if you criticise any other state.

Again, a veiled insinuation of anti-Semitism. Your implication seems to be that I'm not criticizing any other state, only criticizing Israel, so perhaps it's due to anti-Semitism on my part. As I said, this tactic is old and doesn't faze me in the least. It's what I expect whenever I criticize Israel, and it doesn't work, at least not with me. I can criticize the U.S. (shouldn't have treated Native Americans badly; shouldn't have invaded Iraq), and nobody questions my motives. I can criticize Saudi Arabia (shouldn't oppress women), and nobody questions my motives. Can criticize Russia (shouldn't crush a free press; shouldn't have invaded the Crimea), and again, nobody questions my motives.

But as soon as I criticize this particular nation, Israel, people including you question my motives and, rather than dealing with the problems in Israel, start asking me why I'm not criticizing other countries. Sometimes the motive-questioning and allegation of anti-Semitism is direct. Other times, like when you did it to me in your most recent post, it's a veiled insinuation.

I'd suggest that unless there is a reason not to, we assume that each other is speaking in good faith, not with tainted motives, and go from there, if we're going to discuss Israel (or any other topic). That's the most productive approach.

Last edited by Dilettante; 11-28-2016 at 11:26 AM.
Dilettante is offline  
#35 Old 11-28-2016, 04:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 480
I think the West Bank should be an independent Palestinian state (or part of one), that all Israeli police/military should leave, and the Israeli citizens that are there should take their chances or leave. They blatantly stole the Palestinians' homeland, committing atrocities, razing villages etc. Whether or at what point it became a nation state is irrelevant. You can't spin stealing a people's land as OK just because it hasn't made itself into a nation. Building settlements in certain places, like on the East of Jerusalem to surround it, was wrong and motivated only by selfishness, religion and so on, not by anything fair.

Of course, there are serious questions about whether Palestinian terror organizations would start bombing Israelis immediately, whether creating a Palestinian state would really mean a functioning country (at least in the short term), and the Israelis losing the Jordan valley as a defensible military barrier. But none of that changes what's right.

For me, the solution is that when the Israelis leave the West Bank, the green line is strengthened and border control becomes very tight, and that a very large international force (with no Israelis in it) is placed inside the West Bank and at the border. This would be in two parts: a military force patrolling the West Bank side of the wall, and other key areas to reduce terrorism and a civilian force that would help develop the Palestinian government. In the beginning the Palestinian state would not be allowed to have any military forces, and this would likely remain so for decades but would have control over everything else: matters such as education, health, transport etc. However it would be given a guarantee by the UN that they would defend it against Israeli aggression if necessary (and vice versa).

Local police would be international at first in the West Bank, and transition asap to unarmed Palestinians. Eventually the Palestinians would be allowed their own military force but many years later when things have calmed down and certain conditions have been met (e.g. no aggressions carried out against Israel). Eventually, one day, the wall could come down.

The cost of the international forces could be borne partly by the Israelis and partly by the international community.

If the Israelis refuse to agree to such a plan (which I assume would be likely, especially with a right wing government in power, although ideally the governent could put it to a referendum), they should be subjected to international sanctions like huge taxes added to their goods, their teams not being allowed to participate at sporting events, their leaders not able to participate in international conferences and so on, until, like apartheid South Africa, they finally cave.

The Palestinian people in the West Bank should be given a democratic vote to see if they as a people agree to the plan or not and as part of the vote they should be asked to vote yes not just to their liberation but as a condition of it to vote against terrorism against Israel (suicide bombings, missiles etc) and to vote in favour of their own country not being allowed a military force in the early days. They should be told however that if they vote yes they are going to be given a lot of international aid for hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure , and if they vote no they will not get the aid, that Israel will not be sanctioned, and in effect the international community will not help them if they are not truly ready to vote for peace.
Dilettante likes this.

Last edited by Jamie in Chile; 11-28-2016 at 05:04 PM.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#36 Old 11-28-2016, 05:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
I agree with much of that, Jamie. However, the window has probably closed on a two state solution. It would have been possible 10 or 20 years ago, but because Israel has continued recklessly building settlements in the West Bank (largely due to the cover that U.S. support has provided), Israeli withdrawal is now a near impossibility. Israeli settlers are too entrenched in the West Bank to realistically pull out. This, of course, was the plan all along on the part of the Messianic religious settlers, and they've achieved it, to the detriment of both the Palestinian people and Israel's long-term existence as a liberal democracy.

It's increasingly the case that Israel and the West Bank are effectively best viewed as one nation, with the "Jewish State" ruling the entire territory, and the Palestinians in the original part of Israel having technical citizenship but de facto second class status, and the Palestinians in the newly-acquired West Bank part having no voting rights or civil liberties. There will likely be a long-term process whereby, slowly, Israel's influence on American political discourse will weaken and, at the same time, the increasingly apartheid nature of the Israel's control, especially over the West Bank, will become apparent to most nations around the world. This is unlikely to work out well for Israel in the long run. If Israel wants to get out of this trap, it would have to act soon, but given the right-wing governments both in Israel and (as of next January) the U.S., that's almost certainly not going to happen.

Let me be clear that the problem is not one-sided. There are also big problems in the Arab world, quite obviously. It seems that every time an Arab nation acquires the right to democratic self rule, the most typical result is that Muslim fundamentalists come to power, with oppression of women, persecution of religious minorities, and all kinds of other problems.

So, even if there were some way to implement a two state solution (which, as I've noted, there probably no longer is), then one likely outcome would be a Muslim fundamentalist regime in Palestine, with possible terrorism against Israel.

There are no easy answers. It's an intractable problem.

Last edited by Dilettante; 11-28-2016 at 10:16 PM.
Dilettante is offline  
#37 Old 11-29-2016, 08:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 480
I am not sure we can deny the Palestinians democracy because of doubts about who they would elect, and I think we should acknowledge that a large part of their anti-Israel beliefs are justified because of past atrocities, oppression, land theft etc. It's awful that so many civilian Palestinians support and praise suicide bombings of innocent civilians (some of these victims probably support a 2-state solution) but I honestly suspect that any people, race or religion, would come to the same conclusions given such an oppression and lack of education, and everyone around you saying the same. You and I would like to think we would never support a suicide bomber or a plane hijacking or an Olympic-athlete killing but if we had had the crappy education the Palestinians probably get, immersed in a world where everyone around you is radical, and subject to the severe oppressions, we cannot say for sure we would not have supported it. Look at the ease with which right wing demagogues gain massive popular support in educated Western countries given the tiniest imagined foreign threat. It's obvious that our liberal humanity would collapse in certain situations. The fact that many Palestinian people still support terrorism/freedom fighting is really more of an indictment of the people of the world than an indication that the Palestinians are somehow worse than others, and should not be used as an excuse to deny the Palestinian children of today their future. (Another argument, although it may be one of the more crackpot ideas I've had, could be to try and arrange a 2-state solution where Westerners not only fund Palestinian children's education, but offer to provide the teachers and curriculum in order to stop them all being taught from a young age that Israelis are devils.)

Intractable is slightly pessimistic but there may be an argument that world leaders would be better off spending their valuable time on other issues. That's also why I propose they just make this dual referendum where they both vote for a peaceful 2-state solution and if they don't then they are left to their own devices.

To be clear, I am well aware that there are huge numbers of Israeli settlers all over the place and I think they should all take their chances or leave because it's the right thing to do and the lesser of all the many evils.

I am not convinced that time will help defeat the Israelis. It seems to help them.

If we were having the discussion in the late 1940s when the Israelis were blatantly exceeding their mandate, taking more land and committing atrocities there would be a very strong argument that the founding of Israel was a mistake and that the whole country should be the state of Palestine. Time goes by and no-one credible, even the Arab states that originally wanted to drive Israel into the sea (and to be fair started the 1940s wars I think), can make that argument any more because everyone in Israel, was born later and responsible for the founding of the state. In the 60s/70s you could have easily argued that the state of Palestine should include an area larger than the current West Bank and include areas where villages were razed and should be rebuilt. You no longer can because so much time has passed that all the Israelis living in such areas were born there, it wasn't their fault.

Another 10 or 20 years from now and it will be harder to justify a plan such as mine as more and more of the West Bank settlers will have been born there and become 2nd, 3rd generation there. That's why I think offer Israelis the deal I proposed now and immediate and heavy sanctions if they don't accept it.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#38 Old 11-29-2016, 09:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
I am not sure we can deny the Palestinians democracy because of doubts about who they would elect, and I think we should acknowledge that a large part of their anti-Israel beliefs are justified because of past atrocities, oppression, land theft etc.

Who said we should deny Palestinians democracy based on these doubts? Certainly not me. I believe that Palestinians should have their nation in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel. However, I suspect that if it happened, and the people were given the vote, the eventual result would be a vote for an Islamic fundamentalist government, as has happened in Gaza, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, and probably a bunch of other Muslim countries I can't think of right now. It seems to be the trend. Even so, I still think Palestine should be given its sovereignty and a chance to try self-rule. (As I also noted, I believe the window of opportunity has already closed on a two state solution, and Israel is going to be the long-term ruler of the entire territory, with increasing international marginalization and pariah status for keeping the Palestinians in ghettos with no civil liberties.)

Regarding the founding of Israel in the 1940s, it was wrong when it happened, but as you correctly point out, that's too long ago to do anything about. It's no different than the founding of the U.S., Australia, Canada, or many other countries. The U.S. was stolen from Native American tribal nations mostly in the 19th century. Israel was stolen from indigenous Palestinians in the mid-twentieth century (Israel apologists will deny this and give some long, convoluted explanation about Britain or something, but it's baloney). Even so, it's 2016, and all these nations founded long ago on conquest (the U.S., Israel, Canada, etc.) aren't going anywhere and need to be taken as they are and welcomed into the community of nations.

Israeli, however, is still rogue for its ongoing land grab and colonization on the West Bank.
Spudulika likes this.

Last edited by Dilettante; 11-29-2016 at 09:53 AM.
Dilettante is offline  
#39 Old 11-29-2016, 02:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
So, even if there were some way to implement a two state solution (which, as I've noted, there probably no longer is), then one likely outcome would be a Muslim fundamentalist regime in Palestine, with possible terrorism against Israel.
That's how it's been since 1947/1948. If there was going to be a viable Palestinian state, it would/should have been established around the same time as Israel, with both sides recognising each other. The PLO, Hamas and the population of Gaza and the West Bank have never accepted the existence of Israel and never will. This is the reality of the Middle East, we're not talking about a Boy Scout camp in Kansas with everybody sitting around a camp fire singing Kumbaya.

Lv
leedsveg is offline  
#40 Old 11-29-2016, 03:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
Leedsveg, I want to be clear. I don't believe it's too late for a Palestinian state on moral grounds. I believe that morally, the Israeli "settlers" should vacate the West Bank and a Palestinian state should be established there. What I also believe, however, is that due to the reckless policy of continuing to allow the the settlement process by Netanyahu and his predecessors, the political window on an Israeli pullout from the West Bank has now closed. Realistically, it's just no longer achievable politically, and there is no political will for it, neither in Israel or, certainly under Trump, in the U.S., which has long been a sort of (lopsided) broker in the region.

As I also stated, the long-term situation on the West Bank, which is Israeli occupation, Palestinian confinement to ghettos, and no civil liberties or voting rights on the part of Palestinians, is a corrosive disaster, both for the Palestinians and for the long-term viability of a democratic Israel that styles itself a "Jewish state."
Jamie in Chile likes this.
Dilettante is offline  
#41 Old 11-30-2016, 05:39 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
If we were having the discussion in the late 1940s when the Israelis were blatantly exceeding their mandate, taking more land and committing atrocities there would be a very strong argument that the founding of Israel was a mistake and that the whole country should be the state of Palestine.
In November 1947 the UN proposed that Mandate Palestine be split into 2 parts with defined borders. The Jewish side agreed but the Arab side didn't. A few months later in 1948 when the British left Palestine, the Jewish side founded the state of Israel and this was immediately attacked by soldiers from 8 Arab countries. Israel survived the attack and was accepted into the UN a year later.

Yes the Israelis "were exceeding their mandate, taking more land" but the refusal of the Arabs to agree to the Mandate's "Two-State solution" and the continuation of hostilities meant that the "Two-State solution" with its proposed borders was dead in the water. It's also a fact that both sides during this war committed atrocities.

Lv
leedsveg is offline  
#42 Old 11-30-2016, 10:42 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
As I also stated, the long-term situation on the West Bank, which is Israeli occupation, Palestinian confinement to ghettos, and no civil liberties or voting rights on the part of Palestinians, is a corrosive disaster, both for the Palestinians and for the long-term viability of a democratic Israel that styles itself a "Jewish state."
Maybe Palestinians may be tempted to move to Muslim states? If I remember rightly, around 800,000 Jews moved to the Jewish homeland of Israel over the years from Muslim states, feeling at best second-class citizens in those states. Would you have really wanted to be a Jewish citizen of Syria or Libya?

Lv
leedsveg is offline  
#43 Old 11-30-2016, 12:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
. You and I would like to think we would never support a suicide bomber or a plane hijacking or an Olympic-athlete killing but if we had had the crappy education the Palestinians probably get, immersed in a world where everyone around you is radical, and subject to the severe oppressions, we cannot say for sure we would not have supported it.
Can I just clarify that the "Olympic-athlete killing" in 1972 was not an operation where the aim was to kill Israeli athletes. The PLO plan was to take Israeli athletes as hostages and use them them to obtain the release of 234 Palestinians and non-Arabs jailed in Israel, together with the release of Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof, leaders of the Red Army Faction terror group, jailed in Germany. It appears that neo-Nazis in Germany gave logistical assistance to the PLO for the attack. LINK

But not only the PLO having strange chums. Members may wish to read about the exploits of Carlos the Jackal who joined the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in 1970. LINK

Lv

Last edited by leedsveg; 11-30-2016 at 12:21 PM.
leedsveg is offline  
#44 Old 11-30-2016, 12:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post
In November 1947 the UN proposed that Mandate Palestine be split into 2 parts with defined borders. The Jewish side agreed but the Arab side didn't. A few months later in 1948 when the British left Palestine, the Jewish side founded the state of Israel and this was immediately attacked by soldiers from 8 Arab countries. Israel survived the attack and was accepted into the UN a year later.

Yes the Israelis "were exceeding their mandate, taking more land" but the refusal of the Arabs to agree to the Mandate's "Two-State solution" and the continuation of hostilities meant that the "Two-State solution" with its proposed borders was dead in the water. It's also a fact that both sides during this war committed atrocities.

Lv
It's a good point, and I am aware of that history. The arab nations certainly made some mistakes over the year and underestimated Israel's military powers. I think refusing the right of Israel to exist made sense in the beginning. In a way, Israel's actions over the years made the attack of the 8 arab nations you refer to look even more justifiable in retrospect. However, sadly for the Palestinians, the arab nations attacks gave Israel the perfect excuse to expand its land.

The Palestinians do now need to acccept the right of Israel to exist since rightly or wrongly, Israel has been established for so long and also because trying to get rid of Israel is just not going to happen. The other arab nations (I mean, in addition to Palestine if we can even call it that) as far as I understood it have given up on that aim or at least accepted it's not achievable.

Perhaps in my referendum idea the Palestinian people would have to accept the right of Israel to exist as a condition of having control of the West bank as a free Palestinian nation.

There are certainly atrocities on both sides, and I'm not just painting Israel only as the bad guy, but there is always just too much interest in hostility, and not enough real commitment to peace, from both sides. Perhaps if women had more power in society that would help (pure speculation, could be wrong).

I don't think the lack of aceptance of arab states to a 2-state solution in the past is an argument for not having one today (and I'm not saying you're saying that either necessarily). If the Palestinian people or its representatives accept or not a 2-state solution right now, that is the question.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#45 Old 11-30-2016, 12:37 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
Maybe Palestinians may be tempted to move to Muslim states? If I remember rightly, around 800,000 Jews moved to the Jewish homeland of Israel over the years from Muslim states, feeling at best second-class citizens in those states. Would you have really wanted to be a Jewish citizen of Syria or Libya?

It's not going to happen. They consider the West Bank their homeland and are not going to leave it. Also, the other Arab countries won't let them in because they are not going to reward Israel's land grab on the West Bank. As I said, it's a long-term intractable problem.
Dilettante is offline  
#46 Old 11-30-2016, 12:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post
Maybe Palestinians may be tempted to move to Muslim states? If I remember rightly, around 800,000 Jews moved to the Jewish homeland of Israel over the years from Muslim states, feeling at best second-class citizens in those states. Would you have really wanted to be a Jewish citizen of Syria or Libya?

Lv
Unfortunately, the Arab countries may stand with Palestinians ideologically, but my understanding of it is that they have a poor record of accepting refugees from Palestinian territories. I vaguely recollect that from a book I read, I hope that's right. So, it may not work.

Of course, the other difference is that Palestinians may not want to leave their homeland so it is not quite a fair comparison as Jews in Syria might not have considered it their homeland in the same way.

EDIT: We posted at the same time, I did not see your post above when I posted mine.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#47 Old 11-30-2016, 01:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 480
What do you all think about the role of religion in the Israel/Palestine debate? People say it's more about land than religion, but many of the people there, on both sides, are so attached to the land because of religion. A lot of the real warmongering fervour, whether it's Israeli commanders surging towards Jerusalem for the first time, suicide bombers blowing themselves to bits, or assassations of political leaders trying to get peace, often has a religious component to it.

Even the original founding of Israel owes a lot to Judaism as a religion. Had the Israelis been a secular people, it's possible they would either have accepted the Uganda proposal for their homeland, or not quite had enough of a movement to secure a homeland in the first place, therefore it's possible that there would be simply a peaceful and prosperous and happy Palestine state today.

If your religion tells you that you are a superior and have a right to your homeland, and the other guy's religion tells you that you also have a divine right to the same homeland, the right to kill the infidels and so on, then it's always going to be pretty hard to see eye to eye. A part of the solution to the crisis may be more secular societies on both sides with the role of governence and religion separated.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#48 Old 11-30-2016, 08:31 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
What do you all think about the role of religion in the Israel/Palestine debate?

The conflict is mostly about ethno-nationalism. Ethno-nationalist Israelis versus ethno-nationalist Palestinians. (I'm using that word loosely, since Palestine isn't fully a nation at the moment.) However, typically when ethno-nationalism arises, it is bolstered by the traditional religion of the ethno-nationalist state. In other words, religion is a cultural attribute that is defended, just as the other cultural attributes (language and flags, for example) are defended. Religion is also a convenient means of rallying the troops on both sides to fight to the death for the ethno-nationalist cause. They're fighting not only for the land, but by divine right, and religious myths are typically used to justify whatever the land grab or power grab in question is. It all works together.

We're seeing this play not only in Israel-Palestine, but now in the U.S., which used to be a bastion of liberal democracy. Trumpers, who are ethno-nationalists, vigorously defend their religion (Christianity) against the "threat" of Islam.
Dilettante is offline  
#49 Old 12-02-2016, 09:18 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quite clearly and perhaps not too surprisingly, many people have a low regard for Israel, both in its leaders and its policies. However if there is to be a settlement and permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians, then Israel will sooner or later, have to sit down with the leaders and other representatives of Fatah (from the West Bank) and Hamas (from Gaza).

To see what kind of people will be sitting opposite the Israelis at the negotiating table, I've just spent over an hour on wikipedia looking at the following subjects: "Hamas", "Fatah", "Palestinian National Authority" and "Human Rights in the Palestinian National Authority". Now I know, yup, it's only wikipedia but has anybody else checked up on these subjects (perhaps looking at other sources) and not come away feeling depressed? One grain of comfort is that the Palestinian leadership, its policies and its values are the result of democratic elections (the same as Israel) so presumably whatever ordinary Palestinians want from an election, they get?

Last edited by leedsveg; 12-02-2016 at 09:22 AM.
leedsveg is offline  
#50 Old 12-02-2016, 10:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 480
I'd like to see questions put to the Palestianian people rather than their leaders in a referendum as I say before. And one of the things I would like to see is women voting. I think if women had equal rights in countries, we might manage to have more peace and less wars (speculation).

It's also worth considering that the human rights would probably be just as bad in any poor country subject to such terrible oppression for so long.

Hamas are more of a terrorist organization so perhaps not worth dealing with but some of the others are relatively more moderate.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#51 Old 12-02-2016, 11:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
It's also worth considering that the human rights would probably be just as bad in any poor country subject to such terrible oppression for so long.
Yes because many countries in the Middle East that have never been "subject to such terrible oppression for so long" are real beacons for promoting human rights...


Quote:
Hamas are more of a terrorist organization so perhaps not worth dealing with but some of the others are relatively more moderate.
As I understand it, Hamas were democratically voted into power by the Palestinian people. Surely you cannot be suggesting that the Palestinians elected a terrorist organisation to govern them?
leedsveg is offline  
#52 Old 02-22-2017, 04:19 AM
99% Vegan
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 162
Let me be clear: When the majority of the countries IN the United Nations vote against Israel, ONLY THEN does having a European Union scare me because my Bible says that the world will unite against Israel and try to murder every Jew on earth. I am not saying that citizens are being antisemetic. I am saying that the members of the UN is being antisemetic. Huge difference! Anything the supports a union of countries that voted against Israel is antisemetic. Its not that Israel we declaring war. Israel only moved into the gaza strip and created jobs for palestianians and the UN got upset and kicked Israel out. Palestine gov is not creating job for its own citizens. Israel is allowing palestinians to work in Israel. Hamas comes in and bombs Israel to stop Palestinians from working in Israel. Then spreads rumours the israel isn't creating jobs for us and is the enemy. No, the real enemy is the UN and Hamas. UN for blaming Israel every time Hamas bombs them. Thinking Israel should just take the bombs and never retaliate. Basicaly, throwing us under the bus. Also, Hamas is the enemy for trying to incite war. ISIS is also the enemy. But, does Israel vote against the UN for trying to stop ISIS like the UN does to Israel? NO!

Keep in mind that uniting with government that vote against Israel's safety and well being IS the issue. Israel is right now having a Job growth boom and is paying debt back to other countries. UN and the countries in it, needs to respect Israel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Allergic99%Vegan
tpkyteroo luebeck is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off