HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » Only ourselves to blame

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:21 PM

Only ourselves to blame

In the wake of the recent vote in the UN General Assembly, the reactions across the Israeli political spectrum were anything but a surprise. While some voices on the left simply welcomed the vote, others blamed the Netanyahu government, arguing that Israel's foot-dragging on peace talks during the last four years left the Palestinians with no other option than to bypass Israel and take their case directly to the UN.
.............................

Lost in all the fuss, however, is the fact that for years Israel itself has been encouraging the creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. In other words, the point is not whether or not the Arabs sidestepped Israel but rather the fact that the only one to blame for the approaching reality of an Arab state in Judea and Samaria is not Abbas, the UN or any of the hypocritical countries in the world, but rather one of the most democratic, stable and tiniest countries in the entire Middle East - Israel.

After all, with successive Israeli leaders, including current Prime Minister Netanyahu, supporting the establishment of yet another Arab state in the region, this time in Judea and Samaria, rather than confidently and unabashedly asserting the rights that the Jewish people have to the land, be it the Biblical rights or the legal rights (Mandate, San Remo, etc), is it any wonder that we're heading in the direction of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?

However, rather than taking responsibility for this fiasco, Israeli leaders are throwing sand in our eyes by merely focusing on the qualitative difference of whether or not a Palestinian state will eventually be thrust upon us via the international community or whether one will be reached via an accord and a few signatures on a piece of paper called a peace agreement. Needless to say, for anyone who is genuinely concerned that an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, regardless of how it is established, will pose a threat to the very existence of an even smaller and more vulnerable State of Israel, the focus on the alleged difference in how the Palestinians achieve their state is not very comforting.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4317719,00.html

24 replies, 1786 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Only ourselves to blame (Original post)
azurnoir Dec 2012 OP
King_David Dec 2012 #1
delrem Dec 2012 #2
King_David Dec 2012 #3
kayecy Dec 2012 #4
King_David Dec 2012 #5
kayecy Dec 2012 #6
King_David Dec 2012 #7
kayecy Dec 2012 #8
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #9
kayecy Dec 2012 #11
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #12
kayecy Dec 2012 #13
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #15
kayecy Dec 2012 #16
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #17
azurnoir Dec 2012 #18
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #19
azurnoir Dec 2012 #21
kayecy Dec 2012 #22
azurnoir Dec 2012 #10
bemildred Dec 2012 #14
King_David Dec 2012 #20
bemildred Dec 2012 #23
King_David Dec 2012 #24

Response to azurnoir (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:26 PM

1. So what is he saying exactly?

What direction does he want a new ,bold leader to take?

He is a little cryptic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:57 PM

2. Isn't he saying that:

" rather than confidently and unabashedly asserting the rights that the Jewish people have to the land, be it the Biblical rights or the legal rights (Mandate, San Remo, etc), is it any wonder that we're heading in the direction of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria? "

Seems to me that he wants Israeli leaders to put the pedal to the metal in annexing, once and for all, the territories of Judea and Samaria. That he figures Sharon, Netanyahu and co. are wimps with their incremental "pastrami sandwich" approach and that it's time for a once and for all time annexation of the whole shebang. And he thinks that this annexation is justified Biblically by the Word of God.

What could be more plain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:17 PM

3. Yea I thought so too

But since Azurnoir posted it ... I asked her..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:42 AM

4. And your comments on the article are what?.......

Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:27 AM - Edit history (1)

What the article is saying seems pretty clear to me (and delrem) so assuming we are right, what are your comments on the article? ......I find most Zionists dissemble when it comes to discussing the elephant in the room ........ie Israel's final eastern border.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:15 AM

5. I disagree with him of course

I think a 2 state solution is the way to go ASAP with maximum security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:49 AM

6. And Israel's Eastern border?.......

And Israel's Eastern border?.......ie Geneva or something else giving the Palestinians a less than 1:1 land swap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:49 AM

7. Geneva accord is a good start , yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:17 PM

8. Why not start with the Green Line?...............n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:30 PM

9. The "Green Line"

 

... is an armistice line between negotiated between Jordan and Israel in 1949 -- it has as much to do with the I/P conflict as the Mason Dixon Line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:33 AM

11. So what do you think the start point for permanent border negotiations shoiuld be?.......n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:36 AM

12. You can only start from one place ...

 

... and that is where they are right now.

You can't start bargaining from a non-existent starting line -- no matter what colour it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:30 AM

13. You can only start from one place?.......

You can only start from one place, and that is where they are now?.......I'm sure that is what Israel would like, but it is hardly likely to lead to a permanent peace.

If the object of the negotiation is to achieve a permanent peace with security, then both sides must feel the deal is fair.......There can be no fair deal whilst Israel holds all the cards and the Palestinians are under military occupation.

If your neighbour had taken over half your house by force and had his thugs in each room, would you think you could negotiate a fair deal for his removal by starting from the status quo?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:34 AM

15. Are you not familiar with the term "start"?

 

In order to "start" going anywhere -- you have to start from your current location. Whatever is eventually negotiated, the starting point for any negotiation is -- by definition -- the current status quo. At least until practical time travel becomes a reality. If my neighbour was in fact in my house -- assuming it actually was my house by deed and not someplace in which I was squatting, I would begin my negotiation with him by asking him to leave my house -- that would be the start of our negotiation.

I'm curious ... who are you labeling thugs in this equation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:36 PM

16. But 'leave my house' is meaningless unless you first clarify what you mean by 'my house'......

I would begin my negotiation with him by asking him to leave my house -- that would be the start of our negotiation.

But 'leave my house' is meaningless unless you first clarify what you mean by 'my house'.......Is it all the rooms you lived in prior to your neighbours occupation?.....Is it the half house where you now live or something in between?

Now I think the Palestinians 'house' is the land east of the 67 Green Line......Israel, I am sure has a different idea of what constitutes the Palestinians 'house', so, were you negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians, what exactly would you mean when you began negotiations by asking Israel to 'leave your house'?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kayecy (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:07 PM

17. Here is where your "house analogy" falls to pieces.

 

The West Bank is not a house ... it is disputed territory.

A house has a clearly agreed demarcation -- walls, gardens, fences, the West Bank does not. There have been several attempts to define the borders of the West Bank -- the Partition Plan of 1947, the Annexation of the West Bank by Jordan (which was an opportunity for Jordan to do the right thing and create a nascent Palestinian State) and most recently, Oslo -- all were rejected.

A house implies titular ownership -- the ownership of the West Bank is by no means legally decided. Yes, Palestinian Arabs live there, but so do Jews. With the exception of the years 1948 to 1967 when Jordan enforced Judenfrei, Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria (AKA "The West Bank") for three millennia.

The West Bank has been owned by Ottoman Turks, administered by the UK, annexed and then unannexed by Jordan and now is administered but not annexed by Israel so ownership is up for debate and would have to be agreed upon by all interested parties -- Jordan might even want a say given the historical bad blood between Jordan and the Palestinian leadership.

Negotiation -- not dogmatic adherence to a mythical coloured line -- will achieve a Palestinian State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:19 PM

18. The West Bank is occupied territory period the only ones who use the weasle term disputed are

the ones supporting the occupiers and their colonization of what most of the world recognizes as Palestine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:57 PM

19. The West Bank has been occupied territory for 2,000 years ...

 

... but it only became an issue when the "you know who" became involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:27 PM

21. when the ""you know who" became involved" no I don't

care to explain? and occupied by who exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:09 AM

22. So why did you say you would begin negotiations by asking him to leave your house?........

The West Bank is not a house ... it is disputed territory
.
So why did you say you would begin negotiation by asking him to leave your house?........You knew what my analogy was and yet you said you (the Palestinians) would begin negotiations by asking him (Israel) to leave your house.........What was your statement meant to imply with regard to Israel-Palestine borders??


Your claim that the West bank is disputed territory is interesting but not new.......What independent support do you have for your statement?

Let me offer the following as to why you are wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 (see Jerusalem Law) and the Golan Heights in 1981 (see Golan Heights Law) has not been recognised by any other country. United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the annexation of Jerusalem "null and void" and required that it be rescinded


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements
Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.


I look forward to reading what authoritative independent supporting evidence you can produce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:04 AM

10. IMO he was not cryptic at all

he seems to feel that Israels leader should never have allowed the Palestinians to get the idea in their heads that bthey deserved a state

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:01 AM

14. Yep, the usual knee-jerk sarcasm, but not at all unclear. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:11 PM

20. I had heard of 'knee jerk reaction' but never 'knee jerk sarcasm' so I googled it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:01 AM

23. An excellent example of knee-jerk assholery.

I don't think that even rises to the level of sarcasm, and he better watch it, too, he's playing with fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:14 PM

24. Yes I agree ...LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread