ForumGarden

UK risks rift with US by backing Palestinian state | Mail Online

I'm excited about this. Fingers and toes crossed. Please please please let this vote be moral instead of political.

Regardless of which ever it is The rights of the Palestinian people will not be respected. Israel is not going to the allow them their own state, period. There is no money in a peace agreement for the powers that be, no gain. Profit is the objective, not peace.

Besides, there's an impossible "if" buried in there.And the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will insist that the Palestinians agree to a deal with Israel that will delay the time when the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the West Bank – a ‘red line’ for the Israelis. Regardless of whether the Palestinians go to the Security Council or to the General Assembly, they'll not get a UK vote in their favour in either. Watch and see.

Scrat;1369862 wrote: Regardless of which ever it is The rights of the Palestinian people will not be respected. Israel is not going to the allow them their own state, period. There is no money in a peace agreement for the powers that be, no gain. Profit is the objective, not peace.


Like Koan, I was excited at the Idea of this and for a fleeting moment thought well of our Prime Minister.

Then the cynicism took over and reminded myself that the lying slimeball would not do nothing for nowt ( as they say In the North )

You could remain excited. Once the US vetoes the proposal in the Security Council then President Abbas will take it to the General Assembly where no veto is available. Regardless of US or UK reluctance, the General Assembly will undoubtedly give state recognition to Palestine by the required two-thirds majority. It only needs to be asked.

Going to the Security Council first is a way of highlighting the position of the US as Israel's pwned bitch. Give us several billion dollars a year guaranteed unquestioned financial and military subsidy, check; give us total permanent control of your Middle East policy, check. I don't think many Israelis can hold the US in any degree of respect after that, much less the rest of us.

A line from the current BBC report:International Middle East envoy Tony Blair told the BBC he wants to make sure the move does not undermine chances of a return to peace talks.

BBC News - BBC poll shows narrow support for Palestinian state

My sole question is what benefit does Palestine get from peace talks? What single benefit has Palestine ever got from peace talks? Why should a return to peace talks be considered a lure?

The issue of statehood is more one of showing the isolation of Israel and its sole sponsor nation America.

The underlying problem that needs sorting before there's any lasting reconciliation in the Middle East is the partiality of the Israeli Constitution and Israeli law, both of which constitute an apartheid regime. The Israeli Constitution and Israeli law need purging of partiality which has to be an internal choice, a choice made by the Israeli electorate. Nobody else can make it happen. All that the rest of us can do is apply continuous pressure until they make it happen, which is (as far as I'm aware) exactly what took place in apartheid South Africa to bring an end to discrimination.

The issues aren't unfamiliar to Americans, they've lived through it already. The Palestinians are in the same position now as America's blacks back before Martin Luther King handed the baton to Jesse Jackson when he was martyred. They have no vote, they live in segregated ghettos, they're as second class is you can get and even when the laws are fixed they'll have generations of catch-up to go through, just as America's blacks are now.

The first and most important step to take is equalizing the law in Israel. There's a single country which might just as well be called Israel as anything else, there are two classes of resident under the law of that country and the discrimination must end.

All the talk about segregating into two countries, one of which will in fact completely dominate the other, is a distraction from reality. If recognizing a two-state Palestine in the General Assembly brings closer the day when the constitution and laws of Israel stop discriminating then fine, go that way as a tactic, but don't pretend it's an answer.

spot;1369940 wrote: The issues aren't unfamiliar to Americans, they've lived through it already. The Palestinians are in the same position now as America's blacks back before Martin Luther King handed the baton to Jesse Jackson when he was martyred. They have no vote, they live in segregated ghettos, they're as second class is you can get and even when the laws are fixed they'll have generations of catch-up to go through, just as America's blacks are now.

The first and most important step to take is equalizing the law in Israel. There's a single country which might just as well be called Israel as anything else, there are two classes of resident under the law of that country and the discrimination must end.

All the talk about segregating into two countries, one of which will in fact completely dominate the other, is a distraction from reality. If recognizing a two-state Palestine in the General Assembly brings closer the day when the constitution and laws of Israel stop discriminating then fine, go that way as a tactic, but don't pretend it's an answer.


I'd have thought more akin to south africa - once run by the british the indigemous people dominated by incomers with a sense of moral superiority and also culturally and militarily aggressive in their behaviour backed up by the west as a bastion of their influence in a region vital to national interests. Eventually it was peaceful action that made the change. This is a good move I think as it takes away the moral high ground from the Israelis. If they can get the arab nations to all agree to recognise the right of the state israel to exist in return for their recognising palestine and pulling out of the occupied territories it would leave america with quite a dilemma. I suppose they could insist turkey recognise an independent kurdistan - think of all that oil.

What's meant by "Israel's right to exist"? I've never understood that expression, not in the slightest. There is an area of land. On it there can only be a single nation - the notion of two nations sharing sovereignty over a single patch of ground must be remarkably rare. Does "Israel's right to exist" just mean that the nation has to be called Israel? That's fine by me. Does it mean that all the current citizens can continue to live there? That's fine by me too.

If on the other hand it means a right to discriminatory laws then no, I draw the line. That's what Jim Crow and the South African apartheid pass laws were all about. Discriminatory laws surely aren't the be-all and end-all of "Israel's right to exist", are they? Can the country not be Israel if it drops the discrimination?

spot;1370328 wrote: What's meant by "Israel's right to exist"? I've never understood that expression, not in the slightest. There is an area of land. On it there can only be a single nation - the notion of two nations sharing sovereignty over a single patch of ground must be remarkably rare. Does "Israel's right to exist" just mean that the nation has to be called Israel? That's fine by me. Does it mean that all the current citizens can continue to live there? That's fine by me too.

If on the other hand it means a right to discriminatory laws then no, I draw the line. That's what Jim Crow and the South African apartheid pass laws were all about. Discriminatory laws surely aren't the be-all and end-all of "Israel's right to exist", are they? Can the country not be Israel if it drops the discrimination?


It's legal nonsense as well, no state has a right to exist, basically all it means is the surrounding nations accept Israel is there and stop trying to destroy it. They decide to live in peace with it. Some Irish republicans refuse to accept that Northern Ireland has a right to exist separate from the rest of Ireland. Most accept and just live in peace with it.

Watched the speech on the UN site this morning. I cried. It was wonderful hearing the applause. I'm so happy for them, no matter how this turns out. I'm still astounded that Obama has vowed to veto. If their application fails I hope they at least get enough votes that the US has to veto. Of course I hope for Palestine to succeed because the veto countries suddenly saw the light and I'm optimistic enough to think they might have actually listened to the speech with the intent of hearing it for consideration. It would be so nice if a politician decided to use their position to do something fantastic for the world instead of just worrying about the next election.

To me, if Obama vetoes them he becomes the Israeli president of the United States of America.

gmc;1370520 wrote: all it means is the surrounding nations accept Israel is there and stop trying to destroy it.There it is again - destroy. How does anyone destroy a territory? Nobody speaking on behalf of any foreign government has ever said their country intends to kill or would like to see dead all the Jewish or Palestinian residents of the territory we're discussing. The land's not going to disappear. The residents aren't going to be exterminated. What's with the "destroy". All it means in practice is a change of constitution and the revision of some laws, the word "destroy" is overly emotive and a block to progress. Is that what destroy means? Or can you see any alternative meaning.

koan;1370694 wrote: If their application fails I hope they at least get enough votes that the US has to veto.If the application fails through insufficient votes in favour by members of the Security Council then it will be US bribes which have bought the abstentions. Bribes or vetoes are equally effective, bribes are less embarrassing unless they're made public. I think they ought to be shown, if they're accepted.

I found Abbas to be eloquent, emotive, sincere and passionate about the rights of his people. I couldn't have hoped for a better speech. I happened to catch, with gritted teeth, the Israeli address and I swore numerous times. The Holocaust? Really, you had to dig that one up again?? Your one soldier being held captive?? Really? Just the one?? I was infuriated and was only relieved that he was so insufferable he might have helped the Palestinian case.

spot;1370714 wrote: There it is again - destroy. How does anyone destroy a territory? Nobody speaking on behalf of any foreign government has ever said their country intends to kill or would like to see dead all the Jewish or Palestinian residents of the territory we're discussing. The land's not going to disappear. The residents aren't going to be exterminated. What's with the "destroy". All it means in practice is a change of constitution and the revision of some laws, the word "destroy" is overly emotive and a block to progress. Is that what destroy means? Or can you see any alternative meaning.


Whose talking about the land? I was referring to the nation state as an entity. The surrounding arab states tried to stamp out Israel immediately after the united nations partitioned Palestine to bring it in to existence in 1948, the previous jewish state having been destroyed almost two thousand years prior to that. It was destroyed, brought back in to existence and the arab states did their best to destroy it again. That same UN resolution that brought israel in to being also recognised a separate Palestinian state. There are plenty of instances when one nation state has set out to destroy another in the fullest meaning of the word, quite often to get possession of the land once owned by the destroyed nation.

So you are, in fact, using "destroy" to mean "a change of constitution and the revision of some laws" by the look of it. The former's emotive, the latter's essential when we're discussing Israel. I'd not want to describe an Israel without apartheid as destroyed but it would definitely be different.

spot;1370843 wrote: So you are, in fact, using "destroy" to mean "a change of constitution and the revision of some laws" by the look of it. The former's emotive, the latter's essential when we're discussing Israel. I'd not want to describe an Israel without apartheid as destroyed but it would definitely be different.


No I mean destroy as in.

destroy

[dih-stroi]   Origin Like this word?

de·stroy

   [dih-stroi]

verb (used with object)

1.

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2.

to put an end to; extinguish.

3.

to kill; slay.

4.

to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.

5.

to defeat completely.




There was nothing half arsed about the intent. If they had succeeded israel would have ceased to exist as a separate nation. They weren't playing in 1973 either. If the israelis and Palestinians can come to a settlement then a lot of the tensions in the middle east will die down. If the israelis refuse to compromise then there will be another war as soon as the surounding countries feel strong enough to try again. This is a smart move by the palestinians it's potentially putting the US at loggerheads with it's other allies in the middle east. Israel or saudi arabia and all that oil.

Let's try working out what destroy means by way of a comparison, how's that?

Germany surrendered unconditionally to the allies in 1945. The country's still there, the inhabitants are still German, they still speak German, what changed was the German constitution, several German laws and the lifespans of several hundred war criminals. Germany is dead, Long Live Germany.

Shall I type the same thing using the word "Japan"?

Are we talking about destroy in that sense? And if not, what aspect differs? I'm asking honestly, maybe you can think of something but I can't.

I cannot believe what I saw last night ....(at the security council) ...... surely others are seeing hte blatant crap I'm seeing ...I can't be the only one ...I was so shocked.

They crossed to a reporter and he was explaining the process of "talks" ...by the time anyone reaches 'talks' there won't be a Palistine. I was honestly floored !!!

koan;1370694 wrote: Watched the speech on the UN site this morning. I cried. It was wonderful hearing the applause. I'm so happy for them, no matter how this turns out. I'm still astounded that Obama has vowed to veto. If their application fails I hope they at least get enough votes that the US has to veto. Of course I hope for Palestine to succeed because the veto countries suddenly saw the light and I'm optimistic enough to think they might have actually listened to the speech with the intent of hearing it for consideration. It would be so nice if a politician decided to use their position to do something fantastic for the world instead of just worrying about the next election.

To me, if Obama vetoes them he becomes the Israeli president of the United States of America.


I hope so ...god I hope so . and if he is ******** enough .....then let it be on his head !!!

It was a good speech eh?

There wouldn't be an Israel if the Palestinians hadn't been gracious enough to accept the Jews en masse when they needed exile from Germany. Then when they said "ok, there's really no more room" some of the Zionists decided on another plan. So... don't tell me the Arabs don't like the Jews. The Arabs have historically been their best friends. They just found out that sometimes good guys don't win.

gmc;1370797 wrote: Whose talking about the land? I was referring to the nation state as an entity. The surrounding arab states tried to stamp out Israel immediately after the united nations partitioned Palestine to bring it in to existence in 1948, the previous jewish state having been destroyed almost two thousand years prior to that. It was destroyed, brought back in to existence and the arab states did their best to destroy it again. That same UN resolution that brought israel in to being also recognised a separate Palestinian state. There are plenty of instances when one nation state has set out to destroy another in the fullest meaning of the word, quite often to get possession of the land once owned by the destroyed nation.


The did? Or was it Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun that went in to Arab villages and massacred the all men women and children they found there to terrify the Arabs into leaving the land they owned?

Who was it that started that little conflict in 1947 before they declared UDI?

There are two sides to every story - Israel attempted to exterminate the Palestinian Arabs just as much as the Arabs tried to "destroy" Israel.

spot;1370887 wrote: Let's try working out what destroy means by way of a comparison, how's that?

Germany surrendered unconditionally to the allies in 1945. The country's still there, the inhabitants are still German, they still speak German, what changed was the German constitution, several German laws and the lifespans of several hundred war criminals. Germany is dead, Long Live Germany.

Shall I type the same thing using the word "Japan"?

Are we talking about destroy in that sense? And if not, what aspect differs? I'm asking honestly, maybe you can think of something but I can't.


They destroyed their capacity to make war the allies did not wish to utterly destroy germany or japan and take their land from them. Had the arabs succeeded the jewish state would not exist today. How much plainer can I be.

posted by Koan

There wouldn't be an Israel if the Palestinians hadn't been gracious enough to accept the Jews en masse when they needed exile from Germany. Then when they said "ok, there's really no more room" some of the Zionists decided on another plan. So... don't tell me the Arabs don't like the Jews. The Arabs have historically been their best friends. They just found out that sometimes good guys don't win.






Palestine was part of the ottoman empire and then a british protectorate there was no recognised independent palestinian state either until partition Jews and Palestinian arabs lived together fairly amicably until too many immigrants started coming it wasn't a case that the palestinians welcomed Jewish refugees no one actually asked what they thought about the matter and too many people on both sides did not want to live together amicably, having their land taken away from them and given to someone else didn't do much to help matters.

I've always thought the main reason the state of israel was created was collective guilt and shock felt by all those politicians who turned their backs on the jews and prevented them escaping germany even after it was known what was happening. It was a lesson in where religious bigotry and racism can lead in an industrial age. If you look at some of the vitriol poured out by Christian fundamentalists against islam it's surprisingly similar to what used to be said about the jews.

Plenty other people have lost their homelands or suffered a diaspora with no one suggestion they be allowed to return to their ancestral lands. I don't see anyone offering to give native americans everything that was taken back do you?

gmc;1371338 wrote: They destroyed their capacity to make war the allies did not wish to utterly destroy germany or japan and take their land from them. Had the arabs succeeded the jewish state would not exist today. How much plainer can I be. I don't see why you'd want to use the word "destroy" in the context of removing all reference to Jews from Israel's constitution and laws, that's all. I'm quite sure an Arab consensus could be easily found for the continued citizenship and residency rights of all the current Jewish citizens of Israel, I'd take that as an obvious aspect of the "destroyed" state you're discussing. What has to happen is the extension of those rights to the Palestinian residents of the Gaza strip and the West Bank and all - perhaps negotiably a proportion - of the exiled descendants of those who were resident before 1948.

You'd call that destroyed? I think you're being over-emotive, and I think you're adopting that posture deliberately. I think you're trying to imply that a policy of genocide is proposed against the Jewish citizens of Israel, which would be illegal to either plan or attempt, besides being impossible to achieve without a far larger mass slaughter resulting from the delivery of Israel's nuclear stockpile in an Armageddon gesture.

spot;1371374 wrote: I don't see why you'd want to use the word "destroy" in the context of removing all reference to Jews from Israel's constitution and laws, that's all. I'm quite sure an Arab consensus could be easily found for the continued citizenship and residency rights of all the current Jewish citizens of Israel, I'd take that as an obvious aspect of the "destroyed" state you're discussing. What has to happen is the extension of those rights to the Palestinian residents of the Gaza strip and the West Bank and all - perhaps negotiably a proportion - of the exiled descendants of those who were resident before 1948.

You'd call that destroyed? I think you're being over-emotive, and I think you're adopting that posture deliberately. I think you're trying to imply that a policy of genocide is proposed against the Jewish citizens of Israel, which would be illegal to either plan or attempt, besides being impossible to achieve without a far larger mass slaughter resulting from the delivery of Israel's nuclear stockpile in an Armageddon gesture.


I said destroy the jewish state and give you a nice definition to make it plainer to you what I meant.

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2.

to put an end to; extinguish.

3.

to kill; slay.

4.

to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.

5.

to defeat completely.






If you want to argue semantics go ahead but you're wasting your time. If I meant genocide I would have said genocide. The arabs might have wanted to destroy israel but that is a bit different from removing the jews from the face of the earth which is what genocide means and what Hitler rather wanted to do at the end as he saw it as doing god's work, many now think he was insane.

genocide

noun

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.




If I thought the intention of the arab sates was genocide I would not have felt the need to imply it have said so and used words like genocide to describe the intent. I would have said something like the intention was the extermination, nay verily the genocide of the jewish people.

Bad Palestinians how dare you want Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness Uncle sam will punish you.

Abbas is punished by $200m cut in aid from US - Middle East, World - The Independent

So, to get it straight, you're using "destroy" in the sense of "not killing anyone" despite the bit about "slay" in your quoted dictionary cutting?

Because that's what you seem very coy about admitting.

spot;1371555 wrote: So, to get it straight, you're using "destroy" in the sense of "not killing anyone" despite the bit about "slay" in your quoted dictionary cutting?

Because that's what you seem very coy about admitting.


Is English a second language for you or something? In a sentence the context in which a word is used makes the meaning clear. I said destroy the jewish state.



to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2.

to put an end to; extinguish.

3.

to kill; slay.

4.

to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.

5.

to defeat completely.






I suppose if I used the word destroy as in the intent was to destroy the building you might take it to mean to kill or slay the building but it is an odd way of looking at it.

On the other hand if I had said the arabs wanted to exterminate the jewish state that would imply they wanted to wipe out all the inhabitants as well as destroy it as a viable entity.

The sense in which I am using the word is very clear and I'm sorry you cannot understand me but please let me know if there are any other words you need clarification on but there are many on line dictionaries to help you.

gmc;1371557 wrote: Is English a second language for you or something? In a sentence the context in which a word is used makes the meaning clear. I said destroy the jewish state.I'm not being obtuse and you're aware that I can cope with the language. I'm at a loss to understand how you can apply "destroy" to Israel, that's all. You're trying to say it would no longer be "the jewish state", and that's it? Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia no longer have discriminatory laws but they still have roughly the same mixture of people as they did in the first half of the twentieth century, and the same's true of South Africa. Are you saying they were destroyed too? I can't think you are. So why do you feel you can prognosticate destruction in the case of Israel if it does no more and no less than Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and South Africa?

Or on the other hand, perhaps you do feel Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and South Africa were destroyed by changing or applying their laws and constitutions?

To paraphrase ernie wise, read what I have wrote. It's clear enough and I have no intention of being drawn in to an interminable argument trying to get you to understand as I suspect you are off on some masturbatory pseudo-intellectual trip of your own that has no relevance whatsoever to the subject at hand.

It is not essential that you agree with me or indeed that I agree with you.

I think what bothers me most is that we agree it's currently an apartheid state ("the jewish state", as you word it) but disagree on whether it should remain one. I'm baffled that you can argue in favour of such a system having a legitimate place as an acceptable constitution in the 21st century.

The people of Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia decided it was an unacceptable system and legislated against it, the people of South Africa decided it was an unacceptable system and legislated against it, now it's the turn of the people of Israel to legislate against it and you're saying no.

What you're not giving is any justification for saying no. This would be an appropriate thread to explore your reasons.

spot;1371631 wrote: I think what bothers me most is that we agree it's currently an apartheid state ("the jewish state", as you word it) but disagree on whether it should remain one. I'm baffled that you can argue in favour of such a system having a legitimate place as an acceptable constitution in the 21st century.

The people of Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia decided it was an unacceptable system and legislated against it, the people of South Africa decided it was an unacceptable system and legislated against it, now it's the turn of the people of Israel to legislate against it and you're saying no.

What you're not giving is any justification for saying no. This would be an appropriate thread to explore your reasons.


I think you read what you think people have said rather than what is actually said. I have not in any way suggested I was in favour of such a system. I drew the parallel with South Africa as the British ruled Palestine until 1947 and the division is along tribal lines if not so much racist ones. The racial divide is in some ways not as big a problem as a religious one.

Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia were on the losing side in the civil war and it took federal action to make them integrate as to how things are now i am not in a position to make any valid comment. One thing they have in common with Palestine is strong religious fundamentalism, maybe that's the root cause of prejudice and hate.

You are looking at an area steeped in a stone age religion and wonder why 21st western European concepts of democracy and human rights don't seem to work. Both sides need to agree to compromise or one has to annihilate the other for there to be peace. Both sides kill the peacemakers and certainly in israel the hawks seem to be in power so i don't know where this is all going. Chosen People, Promised Land it's not a belief that lends itself to peaceful co-existence with anyone. I'd put all the leaders in a room with a pile of clubs and they either come out with an agreement or the winner takes all. At least that way no one else gets drawn in to it.

I see Turkey is taking a lead in things now, that must annoy the saudis don' you think?

UNESCO is on board so far:

Despite strong opposition from the United States, Germany and several other European states, the Palestinians gained initial approval on Wednesday of a bid for full membership in Unesco — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — as part of their broader campaign for recognition as a state by the United Nations Security Council.

NYTimes

From the sounds of it, the US is cutting off so much financial aid they might manage to reduce their national debt.

koan;1371805 wrote: UNESCO is on board so far:

Despite strong opposition from the United States, Germany and several other European states, the Palestinians gained initial approval on Wednesday of a bid for full membership in Unesco — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — as part of their broader campaign for recognition as a state by the United Nations Security Council.

NYTimes

From the sounds of it, the US is cutting off so much financial aid they might manage to reduce their national debt.


They're cutting it to palestine but not to israel

Steinitz told US won

Arab League says will fund Palestinians after U.S. cuts aid - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News