Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

United States in last-ditch effort to set up Israeli-Palestinian peace talks


  • Please log in to reply
222 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:00 AM

http://www.guardian....lestinian-peaceUS fears major diplomatic embarrassment if Israelis and Palestinians collide in New York over looming request at UN for recognition of Palestinian statehood

The United States, Europe and the Middle East quartet are engaged in a last-ditch effort to set up a fresh round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in an attempt to head off a major diplomatic embarrassment over the looming Palestinian request for recognition of statehood at the UN.

The US is leading diplomatic pressure on Israeli and Palestinian leaders in a bid to persuade the parties back to negotiations rather than risk a damaging collision in New York next week. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton is in telephone contact with the three delegations in the region, who are co-ordinating their efforts.

Washington is keen to avoid carrying out a threat to veto a Palestinian request for full membership of the UN, a move likely to further damage America's already battered reputation in the Middle East, particularly following its strong backing for moves towards self-determination in the region this year.

But some at the heart of the diplomatic manoeuvres believe that it is now too late to stop the Palestinians taking their case to the UN and are concentrating on damage limitation by seeking a clear position for a return to the negotiation table after the world body meets.

The Palestinians insist that they will not be diverted from making a formal request at the security council for full member status, and that diplomatic interventions have come too late. They claim to be resisting pressure, which included President Obama this week describing their move as "counterproductive".

Washington, fearing isolation in wielding its veto, is seeking support from Britain in particular in its stand against the Palestinian resolution if it comes to a vote. Two other security council members, Russia and China, have openly backed the Palestinian move. France is sympathetic to the Palestinian demand but is seeking a compromise resolution that could be supported by Germany, which is opposed to UN recognition of a Palestinian state, in the hope of forging a common EU position.

Britain has so far not declared how it would vote but diplomatic sources say that it is torn between American pressure to support the US position in the security council and concerns about what such a move would do to the UK's standing in a changing Middle East, particularly while it is still heavily involved in Libya.

The former British prime minister, Tony Blair, now special envoy of the Middle East quartet, was Wednesday working on a text to put to Israeli and Palestinian leaders outlining a basis on which talks might resume.

He was liaising with EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and US special envoys David Hale and Dennis Ross in the region, and by telephone with Clinton. The former British prime minister expects to remain in the Middle East until flying to New York at the weekend.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has said he will take the request for full recognition as a state to the UN security council next week. But some Arab and European nations are pressuring him to downgrade the request to the general assembly, which can only offer observer status to the Palestinians, to save Washington the embarrassment of having to wield its veto.

The Palestinians insist their approach to the UN does not preclude a return to negotiations later. "We see no contradictions between doing both," said Dr Mohammad Shtayyeh, a senior member of the team heading to New York. The UN bid was "the beginning of the game, not the end. It is a process".

But diplomatic efforts to secure a breakthrough on a return to talks are constrained by Palestinian demands of guarantees that any future negotiations would be based on the pre-1967 borders plus a total settlement freeze. Israel is unlikely to sign up to that.

The International Crisis Group warned this week that any climbdown by the Palestinians now "could decisively discredit [Mahmoud Abbas's] leadership, embolden his foes and trigger unrest among his people". It went on: "Most Palestinians do not strongly support the UN bid; but they would strongly oppose a decision to retract it without suitable compensation."

Israel was also making last-minute efforts to persuade undeclared countries not to vote for a Palestinian resolution, although it has acknowledged it will lose a vote at the general assembly. The Palestinians claim to have the support of around 130 countries so far, just beyond the two-thirds majority needed for a resolution to succeed.

Israeli ministers have threatened retaliatory measures should the Palestinian bid succeed. They include tearing up the Oslo accords, under which the Palestinian Authority was given control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, annexing the West Bank settlements and withholding tax revenues that Israel collects on behalf of the PA. The US Congress is also threatening to cut off financial aid to the Palestinians.

#2 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:01 AM

Both sides need to be cut off from US funding. :coffee:

#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:15 AM

US steps up pressure on Palestinians to drop UN statehood bid

The US is attempting to fire up a fresh round of Middle East peace talks in an attempt to head off a major diplomatic embarrassment over a looming Palestinian request for recognition of statehood at the United Nations.

Washington has again dispatched negotiators to meet Palestinian and Israeli leaders as it scrambles to find ways to avoid carrying out a threat to veto a Palestinian request for full membership of the UN, which is expected to be made to the security council or the general assembly next week.

If the request is made to the security council, a US veto of Palestinian demands for statehood – on the grounds that two decades of negotiations has failed to end the occupation – is likely to further damage America's already battered reputation in the Middle East, particularly when Washington has strongly backed the uprisings in Libya and Syria and broadly welcomed the Arab spring.

The US is working with Tony Blair, special envoy of the quartet of the UN, EU, US and Russia, to come up with a framework for talks that could lure the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. US envoys David Hale and Dennis Ross, the European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Blair are due to meet Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

But Washington is also seeking support from Britain in particular in its stand against the Palestinian resolution, if it does come to a vote at the UN. Two other security council members, Russia and China, have openly backed the Palestinian move. France is sympathetic to the Palestinian demand but is seeking a compromise resolution that could be supported by Germany, which is opposed to UN recognition of a Palestinian state, in the hope of forging a common EU position.

Britain has so far not declared how it would vote, but diplomatic sources say that it is torn between American pressure to support the US position in the security council and concerns about what such a move would do to the UK's standing in a changing Middle East, particularly while it is still heavily involved in Libya.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has said he will take the request for full recognition as a state to the UN security council next week. But some Arab and European nations are pressuring him to downgrade the request to the general assembly, which can only offer observer status to the Palestinians, to save Washington the embarrassment of having to wield its veto.

Israel was also making last-minute efforts to persuade undeclared countries not to vote for a Palestinian resolution, amid threats to tear up previous agreements, impose financial penalties and annexe West Bank settlements if the Palestinians go ahead.

Obama confirmed the US would veto any request brought before the security council, describing the Palestinian push as "counterproductive". But the White House wants to avoid such a step, knowing it will play badly among Arabs whose own moves for self-determination this year Obama has endorsed.

In Washington, the US House of Representatives foreign affairs committee opened a hearing on Wednesday into whether American aid to the Palestinian Authority should be discontinued. Some members of the overwhelmingly pro-Israel US Congress have been pressing for a cut off in aid if the Palestinians submit their request to the UN. However, there is concern among others that such a move would leave Israel to pick up a greater share of the cost of occupation.

The European Union is at the centre of the efforts to avoid diplomatic meltdown. Its belief that only a negotiated settlement can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is given added force by its desire to avoid a damaging split among its 27 members.

But efforts to secure a breakthrough are constrained by Palestinian demands of guarantees that any talks would be based on the pre-1967 borders, plus a total settlement freeze. Israel is unlikely to sign up to that.

The Palestinians insist their approach to the UN does not preclude a return to negotiations later. "We see no contradictions between doing both," said Dr Mohammad Shtayyeh, a senior member of the team heading to New York.

The UN bid was "the beginning of the game, not the end," he said. "It is a process."

In public, Palestinian officials are standing firm in the face of "very serious pressure" to backtrack. Privately, there are suggestions of wavering.

However, the International Crisis Group warned this week that any climbdown now "could decisively discredit [Mahmoud Abbas's] leadership, embolden his foes and trigger unrest among his people". It went on: "Most Palestinians do not strongly support the UN bid; but they would strongly oppose a decision to retract it without suitable compensation."

Israel has engaged in its own diplomatic offensive to try to derail the Palestinian bid, instructing its diplomats around the globe to campaign vigorously for votes and lavishly hosting delegations from undeclared countries.

But Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the UN, acknowledged that the "battle to stem the tide" was lost, and warned that "this unilateral course of action won't lead to peace and won't lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state".

The Palestinians reject the claim that they are acting unilaterally, saying the UN path "is the ultimate expression of multilateralism". They add that Israel's apparent opposition to unilateralism has not stopped it acting without agreement, such as building and expanding settlements.

Sallai Meridor, a former Israeli ambassador to the US, said the move "weakens the chances for negotiation and agreement and increases the chances of frustration and violence. For Israelis it will strengthen the voices saying there is no one to talk to. Once you act unilaterally, the chances for negotiations are much lower."

Israel is also alarmed at the prospect that the Palestinians could bring a case against it at the international criminal court, a possibility that would open up with enhanced UN status for the Palestinians. "No Israeli government could negotiate if it has criminal proceedings hanging over its head," said a former official.

Retaliatory options raised by Israeli ministers should the Palestinian bid succeed include tearing up the Oslo accords, under which the Palestinian Authority was given control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, annexing the West Bank settlements and withholding tax revenues that Israel collects on behalf of the PA. The US Congress is also threatening to cut off financial aid to the Palestinians.

Violence in the aftermath of the UN move has been predicted by the Israelis for months, despite Abbas's insistence that any demonstrations would be peaceful. "Non-violent demonstrations have a high risk of developing into something violent regardless of planning," said Meridor. "When you take gasoline and play with matches, you run the risk of a big fire."

The Israeli security forces have restocked with crowd-dispersal equipment, including teargas, rubber bullets and water canon. They are also training and arming settlers, fuelling fears on both sides that hardline elements could provoke violence.

How the bid for Palestinian statehood will work at the UN

• The main session of the 2011 UN general assembly opens in New York with a speech by Barack Obama on Wednesday 21 September.

• The Palestinians say they will submit a formal application for full membership as a state next week. The approval of the 15-member security council is required.

• The US will veto such an application. But it may set up a committee to examine the request in the hope of kicking the issue into the long grass.

• In the event of a veto, the Palestinians say they will request enhanced "observer member status" at the general assembly, which does not require security council approval but needs a two-thirds majority (129 votes).

• The Palestinians claim to have the support of 126 countries, equating to about 75% of the world's population, including China, India, Russia, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Ireland and Spain.

• Israel concedes it will lose a vote at the general assembly but hopes to claim the support of a "moral minority" of countries, including the US, Canada and Italy.

• The EU bloc of 27 countries is split. Of the "big three", Britain and France have not explicitly declared their intentions, and Germany is opposed to full membership. France is inclined to back the Palestinians but is attempting to come up with a compromise acceptable to Germany in the interests of EU unity.

• The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is due to address the general assembly on Friday 23 September.

• Israel's turn at the podium is also scheduled for 23 September. It has not been decided whether the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, or the president, Shimon Peres, will represent Israel.

#4 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:16 AM

There is plenty of neanderthalic type embarrassment to go around.

#5 sarah b.

sarah b.
  • VibeTribe
  • 74,182 posts
  • LocationRockland and Long Island, NY

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:26 AM

You could say that about the entire world. There are plenty of good ways to invest U.S. $ within its own borders, and understandable arguments for cutting off U.S. aid beyond its borders. That said, getting some people to the table who are native speakers of the languages who understand middle-Eastern culture would be a good idea -- particularly people who dont believe that God, is on their side. :one: :one: Good luck finding elected representatives of any negotiating party who are willing to admit they aren't religious. :crazy: Arguing with people about land ownership + people who think God is on their side = 99 problems and a map is one. Sprinkle machismo, the language structure of Middle Eastern languages, translating into and from English, people at the table from both sides knowing people who have been killed or terrorized by the actions of another, and pouring everyone tall glasses of PTSD and expecting The Getalong Gang is as ridiculous as it reads. This conflict needs Thich Nhat Hanh and students of his. If anyone knows how to get him there, please do. :)

#6 sarah b.

sarah b.
  • VibeTribe
  • 74,182 posts
  • LocationRockland and Long Island, NY

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:42 AM

Regardless of the outcome of negotiations or events at the UN, the US will spend $X supporting both sides. What's all of this to you, either way? Not that I have time to sit around on the boards, anymore, but if I did, it would be the last place I'd be interested in reading about it, especially not pastes from tabloids. :lol: Land ownership is abstract, at best. Government officials who think God is on their side are dangerous. Both sides host real solid clusterfucks on certain issues related to human rights (gay marriage is one). No amount of discussing it here will effect any change there. Surely your energy may be more effectively spent working with U.S. organizations that seek to aid U.S. citizens in need, if your concern is the welfare of the U.S. citizen. (If that is a concern of yours)

#7 sarah b.

sarah b.
  • VibeTribe
  • 74,182 posts
  • LocationRockland and Long Island, NY

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:53 AM

Neil Young for president.

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:32 PM

Awesome posts, sarah b. In many ways i completely agree.

What's all of this to you, either way?

Well, like you said, we will fund both sides. Those funds come from the people of this country in waste of support for behavors worse than children that dont know better. Cut the funding and it matters not how they squabble to me.

#9 elder

elder
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,542 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:40 PM

Both sides need to be cut off from US funding. :coffee:


They're not the only ones.

The amount of money we give to all of these countries where "democracy" is our interest (yeah right :rolleyes:) is preposterous.

Combine that with all the jobs lost overseas and there's no wonder our country is in such a shit hole.

#10 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:42 PM

Yup, you're absolutely right, elder. This particular episode, given the behavors is especially appalling to fund. Coddling these people should end. Immediately.

#11 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:08 PM

Coddling these people should end. Immediately.


this

#12 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:17 PM

israel clearly does not want palestinians to be thought of as human beings:coffee:

#13 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,724 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:18 PM

Israel was also making last-minute efforts to persuade undeclared countries not to vote for a Palestinian resolution, amid threats to tear up previous agreements, impose financial penalties and annexe West Bank settlements if the Palestinians go ahead.

Obama confirmed the US would veto any request brought before the security council, describing the Palestinian push as "counterproductive". But the White House wants to avoid such a step, knowing it will play badly among Arabs whose own moves for self-determination this year Obama has endorsed.

In Washington, the US House of Representatives foreign affairs committee opened a hearing on Wednesday into whether American aid to the Palestinian Authority should be discontinued. Some members of the overwhelmingly pro-Israel US Congress have been pressing for a cut off in aid if the Palestinians submit their request to the UN. However, there is concern among others that such a move would leave Israel to pick up a greater share of the cost of occupation.

So much wrong here :bang:

#14 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:23 PM

apartheid is wrong. anywhere.

#15 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 32,444 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:25 PM

Posted Image

#16 elder

elder
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,542 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:29 PM

Posted Image


cut it out you

#17 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 32,444 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:32 PM

:lol:

#18 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:54 PM

my mistake. I should have put it in the P&R forum. I guess I should have wondered why it got any hits........

#19 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 32,444 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:56 PM

The P & R circle is an old joke from many boards ago. I'm not really serious. I could care less where shit is posted. :lol:

#20 elder

elder
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,542 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:57 PM

my mistake. I should have put it in the P&R forum. I guess I should have wondered why it got any hits........


Don't bow down to it. Not as long as "they" let you keep it where people read it

I for one don't go over there. Not on purpose. And I find your posts educating and interesting. Please don't bow down to the nonsense.

#21 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:11 PM

israel clearly does not want palestinians to be thought of as human beings:coffee:

That is not true.

It is Palestinians who teach their children that Jews and Israelis are inhuman blood thirsty child killers for fun. That's a fact. Hate is taught from a young age, institutionally.

#22 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:14 PM

Blowbacks a bitch.

#23 insolent cur

insolent cur

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 519 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:16 PM

maybe if arafat hadn't rejected a compromise which gave him and those he represented virtually everything they asked for, things would be much different today. :dunno:

instead we have hamas trying to gain acceptance as a legitimate governing body in the court of public opinion, while contemporaneously calling for the destruction of israel.

yeah, that's gonna work.

#24 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:23 PM

maybe if arafat hadn't rejected a compromise which gave him and those he represented virtually everything they asked for, things would be much different today. :dunno:

instead we have hamas trying to gain acceptance as a legitimate governing body in the court of public opinion, while contemporaneously calling for the destruction of israel.

yeah, that's gonna work.

this.

appended with, and they rejected it not with a counter offer, but with violence.

#25 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,724 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:33 PM

That is not true.

It is Palestinians who teach their children that Jews and Israelis are inhuman blood thirsty child killers for fun. That's a fact. Hate is taught from a young age, institutionally.

Actually BOTH sides are guilty of this. That's a fact.

#26 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:36 PM

Actually BOTH sides are guilty of this. That's a fact.


This.

#27 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:49 PM

Blowbacks a bitch.


this.

Actually BOTH sides are guilty of this. That's a fact.


and this. though one side is coddled and allowed to do what it pleases and the other is not.

and 'destruction of israel' is misinterpretted as 'kill all jews'. this is not what's meant. obviously. palestinians feel it is their land. iraeli jews feel it is theirs. the destruction of the state of israel does not mean the destruction of the jewish race.

and how is it any better to go against recognizing palestine in the UN? how is that better?

#28 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:56 PM

and 'destruction of israel' is misinterpretted as 'kill all jews'. this is not what's meant. obviously. palestinians feel it is their land. iraeli jews feel it is theirs. the destruction of the state of israel does not mean the destruction of the jewish race.


That's misguided semantics. If some group called for the "destruction of the U.S." does it really matter that it doesn't really mean the destruction of all U.S. citizens? Thems fighting words. Whoever came up with the initial concept of the "destruction of the state of Israel" failed PR101. That's no way to advocate for a Palestinian state...

#29 insolent cur

insolent cur

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 519 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:16 PM

and 'destruction of israel' is misinterpretted as 'kill all jews'. this is not what's meant. obviously. palestinians feel it is their land. iraeli jews feel it is theirs. the destruction of the state of israel does not mean the destruction of the jewish race.

i'm not misinterpreting shit. it means the destruction of israel.

i do give you credit for at least acknowledging their stated goal of the destruction of israel.

#30 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:18 PM

and 'destruction of israel' is misinterpretted as 'kill all jews'. this is not what's meant.

You don't have to go to interpreting Israel or Jew

They're just as often.. maybe more often apt to use Jew.

That is.... when speaking internally.




ees-ra-eli is Israeli

Ya-hud is jew

in case you doubt the translation

(I'm trying to keep this tame and not show the most hateful blood thirsty ones)

#31 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:20 PM

Actually BOTH sides are guilty of this. That's a fact.

That's not a fact.

#32 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:30 PM

That's not a fact.


It is. Get over it. I've seen plenty of mainstream video footage (e.g. 60 Minutes) of Israeli settlers through the years who have indoctrinated their children to hate the Palestinians and see them as less than human. Both sides are guilty of this. That's not being anti-Semitic, it's just an ugly fact in this whole ugly conflict.

I'm sure that there's a majority of good-hearted people on both sides that would like nothing more than a peaceful resolution. but there's also fundamentalists on both sides that hijack that possibility

#33 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:38 PM

That is not true.

It is Palestinians who teach their children that Jews and Israelis are inhuman blood thirsty child killers for fun. That's a fact. Hate is taught from a young age, institutionally.


It is. Get over it. I've seen plenty of video footage of Israeli settlers through the years who have indoctrinated their children to hate the Palestinians and see them as less than human. Both sides are guilty of this. That's not being anti-Semitic, it's just an ugly fact in this whole ugly conflict.

You'll notice I said institutionally.

There are some who teach hate on the Israeli side, that's true. But it is a minority and it is not institutional, not part of the Israeli educational system.

On the Palestinian side it is institutional and widespread part of the official Palestinian educational system and widespread throughout their media and even entertainment

#34 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:46 PM

See edited post above.

I stand by my statement. Maybe there is more institutional hatred being perpetuated on the Palestinian side, than in Israel. But that is only a logical outcome of generations of Palestinians that have had no peace and no homeland. Honestly, how would you feel in that situation?

#35 syd_25

syd_25
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,063 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Ct

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:58 PM

See edited post above.

I stand by my statement. Maybe there is more institutional hatred being perpetuated on the Palestinian side, than in Israel. But that is only a logical outcome of generations of Palestinians that have had no peace and no homeland. Honestly, how would you feel in that situation?


Justifiable hate? :dunno:

#36 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:03 PM

Justified? IDK. Maybe. Think slavery in this country. How long can you oppress someone without "justified" resentment? :dunno:

#37 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,961 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:08 PM

See edited post above.

I stand by my statement. Maybe there is more institutional hatred being perpetuated on the Palestinian side, than in Israel. But that is only a logical outcome of generations of Palestinians that have had no peace and no homeland. Honestly, how would you feel in that situation?


You dont really expect an answer to that, do you?

#38 syd_25

syd_25
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,063 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Ct

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:09 PM

Justified? IDK. Maybe. Think slavery in this country. How long can you oppress someone without "justified" resentment? :dunno:


I do not see the history of slavery in this country as something comparable to the situation being talked about here. Their not considered property.

#39 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:09 PM

Not really
:plain:

#40 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:17 PM

I do not see the history of slavery in this country as something comparable to the situation being talked about here. Their not considered property.


Maybe not, but they're not exactly free. Major restrictions on where they work, live, etc. They can't travel freely in their own land, because technically they have no land. If Israel wants to throw up a roadblock or build a wall that prevents them from going to their job, what recourse do they have? If Israel wants to blockade medical supplies, what can they do? If Israel wants to cut off irrigation, who should they complain to? They are a people without a political voice.

#41 sarah b.

sarah b.
  • VibeTribe
  • 74,182 posts
  • LocationRockland and Long Island, NY

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:17 PM

It's so easy to armchair quarterback how people do things in the middle East when none of us currently lives there. Whether you learn to hate because you learn it in school or because rockets landed in your town or your uncle was killed in a war or during military service, there is a lot of old hurt in the air and in people's parents and grandparents. There are a lot of ghosts and even more healing and social work that needs to be done (all over the world).

#42 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:19 PM

Absolutely, sarah :heart:

#43 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 32,444 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:21 PM

Posted Image

#44 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:30 PM

See edited post above.

I stand by my statement. Maybe there is more institutional hatred being perpetuated on the Palestinian side, than in Israel. But that is only a logical outcome of generations of Palestinians that have had no peace and no homeland. Honestly, how would you feel in that situation?

The institutional hatred has been there since before 1948. And when Jordan, Syria, etc. would not allow Palestinians to live outside of refugee camps they broadened that institutionalization.

So it is not the outcome of generations.

#45 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:42 PM

They are a people without a political voice.


and the state if israel is going out of their way to keep it that way

#46 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:43 PM

I'm sure that there's a majority of good-hearted people on both sides that would like nothing more than a peaceful resolution. but there's also fundamentalists on both sides that hijack that possibility

I totally agree that there's a majority of good hearted people on both sides.

The Palestinians have had the tragedy of having political leaders who have had many opportunities to choose peace, but instead have chosen the opposite.

And for quite a while Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza advocating peace and reconciliation are assassinated as traitors. So it's hard to know how moderates will ever be able to rise.

Arafat's violent rejection of peace was a horrific event. From the Israeli side, lots of people who were very reluctant to give land to Palestinians because of security reasons, because they did not trust that Palestinians would or could make peace had come around to the idea that it was worth doing, because it would bring peace. Israelis by a large majority were ready to cede pretty much all of the West Bank and Gaza and were warm to the idea of a Palestinian state.

The violent manner of the rejection of Israel agreeing to pretty much all Arafat had asked by Arafat for will be a very tough obstacle to overcome.

Yet peace is the only answer

#47 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:43 PM

The institutional hatred has been there since before 1948. And when Jordan, Syria, etc. would not allow Palestinians to live outside of refugee camps they broadened that institutionalization.

So it is not the outcome of generations.


sounds a lot like 'manifest destiny' to me

#48 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,945 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:46 PM

They are a people without a political voice.

Also not true.

They have elections (and you can see who they elected). They are represented in the UN.

You can say they don't have the type of political voice you think they should, but they do have a political voice. And it's a big loud voice.

#49 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:48 PM

How is it not an outcome of generations? :dunno:

There was an intelligent commentator on CNN the other night talking about immigration and how Rick Perry actually had given a realistic view of it during the latest debate. The commentator's premise was that we have never had a race-neutral discussion about immigration. It's always loaded with race. I think that's true. I think the same can be said of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Nobody can frame the debate neutrally. It always boils down to the "Jewish" people being entitled to a homeland. And maybe that's true. But does that "truth" mean we just should ignore the rights of another race/faith who also has a vested stake in that "homeland"? I think not :dunno:

#50 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:56 PM

http://medialens.org...alestinians.php


november 17, 2010

“PUT THE PALESTINIANS ON A DIET” - MEDIA BURY DOCUMENTS REVEALING ISRAEL’S DELIBERATE POLICY OF NEAR-STARVATION FOR GAZA
Israel has been forced to reveal what Palestinians and other observers on the ground have known for a long time: that the blockade of Gaza is state policy intended to inflict collective punishment, not to bolster Israeli “security”.

An Israeli human rights group has won a legal battle to compel the Israeli government to release three important documents. These outline state policy for permitting the transfer of goods into Gaza prior to the May 31 attack on the peace flotilla in which nine people were killed by Israeli forces. The group, Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, is demanding Israeli transparency. Meanwhile, Israel refuses to release documents on the current version of blockade policy which was “eased” after international condemnation following the flotilla attack.

The released documents, whose existence Israel had denied for eighteen months, reveal that the state approved “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods, including food and fuel, in the Gaza Strip. Gisha Director Sari Bashi explains:

“Instead of considering security concerns, on the one hand, and the rights and needs of civilians living in Gaza, on the other, Israel banned glucose for biscuits and the fuel needed for regular supply of electricity – paralyzing normal life in Gaza and impairing the moral character of the State of Israel. I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place.” (Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, ‘Due to Gisha's Petition: Israel Reveals Documents related to the Gaza Closure Policy’, October 21, 2010; http://www.gisha.org/index.php ?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1904&intSiteSN=113)

As Saeed Bannoura of the International Middle East Media Center reports, the Israeli government imposed a deliberate policy:

“in which the dietary needs for the population of Gaza are chillingly calculated, and the amounts of food let in by the Israeli government measured to remain just enough to keep the population alive at a near-starvation level. This documents the statement made by a number of Israeli officials that they are ‘putting the people of Gaza on a diet’.” (Saeed Bannoura, ‘Israeli government documents show deliberate policy to keep Gazans at near-starvation levels’, International Middle East Media Center, November 6, 2010 21:32; http://www.imemc.org/article/59843)

Bannoura adds:

“This release of documents also severely undermines Israel's oft-made claim that the siege is ‘for security reasons’, as it documents a deliberate and systematic policy of collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza.”

When Israel and the United States were reacting to Hamas’s election victory in Gaza in January 2006, long-time Israeli government adviser Dov Weisglass stated:

“The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” (‘Hamas readies for government, Israel prepares sanctions’, Agence France Presse, February 16, 2006)

The released documents contain actual equations used by the Israeli government to calculate the exact amounts of food, fuel and other necessities needed to do exactly that. (‘Submitted to Gisha in the framework of a Freedom of Information Act Petition, AP 2744/09 Gisha v. Defense Ministry’, Appendices B, C and D;http://gisha.org/Use...HiddenMessages/ DefenseMinistryDocumentsRevealedFOIAPetition.pdf)

The policy is all the more disturbing, indeed repellent, given that almost half the people of Gaza are children under the age of eighteen. One might reasonably conclude that Israel has deliberately forced the undernourishment of hundreds of thousands of children in direct violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Media Response? A Polite Silence
Our searches of the Nexis newspaper database show that, as far as we could determine, not a single UK newspaper has reported the release of these damning Israeli documents. We widened our searches to include all English-language publications covered worldwide by Nexis. We found just two: one from the Palestine News Network on October 21 and one in Palestine Chronicle on November 6.

We were so surprised by the uniform silence across the English-language press that we asked US-based media analyst David Peterson to check our findings. He was able to do so, spelling out his search results as follows (email to Media Lens, November 11, 2010):

Major World Publications: zero

All News (English): two (the same two that we found, as mentioned above)

Broadcast Transcripts: zero

A search of the Factiva database (covering all major English-language newspapers and wire services) found the same results. Peterson commented:

“No mentions in any of the major English-language newspapers or wire services of the fact that someone had revealed the actual Israeli government policy towards the Gaza Palestinians is to force a ‘deliberate reduction’ in their access to the necessities of everyday survival.”

It takes a peculiar form of social malaise for this astonishing media silence to be maintained in ostensibly free societies.