Israel Tells France It’s Not Interested In Multilateral Peace Talks
Source: Washington Post
By William Booth May 15 at 4:09 PM
JERUSALEM — French officials said Sunday they will continue to press ahead with plans to host a multilateral Middle East peace conference later this year, despite hearing, in blunt language, that Israel doesn’t really like the idea.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday to promote what diplomats are calling the “French Initiative,” a still evolving and admittedly vague diplomatic project that seeks to bring global attention to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and find consensus among the international community on how to move forward with a two-state solution.
The French are planning to host about 30 foreign ministers — from Europe and the Middle East as well as Russia, China and India — at a preparatory meeting at the end of this month, which could lead to a peace conference later this year.
Read more: http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1&ct2=us%2F1_0_s_2_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNEZwXVUXcpZYbfcxz_Pp2hjEpTTFA&cid=52779107569408&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Fmiddle_east%2Fisrael-tells-france-its-not-interested-in-multilateral-peace-talks%2F2016%2F05%2F15%2F30110796-1aab-11e6-82c2-a7dcb313287d_story.html&ei=7fI4V6eJJJSDhQGFxpkw&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-8375188575880416079&sid=en_us-w&ssid=w&st=1&at=dt0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is that bad?
Sejon
(109 posts)If one side is unwilling to budge, then there's nothing to negotiate.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)... meanwhile expanding settlements in the West Bank.
The French are responding to the fact that the occupation is almost 50 years old, with no settlement on the horizon.
Xolodno
(6,384 posts)If the PA accepted, then it would be, the PA denounce all Palestinian violence against Israel where they take Palestinian land and set up Israeli Settlements.....of course, they will call it Palestinian "terrorism". But, Israel will continue to set "conditions" where the PA can't commit. Its like saying stop pissing in a toilet, but don't piss any where else.
Previous Palestinian "conditions" have been, stop annexing land, stop setting up settlements, etc. Easy conditions to meet if you are seeking a peaceful resolution. And Adolph Netanyahoo won't do that. Sad thing is...not for his country, but for his political......and thereby personal well being. The schmuck is a sociopath. Even Ariel Sharon recognized that they can not continue on the current path they are on...so much so...he had to create a new political party that was rooted in reality. Bibi is going to go down in history as the longest serving PM....and later....the worst, along side with Stalin, Pinochet, etc.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)What they're saying is:
1) It'll only talk to 'the Palestinians' in the militarily occupied regions of Gaza and the West Bank about any 'peace' with them. And these Palestinians have virtually no bargaining power (which means you can't achieve anything in 'negotiations' - you've got absolutely nothing to give), are utterly dependent upon international aid for even fundamental foodstuffs, and each region has a very different sort of 'government' that represents the only authority that could be considered legitimate participants in such 'negotiations.' The government of Israel is very much in favor of annexing all of these lands if it can do so, and is quite OK with a bit of low-level conflict, as it actually aids its own 'see, what can we do?' propaganda in the United States.
Here's the scenario - you're 10 years old and a rather strong, big kid for your age. You're not really good friends with your relatively weak and scrony neighbor kid, but hang out a bit, and you think he's a decent kid overall. Every day as he walks to school, another kid, bigger and meaner than your neighbor, steals his lunch. You saw him fight back a couple of times, but it was no contest, and he got bloodied up pretty bad each time. Hardly anyone likes this bully, but when he's focused on your neighbor kid, he doesn't mess much with anyone else, so everyone else lets it go on.
One day, after a few months, you see the bully grabbing the lunch bag, and your neighbor fights for it again. And he's taking a pounding again. So you step up to the bully and say 'give it back.' The bully says 'hey, this is between him and me.' You decide he's got a good point and walk away. And every few weeks, as you watch this happening every day, as your neighbor starts to develop a few scars, never talks to anyone and usually seems kind of lost, you decide you've had it, confront the bully, and end up walking away, again, convinced that he's got a point.
2) 'No preconditions' means several things. First, it means that the government of Israel has decided it's not bound by any prior deals it has made concerning the status of the occupied land and its people. Especially the Oslo accords, which had real potential, but the government's got a lot more right-wing over the years and basically shelved that one within a couple of years. And it has also decided that the 'starting point' of any negotiations between it and 'the Palestineans' is right now. As in, although it has literally expelled hundreds of thousands of them from what was their land, moved in new immigrants of its own, and used the military to protect the immigrants, all that doesn't matter. Bringing up the concept of 'y'know, that's not really your land, it's ours and you stole it from us' would represent a 'precondition.'
So, that alters the bully scenario this way: You've intervened a couple of times with the bully and the neighbor kid. You've got the bully to agree to stop taking the kid's lunch all the time, if he brings a sucker or some kit-kats a couple of times every week. In return, the kid won't fight back anymore, and the bully leaves it at that. Two weeks later the bully decides 'screw it,' punches the neighbor kid, takes his lunch and now starts checking his pockets for any lunch money. You confront the bully again and he tells you that the kit-kats and suckers were really crappy ones, so the deal's off. Of course, it's not your business, really, so you walk away again.
The notion of Israel engaging in 'direct negotiations' with people it literally keeps imprisoned in small, kind of crappy chunks of land, while swiping the best land for itself pretty regularly so that there's hardly any more left for them, and being able and willing to kill a lot of them when they try to make a stand... It's absurd.
Germany surrendered unconditionally at the end of WWII. It had absolutely nothing to offer the invading Allies, as they'd already taken almost everything and could easily take whatever they wanted that remained. And no one had the slightest sympathy for them, as they'd launched a massive machine of murder and unleashed death around the planet.
Palestinians currently in the West Bank and Gaza can chuck a few big bottle rockets into Israel. Israel has state-of-the-art warplanes and munitions, mechanized infantry, top quality small arms and nuclear weapons.
Doesn't that seem like a perfect scenario that would lead two parties in conflict to a long-term peace agreement, with the potential for each side to compromise?
Not so much.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Wow, that's not an extreme characterization or anything.
Your version of reality is fascinating to read.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)it's straight-up reality.
What you are saying, plainly, is that, if an occupying military power refuses to engage in discussion regarding a permanent conclusion to the occupation with everyone except the people who are subject to the occupation, it's quite sensible. That's exactly like saying that the U.S. should have left Jews in death camps operated by the Nazis and Nazi collaborators, even though they were emaciated and helpless, because the issue should have really been resolved through direct negotiations between the Nazis and the occupants of the camps. Because, 'direct negotiation,' you know?
How can any 'direct negotiations' be conducted exclusively between a military occupying power with overwhelming superiority and a relatively helpless occupied population? Especially while the occupying power is actively annexing land in direct contravention of international law and expelling the occupied people from the land it annexes, and is declaring to the world that it has no intention of stopping.
It's absurd. This is no 'version' of reality or picking and choosing of facts on the ground - it's exactly how things are.
It's like the U.S. viceroy in Iraq engaging in 'direct negotiations' with former Iraqi Baath party members after they've all been fired from their jobs. And the prospect of any them them returning to any government positions if off the table. And all that they want is to get their jobs back. There is no basis whatsoever for direct negotiation, unless someone's come up with a truly remarkable alternative that doesn't actually exist. Of course, the ex-Baath had some power, and they asserted it. Which brought us the extraordinary chaos and bloodshed in Iraq and Syria that has transpired since the invasion.
And your entire argument is that the term 'direct negotiations' sounds, without any context, like sensible behavior. Should people accused of crimes engage exclusively in 'direct negotiations' with the state, in order to work out the outcome? It makes no sense - the state has vastly more power than people accused of crimes, and that's why representation, at least the opportunity to decline representation, is essential to the U.S. criminal justice process.
Even in civil law there's a concept of 'bargaining power' with respect to the enforcement of contracts. If one party has absolutely no choice but to accept a term in a contract that is onerous to them, it is sometimes called a 'contract of adhesion,' and, under various circumstances will not be enforced in court.
There is basically no historical analog for such an arrangement. The problem is the entire basis for military alliances. If every country looks only after itself, and none are prepared to intervene or assert their strength against a military power that has or is threatening to conquer or otherwise engage in violence against someone who has insufficient capacity to meet such a threat, then the weak are picked off by the strong. Then, eventually, the strongest, the ones who have conquered most effectively, fight each other. In modern times, the U.N. was established, in large part, to formalize principles of, and, to some degree, procedures for, international prevention of these scenarios. And international enforcement of the principles, should it become necessary.
In the context of the present Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, especially given that those living under occupation have no citizenship anywhere, the idea that all foreign powers should respect an Israeli refusal to discuss the issue with anyone other than the people under occupation, is absolutely evil. If you don't get that, you're a fool and a tool.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You are seriously comparing Palestinians living in the West Bank to Jews in death camps?
There is a reason why some people like to compare Israel to Nazi Germany. Folks can work out what they think that reason might be.
You really truly think that is a valid analogy?
It is nearly impossible to take anything else you've written seriously after a paragraph like that.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Utterly precise, specifically relating to the question that you raised. It's about the absurdity of the idea of 'direct negotiations' between of militarily helpless people living under a military occupation and the military occupiers. That's all.
That's the question you raised.
The only valid factor that affects the extension of the analog beyond that issue is the severity of the military occupation. Israel isn't conducting an organized, systematic, rapid campaign of mass murder against Palestinians under its occupation. It's doing a lot of bad things, but there aren't death camps.
Israel has committed some mass murders against Palestinian civilians - the most prominent one being the Sabra and Shatila massacre in an Israeli-occupied camp in Lebanon in 1982. (An U.N. investigating commission concluded that it was an act of genocide and that the party to blame was Israel.) The various wars and conflicts involving the modern state of Israel have been brutal, ugly, and there really aren't any 'good guys.' Unless you simply pick a side.
By the way, there were organized Jewish resistance groups throughout a number of occupied European nations under German occupation during WWII. From the perspective of the Germans, they were terrorists. From the perspective of anyone who had a clue about what was happening under the occupations, they were extraordinarily brave heroes.
Mosby
(16,263 posts)Not a single Israeli was involved.
Sharon sued Time magazine for slander and he WON in a US court.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Here's part of that libel ruling (libel is for the printed word, slander is for the spoken word):
"Under defamatory meaning, a secondary question asked whether the paragraph said that, in permitting the Phalangists to enter the camps, Mr. Sharon had ''consciously intended'' or ''actively encouraged'' the Phalangists to commit acts of revenge ''extending to the deliberate killing of noncombatants.''
The jury answered ''yes'' regarding ''consciously intended'' and ''no'' regarding ''actively encouraged.'' Either meaning was sufficient to support a finding of defamation."
In other words, the jury that returned the slander verdict decided that Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Defense Minister who had direct control over security of the camp, ordered that security to stand down and permit a Christian Lebanese militia to enter the camp, consciously intending that the militia would engage in deliberate killing of noncombatants.
And Sharon did not win the case. He lost. Kind of a really, really big difference between winning and losing in a U.S. court. (Libel in the United States required, at the time, and, in most states this is still the criteria - quite uniform since libel is intimately associated with the First Amendment - a finding of actual malice.) Verdict was that defendant Time Magazine was not guilty of libel.
But, OK, maybe you just made a little error.
It's not as though there was an official Israeli government inquiry on the matter, which found that Sharon was personally responsible for the massacre and recommended his removal from office...
Oh, wait - yep, that happened. And an Israeli peace activist was killed and 9 others injured by a grenade tossed by a right-winger over the whole thing. Which did, then, lead to Sharon resigning.
And, yes, lots of Israelis were involved. The IDF camp guards had overwhelming military superiority over the militia that sought entry. The militia coordinated its entry with Mr. Sharon, and the IDF just let them right in. A whole lot of well-armed opponents of people in the camp. So, yeah, a lot of Israeli soldiers watched it happen and did nothing.
Other than the fact that you're wrong in every particular, you're absolutely right.
King_David
(14,851 posts)And what they reveal is not pretty?
As Oberliner said nothing of the disgusting stuff you have written can be taken seriously?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I don't mind saying that I'm a relatively decent guy. I'm an atheist and don't believe in 'races.' I don't lie, unless it is to prevent unnecessary harm to others. I lived through 7 years of a severely debilitating illness, which I didn't expect to survive, solely with SSDI as a lifeline that let me keep a very small room's worth of roof over my head and just enough food so that I didn't become malnourished on top of everything else.
I was ashamed of what I assumed was me being a drag on society, my family, my friends, and with no plausible outlook for a future.
I got lucky and survived.
Living with the very tangible possibility of death, not just the usual kind that will get us all someday, but the kind that hangs like a shadow over everything you do, tests you in a great many ways. Throughout the process of recovery, I made commitments to myself. Tell the truth. Do what I say I'm going to do and don't commit to others to do something unless I strongly believe I can and will do them, within the timeline I'm committing to. Help others who are struggling whenever possible. Really whenever possible. And don't ask for anything in return - I've already a moral debt to many people without whose involvement in my life I would definitely be dead now.
Sacrifice of myself whenever it is necessary to help another human being who needs it. Recognize that there's a vast diversity of characteristics among human beings and don't assess any aspect of a person's worth on the basis of insufficient information. Which means, almost always, don't assess any aspect of a person's worth.
Never, ever step aside to allow a wrong because it's easy. Never fail to prevent a wrong solely because it might be dangerous. If I take up a friendship, be a friend, always. If I've caused someone harm without cause, atone.
And here's the flipside - don't forgive an offense against myself or someone I care about unless such forgiveness is properly requested. Remember lies and acts of cruelty by others. Don't do something wrong because it's part of my job - there are always jobs somewhere, but the effects of honor and dishonor follow you wherever and whenever you are.
One thing that all of this requires is zero tolerance for racism. Zero tolerance for religious bigotry. Zero tolerance for cruelty in any form.
And I am nothing whatsoever like a person you seem to think I've 'revealed' in my discussion in this thread. If you find something I've written 'disgusting' then you are so averse to simple history, presumably as it applies to the subject of Israel's military occupation over others, if it reveals something that legitimately challenges your viewpoints on a subject, that denunciation of the bearer of information is the only route available to you.
None of us are saints and very, very few of us are monsters. But some people are capable of cruelty to a greater extent than others, and some people are capable of gentleness to a greater extent than others. The latter seldom get involved in politics. If we claim a particular ethnicity, we accept the good with the bad, but if we support a wrong because it's caused by someone with shared ethnicity, we share the wrong and contribute to it. And we must stand against a wrong even though it's caused by someone with shared ethnicity, because the alternative is to devalue all others who do not share your ethnicity.
I have some reason to believe, based on just few words - very particular words, however, that you do not share much of my values. Well, I'm used to that. I set a high standard for my own conduct, because otherwise it is absurd to expect good conduct from others.
And every single thing I've written in this thread is true, to the extent that I am willing to say so based on the information I possess. I don't make claims of something being true lightly.
And the modern state of Israel is engaging in tremendous cruelty against several million people who it maintains power over as a result of military conquest. Lots of cruelty comes from the people who are under the occupation, as well. When groups of human beings gather to oppose other groups of human beings, cruelty is going to happen. We've engaged in extraordinary cruelty at times throughout the world since we became a nation.
And the principle reason I speak up about this is that my country, my government, provides direct military support to the extent of a couple of billion dollars per year to the modern state of Israel. Some of that support goes to facilitate a cruelty that I do not wish to support. So does our massive aid to Egypt - after a mere year trial period in democracy after years and years of military rule, it became an even more repressive, cruel military dictatorship than it was before. So I also speak out against United States military aid to the modern state of Egypt.
I don't know if you're a propagandist, but you seem to have the language down.
Please point out a single thing I wrote in any of my posts that is 'outrageous' and explain why it is.
Then please point out a single thing I wrote in any of my posts that is 'disgusting' to you. And, if you can, please describe why it disgusts you.
If you can do each of the above, with particularity, I will be glad to seriously examine whether I have written something that is untrue, done something that is morally wrong, or acted with insufficient regard for the well-being of those who might have encountered something I wrote. And I will do so honestly, without any bias in the direction of the viewpoints I expressed.
I won't even ask you to do the same, because I'm concerned about my own conduct in this respect and no one else's.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I would encourage you to reflect on why you chose to introduce that particular comparison into this discussion. Surely there are other historical parallels that might connect more directly to the circumstances in question.
If nothing else comes of this exchange but a willingness for you to pause and think about what it was that led you to attempt such an analogy, then I would be very grateful.
If you are willing to do that, and report back with your reflections, I would be happy to engage with you on any other points.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I am very willing to do what you ask, without any bias in favor of what I've written, and I will share with you anything that might worry me about the particular choice of comparison.
Before moving on now, though, I can say that I believe the reason the analogy occurred to me is almost certainly not any of the bases upon which a person might be construed, rightly, to be a bigot or disturbingly fixated on a particular subject. I suspect it was because of the direct bearing the subject had on the very existence of the modern state of Israel, and the particular poignancy that it might therefore bring to the nature of the very specific comparison I made. A very limited comparison, addressing a very specific subject.
And crap - if I don't cut it out I'm going to collapse right now.
I am grateful for the manner in which you engaged me in this post, so thank you for that.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I'm hoping we can at least come to a point where we are able to understand one another a little better and then maybe have a productive discussion.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)look at how many in this thread say NOT ONE WORD about Palestinian terrorism. It's ALL Israel's fault that the Palestinians vote in corrupt or terrorist leaders. Nothing those precious snowflakes do is their fault and then the idiots wonder why Israel doesn't trust them. A peace treaty will not be forced upon Israel and the only thing that will get the Palestinians a state is sitting down WITH ISRAEL. So many here are perfectly willing to tell the Palestinians to continue to suffer while others wring their hands and try to figure out the problem - we KNOW what the problems are and only two parties can fix them.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)It exists. It has existed. Some Israelis have been violently killed by Palestinian terrorism. Some Israelis have been killed by organizations or nations that have engaged in terrorism ostensibly on behalf of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
Hostages have been taken, and some have been killed.
Another phrase for terrorism conducted by people under military occupation is 'asymmetrical warfare.' This is historically extraordinarily common when occupied parties have no means to engage in direct armed resistance against the military forces of the occupiers.
The French resistance during WWII, for example, engaged in some acts of extreme terrorism, killing a lot of civilians in the process. And the French resistance to the Nazis and, even to a greater extent, French collaborators, killed way more people than all acts of terrorism directed against the modern state of Israel, ever. And we heavily backed them with military resources.
The French had allies. They broke the German occupation, eradicated the German war machine, and forced an unconditional surrender of Germany. Would you argue that we should have stayed out of WWII in Europe and assumed the formal position that all problems between Nazi Germany and the large number of European nations it had conquered could only be resolved by each of them separately sitting down and negotiating things out?
You think the analog is deeply flawed. You're wrong. It's exactly on point. The only thing that differentiates the scenarios is the question of whether you support one occupying power versus another. That's it. Which means that the argument you make is absurdly hypocritical if you are approaching it from a moral perspective. If you begin with the assumption that there is something morally acceptable about the Israeli occupation of stateless Palestinian civilians, while there wasn't anything morally acceptable about the German occupation of France and French civilians, then make your argument as to why this is the case.
But don't pretend that a militarily occupied people can possibly achieve anything out of exclusively direct negotiations with the occupying power, if there isn't any potential for any kind of pressure brought to bear by others. It's patently absurd.
Do we talk about French terrorism under the German occupation during WWII or do we talk about the French Resistance? You know that answer.
You know who else were considered terrorists around 240 years ago? Rebellious, ungrateful colonists living under British rule on the east coast of the North American continent...
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)offered a state of their own and instead went to war and continue to be at war? THAT's the difference. I've seen this argument before and it was stupid then and it's stupid now. And thankfully, the vast majority of Americans know the difference as well as I do.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Your version of "offer" involves a lot of taking, where the Palestinians end up with far less.
The Palestinians have never been offer shit. That is a sick joke.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)United Nations Resolution 181(III) Plan of Partition with Economic Union regarding so-called 'British Mandate Palestine', passed by the U.N. General Assembly, which was non-binding because the GA only had the power of recommendation, while the Security Council (as lousy of a system as it's turned out to be) had authority to bind U.N. members to such resolutions.
OK - a couple of things first.
I try hard in life to recognize the difference between decisions based on morals and conclusions reached by reasoned logic and (hopefully) as much good data as I can obtain. Being human, of course, I certainly get them jumbled up a lot.
At a gut level, I fully respect and appreciate the vast migration of European Jews, most from refugee camps, to what they viewed as their homeland after the hideousness of the Holocaust. We failed them horribly, everyone failed them horribly. A couple of friends had or have a surviving great-grandparent, one, I believe, from the last year at Dachau - I think she's still alive, and the other - I think he has passed away - who was one of the very few non-POWs remaining in Majdanek at the time of the liberation. At least that's my understanding.
I can't imagine what kind of hell existed in the minds of Holocaust survivors, nor how the prospect of the salvation of homeland in what is now Israel would drive them. All I know is that I can only guess.
But the problem is that there were a lot of people living there already who were blameless concerning the Holocaust. And, as groups like Haganah got more aggressive and resorted to direct terrorism, and international pressure pushed Britain into standing aside for the influx of Jewish refugees, they stood to lose just about everything. And they were every bit as human as the refugees.
And now, well, how many Palestinians alive today in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank, do you think, were involved in the rebellion against the U.N. partition plan? I'm going to guess... less than 0.001 percent. The populations of the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank are very young on the whole, and all they know is life under a military occupation.
If you're arguing that, since some of their grandparents and great-grandparents fought to prevent the U.N. partition from taking effect, they have no rights to defend what little they have and seek a viable homeland of their own, I can't buy that. Additionally, te The partition began 69 years ago - the modern state of Israel is largely militarily supreme in the region. And the government of Israel is simply taking land, often bulldozing homes that have stood for decades, and moving in new immigrants who aren't fleeing any Holocaust onto that land.
Also, not all of the Jewish population accepted the 1947 partition. This was Menacham Begin's response to it (who was the head of Irgun at the time, and a terrorist):
"The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature by institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever."
Irgun was the seed of the modern Likud party.
At some point, as traumatic as the birth of the modern state of Israel was, it will have to assume the responsibilities of a modern nation, live up to treaty obligations it has assumed, and decide that it can exist without annexing land obtained by force. Until that happens, its legitimacy as a nation among nations will be rightfully called into question. It doesn't have any special right to expand as it pleases into lands seized by force, any more than any other nation. But the government of Israel has every intention of continuing to do exactly that.
So, no, the argument that was 'stupid then,' even if it was in 1947, which is questionable, is in no way 'stupid' now.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Pretending that because those in 1947 who attacked Israel are most likely dead does in no way change the fact that Israel has been fighting for its survival since Day 1 of their existence. And it wasn't just 1947 - it was 1956, 1967, 1972 - over and over again the supposed allies of the Palestinians (I don't think they actually give a shit about the Palestinians at all but that's a conversation for another time) kept and keep telling them they just need to suffer a little while longer until they figure out how to rid the Middle East of the Jewish state. The ONLY thing that will bring that about is laying down their arms, renouncing violence and sitting down with the Israeli's. You seem to think the onus should be on the Israelis and I disagree with that. The leaders of Israel need to defend their country - nothing else. The status quo hurts the Palestinians far more than the Israeli's who don't give a shit about world opinion so whining about bibi will get them nothing. I put the onus on the people who need peace the most - the Palestinians.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)an aggressive stance in favor of the Likud government's stance.
Facts don't appear to matter to you as much as an apparently highly emotional commitment to a particular point of view.
Israel didn't fight for its survival in 1956 - that was an invasion of Egypt fought by Israel, France and the UK, fought because Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. It was a war of aggression fought to wrest a valuable shipping lane from the government of Egypt, although the Canal is very clearly part of Egypt.
Israel didn't fight for its survival in 1967 - it was an Israeli first strike war that might not, but probably would, have happened if they hadn't launched the first strike. It was principally, again, a conflict against Egypt, which was still ruled by Nasser, and he was still humiliated about the 1956 war. Part of the outcome was Egyptian loss of much of the Sinai to Israel, and a subsequent long-term blockade of the Canal by Egypt.
And it didn't fight for its survival during the Yom Kippur War in 1972. Egypt wanted to reopen the Suez Canal, but the Israeli positions in the Eastern Sinai without some kind of peace treaty made this very impossible. Syria wanted the Golan Heights back, which had been seized by Israel in 1967. And Jordan wanted the West Bank back, which it had lost in 1967.
If Israel, Britain and France hadn't invaded Egypt in 1956, setting this entire chain of events into motion, the purposes of the Egyptian and Arab combatants in 1967 and 1972 would not have existed, and, although there might have been other wars, there's no way to know. The ones that were fought were all about territory and geopolitics. Not any country's survival.
And you're right - it appears that the current Israeli government does not 'give a shit' about world opinion. Think that's a wise foreign policy?
You seem to me to be something of a fanatic, committed utterly to a particular point of view and either refusing to acknowledge any aspects of reality which might threaten your convictions and constantly seeking ways to interpret anything and everything as supporting your preexisting position. People like that don't compromise unless they are forced to. And if your perspectives are similar to those in the leadership of the Likud party (they seem to be), what, exactly, would they yield in exchange for a shift in the status quo, in your words, that 'hurts the Palestinians far more than the Israeli's'? What could possibly result from such bilateral negotiations (which, by the way, have been going on, off and on, for years)? If you can indicate what tangible benefit the current government of Israel would be willing to provide during a process of direct negotiations with.. well, any Palestinian authority figure, I'd be all ears.
The current Prime Minister of Israel has a very long history of fighting peace accords with the Palestinians. He is largely considered to be the one individual most responsible for the failure of the Oslo accords, fought tooth and nail against Ehud Barak over its implementation after he was elected PM, and ultimately succeeded in its failure. He likes the status quo. What does he want to negotiate about?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)How about stopping the settlements? I suppose you think Bill Clinton is lying when he says he fought hard for a Palestinian state and it was arafat that didn't have the balls to agree to it. Your blaming Israel for all the wars is the biggest bunch of bullshit I think I've ever seen posted here and that's saying a lot so if you want to accuse ME of having a biased view, I can only laugh in your face. EVERY war is for its survival as they can't afford to LOSE any war and you should already know this if you want to be honest. And I happen to detest bibi - something I've said over and over again on DU. But that doesn't mean I want the Israeli's to pretend the "world" has its best interest at heart - that would be complete and utter bullshi
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)A country that absolutely, positively cannot afford to be defeated in an armed conflict, under any circumstances, should never, ever go to war. It's a small country, but not so small that any military conflict in which it loses more than gains (and what exactly would that mean? - is it land only, or does it cover the appearance of any military vulnerability at all points in time?), is the end of its existence.
I don't pretend, as a citizen of the United States, that the United States should always act toward Israel with its 'best interest at heart.' I would like the United States to act with the citizens of the United States' interests at heart. Kind of a no-brainer there.
You indicate in your response to my question that the government of Israel would put 'stopping the settlements' on the table in direct negotiations with Palestinians in the occupied areas of the West Bank and Gaza.
Where does that come from? Has there been any such statement made by any minister-level Israeli official within, say, the past 10 years?
Finally, you say that Israel cannot afford to lose any war. If it unilaterally withdrew all settlers from even pre-1973 Palestinian-occupied land, it would have peace, at least among all of its neighbors. Big time peace. No need to worry about must-win wars. Since Israel has the bomb, there's really no military threat, more or less anywhere, to its actual existence anyway.
Why doesn't it just go ahead and announce its plans to withdraw all of its settlers past that point by, say, 2018?
Because you seem to be saying that expulsion of civilians from occupied land by Israel, which is considered a grave violation of two articles of the current Geneva conventions (which articles Israel did not sign on to), is a military activity. In other words, the settlement activity is directly tied to violence directed against Israelis by Palestinians in occupied territories. Is the ongoing expulsion of Palestinians to make room for new immigrants to Israel a weapon? It must be, based on your suggestion that it is something to be traded for a reduction in violence by people in those occupied areas.
The settlement activity will keep going on because the Israeli government wants the land. That's it. It considers a few Israeli deaths a year an acceptable price to pay for this land. If there are any good guys in this scenario, they aren't to be found among ministers of the Israeli government.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You think Israel WANTED to be attacked starting the day they declared Independence? There were times the entire country was 9 MILES WIDE. That's what I mean about not being able to lose a war, not that they didn't have the capability (which they proved over and over again to the chagrin of the very same countries who thought they didn't).
Where is your proof of this:
Finally, you say that Israel cannot afford to lose any war. If it unilaterally withdrew all settlers from even pre-1973 Palestinian-occupied land, it would have peace, at least among all of its neighbors. Big time peace. No need to worry about must-win wars. Since Israel has the bomb, there's really no military threat, more or less anywhere, to its actual existence anyway.
That there would be big peace? Has hamas promised to stop the violence? Whatever the armed part of the Palestinian authority calls itself these days? No - they haven't. That's a fucking pipe dream that has no basis in reality. They pulled out of gaza and got nothing but violence but you're so sure they should just trust the same people that have been fucking them over since 1947. Jordan held the West Bank until 1967 - was there peace then? You're just another that forgives the Palestinians for ALL their violence and puts the blame entirely on Israel no matter what history tells you. I wouldn't trust them to tell me whether it was daytime simply because they have never, unlike Israel, earned that trust. NEVER. Israel has proven itself with both Egypt and Jordan - let me say again = the Palestinians have NEVER EARNED that trust. You just want to cross your fingers and hope for the best. Never gonna happen.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I haven't said anything implying anything about 'forgiv(ing) the Palestinians for ALL their violence' nor that 'the blame' is 'entirely on Israel no matter what history tells you.'
Since neither I nor anyone I know and care about has ever been a victim of an act of violence committed by a 'Palestinian,' I can't possibly forgive Palestinians for any violence. I have no basis for such a thing.
And I don't know, exactly, what, in the terms you express, I 'blame entirely on Israel.' All I'm trying to discuss, really, is the present and the future.
And I believe that peace is, in general, much better than war. I'm a citizen of the most warlike country during the past 240 years of history, bar none. I'm not proud of that.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and yes, you put the entire blame on Israel by saying it's up to THEM to compromise before the Palestinians are asked to do anything. They already tried it with gaza - they wont be so trusting a second time.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)German Third Reich. Some decided to accept it. Not a great choice, but better than any that the modern inhabitants of occupied Gaza and the West Bank have ever had. The Likud government has zero intention of granting citizenship in Israel to them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I asked if the French were offered a country, a nazi free country, during WWII. That you think the Israeli government is WORSE than the nazis doesn't say very much for you at all.
Whatever. You're a fanatic. I can't conclude anything else - and you are a living, presumably American example of why the current government of Israel's talk of 'direct negotiations' is nonsense. They have nothing to offer, as nothing they possess will be given. What's there to negotiate about? Promising that the pace of 'settlements' will be reduced by a rate of 10% if every Palestinian lines up to sign an oath of neverending pacifism, such oath to be consecrated by kissing the ass of of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu?
The Likud + further right parties government of Israel throws language around like 'only bilateral negotiations' around because it's good at bullshit. It doesn't want to negotiate about anything.
King_David
(14,851 posts)YOU calling anyone here "right wing" is equally absurd.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I didn't call anyone here 'right wing' unless someone here is a ministerial-level member of the governing coalition of the current Israeli government.
On a general political spectrum, how would you describe the Likud-led current government of Israel?
How about you answer a simple question instead of absurdly alluding that a lifelong liberal like me is 'right wing?'
Go ahead, just try answer the question. No inflammatory rhetoric, just an answer.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You know I stopped giving a shit what these people have to say about me. They have a repulsively distorted picture of what the problems are that boils downs to Israel/bad, Palestinians/hopeless little kittens. It's OK. They don't know what the fuck they're talking about so I can't take them seriously. Hope you're having a great day.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You want the Israeli's to trust people that have been trying to destroy them for 68 years, forgive those people for all the death, all the violence, pretend they're innocent little kittens who simply can't help themselves and YOU call ME a fanatic? Have you ever heard of projection? I guess you think Bill Clinton is lying when he said he had a deal done until arafat proved what a pathetic coward he really was and scuttled it. Israel has already PROVEN they would abide by a peace agreement - you see, there is actual history to back up the FACT they can abide by an agreement. The Palestinians NEVER have. NEVER. There is zero reason to trust them.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)"The Palestinians NEVER have. NEVER."
"There is zero reason to trust them."
"arafat proved what a pathetic coward he really was..."
'pretend they're innocent little kittens who simply can't help themselves...'
And four words expressed in all caps.
Those are all extreme statements that are really not based on historical reality, but rather a skewed 'pick and choose' approach colored by what appears to be a need for you to interpret everything conceivable in a manner consistent with your strong commitment to a particular position. And, obviously, if there is not potential for some degree of eventual forgiveness among people carrying the memory or family history of dead loved ones on both sides, as you have expressed strictly from the Israeli point of view, then there would be no peace agreement or recognition of Israel by Egypt or Jordan. But those things happened.
Lot of Palestinians and lots of Israelis want full peace. 'The Palestinians' are not not robots who all think and act in unison any more than Israelis do. This entire thread is about the single subject of the current government of Israel's rejection of any negotiations on the subject of the future status of the occupied territories that include any other party or parties other than 'The Palestinians.' And what you're saying is that there's no possibility of there ever being peaceful relations between them, because Israelis will never contemplate the prospect of some degree of forgiveness regarding violence committed by Palestinians against Israelis. And, since a lot more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than Israelis have been killed by Palestinians, the logical extension of your statement is that Israelis and Palestinians will be killing each other until everyone on one side or the other is dead.
Every one of your actual assertions - although I don't exactly know what, specifically, you mean by 'arafat proved what a pathetic coward he really was' specifically refers to, so I guess I can't honestly assess it, so apart from that one, of the other two assertions, there is substantial experience to suggest that the 'NEVER' and 'zero reason to trust them' elements are entirely not true. Really, 'the Palestinians' have never abided by any peace agreement with Israel? For any length of time? And there really is 'zero' reason to trust that there are Palestinians strongly interested in a permanent peace with Israel? Those are both hyper-exaggerations, which ignore lots of actual examples of the opposite. That's the kind of thing that suggests that you are a fanatic, devoted to a particular cause to the extent that you think about it in extremes, and no activity that takes place somewhere outside these extremes can be acknowledged as relevant.
The Israelis that picked a 16 year old Palestinian to burn alive - if there had been a peace agreement in place at the time, and no claim was made by Palestinians or Israelis that they were in any way sanctioned by the government of Israel, would Israel be in violation of peace agreement?
Of course, the answer is no. Violent crime exists everywhere in the world, especially in a region with extremely highly charged ethnic divisions. Unless literally everyone is accompanied at all times by armed guards prepared to act to prevent any potential act of violence, which is obviously impossible, there will be violence at times. And, if parties are attempting to implement peace regimes, but scrap them in the inevitable instance of a limited outbreak of violence during such times, then they're doomed to fail. All it takes is one person who can be identified as a member of one or the other 'side' to decide they want to derail it, and that's that. Like Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. The assassin was an Israeli who opposed peace with Palestinians and killed an Israeli Prime Minister who was working toward it. And there are still many, many Israelis who think the same way - especially among 'settlement' groups.
Look, you've got very strong convictions on the subject of the modern state of Israel. I don't have strong convictions like that on the subject. I have convictions on a range of other subjects, but my perspective on American military aid to any country is that it shouldn't be provided if it is likely to be used in a manner contrary to our country's declared positions. And especially if this results in things like diminishing diplomatic influence throughout the world or the threat of violence directed against the United States directly emanating from other nations' opposition to our military support that results in such activities. If a government that receives military aid conducts itself in that manner, I believe it should not receive military aid from us. And statements like 'everyone butt out,' including the United States, which is Israel's primary military sponsor, are pretty strong indicators that we have little control over how the weapons we send to Israel are used.
I believe we should have cut off military aid to Egypt after the 2013 coup. It was a military coup, and U.S. law is very clear - no aid for regimes that come to power through a military coup. But the law was flat-out ignored (with absurd pretense for characterizing the military coup as not actually a military coup). And now the Egyptian regime is one of the most repressive in the world. Mass death penalties, lockup of just about everyone who so much as blinks in a way that suggests lack of support for the regime (with a lot of torture thrown in on the side), and lots of 'disappearing' Egyptians.
I don't believe in any superior race or superior people. I don't believe in 'American Exceptionalism' - it's just arrogance and ignorance of history. It's easy to be arrogant when you're on top of the world. But that will not always be, and nations who exercise power over other people should always keep that in mind. That's a balanced and realistic viewpoint that is generally ignored by politicians who have very short-term interests. If we, as citizens, don't work toward mitigation of the problems with short-term, limited interests of politicians, nobody will.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You can't possibly expect me to read that screed after your said my comments weren't true. But never one, not once, did you come up with a time that the Palestinians have proved they would abide by any agreement. Not one. Which makes the rest of your post not worthy of my time.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I didn't do any of that because you ignored all evidence I provided of other stuff, and, if you'd read any of the rest of the post you'd have noticed that I wasn't attempting to directly rebut your statements.
I was addressing the manner of your expression and the consequences of things you have asserted.
The OP was about a very specific subject. You made highly contradictory statements concerning that topic:
1) The only route to peace between Israel and the Palestinians under its military occupation is direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, with no other party involved.
2) There was no way to trust 'the Palestinians' to abide by any peace agreements, and they never have.
Which basically meant that your statements supporting the 'bilateral negotiations'-only statement made by the Israeli PM to French officials is disingenuous. If you don't believe that a party can be trusted to abide by peace agreements that it has committed to, how is it possible that peace can only come from negotiations solely between the that party and the other party to the violence that negotiation would be focused on ending?
But whatever. Your positions seem to roam all over the place, and your primary interest in anything that suggests concerns about the current status of US military support for Israel seems to be to attack the people with the concerns, vigorously and with exaggerated language. It would appear that you are unable to conduct an actual dialogue about the concerns that others express without rapidly resorting to personal denunciation. No consideration of the bases of the concerns, why lots of, and this is important, people who have no bigotry toward Jewish people (in my case, no groups of people who could conceivably be identified by shared ethnic background - none, period.)
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)that Israel could care less about finding a solution to the Palestinian conflict, or to be more accurate, Israel wants a solution where Israel doesn't have to compromise anything.
Delver Rootnose
(250 posts)..+1000
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)that I'm always stunned when people actually pass along BS like 'bilateral negotiations only' as though it actually means anything.
The current government of Israel wants nothing more than to keep expanding the country. And we finance it.
Of course, if you're against providing billions per year in military aide to Israeli, because of this, you're anti-Semitic.
Which is kind of silly, since the term 'Semitic' is pretty much obsolete as a descriptor of ethnic heritage, and its historic application, meaning people who speak a Semitic language, could be applied to the ancestors of pretty much everyone in the Middle East...
Delver Rootnose
(250 posts)...will as a government to change it's attitude in the region as long as it has the unconditional support of the United States.
Sort of like the small town police chief's kid can be as big a dick as he wants. No consequences.
forest444
(5,902 posts)And if possible rid themselves of its current occupants by genocide.
StoneCarver
(249 posts)This is a crazy situation that is hurting the US. Let Israel be Israel, and get out of the occupied territories. OSBL used the Palestinians as a posters child to foment violence against the West. We don't care about dead Palestenian children, period. The only hope is to get out and be an honest broker again!
Stonecarver
moondust
(19,963 posts)
Translation: Paris won't give me everything I want.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)that it has been given multiple chances to attain peace.
Hairy Harry Potlover
(42 posts)
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)repulsive UNESCO vote that stated that Israel has zero connection with the Temple Mount:
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.719567
why on earth would Israel trust France on anything? I see they're now trying to walk it back and called it a "misunderstanding" (what was misunderstood is never made clear) now that they're trying to be "diplomatic" but it wont work. They showed their hand and it wasn't pretty. No treaty is going to be mandated - ONLY Israel and Palestine can work it out. The rest is just show.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)They want the obliteration of the Palestinians as a people.
Mosby
(16,263 posts)Last edited Mon May 16, 2016, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htmRiverNoord
(1,150 posts)A reference to a country in a general sense is not a reference to each and every citizen of that country.
If I say 'the United States is directly responsible for the bloodshed and carnage throughout Iraq and Syria,' am I saying that each and every American citizen is personally responsible for the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Simple question.
Mosby
(16,263 posts)there is not a third choice, what do you suppose he meant by "they"?
So in your example I would say it references the citizens of the US.
If you disagree then what's the third choice? If you want to refer to the government then why didn't you say that?
The US and Israel are not some abstract concept, they are countries made up of citizens.
Basically you are defending bigotry using a "vagueness" argument, which is pretty fucked up IMO.
So do you think that "They want the obliteration of the Palestinians as a people."?
And who are "they"?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)That's the standard meaning of a general reference to a country, unless it is qualified by 'the people of,' 'the territory of,' etc.
Nothing abstract about it.
I am not defending bigotry.
Criticism of the military activities of a country that has a majority of citizens with a particular ethnic background IS NOT bigotry against all people who share a similar ethnic background. Bigotry is bigotry, period.
I did not say I agreed with the position that Israel wants the obliteration of the Palestinians as a people. Indeed, there are several right-wing Israeli politicians who have used an argument that 'the Palestinians' aren't 'a people' in order to denigrate their status in general. And more than a few American politicians who have said the same thing.
You said that the poster's statement demonizes all Israelis. I pointed out how I believed that to be a flawed assertion. I did that because there appear to be a number of people around who respond to any criticism of of the policies or military conduct of the modern state of Israel with an hyperbolic response that the party advancing the criticism is an anti-Semite. And, since I'm not even close to being an anti-Semite, and am critical of many of the current Israeli government's policies toward those it maintains a military occupation over, I recognize that response to be irrational, at least as it applies to people like me.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)are interested in peace? Abbas? Hamas? Those are the current leaders so which one is so interested in peace you would you sit down with them?
Xolodno
(6,384 posts)By ARON HELLER, Associated Press
JERUSALEM (AP) — A public spat between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister has exposed a simmering rift between Israel's security establishment and its hard-line government, pitting the Israeli leader in a risky showdown.
The dispute has spotlighted the sensitive debate over the military's role in public discourse in Israel, where security figures have occasionally served as a moderating element to nationalist governments. The surprising and normally discreet dynamic has burst into the public sphere at a time when Israelis are wrestling with a sense of being at loggerheads with much of the world.
After a series of public disagreements with security figures in recent months, Netanyahu urgently summoned his defense minister Monday to rebuke him for encouraging top military generals to continue speaking their mind in public, even if their comments contradict government sentiments.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Neither Israel nor the Palestinians will attend.
dembotoz
(16,785 posts)that damn simple
