News Palestine recognized by the UN as a non-member observer state

[Jack21222]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/un-recognizes-palestine-as-non-member-observer-state-1.1058351

The historic vote came after impassioned speeches from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who asked the UN to “issue the birth certificate of Palestine,” and Ron Prosor, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, who said a vote in favour of Palestinian statehood would be detrimental to peace in the region.

I am honestly curious how this is detrimental to peace in the region. I don't really see any downside to this. Anybody care to enlighten me?

 

[rootX]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=652630&page=3

 

[BobG]

Even when the thread was started by the creator of this website (the thread rootx linked to).

This thread doesn't have a chance.

 

[rootX]

Even when the thread was started by the creator of this website (the thread rootx linked to).

This thread doesn't have a chance.

I found it's one of the topics that you only want to discuss with your personal friends. Recently, I was working and some people near started discussing this. That poisoned the environment for next two days! (The only good part was I kept myself out of that discussion)

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/un-recognizes-palestine-as-non-member-observer-state-1.1058351

I am honestly curious how this is detrimental to peace in the region. I don't really see any downside to this. Anybody care to enlighten me?

It is discussed in the article you linked...

 

[BobG]

I found it's one of the topics that you only want to discuss with your personal friends. Recently, I was working and some people near started discussing this. That poisoned the environment for next two days! (The only good part was I kept myself out of that discussion)

It gets down to the very definition of a nation. Is it the physical borders of the country or is a nation a group of people. If people are using different definitions, then the discussion isn't going to be particularly rational - and one can just pick their definition based on their viewpoint of the issues.

If it's the physical borders, then Israel should have consisted of all the people that lived in that area. If a democratic government, then both Jewish and Palestinian should have had the same rights.

If it's the group of people that are important, then the Jews in Israel are definitely a different group than the Palestinians and they can't exist in the same nation without one being consumed by the other just based on demographics and population growth.

Nations consisting of different ethnic groups almost always fall apart into civil war, so I tend to think it's the group of people that wind up being more important.

With, of course, the United States being the big exception. I don't think people realize just how rare it is for people from such drastically different backgrounds to coexist in one nation (even considering how imperfectly we sometimes seem to do it).

 

[Evo]

With, of course, the United States being the big exception. I don't think people realize just how rare it is for people from such drastically different backgrounds to coexist in one nation (even considering how imperfectly we sometimes seem to do it).

Could be because religion hasn't been a major dividing issue, so differences have been more rational.

 

[Jack21222]

It is discussed in the article you linked...

No, it wasn't, at least not specifics. Unless you're saying that giving Palestine access to the International Criminal Court is detrimental to peace. Have I missed something else in the article? I've read it 3 times and I cannot figure out specifically how this is bad for peace.

The only thing presented in the article, aside from access to the International Criminal Court, are bald assertions that this is "a setback" and it "pushes peace backwards." What is missing from the article is specifically how that happens.

I was not aware that Palestine is a banned topic here, as I now see was stated in the other thread. I apologize for starting this one, and understand if it must be closed.

 

[russ_watters]

No, it wasn't, at least not specifics. Unless you're saying that giving Palestine access to the International Criminal Court is detrimental to peace. Have I missed something else in the article? I've read it 3 times and I cannot figure out specifically how this is bad for peace.

The only thing presented in the article, aside from access to the International Criminal Court, are bald assertions that this is "a setback" and it "pushes peace backwards." What is missing from the article is specifically how that happens.

That was one of the reasons given, yes. Also:

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told the assembly that Canada “has long opposed unilateral action by both sides,” and said outstanding issues between Palestine and Israel are “too complicated” to be resolved with a vote in the UN...

“The only way to achieve peace is through agreements that are reached by the parties and not through UN resolutions that completely ignore Israel’s vital security and national interests,” he said before the vote. “And because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn’t advance peace, it pushes it backwards.”...

"Progress towards a just and lasting two-state solution cannot be made by pressing a green voting button here in this hall," Rice said in a speech to the assembly. "Nor does passing any resolution create a state, where none indeed exits, or change the reality on the ground. This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state."

More here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/miller-abbas-un-statehood/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Obama's calculations in opposing the observer initiative are three.
First, philosophically, ever since we've had Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the American talking points have been pretty consistent. What matters is negotiations, not moves, at the U.N. And even though there are no talks now, the U.S. position is correct; the only thing that can produce two states are two -- maybe three -- parties talking.

Second, there's no doubt that Obama understands that observer status will only deepen the adversarial relationship between Abbas and Netanyahu, give the Israelis another reason not to negotiate and get the president into a fight with Congress should he support the Palestinian bid. Indeed, that's the last thing he needs at a time when he's wrangling with Congress about the fiscal cliff and fighting with the Republicans about Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Finally, if he is going to consider an initiative on the big Israeli-Palestinian issues during his second term, he needs to build up credibility with the Israelis -- as he's done on the cease-fire in Gaza -- so he can be in a better position to push and persuade them later.

So simply: creating an adversarial situation with the people you are supposed to be negotiating peace with is detrimental to peace.

 

[Jack21222]

You just posted those bald assertions I was talking about.

outstanding issues between Palestine and Israel are “too complicated” to be resolved with a vote in the UN.

This doesn't address how it's detrimental, it's just saying it's not likely to be beneficial.

And because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn’t advance peace, it pushes it backwards.

This is what I meant by bald assertion. He asserts that this pushes peace backwards, but doesn't actually explain how, or what changes.

Progress towards a just and lasting two-state solution cannot be made by pressing a green voting button here in this hall

This is a bald assertion by Rice, just stating that this is not progress towards peace without backing it up at all.

Then, from your link,

there's no doubt that Obama understands that observer status will only deepen the adversarial relationship between Abbas and Netanyahu, give the Israelis another reason not to negotiate

This is an angle that I hadn't considered, but it sounds really petty on Israel's part, if this is true. "We're mad that you're recognized as a nation by the UN, so we're not talking to you." That sounds like something said by a petulant child, not a first-world nation.

I personally believe that leaving Palestine in a state of limbo (not a nation, not a part of Israel) was unsustainable. Either they were part of Israel, and therefore should have the same rights and protections that Israeli citizens have, or they were their own country, and they should be acknowledged as such. There was no sustainable middle ground.

 

[Evo]

The Israelis are asking for three simple things in order to negotiate in good faith.

Netanyahu warned the Palestinians Thursday that they would not win their hoped-for state until they recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, declare an end to their conflict with the Jewish state and agree to security arrangements that protect Israel

Sounds fair to me.

 

[arildno]

Could be because religion hasn't been a major dividing issue, so differences have been more rational.

Cotton Mather (the guy whipping up the Salem witch hunt hysteria) was also convinced the heathen Natives were the devil's disciples.
Not surprising, really..

 

[russ_watters]

You just posted those bald assertions I was talking about.

Ok...let me try to explain, but we do need to make sure we are clear on a recurring fact first:

This move by the UN is completely unconnected to any peace process.

Do you agree with that statement? There are currently no peace negotiations going on or planned and this move by the UN does not include any discussion about starting them. So this, in and of itself, does nothing to advance toward peace. All it can do is help or hurt relationships that can later help or hurt peace.

Right?

So stating that "Palestine" is a "state" is making a statement that is contrary to the reality that Palestine can only really become a "state" after negotiating peace with Israel (or destroying Israel, of course). Do you see how that could annoy Israelis? Make them trust the PA less and want to negotiate less?

So to me, what you are calling a "bald assertion" is more an obvious reality and a logical extension.

Then, from your link, This is an angle that I hadn't considered, but it sounds really petty on Israel's part, if this is true. "We're mad that you're recognized as a nation by the UN, so we're not talking to you." That sounds like something said by a petulant child, not a first-world nation.

I happen to disagree about what this says about Israel's maturity, but that's just opinions and doesn't change the reality. If you poke someone in the eye, they aren't going to like it.

I personally believe that leaving Palestine in a state of limbo (not a nation, not a part of Israel) was unsustainable. Either they were part of Israel, and therefore should have the same rights and protections that Israeli citizens have, or they were their own country, and they should be acknowledged as such. There was no sustainable middle ground.

I completely agree, but this move by the UN doesn't have anything to do with that. It changes nothing on the ground.

I realize that you are on the side of the Palestinians here and you see this as a good thing for them, to give them international standing. And that may be true. But don't confuse good for the PA with being the same as good for the peace process. It isn't the same thing.

I guess we can make it even simpler: if an Israeli says they don't like this, that means it hurts the peace process. That's really all there is to it. It doesn't matter if you agree with their reason for not liking it -- it won't change the fact that they don't like it.

So for example:

And because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn’t advance peace, it pushes it backwards.

This statement shouldn't need additional explanation. If peace can only happen through negotiation, then a one-sided resolution short-circuits that process. It seems perfectly obvious to me and it is tough to know how else to explain it.

Heck, this move by the UN, at the request of the otherwise impotent Abbas may not even have anything at all to do with Peace with Israel or statehood for Palestine. It may even just be an internal power struggle.

 

[russ_watters]

Cotton Mather (the guy whipping up the Salem witch hunt hysteria) was also convinced the heathen Natives were the devil's disciples.
Not surprising, really..

I'm not sure what your point is by bringing that up. The Salem witch trials happened a hundred years before the US existed.

The statements made by Bob and Evo about our unusual diversity, inner peace and the possibility that it is because of religious freedom that doesn't exist in places where such conflicts exist are all true facts.

 

[arildno]

I'm not sure what your point is by bringing that up. The Salem witch trials happened a hundred years before the US existed.

The statements made by Bob and Evo about our unusual diversity, inner peace and the possibility that it is because of religious freedom that doesn't exist in places where such conflicts exist are all true facts.

And Americans were still happily exterminating heathen natives, well into the nineteenth century.

 

[rootX]

With, of course, the United States being the big exception. I don't think people realize just how rare it is for people from such drastically different backgrounds to coexist in one nation (even considering how imperfectly we sometimes seem to do it).

I'm not sure what your point is by bringing that up. The Salem witch trials happened a hundred years before the US existed.

The statements made by Bob and Evo about our unusual diversity, inner peace and the possibility that it is because of religious freedom that doesn't exist in places where such conflicts exist are all true facts.

Responding to if the US is really an exception:
Immigrants coming to the US are usually well off and second have not yet established long enough. So, comparing the US/Canada multicultural societies to countries like Israel-Pales or India or Russia is like apples to oranges IMO. In other countries, people coexisted for many many centuries and almost annihilated each other.

I find this topic much interesting than Israel-Pales in which I haven't seen anything new. Same people making same comments.

 

[Jack21222]

This move by the UN is completely unconnected to any peace process.

Do you agree with that statement?

I would like to agree with that, but everything in the articles we've posted have been claiming this will hurt the peace process. In fact, the point I've been making is that this will neither help nor hurt the peace process. It is, as you say, unconnected.

If the point is that Israel doesn't like recognizing that Palestine is a state, I can agree with that. But Israel doesn't like Palestine anyway, so I don't see how that changes anything. Don't tell me that Israel is willing to negotiate with Palestinians that lob missiles at them, but as soon as they try to become recognized as a country, THAT'S what crosses the line.

I also disagree that Palestine can only be considered a "state" after negotiating peace with Israel. Was the United States born on July 4th, 1776? Or was it born September 3rd, 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris? Right now, the international community recognizes Palestine as a state. That's good enough for me.

 

[russ_watters]

And Americans were still happily exterminating heathen natives, well into the nineteenth century.

I don't think Manifest Destiny had anything to do with religion: we wanted the land.

 

[russ_watters]

In other countries, people coexisted for many many centuries and almost annihilated each other.

That is true. I'm much more cynical about war than to think it tends to be about religion. Religion is just a cover story for fighting over land, IMO, and in the US we don't have people fighting over land like that.

 

[Jack21222]

A possible bright spot here:

This move could strengthen Abbas's more moderate Palestinian Authority at the expense of the more violent Hamas.

 

[russ_watters]

I would like to agree with that, but everything in the articles we've posted have been claiming this will hurt the peace process. In fact, the point I've been making is that this will neither help nor hurt the peace process. It is, as you say, unconnected.

That's a mischaracterization of my post. My point was that because this is not directly related to any peace process, the indirect effect is that it will later get in the way. Can you not see beyond the direct effect to the indirect effect?

If the point is that Israel doesn't like recognizing that Palestine is a state, I can agree with that. But Israel doesn't like Palestine anyway, so I don't see how that changes anything.

It isn't a binary proposition, it is a process. That's why they call it a "peace process".

Don't tell me that Israel is willing to negotiate with Palestinians that lob missiles at them, but as soon as they try to become recognized as a country, THAT'S what crosses the line.

Er, no, that's not what is happening. Israel is not willing to negotiate with Palestinians that lob missiles at them. That's one of the main sticking points preventing negotiations right now.

I also disagree that Palestine can only be considered a "state" after negotiating peace with Israel. Was the United States born on July 4th, 1776? Or was it born September 3rd, 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris? Right now, the international community recognizes Palestine as a state. That's good enough for me.

The United States was born on March 4, 1789, with the ratification of the US Constitution. Good example: the Palestinians are in a very similar sort of limbo as the colonists were in between 1776 and 1789. Negotiating peace is one of two steps, the other is to form a viable government. I'm not certain of which order they have to happen in, though.

However, the entire point of the Revolutionary War was to settle the colonists' claim in 1776 that they were an independent nation. The claim isn't settled until the war ends and the British accept that it has ended!

A few countries -- most notably, France -- chose to recognize the US as an excuse to enter the war. No doubt, you can see that that worked out better for the US than it did for Britain.

[edit] Quick clarification of a point that I don't think is a mere technicality:

The first government of "The United States" was under the Articles of Confederation. The "United States" was thus a confederation of independent states/countries ("league of friendship" in the text of the Articles), not a country. Not unlike the EU, really, but in some ways even weaker, as it didn't abolish independent state currencies. The ratification of the Constitution changed us from a confederation into a country.

 

[rootX]

That is true. I'm much more cynical about war than to think it tends to be about religion. Religion is just a cover story for fighting over land, IMO, and in the US we don't have people fighting over land like that.

In Canada, we have something similar. There are cities where almost everyone is just Chinese and cities where all are Indians etc. Whites usually move out of these areas voluntarily. The immigrants cities grow really really fast! There appear to be some tensions but people take these things lightly for now. Will this be same in a century or so from now?

 

[arildno]

I don't think Manifest Destiny had anything to do with religion: we wanted the land.

I guess you are right.

 

[wuliheron]

The war is over and has been for a long time. Israel has 80 nukes and a cutting edge military thanks in no small part to US support. Egypt and Syria are too busy fighting their own internal battles, Libya too busy rebuilding, Iraq conquered, and the only ones left to give Israel grief is Iran. In Iran's case the US economic sanctions and blockades have weakened their military severely and invasion is a forgone conclusion.

Close to 100,000 Palestinians work for Israel and the number has been increasing in recent years, some war. A good friend of mine lived on Kibbutz for years and saw children as young as five years old harvesting crops. They have basically become Israel's ghetto just as Mexico has become a ghetto for the US. The place where you get slave labor, cheap goods, and illegal trafficking. Like any good ghetto you build walls around it and when the occupants riot you send the cops into trash the place.

The UN recognizing the Palestinians is merely more political doublespeak that denies the reality of the situation and helps to perpetuate the lie that this is a war and the Palestinians have any chance whatsoever. The US military is now equal to the next six largest in the world combined and spends twice as much as any of them. The minute this ghetto started rioting we sent in the fleet to make sure things didn't get out of hand the natives didn't rock the boat too hard. If it become necessary in Mexico we'll do the same thing again because it's empire baby and this train ain't stopping until it derails.

 

[nanosiborg]

I agree with russ watters' views on this. I also think that Netanyahu's position is the best for Israel and that the US should and will remain committed to supporting Israel's interests.

I'll just add that I think that Arab Muslims don't have much of a future in the Palestine region, unless they're resigned to living in isolated communities whose borders are controlled by Israeli forces.

The Arab Muslims and the Israeli Jews have wanted the same land since long before the 1947 partitioning. I expect that the current situation with steady annexation and control of sparsely populated areas by Israeli settlers will continue for a long time. I don't see any sort of 'two-state solution' as ever happening. Israel can't afford to allow it.

The best move for the Arab Muslims remaining in the Palestine region is, imo, to emigrate to the Arab Muslim states that border Palestine. As russ watters noted, this recent UN resolution just accentuates the adversarial situation (which is a losing situation for Palestinian Arab Muslims) and therefore has to hurt any sort of peace process which would have to be based on mutual concessions.

Finally, I think that the Israeli Jews have a legitimate historical claim to Palestine. Palestine was the Kingdom of Israel long before the Islamic faithful set about converting, subjugating and killing infidels.

 

[Ma2012]

It gets down to the very definition of a nation. Is it the physical borders of the country or is a nation a group of people. If people are using different definitions, then the discussion isn't going to be particularly rational - and one can just pick their definition based on their viewpoint of the issues.

If it's the physical borders, then Israel should have consisted of all the people that lived in that area. If a democratic government, then both Jewish and Palestinian should have had the same rights.

If it's the group of people that are important, then the Jews in Israel are definitely a different group than the Palestinians and they can't exist in the same nation without one being consumed by the other just based on demographics and population growth.
...

This is a very logical comment: whether they create one secular country for people from different religions and forget the concept of "Jews country" or simply they should create a "Jews State" and leave the non-Jews to live in peace in their part. You can not take the land and leave the owners of this land living in closed Ghettos beyond the walls!

 

[Ma2012]

The best move for the Arab Muslims remaining in the Palestine region is, imo, to emigrate to the Arab Muslim states that border Palestine. As russ watters noted, this recent UN resolution just accentuates the adversarial situation (which is a losing situation for Palestinian Arab Muslims) and therefore has to hurt any sort of peace process which would have to be based on mutual concessions.

Finally, I think that the Israeli Jews have a legitimate historical claim to Palestine. Palestine was the Kingdom of Israel long before the Islamic faithful set about converting, subjugating and killing infidels.

60% of Palestinian were forced to leave their own country in 1948 to the Arab countries. We all know what was their fate after 60 years: refugees camps without the basic rights to work or to own houses, massacres ...etc.

References:

Palestinian Refugees in Palestine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Palestinian Refugees in Jordan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

Palestinian Refugees in Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Iraq

It is ethic cleansing to ask people living for centuries on their land just because other group of people want to establish "pure Jews country"! as you mentioned the old Jews of Palestine were forced to be christian and them they were forced to be Muslims, so the current Palestinian are the ancestors of all nations lived in Palestine since 10000 years including the Jews.

Just because a group of people live in your place before 2000 years, this do not give you the right to get off from complete nation! Otherwise this is applicable to all modern nations including the American.

 

[Bobbywhy]

A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians might use their new status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians might press for an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories.

Another worry is that the Palestinians might use the vote to seek membership in specialized agencies of the United Nations, a move that could have consequences for the financing of the international organizations as well as the Palestinian Authority itself.

Anticipating approval of the resolution, Western diplomats have pushed for a Palestinian commitment not to seek membership in the International Criminal Court and United Nations specialized agencies after the vote. Another step would be an affirmation by the Palestinians that the road to statehood was through the peace process. And a third could be a Palestinian commitment to open negotiations with the Israelis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/w...ct-of-palestinian-authority-upgrade.html?_r=0

 

[Bobbywhy]

Israel and the United States have been trying for weeks to stop the Palestinian effort, including threats to cut off funding and tax revenues, without success. Anticipating approval of the resolution, Western diplomats have pushed for a Palestinian commitment not to seek membership in the International Criminal Court and United Nations specialized agencies after the vote. In retaliation, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is now threatening to nullify the Oslo Accords, if the world recognizes a Palestinian state.

Here are 15 Reasons Israel so vehemently opposed Mr. Abbas’ bid for recognition as a “nonmember observer state”. Now the Palestinian Authority could:

1. Participate in U.N. assembly debates, but could not vote, sponsor resolutions, or field candidates for assembly committees.
2. Accede to treaties and join specialized U.N. agencies, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Criminal Court. Such a U.N. designation would give the Palestinian Authority full sovereign rights over its airspace, which is now under Israeli control. The Palestinians could bring claims of violation of its airspace to the International Court of Justice.
3. Petition the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agency to inspect Israeli military installations for any undeclared Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction.
4. Join the Law of the Sea Treaty giving it control of its national waters off Gaza. Those waters are now under an Israeli naval blockade.
5. Petition the International Court of Justice to dispute Israel's claim on a gas field near Gaza.
6. Join the International Criminal Court and then challenge every Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and petition the court to investigate the possibility that each and every one of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
7. Ask the court to investigate any alleged war crimes and other charges against Israel committed on Palestinian territory since July, 2002, including against IDF soldiers who served during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
8. File cases against Israeli leaders and civilians involved in encouraging the settlement enterprise, including in east Jerusalem. The basis for such criminal cases would be the allegation that Israel had transferred its own population into a conquered or occupied area, contrary to International Law.
9. Organize international sanctions against Israel.
10. Call for commercial and academic boycotts of Israel.
11. Sponsor massive nonviolent demonstrations against Israeli settlement policies.
12. Build up their own military forces.
13. Request the U.N. to provide a U.N. Peacekeeping Force on the Green Line.
14. Find it easier to sign on to international treaties, many of which don’t require full UN membership and to raise issues that damage Israel’s public image and further isolate Israel in various international forums, even concerning issues such as West Bank environmental issues.
15. Israel may be embarrassed by conflicts over an increase in diplomatic delegations wanting to visit and establish full embassies in the West Bank.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-un-palestinians-20121129,0,3735708.story
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4313130,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=293860
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/plo-warns-canada-of-reprisals-for-no-vote-at-un/article5788978/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/support-palestinian-statehood.html

 

[tiny-tim]

The United States was born on March 4, 1789 …

no, the United States were born …

they didn't become singular until the civil war ​

I am honestly curious how this is detrimental to peace in the region.

it creates a two-track peace process …

the israelis will be following the http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136 track, requiring the arabs to give israel secure and recognised borders, free from threat of force, and with israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders, with adjustments

(that track has the backing of the united state, europe, and russia)

the palestinians will be following the http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A track, requiring israel to allow about 5 million palestinian refugees the "right of return" into israel itself

(that track has the backing of the vast majority of the general assembly)

oh well … at least, with two tracks, there's no chance of a collision! ​

 

[wuliheron]

Just a minor point, but the US pays for half the cost of the UN. The idea the UN can make decisions the US vehemently disagrees with is absurd. The Palestinians might leverage the UN to their advantage to some degree, but nothing that would seriously threaten Israeli interests without US consent.

 

[Jack21222]

A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians might use their new status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians might press for an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories.

I understand why this worries the Israelis, but I do not understand why it worries anybody else. There are only 2 possibilities: either Israel has committed war crimes or it hasn't. If Israel hasn't committed war crimes, they have nothing to fear from the ICC. If they have committed war crimes, there should be justice (and they should stop). So, what's the problem there?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

And Americans were still happily exterminating heathen natives, well into the nineteenth century.

And who were these "Americans"? They were mostly recent European immigrants seeking land as was already stated. Some of these immigrants were Norwegians who settled in significant numbers in places like Minnesota.

 

[nanosiborg]

It gets down to the very definition of a nation. Is it the physical borders of the country or is a nation a group of people. If people are using different definitions, then the discussion isn't going to be particularly rational - and one can just pick their definition based on their viewpoint of the issues.

If it's the physical borders, then Israel should have consisted of all the people that lived in that area. If a democratic government, then both Jewish and Palestinian should have had the same rights.

If it's the group of people that are important, then the Jews in Israel are definitely a different group than the Palestinians and they can't exist in the same nation without one being consumed by the other just based on demographics and population growth.

[ ... ]

This is a very logical comment: whether they create one secular country for people from different religions and forget the concept of "Jews country" or simply they should create a "Jews State" and leave the non-Jews to live in peace in their part.

Neither of these seem to be an option for Israel as long as the anti-Israel anti-Jew views of militant Arab Muslim fundamentalists are, even just tacitly, accepted (which they seem to be) by a significant portion of Arab Muslims, especially Palestinian Arab Muslims.

You can not take the land and leave the owners of this land living in closed Ghettos beyond the walls!

It's a sad situation for the Palestinian refugees. They're between a rock and a hard place with few viable options. But then so are Israelis who want a secure Jewish state.

I would be surprised if Israel ever stops the ongoing Jewish settlement of Palestine. The construction of 3000 new Israeli homes in the West Bank has recently been approved by the Israeli government. It looks to me like the current situation, and unfortunate ghettoization and squeezing out of Arab Muslim Palestinians can be continued by Israel indefinitely.

 

[nanosiborg]

60% of Palestinian were forced to leave their own country in 1948 to the Arab countries. We all know what was their fate after 60 years: refugees camps without the basic rights to work or to own houses, massacres ...etc.

Yes, it's been very difficult for indigent Palestinian refugees. But then this is the plight of indigent people anywhere. They're pretty much exploited and marginalized. Some refugees have managed to build decent lives. Many, or most, haven't. This isn't entirely, imo, the fault of Israelis, or entirely due to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. It's also, imo, a function of Arab Muslim culture and religion.

It is ethic cleansing to ask people living for centuries on their land just because other group of people want to establish "pure Jews country"!

I guess you could call it ethnic cleansing of sorts. A similar thing happened to the indigenous people of North America due to European expansion.

But the Jews, themselves being victimized throughout history, are in a situation where they're surrounded by lots of Arab Muslims who want to destroy them. So, I don't see that Israel has much choice but to continue the current situation indefinitely.

That's the practical side of the situation. As for the moral arguments, I think somebody mentioned that they're disallowed PF. With good reason, I think, as discussions along those lines often degenerate into emotional rants.

After much consideration, I support the position and policies of the Netanyahu administration. I think the world would do a lot more to help disadvantaged Palestinians if they would denounce Hamas and other such organizations.

... as you mentioned the old Jews of Palestine were forced to be christian and them they were forced to be Muslims, so the current Palestinian are the ancestors of all nations lived in Palestine since 10000 years including the Jews.

Just because a group of people live in your place before 2000 years, this do not give you the right to get off from complete nation! Otherwise this is applicable to all modern nations including the American.

I don't disagree with your points. But it's like beating a dead horse (not in the sense that that would be any less productive, in a literal sense, than beating a live horse ... but, figuratively, in the sense that, as I think wuliheron mentioned, the question of who runs Palestine is a done deal). Israel is there to stay, and settlement expansion will continue. The Jews wanted Palestine, and with the help of some powerful allies they took it. Whether this was right or wrong in some moral context is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

 

[Ma2012]

Neither of these seem to be an option for Israel as long as the anti-Israel anti-Jew views of militant Arab Muslim fundamentalists are, even just tacitly, accepted (which they seem to be) by a significant portion of Arab Muslims, especially Palestinian Arab Muslims.

It's a sad situation for the Palestinian refugees. They're between a rock and a hard place with few viable options. But then so are Israelis who want a secure Jewish state.

I would be surprised if Israel ever stops the ongoing Jewish settlement of Palestine. The construction of 3000 new Israeli homes in the West Bank has recently been approved by the Israeli government. It looks to me like the current situation, and unfortunate ghettoization and squeezing out of Arab Muslim Palestinians can be continued by Israel indefinitely.

You insist that Palestinian are Arab Muslims militants, but this is not the topic here. May be you should check your information again? Anyway, we have to stick to the main topic.

I do believe that you present a valid and important point about the long term strategy of the current Israeli government and the real reason behind their opposition to Palestinian state.

 

[Evo]

As always, these threads go downhill.