Timex, building new stadiums mid-argument since 2010!
From “Israel is 100% necessary to U.S. strategic interests in the region and should be supported no matter what and to say otherwise is madness, if not treason!” to “Iran is a theocracy!” to “Well okay, yeah, we agree that Israel is a hugely polarizing country. Why do you disagree with me so much?” within three pages.
Masterful, sir.
And Israel will never make those concessions so long as they believe they have the unconditional support of the USA.
Why? What makes them special?
“All sides must make concessions except this side!”
The “concession” of allowing Israel to exist is not exactly a sticking point for Middle-East peace talks. The Palestinians already accept this. Even Hamas accept that they have to put up with Israel in the near term, even if they oppose its existence in the long term.
Real concessions for the Palestinians include giving up the right of return, which is obviously tough for people who have lost their family’s home, lands and businesses to Israel’s creation. But if Israelis can make tough decisions also, like pulling down the illegal settlements, then maybe progress can be made there.
Yes, I believe that in order to have something approaching a meaningful discussion, you have to be willing to shift your position and try to find some common ground.
This is what differentiates a discussion from an attempt to win at teh internets.
Horrific, I know.
Why? What makes them special?
“All sides must make concessions except this side!”
Really? This is a serious question?
You cannot expect one of the concessions that Israel makes, is for them to accept that they will no longer exist. Concessions do not mean that you give up literally everything.
Being unwilling to accept the complete destruction of their state does not mean that Israel cannot make any concessions at all. The Palestinians could ask for, you know, OTHER concessions.
If the Palestinians cannot accept this, then they’re not negotiating. They’re never going to achieve any kind of agreement, because their one condition is essentially the death of the guy across the table from them. “Hey guy! We won’t attack you any more, as long as you kill yourself! Oh man, you won’t agree to even one demand?!”
Except the Palestinians and the Arab states have already agreed that Israel has a right to exist.
Israel recently (as in, within the past month recently) shifted the goal posts to “agree that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state”. The Palestinians won’t do this, a) because it effectively dispenses with the Right of Return, which still needs to be negotiated (and which everyone off the record agrees will be a financial compensation as few Palestinian refugees actually want to live in Tel Aviv) and b) because Israel has a sizeable non-Jewish Palestinian minority of Israeli citizens, and the Palestinians don’t care to be complicit in their disenfranchisement.
The Netanyahu government is well aware of this, which is why they moved the goalposts in the first place, so they could then eloquently shrug and tell the Americans “Hey, we tried” while continuing to colonize the West Bank.
Being unwilling to accept the complete destruction of their state does not mean that Israel cannot make any concessions at all. The Palestinians could ask for, you know, OTHER concessions.
When the fuck have Palestinians ever demanded the destruction of the state of Israel as part of peace talks?
Never, during the peace talks… because, obviously, such a demand was counter to the notion of the peace talks. It was generally a position held by groups like the PLO, prior to the talks.
A more recent example would be when hostilities resumed in 2006, after Hamas won parlimentary elections amongst the Palestinians, and refused to renounce their goal of destruction of Israel.
Israel recently (as in, within the past month recently) shifted the goal posts to “agree that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state”. The Palestinians won’t do this, a) because it effectively dispenses with the Right of Return, which still needs to be negotiated (and which everyone off the record agrees will be a financial compensation as few Palestinian refugees actually want to live in Tel Aviv) and b) because Israel has a sizeable non-Jewish Palestinian minority of Israeli citizens, and the Palestinians don’t care to be complicit in their disenfranchisement.
Israel, since its inception, has existed as essentially a Jewish state. That is, it was specifically created as a homeland for the jews after WWII.
This tends to be a difficult topic to discuss, because it goes against some key element of western thought. Despite most Americans being Christian, for instance, most Americans don’t really think of America as a “Christian state”.
At the same time, it’s difficult to separate it from Israel’s identity, due to the reasons it was created, and their national identity. Hell, they have the star of David on their flag.
I don’t think the “Right of Return” is really going to pan out in such negotiations. Most of the Palestinians who once lived in Israel prior to its creation are dead now. The Israelis who live there now have lived there for generations.
I don’t see it as happening, but instead it could serve as a basis for some kind of reparations.
Ultimately, it’s just dirt. It seems like it’d be better to live on their current patch of dirt in a peaceful situation where they can build something of value, rather than always fight for some other patch of dirt that their ancestors once lived on.
Ultimately, Israeli policies aim at confiscating all the best bits of dirt and leaving the Palestinians with the scraps. Hard to make peace with that.
It’s as though you aren’t reading the thread you’re posting in
Meanwhile, China is happily coming in as “best buddy” to the Iranians & Sauds, large infrastructure projects etc. They are also friendly to Israel. Sometimes a pragmatic foreign policy works.
Firstly you were talking about “negotiations”. Now you are changing your tack.
Secondly, during negotiations, Hamas famously recognised Israel’s right to exist by signing a treaty limiting Palestinian claims to the 1967 borders. Returning to the 1967 borders is what survey after survey say is what Palestinians will settle for.
So even the extremists have made that concession, why do you keep going on as if they won’t?
Israel, since its inception, has existed as essentially a Jewish state. That is, it was specifically created as a homeland for the jews after WWII.
You ignored his point. I don’t like countries that are constitutionally reserved for one ethnic group or religion, but in Israel’s case I can at least sympathise with their motives. But that’s completely different to Lum’s point, which was that they have done more than this: They have insisted that the Palestinian’s accept this ethnic/religious status as part of peace talks. That is completely unnecessary and guaranteed to shaft any attempts at progressing peace.
So why did you ignore that point to simply point out why they might want to be a Jewish state, instead of answering why they should insist on Palestinian recognition of this?
Man I feel bad that Timex ignored my posts :(
Though it would have saved us having to trudge through “the powerful Palestinians want Israel to die!!” insanity, and we would have been able to skip another discussion describing the Arab Peace Initiative.
But I am glad that we’ve moved past the debate of Israel being America’s most valuable ally (not true, even on a regional scale), to Iran funding Hizbollah (?), and now to the status of refugees in future peace talks, I guess. What exactly are we arguing about at the moment?
Did anyone actually suggest that Israel was “America’s most valuable ally”? I think the discussion was more along the lines of, “Israel obviously has some non-trivial strategic value as an ally”.
I mean, honestly, if they don’t then why does the US support them? Is it really some kind of crazy jewish conspiracy? Is it just out of habit? Is it the evil republicans (which then makes one wonder… why would THEY support Israel)?
The whole Iran thing came about when someone (Lum maybe?) suggested that Iran was a democracy… which I still contend is a ridiculous statement, unless you redefine democracy to mean “any system which has any vote, regardless of how rigged it may be”.
The Hezbollah thing came up as an aside, suggesting that the argument that US support of Israel angers people into hating us could be turned around and directed at actions by countries like Iran, which grow support in Israel for the less moderate elements of their political system.
I’m sorry if I ignored your posts though. I got a lot of folks yelling at me. Is there a particular thing that you said that you’d like me to address, that wasn’t covered in that other stuff?
Well, you asked for an example of when their refusal to accept the existence of Israel came up in negotiations, and that would be an example. When Hamas was elected, they initially refused to back down on that goal, which led to a complete breakdown of talks and renewed hostilities for a while.
This isn’t a suggestion that they will never accept this (and indeed, apparently for the time being, they have… although I have to wonder if they will simply reverse their position again at a later date). It’s more about how this is a really key point, that they have to accept. (and they did, so that’s good)
Well, if you understand Israel’s motives, then why can’t you understand why they would insist upon it?
Yes, because America is not a “Christian state”, which those of us who are not Christian happen to be grateful for. Similarly, those citizens of Israel who are not Jewish would probably appreciate similar consideration.
Or who aren’t ultra-religious Jews…
Until the 1970s or so, US influence was vaguely towards Israel, but no particularly. Since then, far before the post-9/11 tilt in the region, Jewish-Americans were a key donor and political organizing group for the Democrats. Evangelicals are the same for Republicans. On top of that, Israel has a tremendously effective political lobbying organization in AIPIC; they’ve managed to convince a lot of people that there’s some vague unspecified benefit to the US. To oppose them in the foreign policy arena there’s…well, no-one anyone listens to, the various middle-eastern regions being represented by a handful of powerless groups. The biggest check on Israeli influence is not domestic groups, it’s the political influence of countries like Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 you have a general animosity against Islam and Arabs in general acting as an amplifier.
None of this requires any conspiracy theorizing; it’s just straightforward power politics, the same as if France and Germany were fighting over US trade concessions. Israeli influence in US politics has been unusually effective over the last 30 years though; I have a hard time coming up with an analogy for a minor power with such influence over a great power.
Given that it refutes the majority of your posts in the thread before it devolved into side discussions I would have thought you’d have something to say, but it’s fine if you don’t!
Did anyone actually suggest that Israel was “America’s most valuable ally”? I think the discussion was more along the lines of, “Israel obviously has some non-trivial strategic value as an ally”.
This is a pretty amazing shift in the goalposts actually, particularly since you implied that Israel is America’s only true friend in the region because those damn Arabs will hate America no matter what, as if they are irrational idiots, making Israel the only true and possible friend of the US in the region.
Leaving aside that implication you made, the view of Israel as the most privileged ally of the US in terms of actual US foreign policy is not even under debate. 20 F-35 joint strike fighters (these are not defensive weapons) worth $3 billion for a 90 day settlement freeze that doesn’t include East Jerusalem and will likely die on the doors of Netanyahu’s intransigence?
This is a pretty amazing shift in the goalposts actually, particularly since you implied that Israel is America’s only true friend in the region
Oh, so meant that you read it as “Israel is America’s best ally in the region”. Ya, I think I can stand by that. I wouldn’t extend that to mean that they’re our most valuable ally in the entire world, but when it comes to middle-eastern nations? Ya, probably.
Certainly there are other nations in the region which support the US… Kuwait, I suppose. Dubai has had strong ties to us in the past, although they also apparently now have something of an underground anti-american movement as well.
What country in the region do you believe is a stronger ally than Israel?
because those damn Arabs will hate America no matter what, as if they are irrational idiots, making Israel the only true and possible friend of the US in the region.
Well, a lot of the nations in that region have somewhat non-standard economies and social structures. For instance, a country like Saudi Arabia has traditionally had quite high unemployment rates. I believe in recent years this has dropped significantly, although I am unable at the moment to find actual employment numbers (as opposed to the unemployment numbers). Would you admit that such an environment had some degree of inherent instability, which threatened their leadership? The Saudis, despite happily taking money from the US, did not seem to really crack down on anti-US sentiment amongst those angry young men… because it provided a scapegoat other than the House of Saud. Now, perhaps with the recent drop in unemployment (if it was actually coupled with an increase in employment) has changed this somewhat.
Leaving aside that implication you made, the view of Israel as the most privileged ally of the US in terms of actual US foreign policy is not even under debate. 20 F-35 joint strike fighters (these are not defensive weapons) worth $3 billion for a 90 day settlement freeze that doesn’t include East Jerusalem and will likely die on the doors of Netanyahu’s intransigence?
I see the question mark at the end there, but I’m not sure what the question is. What is this asking me? My opinion on that particular deal?