Israel/Palestine discussion

[zmic]

So from the Israeli Deputy PM saying 'Hopefully sanctions will get Iran to stop developing nukes' you got that the nukes aren't the issue?

Who says that the Israeli Deputy PM is being sincere? When I look at that statement, I get only one thing that is factual: all of a sudden Israel seems to be OK with just the sanctions.

[yedidyak]

Well, the other thing you can get is that nukes are the problem.

Lets say you are right, that Iran's nukes are irrelevant, Israel is just unhappy about another powerful player in the Middle East, and that the repeated calls by Israel for the world to stop Iran;s nukes is just a play to gain attention. What if Iran says 'OK we will stop nuclear development'. Where would that leave Israel then? Why would Israel be pinning their entire policy on this one issue that Iran can easily refute if that wasn't the real point? Why not just use the many examples of Iran arming Hamas and Hezbollah, interfering in Lebanon, attacking US forces by proxy in Iraq etc?

It makes much more sense if you realize that Israel is actually pretty damn worried about Iran (or more accurately the Iranian regime) acquiring nuclear weapons.

[bentheimmigrant]

So from the Israeli Deputy PM saying 'Hopefully sanctions will get Iran to stop developing nukes' you got that the nukes aren't the issue?

Who says that the Israeli Deputy PM is being sincere? When I look at that statement, I get only one thing that is factual: all of a sudden Israel seems to be OK with just the sanctions.

True, it does seem the he's content with sanctions. It is quite another thing to say it wasn't about nukes. Even if it's about maintaining hegemonic power, the prospect (however distant) of a nuclear Iran is a major threat to that. I don't think you can have it both ways.

[zmic]

Well, the other thing you can get is that nukes are the problem.

Lets say you are right, that Iran's nukes are irrelevant, Israel is just unhappy about another powerful player in the Middle East, and that the repeated calls by Israel for the world to stop Iran;s nukes is just a play to gain attention. What if Iran says 'OK we will stop nuclear development'.

What do you mean? Iran is already saying that is has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

Where would that leave Israel then? Why would Israel be pinning their entire policy on this one issue that Iran can easily refute if that wasn't the real point? Why not just use the many examples of Iran arming Hamas and Hezbollah, interfering in Lebanon, attacking US forces by proxy in Iraq etc?

That stuff has been going on for ages, and frankly the whole universe except the nations directly involved are utterly bored with it. So yeah Iran fights a dirty war but so do the US and so does Israel. It is safe to say that Israel also "interferes" in Lebanon, if you count "bombing the shit out of" as interfering. Nuclear weapons are far more likely to get worldwide attention.

It makes much more sense if you realize that Israel is actually pretty damn worried about Iran (or more accurately the Iranian regime) acquiring nuclear weapons.

So from the Israeli Deputy PM saying 'Hopefully sanctions will get Iran to stop developing nukes' you got that the nukes aren't the issue?

Who says that the Israeli Deputy PM is being sincere? When I look at that statement, I get only one thing that is factual: all of a sudden Israel seems to be OK with just the sanctions.

True, it does seem the he's content with sanctions. It is quite another thing to say it wasn't about nukes. Even if it's about maintaining hegemonic power, the prospect (however distant) of a nuclear Iran is a major threat to that. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Well ok it may be 5% about the nukes, or 10% about the nukes. But also without nukes Iran has the potential of growing more powerful than Israel would like, and I suspect it's 90% about this.

[yedidyak]

What do you mean? Iran is already saying that is has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

And then they go right on with fortifying nuclear sites, developing nuclear detonators, enriching uranium well past fuel levels, and refusing UN inspectors access to various sites. As well as developing and testing missiles that have absolutely no strategic value except to deliver nuclear warheads.

[zmic]

What do you mean? Iran is already saying that is has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

And then they go right on with fortifying nuclear sites, developing nuclear detonators, enriching uranium well past fuel levels, and refusing UN inspectors access to various sites. As well as developing and testing missiles that have absolutely no strategic value except to deliver nuclear warheads.

Yeah that's the spin you heard because that's the spin some parties want you to hear.

But then what about that quote in Jerusalem Post saying "US and Israeli intelligence agencies mostly agree that Iran has not restarted its development of a nuclear bomb"?

[Zamfir]

enriching uranium well past fuel levels

This one at least is not correct. Their high enrichment rates are normal for research reactor fuel. You'll find that most countries with a nuclear program enrich fuel up that 20%. In the past, most countries would fuel research reactors with 90% or more enriched uranium, the 20 % is intended as compromise.

Of course, Iran might want to have research reactors as excuse to have higher enriched uranium around. But if their intentions are purely peaceful, they would still need 20% fuel if they want to develop a somewhat independent nuclear technology base. So the 20% fuel doesn't prove much in either direction.

[yedidyak]

Yeah that's the spin you heard because that's the spin some parties want you to hear.

But then what about that quote in Jerusalem Post saying "US and Israeli intelligence agencies mostly agree that Iran has not restarted its development of a nuclear bomb"?

They haven't decided to actually put a bomb together, but rather they are working towards 'breakout capacity' - where they have all the pieces, just not all together. From that point its a matter of weeks or months at the most to a fully working nuclear warhead, and there's no way to stop it. It's also the most detectable stage. To have any chance of preventing them putting together a bomb, you must stop them getting all the pieces. Strategically, breakout capacity is the same as a bomb.

Can you explain the work on detonators? Or developing missiles with the capacity to launch a nuclear warhead - sized payload to Tel Aviv? If that was for conventional weapons, then that's a hell of a lot of money to spend on a missile that will carry less than a ton of TNT.

[sardia]

Yeah that's the spin you heard because that's the spin some parties want you to hear.

But then what about that quote in Jerusalem Post saying "US and Israeli intelligence agencies mostly agree that Iran has not restarted its development of a nuclear bomb"?

They haven't decided to actually put a bomb together, but rather they are working towards 'breakout capacity' - where they have all the pieces, just not all together. From that point its a matter of weeks or months at the most to a fully working nuclear warhead, and there's no way to stop it. It's also the most detectable stage. To have any chance of preventing them putting together a bomb, you must stop them getting all the pieces. Strategically, breakout capacity is the same as a bomb.

Can you explain the work on detonators? Or developing missiles with the capacity to launch a nuclear warhead - sized payload to Tel Aviv? If that was for conventional weapons, then that's a hell of a lot of money to spend on a missile that will carry less than a ton of TNT.

That's an interesting scenario. Would Israel Or the world really consider break out capacity the same thing as an atomic bomb? Does Iran get the same prestige? Does it get the same treatment as North Korea and Pakistan? If you nuked Iran, would you be afraid of them nuking you back? Can they threaten to sell nuclear weapons to terrorist groups? Can Iran use its breakout capacity to nuke Tehran? A lot of these are either Yes/no but with a few weeks/months attached. I'd consult with a new experts regarding the strategic implications of break out capacity before declaring things. Iran stopping at break out capacity is potentially a way to end the crisis peacefully with everyone saving face. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, yet it can claim the prestige of the being able to make one.

[yedidyak]

Well, unless you are actually worried that they might just want to nuke you.

[bentheimmigrant]

Is that really a plausible scenario, though? I mean, I'm far more worried about a nuclear Iran turning into a Pakistan type situation, where bombs might end up anywhere. I don't see a national government committing suicide all for the sake of going down in a blaze of nuclear glory.

[yoni45]

Is that really a plausible scenario, though? I mean, I'm far more worried about a nuclear Iran turning into a Pakistan type situation, where bombs might end up anywhere. I don't see a national government committing suicide all for the sake of going down in a blaze of nuclear glory.

I think it's pretty fair they wouldn't nuke them under regular circumstances.

But what about in a case of "going down anyway"? I feel like that's unlikely, but not nearly as farfetched. I mean, if there's a revolution and they're losing and otherwise they have nothing to lose, why not take it out on Israel? (well, a bunch of reasons, to be fair -- but again, while unlikely this is still realistic)

But even more so, I feel like Israel's issue with Iranian nukes is simply the fact that Iran would now have a nuclear umbrella. They can much more easily arm Hezbollah and Hamas with minimal repercussions with bigger weapons. They can blackmail the world out of sanctions the same way North Korea has. Occasionally sink a ship or two. The popular uprising that Israel can't wait for will be entirely on its own when it happens -- it's unlikely an outside force will declare a no-fly-zone over a nuclear power. In other words, that uprising probably won't happen, Iran's gonna stick around and going to make things increasingly difficult (and probably by orders of magnitude) for Israel.

A nuclear Iran's a huge issue for Israel even if it doesn't come close to the red button.

[sardia]

Is that really a plausible scenario, though? I mean, I'm far more worried about a nuclear Iran turning into a Pakistan type situation, where bombs might end up anywhere. I don't see a national government committing suicide all for the sake of going down in a blaze of nuclear glory.

I think it's pretty fair they wouldn't nuke them under regular circumstances.

But what about in a case of "going down anyway"? I feel like that's unlikely, but not nearly as farfetched. I mean, if there's a revolution and they're losing and otherwise they have nothing to lose, why not take it out on Israel? (well, a bunch of reasons, to be fair -- but again, while unlikely this is still realistic)

But even more so, I feel like Israel's issue with Iranian nukes is simply the fact that Iran would now have a nuclear umbrella. They can much more easily arm Hezbollah and Hamas with minimal repercussions with bigger weapons. They can blackmail the world out of sanctions the same way North Korea has. Occasionally sink a ship or two. The popular uprising that Israel can't wait for will be entirely on its own when it happens -- it's unlikely an outside force will declare a no-fly-zone over a nuclear power. In other words, that uprising probably won't happen, Iran's gonna stick around and going to make things increasingly difficult (and probably by orders of magnitude) for Israel.

A nuclear Iran's a huge issue for Israel even if it doesn't come close to the red button.

...Envelope to my forehead, I'm gonna go with ...
Reasons that Iran should get a nuclear weapon.
There are so many reasons for Iran to get a nuclear weapon, and so few that it shouldn't. I'm thinking the answer lies in diplomacy following a major game changer. It's like a combination of the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma. It's in one's self interest to get nukes, but if everyone gets nukes, then everyone suffers.The fall of Syria followed by more sanctions might create a situation where the usual rules don't apply, and there's an opening for negotiations/action. Though, we still have Russia and China to contend with, they still have Iran and Syria's backing until it is in their interests to not support them. Even if we go to them, we don't have much leverage over them. What can we give them in exchange, Throw Taiwan, Tibet, or Georgia under the bus for them? Those areas aren't worth what Syria/Iran is. We don't have much to threaten them with either. Both countries are oppressive enough that showing evidence of atrocities won't mobilize the local populace. It's a really complicated scenario, the best we can hope for is to buy time on Iran in order to focus on Syria.

[yoni45]

...Envelope to my forehead, I'm gonna go with ...
Reasons that Iran should get a nuclear weapon.
There are so many reasons for Iran to get a nuclear weapon, and so few that it shouldn't. I'm thinking the answer lies in diplomacy following a major game changer. It's like a combination of the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma. It's in one's self interest to get nukes, but if everyone gets nukes, then everyone suffers.The fall of Syria followed by more sanctions might create a situation where the usual rules don't apply, and there's an opening for negotiations/action. Though, we still have Russia and China to contend with, they still have Iran and Syria's backing until it is in their interests to not support them. Even if we go to them, we don't have much leverage over them. What can we give them in exchange, Throw Taiwan, Tibet, or Georgia under the bus for them? Those areas aren't worth what Syria/Iran is. We don't have much to threaten them with either. Both countries are oppressive enough that showing evidence of atrocities won't mobilize the local populace. It's a really complicated scenario, the best we can hope for is to buy time on Iran in order to focus on Syria.

Russia and China are only 'backing Iran' in terms of rhetoric and occasional trade. If stuff gets serious I doubt they'll do much more than make public statements.

Syria otherwise could easily be a game-changer here, but it still might require action. Iran has reason to get nukes, sure, but Israel has reasons to stop them.

[sourmìlk]

So, about this new evidence that seems to say that Iran isn't working towards a nuclear weapon:

If it is in fact the case that Iran is no longer trying to progress towards a having a nuclear weapon, then I suppose we don't need a military strike and the sanctions have worked. However, I think we need to be careful not to draw a practical distinction between the largely semantic distinction between getting a nuclear weapon and getting the capability to immediately make a nuclear weapon. Because if it's still the latter, then there's a need to do something about it.

While I contest that Iran needs nuclear weapons, it's ultimately beside the point, because they haven't behaved in such a way that the world can let them have nuclear weapons.

[LaserGuy]

So, about this new evidence that seems to say that Iran isn't working towards a nuclear weapon:

If it is in fact the case that Iran is no longer trying to progress towards a having a nuclear weapon, then I suppose we don't need a military strike and the sanctions have worked. However, I think we need to be careful not to draw a practical distinction between the largely semantic distinction between getting a nuclear weapon and getting the capability to immediately make a nuclear weapon. Because if it's still the latter, then there's a need to do something about it.

I'm not sure what we can, legally, do about it though. If Iran is a screw's turn away from nuclear weapons in principle, but is not actively pursuing them, I would suspect that they would still fall within their obligations under the NPT. I'm not sure under what legal grounds we would be able to pursue actions against them, provided that they comply within the letter of the law. I suspect that there's probably a dozen other countries (Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey...) who almost certainly have the technology and resources to build a nuclear weapon within some months' time, but simply choose not to. I'm not sure how we could justifiably treat Iran any differently.

[sourmìlk]

Neither of those countries are attacking other countries by proxy using terrorist groups. Israel has justification (albeit shitty justification in most circumstances) to attack Iran regardless of nuclear weapons because Iran is already attacking them. Nuclear weapons just provide the necessary urgency and consequences to justify an attack from a military perspective.

[yoni45]

I'm not sure what we can, legally, do about it though. If Iran is a screw's turn away from nuclear weapons in principle, but is not actively pursuing them, I would suspect that they would still fall within their obligations under the NPT. I'm not sure under what legal grounds we would be able to pursue actions against them, provided that they comply within the letter of the law. I suspect that there's probably a dozen other countries (Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey...) who almost certainly have the technology and resources to build a nuclear weapon within some months' time, but simply choose not to. I'm not sure how we could justifiably treat Iran any differently.

Iran doesn't have to act illegally for others to enact sanctions or to attack them. It has to act in a manner that others don't like, and in the case of attack, such behavior would generally have to be egregious enough to make it worth the resources required.

If Iran decided to withdraw from the NPT and to pursue nuclear weapons, I doubt anyone would expect Western powers to just step back and say, "Well, okay guys, they're not violating anything anymore!".

We can justifiably treat Iran differently from Germany (for example) in that regard because it's different in that Germany is not seriously hostile towards the West.

[LaserGuy]

Neither of those countries are attacking other countries by proxy using terrorist groups. Israel has justification (albeit shitty justification in most circumstances) to attack Iran regardless of nuclear weapons because Iran is already attacking them. Nuclear weapons just provide the necessary urgency and consequences to justify an attack from a military perspective.

This might justify Israel doing something against Iran (although I still dispute the "attacking" point, I won't rehash those arguments now; from Israel's perspective, it may well be the case). It does not necessarily justify the international community doing anything against Iran. There are plenty of local conflicts that are significantly more tense than Israel/Iran that do not have international sanctions against one (or both) of the parties--India/Pakistan being a prime example.

[Enokh]

So is this where we discuss that the United States is withdrawing funding to UNESCO (an organization within the UN that does some pretty awesome things, like teach people to read and feed them. And keep children from dying) because it's members voted to give Palestine full membership? You can read more about UNESCO here.[Wikipedia]

Because it's kind of a travesty.

[LaserGuy]

I'm not sure that I have much to add to the UNESCO subject that the Daily Show hasn't already covered much better than I could.

[sourmìlk]

If anybody's to blame for UNESCO's loss of funding, it's UNESCO. They knew very well that the United States had a reasonable policy of refusing to fund UNESCO should they admit Palestine, because doing so would be contrary to peace between Israel and Palestine. If UNESCO decided to ignore that policy and admit Palestine anyways, then the consequences are their own fault. And now the US can (in theory) use that money to fund specific culturally important things that the US itself supports.

[Ghostbear]

That's not how shit works. It's the US' fault because the US put everyone else in that situation to begin with. If someone says "Do what I want, or else", then they are at least partially to blame for them following through with the "or else" if you don't do what they want.

[sourmìlk]

Not if they have an obligation to carry through with the 'or else', which they do. The US (and really every country) has an obligation not to admit Palestine to the UN until an agreement is reached between Israel and Palestine because doing so is contrary to peace there.

[LaserGuy]

If anybody's to blame for UNESCO's loss of funding, it's UNESCO. They knew very well that the United States had a reasonable policy of refusing to fund UNESCO should they admit Palestine, because doing so would be contrary to peace between Israel and Palestine. If UNESCO decided to ignore that policy and admit Palestine anyways, then the consequences are their own fault. And now the US can (in theory) use that money to fund specific culturally important things that the US itself supports.

No, it's clearly the United States' fault for having such a racist, bone-headed, law on the books. Not only does the United States look like a complete monster in the eyes of the international community by doing so and act against their obvious strategic interests, but they also leave a hole for another opportunistic nation to fill and increase their influence. Already nations like China are providing additional funding to UNESCO to make up for the shortfall, but the organization may end up moving towards drastically different priorities as US influence is diminished.

The US (and really every country) has an obligation not to admit Palestine to the UN until an agreement is reached between Israel and Palestine because doing so is contrary to peace there.

Citation massively needed.

[Ghostbear]

No, that's a completely separate issue. The US created that situation. The US bears some (I would say in this case, nearly all) responsibility for its outcome. The only "obligation" they have to do so is from the situation they created. If the situation can go another way if they allow events to unfold otherwise, then that'd be another consequence to bear responsibility for.

Beyond that, I'm going to call "Citation needed" on your claim. Why is the US obligated to force peace between Israel and Palestine, to the point that they're willing to screw over people (potentially millions of them) completely unrelated to this issue throughout the world? Why does UNESCO, as an agency that is following through with its main goals in as apolitical a manner as it can, bear all of the responsibility for someone else getting annoyed with them? Is the US completely incapable of balancing different world obligations? How does admitting Palestine to a part of the UN which has the stated purpose of:

UNESCO’s mission is to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information.

(emphasis mine) work contrary to the building of peace?

[sourmìlk]

Recognizing Palestinian statehood via their bid at the UN rewards them for avoiding negotiations with Israel, and peace cannot be reached unilaterally. Both sides have to agree that a conflict is over for that conflict to be over. The US isn't obligated to force peace between Israel and Palestine, but it can't financially encourage the conflict. And that's exactly what agreeing to fund UNESCO does. So given that the US had a longstanding law that they wouldn't fund organizations that recognized unilaterally achieved Palestinian statehood, and that the US is morally in the right to hold that law, it is entirely UNESCO's fault for triggering it.

LaserGuy, by what logic is the US policy racist? It doesn't discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.

[LaserGuy]

Recognizing Palestinian statehood via their bid at the UN rewards them for avoiding negotiations with Israel, and peace cannot be reached unilaterally. Both sides have to agree that a conflict is over for that conflict to be over.

The conflict being over is not a necessary condition for the existence of a Palestinian state. Unilateral statehood bids are well-precedented.

The US isn't obligated to force peace between Israel and Palestine, but it can't financially encourage the conflict.

WTF are you talking about? If the US stopped funding the Israeli army and threw a trade embargo against them, the conflict would be over in a week. The US is actively encouraging Israel not to negotiate a peace. Through this legislation, they are also encouraging the international community to leave Israel alone and refuse reasonable negotiations with the Palestinians.

And that's exactly what agreeing to fund UNESCO does. So given that the US had a longstanding law that they wouldn't fund organizations that recognized unilaterally achieved Palestinian statehood, and that the US is morally in the right to hold that law, it is entirely UNESCO's fault for triggering it.

If you go to college, I reserve the right to break both of your legs. Since I have now given you fair warning, it is clearly your fault for getting your legs broken if you choose to go to college.

LaserGuy, by what logic is the US policy racist? It doesn't discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.

The policy discriminates against the Palestinian people, obviously.

[Ghostbear]

Recognizing Palestinian statehood via their bid at the UN rewards them for avoiding negotiations with Israel, and peace cannot be reached unilaterally. Both sides have to agree that a conflict is over for that conflict to be over. The US isn't obligated to force peace between Israel and Palestine, but it can't financially encourage the conflict. And that's exactly what agreeing to fund UNESCO does.

You haven't answered any of my questions in the slightest. How does funding a body who places peace as the first of their listed goals act as a discouragement to peace? How is the US completely and 100% blameless for this?

[sourmìlk]

You haven't answered any of my questions in the slightest. How does funding a body who places peace as the first of their listed goals act as a discouragement to peace? How is the US completely and 100% blameless for this?

I already answered that: recognizing a unilateral Palestinian bid for statehood discourages peace by rewarding them for intransigence in negotiating with the Israelis.

The conflict being over is not a necessary condition for the existence of a Palestinian state. Unilateral statehood bids are well-precedented.

It is if you ever want the conflict to be over. If Palestine can achieve statehood without resolving their conflict with Israel, what motivation does Palestine have to resolve its conflict with Israel?

WTF are you talking about? If the US stopped funding the Israeli army and threw a trade embargo against them, the conflict would be over in a week. The US is actively encouraging Israel not to negotiate a peace. Through this legislation, they are also encouraging the international community to leave Israel alone and refuse reasonable negotiations with the Palestinians.

A unilateral bid for statehood is, by definition, an avoidance of negotiations. And by what logic would throwing a trade embargo on Israel end the conflict? Do you think that Hamas and Hezbollah would stop attacking Israel because the US withdrew support?

If you go to college, I reserve the right to break both of your legs. Since I have now given you fair warning, it is clearly your fault for getting your legs broken if you choose to go to college.

No, you aren't morally in the right to break my legs. The US is not only morally in the right, but morally obligated to refuse to accept Palestinian statehood if that statehood is achieved without the consent of Israel.

The policy discriminates against the Palestinian people, obviously.

Which is neither a race, an ethnicity, or a national origin, but a nationality.

[Ghostbear]

OK, I'm done. I decided to you a fair shot this time around, because I hoped it might be different now, but nope.

[sourmìlk]

I really don't see what your problem with my argument is.

[yoni45]

I really don't see what your problem with my argument is.

It uses a completely unsubstantiated point so limited in scope as to be effectively irrelevant. There's no evidence to show that UNESCO's actions are being taken as an actual reward towards Palestinian willingness to negotiate or lack thereof. Your claim is as ridiculous as claiming that to give Israel military aid is a reward for Israel killing Palestinian civilians.

(Not to mention that a good chunk of your argument is practically quoted verbatim in the John Stewart show LaserGuy linked above, as the subject of extensive ridicule, but that's at best circumstantial)

[sourmìlk]

It uses a completely unsubstantiated point so limited in scope as to be effectively irrelevant. There's no evidence to show that UNESCO's actions are being taken as an actual reward towards Palestinian willingness to negotiate or lack thereof. Your claim is as ridiculous as claiming that to give Israel military aid is a reward for Israel killing Palestinian civilians.

Palestine went to the UN specifically so they didn't have to negotiate with Israel. Israel does not request military aid specifically to kill Palestinian civilians. UNESCO's recognition of Palestinian statehood is necessarily a reward for Palestinian intransigence because Palestine specifically went to the UN as a way to remain intransigent.

[LaserGuy]

You haven't answered any of my questions in the slightest. How does funding a body who places peace as the first of their listed goals act as a discouragement to peace? How is the US completely and 100% blameless for this?

I already answered that: recognizing a unilateral Palestinian bid for statehood discourages peace by rewarding them for intransigence in negotiating with the Israelis.

The UNESCO bid is not a bid for statehood. It is a bid to join an organization whose purpose is to promote peace and cultural understanding.

The conflict being over is not a necessary condition for the existence of a Palestinian state. Unilateral statehood bids are well-precedented.

It is if you ever want the conflict to be over. If Palestine can achieve statehood without resolving their conflict with Israel, what motivation does Palestine have to resolve its conflict with Israel?

The Palestinians have grievances against Israel that do not pertain directly to statehood that they would presumably still want addressed. There is no reason to treat the two issues simultaneously. Indeed, trying to conflate the unrelated issues is part of Israel's strategy to endlessly delay the peace process while they sweep up all of the lands of the WB and Gaza.

WTF are you talking about? If the US stopped funding the Israeli army and threw a trade embargo against them, the conflict would be over in a week. The US is actively encouraging Israel not to negotiate a peace. Through this legislation, they are also encouraging the international community to leave Israel alone and refuse reasonable negotiations with the Palestinians.

A unilateral bid for statehood is, by definition, an avoidance of negotiations. And by what logic would throwing a trade embargo on Israel end the conflict? Do you think that Hamas and Hezbollah would stop attacking Israel because the US withdrew support?

I think Hamas would stop attacking Israel if Israel ended the occupation, apologized and made reparations for their misdeeds, and acknowledged the Palestinians' right to self-determination. Hezbollah is not relevant to this issue since they are not from Palestine (although I would suspect that they would probably be more inclined to behave favorably if Israel stopped being such an ass). Israel has all of the power to end the conflict. They simply choose not to do so.

As I said before, while I don't disagree that a unilateral bid for statehood is an avoidance of negotiations, I do not believe that Israel's approval is in any way necessary for Palestine to achieve statehood. Unilateral bids for statehood are, if anything, the norm, not the exception. I'll have to spend some time thinking about whether or not there has ever been a situation where an oppressed people won statehood by negotiating with their oppressors.

If you go to college, I reserve the right to break both of your legs. Since I have now given you fair warning, it is clearly your fault for getting your legs broken if you choose to go to college.

No, you aren't morally in the right to break my legs. The US is not only morally in the right, but morally obligated to refuse to accept Palestinian statehood if that statehood is achieved without the consent of Israel.

The actions of the US in this instance are morally unconscionable. I'm not sure what moral system would consider an action that causes great harm to many people including yourself, and provides no benefits to anybody would ever be considered moral. Seriously, this doesn't even benefit Israel (if nothing else, a number of Holocaust education projects will almost certainly be canceled as a result).

The policy discriminates against the Palestinian people, obviously.

Which is neither a race, an ethnicity, or a national origin, but a nationality.

Palestinian Arabs are recognized ethnic group. I already explained this to you, with appropriate citations.

[sourmìlk]

And I refuted your explanation. Palestinians are not culturally, ethnically, or genetically distinct from the surrounding Arabs. Your citations did not explicitly list Palestinians as an ethnicity, but simply defined what an ethnicity was, and that definition did not support the notions that Palestinian constituted an ethnicity.

I don't think you're aware of Hamas' goal. It's not to end the occupation, it is to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews. Simply ending the occupation does not come close to that goal. The terrorist organizations attacking Israel are not the result of an occupation, they're the result of anti-Semitism. This has been thoroughly discussed in this thread. Furthermore, even though Israel wants to end the occupation, it can't do so unilaterally and safely. It could withdraw to proposed Camp David or Olmert or Taba borders, but without a guarantee of peace from the Palestinian government, all that does is grant Palestinians the freedom to keep attacking Israel. It's appeasement. Israel could withdraw to the '49 armistice lines, but that would not only grant Palestinians the freedom to continue attacking Israel, but also displace hundreds of thousands of Jews in the process, and bar Jewish access to most Jewish holy sites. There is no action that Israel could take to peacefully end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The issues of the occupation and the conflict are tied together in resolution, not in cause. Israel can only safely withdraw once it has a guarantee of peace. Otherwise you have another Gaza situation. Ultimately what you're advocating for is appeasement. You're hoping that Israel will respond to Palestinian terrorism with concessions, and that's simply appeasement. Not only is it unwise to try appeasement in general, we have proof that appeasement doesn't work specifically with this conflict. See the Oslo Accords, Gaza. Each time Israel has granted the Palestinians something without a guarantee of peace, they've used it as an excuse to increase terrorist attacks against Israel.

Also, the idea that Israel's actions are motivated by a desire for more land isn't consistent with Israeli actions. Since Oslo, not a single new settlement bloc has been established by the Israeli government, and in the past ten years, Israel's offers have only gotten more generous in terms of land.

[Zamfir]

Here's the deal. Sourmilk is not solely responsible for keeping the thread open. If other people would like to see more happening than back-and-forths with him, you have to ignore him from time to time.

[yoni45]

Palestine went to the UN specifically so they didn't have to negotiate with Israel. Israel does not request military aid specifically to kill Palestinian civilians. UNESCO's recognition of Palestinian statehood is necessarily a reward for Palestinian intransigence because Palestine specifically went to the UN as a way to remain intransigent.

I'm somehow doubtful you have a citation towards the Palestinian application to UNESCO being based on "to maintain intransigence", but feel free to provide one.

[LaserGuy]

And I refuted your explanation. Palestinians are not culturally, ethnically, or genetically distinct from the surrounding Arabs. Your citations did not explicitly list Palestinians as an ethnicity, but simply defined what an ethnicity was, and that definition did not support the notions that Palestinian constituted an ethnicity.

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3] Another definition is "...a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".[4]

Palestinians have a common heritage, common language, common culture, common ancestry. They have an interest in sharing a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, and a have common religious faith. They are ethnographically distinct from neighbouring peoples.

I don't think you're aware of Hamas' goal. It's not to end the occupation, it is to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews.

And you think that the ethnic cleansing of their people and violent occupation of their lands had nothing to do with that? Hamas will die when the Palestinians no longer feel that their existence is justified. They receive support, and supplies, and recruits, because the Palestinians are oppressed. If the Palestinians were no longer oppressed, there would be no need for Hamas, whatever their goals might be. People who are well-off do not engage in random acts of violence; desperate people do. A Palestinian state with a strong, central government focussed on economic development that is not obviously a puppet for Israel and the US will be sufficient to undermine whatever support Hamas has.

The terrorist organizations attacking Israel are not the result of an occupation, they're the result of anti-Semitism.

Nonsense. Hamas as a political entity came into existence as a result of Israeli policies in Palestine in the mid 80s that led to the First Intifada.

Furthermore, even though Israel wants to end the occupation

I would strongly disagree that Israel has any interest or intention of ending the occupation. Had they an interest or intention of doing so, they could have easily accomplished it by now.

There is no action that Israel could take to peacefully end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sure there is. I spelled it out already. Recognize the Palestinian's right to self-determination, apologize and make reparations for past misdeeds, and end military control of the Palestinian territories.

You're hoping that Israel will respond to Palestinian terrorism with concessions, and that's simply appeasement.

No, I'm not hoping Israel will respond to terrorism with concessions. I am hoping that Israel will acknowledge its faults and begin the process of healing. It is only appeasement if you give in to threats; it is not appeasement to admit fault when you are in the wrong.

[zmic]

And I refuted your explanation. Palestinians are not culturally, ethnically, or genetically distinct from the surrounding Arabs. Your citations did not explicitly list Palestinians as an ethnicity, but simply defined what an ethnicity was, and that definition did not support the notions that Palestinian constituted an ethnicity.

When a group of people want their own nation, they don't have to "prove" their ethnicity, whatever that is even supposed to mean. The will to be a nation is the proof itself. It's called the right of self-determination.