Israel/Palestine discussion

[zmic]

are you saying that the USA cut UNESCO funding out of concern for archaeological vandalism going on on the Temple Mount?

That would be a good reason, but no. They're doing it because recognizing Palestinian statehood without Israel's permission is contrary to peace.

When was it established that the US needs Israel's permission to do anything?

The US doesn't need Israel's permission, but in this case it's best that people not recognize Palestinian statehood until negotiations have completed, for reasons I've listed earlier.

What you are saying is that the US should simply take Israel's stance, rather than being impartial. Why should the US take Israel's stance?

[LaserGuy]

What you are saying is that the US should simply take Israel's stance, rather than being impartial. Why should the US take Israel's stance?

Because Israel is always right, of course. And because if they don't, the Jewish lobby will spend millions getting all the people who didn't take Israel's stance out of office.

[sourmìlk]

No, because Israel's stance is more conducive to peace. And I'm pretty sure you don't understand how AIPAC works.

[Dream]

Nobel Laureate Gunter Grass banned from entering Israel.

Gunter Grass wrote and published a poem that eloquently said one thing, and one thing only: That Israel's nuclear weapons, coupled with it's aggressive stance towards Iran, are a grave threat to world peace. Here is the poem:

Spoiler:

What must be said

Why have I kept silent, held back so long,

on something openly practiced in

war games, at the end of which those of us

who survive will at best be footnotes?

It's the alleged right to a first strike

that could destroy an Iranian people

subjugated by a loudmouth

and gathered in organized rallies,

because an atom bomb may be being

developed within his arc of power.

Yet why do I hesitate to name

that other land in which

for years—although kept secret—

a growing nuclear power has existed

beyond supervision or verification,

subject to no inspection of any kind?

This general silence on the facts,

before which my own silence has bowed,

seems to me a troubling lie, and compels

me toward a likely punishment

the moment it's flouted:

the verdict "Anti-semitism" falls easily.

But now that my own country,

brought in time after time

for questioning about its own crimes,

profound and beyond compare,

is said to be the departure point,

(on what is merely business,

though easily declared an act of reparation)

for yet another submarine equipped

to transport nuclear warheads

to Israel, where not a single atom bomb

has yet been proved to exist, with fear alone

the only evidence, I'll say what must be said.

But why have I kept silent till now?

Because I thought my own origins,

Tarnished by a stain that can never be removed,

meant I could not expect Israel, a land

to which I am, and always will be, attached,

to accept this open declaration of the truth.

Why only now, grown old,

and with what ink remains, do I say:

Israel's atomic power endangers

an already fragile world peace?

Because what must be said

may be too late tomorrow;

and because—burdend enough as Germans—

we may be providing material for a crime

that is foreseeable, so that our complicity

wil not be expunged by any

of the usual excuses.

And granted: I've broken my silence

because I'm sick of the West's hypocrisy;

and I hope too that many may be freed

from their silence, may demand

that those responsible for the open danger

we face renounce the use of force,

may insist that the governments of

both Iran and Israel allow an international authority

free and open inspection of

the nuclear potential and capability of both.

No other course offers help

to Israelis and Palestinians alike,

to all those living side by side in emnity

in this region occupied by illusions,

and ultimately, to all of us.

--Günter Grass

Translated by Breon Mitchell

For this, he has of course been accused of antisemitism. But more than that, by no less than the Israeli Interior Minister, he has been accused of an "attempt to fan the flames of hatred against the state of Israel and its people, and thus to advance the idea to which he publicly affiliated in his past donning of the SS uniform", i.e. that he is in fact an actual, Third Reich-issue Nazi who is attempting to resurrect SS policies and ideas. (Grass was conscripted as a boy soldier at the end of WWII.)

I haven't read much of Grass, but I have read perhaps the most relevant book of his to this farce, Crabwalk. It deals with the resurgence of fascist anti-semitism through the self-radicalisation of a young German over the internet, and with the place of sympathies of people alive today for German victims of World War Two. I'd like to say it shocks me that one of the most important authors dealing with the legacy of World War Two and modern anti Jewish racism could be accused of this, by Israel itself, but it doesn't. It saddens me to the core, however, that the Israeli government has so little self confidence that it can't handle even the most carefully articulated, thoughtful criticism. Their blinkered bigotry will cause a great loss to any Israeli who wants to understand Germany and its relationship to Israel and Jewish people.

[sourmìlk]

Obviously I don't agree with the message of the poem, but I don't actually see what he said as anti-Semitic. It's absurd to compare a regime that constantly expresses its desire for genocide to one that has the best human rights track record in the region by far, but I don't know if that's anti-Semitic as much as it is just incorrect.

[Iulus Cofield]

The issue to me is not whether or not some poet was correct or not in their political views, but that they would use the pretense of an archaic immigration law to keep him and his criticisms far away from Netanyahu's perfect society. Calling him a former SS is also fairly disengenuous and misleading. Most SS were Hitler's fanatically loyal elite, but Grass was an underaged draftee in a combat only reserve battalion hastily formed to shore up the size of the army in preparation for the Allied offensives. I also suspect the spirit of the Israeli anti-Nazi law was to keep out actual Nazis, not people who Netanyahu dislikes and happened to have been drafted by Hitler.

[sourmìlk]

I'm also going to agree with that, this is sort of an abuse of that law.

EDIT:

reading up a bit more, I'm becoming less inclined to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He volunteered for the SS, and the accusations that Israel is planning genocide against the Persians isn't really a fair political criticism. See, this article.

[LaserGuy]

Obama has apparently put forward an offer that could defuse the situation, or possibly blow the whole thing open.

In brief, based on a speech given by Ayatollah Khamenei in February where the Ayatollah unequivocally stated that possession and proliferation of nuclear weapons is a grave sin under their faith. Obama has offered to allow Iran to pursue nuclear energy, subject to inspections of their facilities, notably the underground Frodo facility, to ensure that Iran is maintaining their commitments.

The upside: it puts pressure on the Ayatollah from the perspective of his own theology and public statements to agree to the plan, particularly since, if the Ayatollah was being genuine, then there would be little reason for them to refuse and offer that basically lets them do what they would like to do. It is also a starting point for negotiations, something that has happened to little over this issue in recent months.

The downside: Obama can offer little in the way of incentives for Iran to accept the offer or believe that he is being genuine, because he personally does not have the power to lift the sanctions against Iran or to forestall unilateral Israeli aggression, and has to tread carefully on the home front on this issue, particularly with a Republican Congress that might willingly throw his plans under the bus in order to improve their party's prospects of winning the November election.

The timeline: some key dates to keep in mind are the November election in the United States. Obama is at a disadvantage during negotiations prior to this point, but probably has to get something settled prior to the election for this to work. Another key date happens sometime around this June, which is believed to be the last point where Israel would be able to ensure a successful strike against Iranian facilities. There has been speculation that the Obama administration may have agreed to provide enhanced bunker-buster bombs to Israel in return for them holding off until after the election.

[sourmìlk]

I actually quite like this plan. Assuming Iran accepts (I have no idea how likely that is) and congress doesn't fuck everything up (and I wouldn't count on them not doing that), then we have an Iran that we can verify does not have nuclear weapons, an Israel with no motivation to attack Iran, and a US that doesn't have to worry about the two.

[lutzj]

[Obama] has to tread carefully on the home front on this issue, particularly with a Republican Congress that might willingly throw his plans under the bus in order to improve their party's prospects of winning the November election.

Doesn't even have to be a political play; there are plenty of Republicans hawkish enough to throw the plan under the bus because they think it's too soft on Iran.

[sourmìlk]

It sort of is too soft on Iran in that it doesn't really punish them for their misbehaviour. But on the other hand, who cares? It eliminates the problem.

[sourmìlk]

Security forces avert major terror attack in West Bank

Border Police officers averted a major terror attack in the West Bank on Saturday after stopping two Palestinian men acting suspiciously, and discovering powerful explosives in their possession, as well as knives and a gun.

The incident occurred near Tapuah Junction in the northern West Bank, near a hitchhikers post used by many Israelis on Saturday night.

Security forces suspect that the post was the intended target of the attack.

For those wondering why Israel can't simply pull out of the West Bank, this is why.

[EdgarJPublius]

Aren't the terrorist attacks occurring because Israel isn't pulling out of the West Bank?

[sourmìlk]

No, Palestinians have been committing acts of terror against the Israelis since the '20s. The PLO was founded in '64, 3 years before Israel was in control of the West Bank. And in Gaza, terrorist attacks not only continued but increased after Israel pulled out. Same with Oslo: after Israel granted the Palestinians Areas A and B, the rate of terrorist attacks sextupled. Hamas' propaganda makes it clear that, even if all Jews were to leave the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians should still hate them until all the Jews are dead.

[yoni45]

Aren't the terrorist attacks occurring because Israel isn't pulling out of the West Bank?

It's a bit naive to believe that's the case. Most of the terrorist groups have a religious agenda and only incidentally a nationalistic one.

The ones that were ever nationalist, if any, have long since been committed to terrorism (much).

[yedidyak]

Well, there was a war or three before Israel ever occupied the 'West Bank', so...

[yedidyak]

Egypt has unilaterally cancelled it's deal with Israel to supply natural gas.

Egypt provides around half of Israel's gas supply, although the pipeline carrying gas to Israel and Jordan has been blown up 14 times in the last year and a half.

[sourmìlk]

:/

I really don't see how that could benefit them. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure it doesn't. Luckily, Israel is just now finding trillions of cubic feet of natural gas reserves near it and right off its coast. Maybe soon we can start buying energy from countries that are our allies and not bastards like Canada Saudi Arabia.

[LaserGuy]

Hamas apparently is entertaining the possibility of an extended "truce" with Israel, although not a formal peace treaty. There is also an indication that there are elements within Hamas that are working to rewrite certain sections of Hamas' charter that are felt to no longer represent the group's views. All of this seems to be geared toward the hopes of gaining some international legitimacy.

It's hard to say if anything will come of this. Ceasefires have been tried and broken before, so it's not abundantly clear to me how this would be any different. And even some sort of truce was put into effect, it's not exactly clear if Hamas has enough control of their membership to be able to enforce it. OTOH, if Hamas actually made an effort to enforce it, that alone would probably be a huge step in the right direction.

[sourmìlk]

We've seen signs that maybe Hamas is getting away from violence a bit. This would indeed be wonderful. From what I've heard, Iron Dome has really demoralized them. They can see violence isn't working for them.

[zmic]

Why, exactly, is it that only Israel is criticized for enforcing building codes in a way that literally every other country on Earth does? The Palestinians are not a special nation exempt from their obligation to abide by these laws.

JERUSALEM— (MCT) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that his Cabinet has decided to retroactively legalize three West Bank outposts that previous governments had conceded were built without permission, marking the first step toward what critics fear will become Israel's first official new settlements since 1990.

Government officials said it was inaccurate to characterize the legalization process as establishing new settlements, noting that the three outposts were founded in the 1990s, reportedly with the government's blessing. Officials said the outposts only lack certain technical authorizations and planning permits, which now will be given.

You see, just a little bit of good will and everything becomes possible! Now let's hope that Israel extends the same kind of humanity and clemency towards those poor Palestinian solar panels.

[yurell]

Israel tries to censor 60-Minute report for daring to show Christian Palestinians.

[yoni45]

Israel tries to censor 60-Minute report for daring to show Christian Palestinians.

Oh come now -- why tarnish what looks like a reasonably objective report with such obviously biased trash?

[yedidyak]

Just because things are quiet doesn't mean nothings happening - for the third time in as many weeks, a checkpoint stopped multiple bomb attacks.

Terror attack averted: IDF troops nabbed Saturday evening a Palestinian in possession of two explosive devices near the Hawara roadblock in the West Bank, south of Nablus.

The bombs were later blown up by sappers in a controlled detonation. The Palestinian terror suspect was taken in for interrogation by security authorities.

Saturday's arrest marks the latest in a string of incidents involving Palestinian terrorists detained in possession of arms.


Last Saturday, Border Guard and Judea and Samaria police forces thwarted a terror attack in the area after detaining two Palestinians armed with four pipe bombs, a handgun and some ammunition. The two suspects disembarked from a taxi at a West Bank junction and aroused the suspicion of policemen on routine operations at the site.

Some three weeks ago, another terrorist was detained in possession of seven improvised explosive devices, three knives and rifle bullets. The suspect was nabbed while going through a West Bank roadblock.

Officials estimated that the Palestinian planned to carry out attacks against Israeli civilians or soldiers during the Passover vacation.

[yurell]

Oh come now -- why tarnish what looks like a reasonably objective report with such obviously biased trash?

It's guessing as to why the Israeli government tried to censor it ... do you have better guesses?

[yoni45]

It's guessing as to why the Israeli government tried to censor it ... do you have better guesses?

Because it either did or could put Israel in a negative light? Duh?

Do you even need more than one "guess"?

[EdgarJPublius]

Yes, because that is obviously a good reason to censor something :-/

[yoni45]

Yes, because that is obviously a good reason to censor something :-/

Read a bit more carefully -- where did "good" reason come into play?

[moonrover101]

One of the main questions that everybody seems to gloss over when they are talking about this problem, is what is a country. Some people say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, but there is no 'right' that determines whether or not a country should exist. The way countries work is that a governing body has enough power and desire to protect itself from any internal or external threat. Canada, the USA, Britain and all the other countries in the world would not exist if they could not defend themselves when challenged. All that the Palestinians need to do, at least according to that definition, is to declare a country, and have an army that can defend itself against any attackers. If Israel then attacks the new Palestine, Palestine holds out, and then there is truce where boarders are made, there will be a country. Otherwise, there won't be.
On a different note, when people say that Israel is racist because it doesn't give immediate citizenship to Palestinians, then they have a very warped view of how countries and citizenship laws work. In Canada, immigrants don't get immediate citizenship, and if the government wants a specific type of person, lets say coal miners, they will have an easier time gaining citizenship. Palestinians can apply for citizenship to any country that they want, even emigrate to the states, or attempt to go through the Israeli citizenship process like a Christian or a Buddhist would, and though it might be harder for Non Jews to emigrate, its not any harder than to emigrate to a different country.

[yurell]

In Canada, immigrants don't get immediate citizenship, and if the government wants a specific type of person, lets say coal miners, they will have an easier time gaining citizenship.

What about the conquered natives? Are they citizens? The Palestinians are a conquered 'occupied' people, not immigrants.

[BattleMoose]

In Canada, immigrants don't get immediate citizenship, and if the government wants a specific type of person, lets say coal miners, they will have an easier time gaining citizenship.

What about the conquered natives? Are they citizens? The Palestinians are a conquered 'occupied' people, not immigrants.

Traditionally "native" people have been treated very badly when colonized, but thats neither here nor there. Also, is the Jewish culture not native to Israeli? And the massive immigration not withstanding, many Jewish people also.

I am not sure comparisons to the more traditional paradigm of colonization and natives to be useful at all. As always, the current situation with respect to Israeli and Palestine is unlike anything that has occurred before, and generally I find any kind of comparisons to other historical events to be incredibly unhelpful.

I guess qualifying the Palestinian people (those not in Israeli) as occupied is probably the most correct, even if they have a lot of autonomy in self governance. But this needs to be contrasted with the peace offers for an independent Palestine.

I would very much like the Palestinian authorities to make formal peace offers to Israeli, what they would accept. (I am unaware of any proposed offer made by the Palestinian authorities)

Its also worth noting that the bargaining power of the Palestinian people is continuing to diminish.

[LaserGuy]

On a different note, when people say that Israel is racist because it doesn't give immediate citizenship to Palestinians, then they have a very warped view of how countries and citizenship laws work. In Canada, immigrants don't get immediate citizenship, and if the government wants a specific type of person, lets say coal miners, they will have an easier time gaining citizenship. Palestinians can apply for citizenship to any country that they want, even emigrate to the states, or attempt to go through the Israeli citizenship process like a Christian or a Buddhist would, and though it might be harder for Non Jews to emigrate, its not any harder than to emigrate to a different country.

I think this is kind of missing the problem. The Palestinians, by and large, lived in the region before the contemporary Israelis did. They aren't immigrants; the Palestinians already live there. Moreover, most of them don't actually want to become Israeli citizens; they want self-determination. For a Canadian example, it would probably be more akin to looking at whether or not Quebec, or one of the First Nations groups, has the right to cede from Canada and form their own sovereign nation--although even this isn't really accurate either, since the bulk of the disputed lands aren't currently part of Israel.

My understanding, as well, as is that at least someone immigrating from the Palestinian territories would not be on equal footing as someone immigrating from, say, the United States, as far as their ability to get citizenship (or even entrance to the country) is concerned, all other things being equal. There's been a bit of bad blood between the two sides, if you weren't aware.

Traditionally "native" people have been treated very badly when colonized, but thats neither here nor there. Also, is the Jewish culture not native to Israeli? And the massive immigration not withstanding, many Jewish people also.

My understanding is that the Jewish population in the region prior to about 1880 was virtually non-existent. You have to go back pretty far in history to start finding points in history where the Jews were a significant population in Mesopotamia.

I am not sure comparisons to the more traditional paradigm of colonization and natives to be useful at all. As always, the current situation with respect to Israeli and Palestine is unlike anything that has occurred before, and generally I find any kind of comparisons to other historical events to be incredibly unhelpful.

Why do you feel this situation is so different?

[Ghostbear]

Also, is the Jewish culture not native to Israeli? And the massive immigration not withstanding, many Jewish people also.

I believe the principle concern here should be individuals and not cultures. Once you look at it that way, the two situations aren't really comparable -- right now, both the people of Israel and the people of Palestine are native to that region. Not because their culture has a claim on it, but because that's where they, as individuals, were born.

Its also worth noting that the bargaining power of the Palestinian people is continuing to diminish.

Yeah, it seems to me that the longer the current status quo is maintained, the more likely it is that the problem will be resolved from the "attrition" of Israel's claims slowly going from de facto to de jure.

[Iulus Cofield]

Some thoughts.

Modern Jewish Israelis are to the Ancient Jews as the modern Sicilians are to the Normans. There's common ancestry and some surviving cultural things (especially religion), but neither were actually aboriginal to their ancestors homelands (Israel and Normandy), neither speaks their ancestor's original language (well, Hebrew was revived), and both have intermarried with other groups for centuries. Of course there's been a stronger cultural attachment to the land that's now Israel and the Palestinian Territories, but that's largely a product of the intertwined history and religion of the Jewish people. The Sicilian religion, Catholicism, never emphasized Normandy as religiously important, so it's unsurprising that there hasn't been a Sicilian fixation on the land of Normandy itself or even Scandanavia. So saying the modern Israelis are native to Israel is only really true in the way I'm native to Oregon. I was raised here and so were my parents, but my grandparents were from elsewhere. With the added, my-ancestors-lived-here-for-several-centuries-one-hundred-generations-ago, of course.

As others have said variously, the situation of the Palestinians isn't analogous to other instances of displacement or immigration. The problem isn't even that they lost sovereignty over the land they had been living in for many generations to an immigrant group, that's happened countless times throughout history and while there's nothing admirable about it, it happens, so, there's that. The problem is that instead of deportation, assimilation, second class citizenship, or even something abominable like genocide, Israel has simply put the Palestinians into legal limbo. Israel has the firepower and inclination to keep them from forming their own country, is unwilling to incorporate them into Israel as citizens (because they fear a non-Jewish majority) or as non-citizen residents (as that's illegal and I suppose they think it would look bad to legally establish such a system). So instead they keep their territory occupied and allow them to have a modicum of self-governance, but not sovereignty or suzerainty. And on top of that, whenever the Palestinians do something the current Israeli politicians don't like, they can, and have, punished them collectively in various ways, such as economic blockades, withholding of rightful tax income, dismantling of infrastructure, and other things. They insure that the Palestinians can not resist them politically or with conventional military actions and then proceed to demonize the Palestinians and justify whatever punitive action they like when the Palestininans turn to terrorism.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing as a result of Israeli actions, except maybe the annexing of purely Jewish settlements. Politicians in Israel don't want the Palestinians to be citizens, they don't want the political backlash from deporting the Palestinians and annexing the territories, they don't want an independent state with an independent military with a history of hostility towards Israel. They don't want this, they don't want that, they don't want have any incentive to resolve the situation and they don't have the inclination to let the Palestinians do what they want due to paranoid security concerns.

[BattleMoose]

I found a fair bit of what you said to be quite rational, but these two comments I found to be incredibly unfair.

Israel has the firepower and inclination to keep them from forming their own country

Camp David Summit

and they don't have the inclination to let the Palestinians do what they want due to paranoid security concerns.

Paranoia

You might find my comments a bit snide. But honestly I cannot understand how offering a proposal for an independent Palestine can be equated to, an inclination to keep them from forming their own country.

Also, what do you think Israel should do with regards to the conflict, in order to both be moral/legal while ensuring the protection of Israel and Israeli citizens?

[Iulus Cofield]

I found a fair bit of what you said to be quite rational, but these two comments I found to be incredibly unfair.

Israel has the firepower and inclination to keep them from forming their own country

Camp David Summit

I'm not sure what your point is there. There has been limited support in Israel for an independent Palestine, but only under the terms that the Israelis deem acceptable. My point was that they have denied them forming a country under their own terms.

and they don't have the inclination to let the Palestinians do what they want due to paranoid security concerns.

Paranoia

Ignoring the condescending way you phrased that, we've discussed the particular paranoia of Israeli politicians before. If you had been nicer about it, I'd go find it and link it, but you're on your own as long as you're being a jerk about it.

[BattleMoose]

I did realise my post came across very, jerk like. I did edit it, but not before your reply.

[yoni45]

I'm not sure what your point is there. There has been limited support in Israel for an independent Palestine, but only under the terms that the Israelis deem acceptable. My point was that they have denied them forming a country under their own terms.

To be fair, "under their own terms", at least not in absolute terms, isn't necessarily something Israel can be reasonably expected to accept.

Also, what do you think Israel should do with regards to the conflict, in order to both be moral/legal while ensuring the protection of Israel and Israeli citizens?

For starters it could try negotiating in good faith by not intentionally entrenching "facts on the ground" that should otherwise be up for negotiations. Or act like assholes by stealing Palestinian funds because the Palestinians decide to turn to the international community for recognition (UNESCO).

The way I see it, Israel's in a position in which the Palestinians are getting their shit together, and Israel's running out of excuses to maintain their stranglehold on the Palestinians. Israel's current ruling administration is essentially a right-wing group, parts of which are blatantly interested in a "greater Israel" (the ultra-religious), parts of which are just racist in terms of Arabs (Lieberman et al), and the rest of which are varying degrees of milder versions of those two (Likud). They're not interested in peace with the Palestinians, and they'll find one excuse or another to derail talks. Except this is becoming increasingly hard in terms of maintaining legitimacy infront of the international community.

[LaserGuy]

Camp David Summit

You mean where Israel's offer was "We get everything we want, and you get a state divided into four or five disconnected pieces, we have the right to close your borders and permanently separate the pieces whenever we want, and our military is free to move in your lands and airspace without your consent, and you have no right to enter international agreements without our consent. Oh, as for your concerns regarding Jerusalem and the refugees: Go fuck yourselves." Is that the offer you're referring to?

[yedidyak]

The 'facts on the ground' are not actually changing anything, there is only building in already long established settled areas, not in new ones.

Also, Israel's government isn't so incredibly right wing as you describe. The ultra-religious parts of it, Shas, UTJ etc are not actually Zionist, UTJ even anti-Zionist. Shas has supported land-for-peace in the past. Lieberman may well be racist, but even he is for land for peace, just he wants to give Arab parts of Israel inside the Green Line as part of that land. Likud has been moving steadily leftwards for ever. And there is also Barak's new party, which is clearly left wing.

(Left / Right all in Israeli political terms - different from general Left/Right)

As to the Palestinians getting their shit together, its just not happening. The Fatah President and Fatah PM aren't on speaking terms any more. The elections have been pushed off again, meaning that Abbas's mandate ran out years ago which gives Hamas their excuse to do stuff like execute people without his permission. Hamas just held secret elections electing Haniyeh - who is in open confrontation with the Hamas outside leadership, itself looking for a new home. The latest Qatari sponsored unity deal between Fatah and Hamas collapsed within hours because Hamas-Gaza wouldn't accept a deal agreed by Hamas-Syria. Hamas still sticks to the line of 'the best we will ever offer is a temporary truce, never peace.'

So while Israel's good-faith in negotiations is debatable, the current feeling in Israel is that there really is no one to speak to. 'There is no partner' in the local political jargon. And nobody from any party except Meretz disputes this.

Israel is starting to gear up for elections with a date probably being set in the next week or two. For the first time in decades the Palestinian issue just isn't an issue.