Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/21/2011 7:24:33 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

The only pretty picture I can get out of the whole mess is a place that serves as both a buffer zone, and a place where religion cannot rule even though its very existence is crafted on top of the two biggest religions on earth.

But yeah, making it work would be about as easy as getting pregnant and being male.



Well we better figure that one out soon so we can earn some reproductive rights.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/21/2011 7:33:51 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline 		LOL.

Yeah, you know where that thought came from.


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/21/2011 8:22:20 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

And between the two, no matter who is in power, the charges will fly. So let's settle down to the real issues - the West Bank, the right of return, and Jerusalem.

None of them are easy. I've wondered for a while though why Jerusalem could not exist like.. Vatican City, really belonging to no one, but open to all with security forces from everyone involved ensuring the peace, maybe even administered by the UN. Both sides have valid claims to the site


Firstly ST, thank you for adopting a more reasonable tone. And thanks too to Sam, whose suggestions opened the door to a vitriol-free discussion.

I agree that the two-State solution is the most desirable. I'd like to add two items to the three (the West Bank, the right of return, and Jerusalem) you presented. They are security and viability (more on that below).

I think your suggestion over Jerusalem's status is an excellent one, This is one aspect of the conflict where 'both sides are right' - both have legitimate claims. A demilitarised Jerusalem could be capital for both entities - any solution that either shares responsibility or places it in the hands of a genuinely neutral third party will fly with me.

The right of return is a thorny issue. Realistically it isn't going to happen. Whatever the justice of Palestinian claims, the price of exercising that right is simply far too high for any Israeli Govt to contemplate - it could very well spark an internal civil war. The only data I've seen - a Haaretz report dated 2003 - suggests only 10% of Palestinians would exercise this right if given the opportunity. The overwhelming majority chose compensation. So, a resolution of this matter might not prove to be so difficult.

The question of the colonies is far more difficult. Of the half million or so colonists, it's estimated that c80,000 are ideologically motivated, the reminder are economically-driven. So most of the colonists can be expected to make economically-driven decisions, much the same as the Palestinians above. Persuading the ideologues to come to the peace table is going to a much harder task - their primary goal (as they explicitly state) is the prevention of a Palestinian State.

The question of security is critical to both sides. Just as Israelis are perfectly entitled to live in peace and security, so too are the Palestinians have a perfectly legitimate case for protection from the IDF (and colonist violence, an increasing phenomenon). Buffer zones, demilitarised borders, international guarantees/peace keepers .... whatever the solution adopted (and I'm open to suggestions here) is, it must be equitable and effective.

The question of viability is critical too. It is in both parties interests that any Palestinians State succeeds, that it will be viable. Israel doesn't want or need a failed State and all the inherent dangers that brings on its doorstep. Long tem peace requires that a Palestinians State be contiguous, not a collection of mini-Bantustans.

The last three items are connected in complex ways. There are extremists on both sides who will present serious opposition. Overcoming these difficulties will demand flexibility, imagination and a commitment to a just peace from both sides.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/21/2011 8:26:09 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/21/2011 9:20:51 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline 		Two pages back I said if you wanted to talk on terms that might accomplish something, I was fine with that. I don't have a problem discussing the issue. What I have a problem with is the constant painting of Israel as the bad guy in every light. That I simply will not sit by and let you do. Nor will I let you make patently false accusations over things like no warnings, how this interdiction occurred, and holding a boatload of activists intent on creating an incident blameless. People crap all over the military, second guessing and lawyering every friggin detail of an operation with absolutely no clue of the pandemonium involved, the perceived aggression, the real aggression and danger, and yes, the fear.

Being in the military doesn't make you immune to fear. It's not like doing fire drills at the office. You can train all day long but until bullets actually fly and people come at you with intent, you never know how someone will actually respond. I have no remorse for activists killed during the operation with the exception of those killed in what appears to be an execution. Simply being shot at short range isn't enough. It especially isn't enough when soldiers are being mobbed. Even so, there's no excuse for putting a gun to the back of someone's head and pulling the trigger. At least not in this instance.

Bottom line is if you want a reasonable tone from me, then come with one.

The issue with the West Bank isn't really buffer zones or demilitarized zones, and I don't think either side wants peace keepers. The issue is and has been, where the line will be drawn. The 67 borders leave Israel essentially cut in half without real security. How are you going to guarantee that with the elected government of Gaza holding as part of its charter that Israel has no right to exist?




_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/21/2011 10:07:28 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

How are you going to guarantee that with the elected government of Gaza holding as part of its charter that Israel has no right to exist?


One way would be to use precisely the same guarantee that, with the elected government of Israel holding as part of its charter that Palestine has no right to exist, for both sides.

From the Likud Party Constitution:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state."
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

That would be equitable don't you think? Precisely the same claim was made about the PLO for many years and was resolved long ago. Negotiations are de facto recognition.

This strikes me as the type of issue that arises when one side is seeking an excuse not to do things. The Brits adopted precisely the same position in Northern Ireland and for 25 years there was war. Peace came about within a year or two of the Brits talking to the IRA. The recognition issues were resolved through negotiation.

The other side of that question is: Is any peace possible without the issues around Gaza are being addressed in the deal? And the answer is that a peace deal will be mutual recognition. There are recognition issues on both sides of the dispute. The only way to resolve them is through negotiation. There is one alternative to talking - shooting. Is that where you want to go?

quote:

The issue with the West Bank isn't really buffer zones or demilitarized zones, and I don't think either side wants peace keepers. The issue is and has been, where the line will be drawn.


And your suggestion is ......?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/21/2011 10:11:56 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/21/2011 10:23:50 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

How are you going to guarantee that with the elected government of Gaza holding as part of its charter that Israel has no right to exist?


One way would be to use precisely the same guarantee that, with the elected government of Israel holding as part of its charter that Palestine has no right to exist, for both sides.

From the Likud Party Constitution:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state."
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm



Cant stop lying can you? Note the words "WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER". Yanno, the territory they were granted in 1919.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 5:02:03 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		The Israeli Government can go fuck themselves if the Palestinians in the west bank VOTE to join the new Palestinian state...

You know. Democracy.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 5:28:58 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		I'll throw a bit of a monkey wrench in here. I'm not sure we should dismiss the one state solution so cavalierly. OK, Jews and Muslims have had trouble living together- the history of Jewish communities in Muslim states illustrates that clearly. But then, the Palestinians are still hanging around Israel, even with it's apartheid system.

From a US Jews perspective- Jews need a place they can go in this world- sooner or later they get kicked out of every decent country. Israel fulfills that function- not well, but better than nothing. The Jews in Israel are pushing racist twaddle about birth rates as a justification for denying Palestinians full rights. Well, when S. Africa ditched apartheid- was there any mass murders of the white folks? And did Ireland need two states? As long as Israel remains a haven for Jews, I don't care if Palestinians are a majority.

At a minimum, a single state solution is a useful bargaining chip- so I'd be hesitant about taking it off the table at the outset.

In terms of borders- the simplest solution- start with a clean sheet of paper. There isn't any oil to worry about, but water is critical. Options are existing fresh water supplies or desalination plants which Saudi Arabia uses. But both the Palestinians and the Israelis need water- this is going to be a sticking point.

In terms of open cities- Christianity can also lay some claims to some interests here- why not let the Vatican spend some of its money on keeping a police force in the open cities of perhaps Jerusalem and Bethlehem?

Lots of worries about defensible borders, but times have changed since the last war. Gulf War II showed that tanks cannot exist on a battlefield if your opponent has air supremacy. Since no other country in the region has an air force which can rival Israel, it's probable that the Israelis will maintain air supremacy over their country and a reasonable border region- say 100 miles out. One of the conditions of establishment of a Palestinian state- no tanks within 100 miles of Israel's borders. If this condition is met, then Israel's borders will be reasonably secure.

Sam

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 5:36:57 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I'm not sure we should dismiss the one state solution so cavalierly.


I'm actually a one-stater, but when you suggest that the Israeli Government actually annex the West Bank and Gaza people freak the fuck out. They're concerned that if you give Arabs the vote, they'll vote in their own self interest or something.

quote:


From a US Jews perspective- Jews need a place they can go in this world- sooner or later they get kicked out of every decent country. Israel fulfills that function- not well, but better than nothing.


No-one is firing rockets into Williamsburg, are they?


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 6:55:19 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I can't imagine Jews and Palestinians living in a one state solution. Just thinking about it raises the specter of all the other Middle Eastern states that house large blocks of religious or ethnic minorities who have a long history of hating each other - like Sunnis and Shites. It's easier to find countries where one side suppresses the other than it is to find countries where they don't.


South africa seems to be making a go of it.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 6:58:09 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
I'll throw a bit of a monkey wrench in here. I'm not sure we should dismiss the one state solution so cavalierly. OK, Jews and Muslims have had trouble living together- the history of Jewish communities in Muslim states illustrates that clearly. But then, the Palestinians are still hanging around Israel, even with it's apartheid system.

From a US Jews perspective- Jews need a place they can go in this world- sooner or later they get kicked out of every decent country. Israel fulfills that function- not well, but better than nothing. The Jews in Israel are pushing racist twaddle about birth rates as a justification for denying Palestinians full rights. Well, when S. Africa ditched apartheid- was there any mass murders of the white folks? And did Ireland need two states? As long as Israel remains a haven for Jews, I don't care if Palestinians are a majority.

At a minimum, a single state solution is a useful bargaining chip- so I'd be hesitant about taking it off the table at the outset.
Sam

Sam you might like to know about this poll http://cifwatch.com/2011/07/15/what-the-guardian-wont-report-73-of-palestinians-agree-with-quote-from-hamas-charter-about-the-need-to-kill-jews/ where two months ago 73% of Palestinians supported the nortorious Article 7 of the Hamas Charter about the mass genocide of Jews, and 93% did not want to share Jerusalem as the capital with Israel. You can talk all day about apartheid and racism but the fact remains that Arabic is one of the two official languages of Israel, all citizens of Israel have the right to vote and stand for election, and in 1967 they instituted the Palestinian Waqf to administer the Temple Mount as a sign of respect to Islam, even at the expense of Jews who are banned from worshipping there. They are even banned from whispering prayers! By contrast Jordan used stones from the Mount of the Olives etc. for latrines. The supposedly moderate PLO never ammended its charter calling for Israel's annihilation either http://www.pmw.org.il/site/modules/videos/popup/video.aspx?doc_id=450

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:10:40 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Being in the military doesn't make you immune to fear.

Being in the military does not make you immune from prosecution for murder.
The whole purpose of a military is to have an armed and disciplined force.
Without discipline you have an armed mob.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:14:06 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
None of them are easy. I've wondered for a while though why Jerusalem could not exist like.. Vatican City, really belonging to no one, but open to all with security forces from everyone involved ensuring the peace, maybe even administered by the UN.

That is what the original 1948 plan called for. The Arab states invaded and conquered the city and the UN did nothing.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:18:32 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Anax

In some of the discussions here, I've had an epiphany of sorts. It goes something like this-

In the 1970s, Israelis could with some justification, claim the moral high ground with regards to the Palestinians. Three decades and thousands of innocent lives on both sides killed, that claim has gone.

The history that is now relevant is not which side did what to whom when, but rather that both sides have bloody hands and its time to approach the conference table as equals. Perhaps, and I'll be the first to admit this is unlikely, the fact that the Israelis can no longer claim much of a moral superiority may help move the peace process forward.

Please note- I am in no way denying the culpability of the Palestinians here either. But polls can often be distorted depending on how the questions are asked. Perhaps a better question would be- Which would be preferable- the status quo, or a state where Palestinians have equal rights as Israelis, but must disarm.

Fargle- this history of Germany was that prior to Hitler, Germany was the least anti Semitic nation in Europe, and possibly the world. A depression changed that quickly. We in the US may be looking at a depression- and couple this with the Republican's courting of the fundamentalist Christians- could be trouble. On the flip side, younger fundamentalist Christians have very similar concerns as young liberals, i.e. Darfur, Somalia, the economy etc.


Sam

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:20:07 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Being in the military doesn't make you immune to fear.

Being in the military does not make you immune from prosecution for murder.
The whole purpose of a military is to have an armed and disciplined force.
Without discipline you have an armed mob.


I never said it did. Not once, nowhere, nor implied it.

Do you have another point you'd like to address out of context?




_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:21:42 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Clancy wrote a book a while back wherein the solution to the issue of Jerusalem was something akin to an open city with security provided by the Swiss ala Vatican city....all backed by an American mobile division.In the book iirc the idea was Isreal's security was insured by the presence of the American cavalry division,a trip wire if you want....and the impartiality of the Swiss guard was respected by all parties.
Remove Jerusalem from the equation...and the issue become the right of return,which is possible to resolve thru compensation, and the West Bank....
Israel's security is guaranteed by the presence of American troops,Jerusalem is an open city( given the claim three of the worlds major religions can make to sites there ,this is as it should be ) this leaves borders to be negotiated....a not insurmountable task.

The trick is the administration of the city would have to be through the UN Security Council. Israel knows better than to trust the General Assambly.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:24:15 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		Understand this clearly. The Israeli Government will not partition Jerusalem. They want the whole thing. Period. Everything else is just talk.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:26:10 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

So now answer the question was the Mavi Marmara in the hands of her crew or had the ship's passengers taken control of the ship?


DK, I'll be happy to answer your question after you've given a serious answer to mine, posted prior to yours. After all if you're going to ignore my questions, you're not in a position to demand that I answer yours are you?

My initial questions to you, in post # 110 were:
"Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? "

I'm looking forward to hearing your answers (serious answers please), and then responding to your question.

Whether the killing was legal or not is entirely dependent on the question you are refusing to answer. So was the crew telling the truth or not?


Excuse me DK I asked for a serious answer. A person has been shot in the back 5 times. The people who shot him claim they were acting in self defence. That excuse might be tenable if dead person shot in the back once (though even that would be a bit tenuous IMHO). But 5 times .... ?

Credulity is further strained by the fact that the dead person was a civilian and the people who shot him were highly trained and experienced soldiers. We know the dead person had no firearms, though it is possible he may have had a knife or iron bar or something along those lines.

Personally I don't find it easy to imagine an un(fire)armed person being a threat to anyone else if they have been shot once. Nor do I see how whether the surrounding circumstances are relevant. Everyone has a legal right to self defence at all times. The question is: was this self defence?

So the questions remain unanswered:
"Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? "

How would you feel if someone exercised their right to self defence on you, or someone close to you in this manner?

I'll take your non answer as an admission that the ship was under the control of pirates. In such a situation killing all the pirates is completely legal and could be called self defence if the boarders encountered violence during the securing of the ship.

BTW you keep making a big deal out of the nationality of the dead man. You need to examine your own prejudices and figure out why you think that fact makes any difference in this matter.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:40:15 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
The history that is now relevant is not which side did what to whom when, but rather that both sides have bloody hands and its time to approach the conference table as equals. Perhaps, and I'll be the first to admit this is unlikely, the fact that the Israelis can no longer claim much of a moral superiority may help move the peace process forward.

Please note- I am in no way denying the culpability of the Palestinians here either. But polls can often be distorted depending on how the questions are asked. Perhaps a better question would be- Which would be preferable- the status quo, or a state where Palestinians have equal rights as Israelis, but must disarm.

Hi Sam, the poll was done by well known democrat strategist Stanley Greenberg and the results were actually protrayed as supporting peace so if anything they had an agenda to show conditions were there to achieve peace which they are trying to encourgae. I wouldn't suggest that Israel is whiter than white but "no" has been the usual response of the Palestinians. At Camp David Arafat was agreeable to most of the concessions Israel made but walked out over the Haram/Temple Mount joint sovereignty issue which would have protected Israeli rights to access the Wall. Abbas also walked away from the deal Olmert made, which contrary to claims made in the Palestine papers controversy, was more generous by giving over around 96% of the territory http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744 demanded with modest land swaps. As far as I can see the UN statehood bid will destroy any prospect for peace by not addressing any Israeli concerns. I hope I am wrong about peace but..

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/22/2011 7:45:28 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Olmert just wrote a fascinating piece in the NY Times....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/Olmert-peace-now-or-never.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp

Netanyahoo may have overplayed his hand with Congress. The Republicans do not have a lot of global support and in a funny way, the US is fracturing- with Obama effectively siding with France against the Republicans.


Sam

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109