A new US mid-east policy may emerge.

[EagleKeeper]

The proposed proposal also leaves out how they are going to handle the troublemakers.

Having Saudi Arabia acknowledge Israel is one thing. Cutting off the aid to trouble makers is another. Some of that aid comes also from Syria and Iran. We can see what influence the US has on Iran.

Up to now, Israel has always given up something first in return for promises unfulfilled. Will she be expected to do the same; or will the Palestinians/Arabs be required to take the first step this time?

 

[EagleKeeper]

ElFenix, may miss the point, since perfect justice is not possible, neither side may not like the outcome, but at least there is a final peace deal that both sides can like or lump. Lump becomes a rinse & repeat

This is where the being considered Obama plan is different than past failed peace efforts, and if the larger world diplomatic community gets behind the such a possible Obama plan, its going to be very difficult for either Israel or the Palestinians to refuse submitting to binding third party arbitration.

After all, the UN that created the Israeli state in 1948, can UN create it equally as rapidly. When has a country ever been dissolved by a world body? Would they go back to pre '48 and start all over again. That option did not work the first time; why would it work the second. The participants are not going to kiss and make up - do overs do not work in the real
I would fully expect that a nutty Netanyuhu government would fall, but faced with possible UN economic sanctions against Israel, there are enough very rational politicians to form a new Israeli government.

And with an entire world and diplomatic community behind Israel's right to exist inside smaller borders, and with all Arab and Palestinian grievances finally settled, there would no longer be any expansionist military options for either side to pursue, and all sides can concentrate on peace time economic expansion of their respective States. The grievances may be settled on paper, but not in the real world. Those grievances / hatred still exist outside the borders of Palestine. They will have to be controlled by the world - is the world able/willing to do so. Up to this point, the UN has shown the answer is now.

But no one can sat that such a third party binding arbitration would be perfect, but it will very likely be much much better than the current alternative. And the big losers will be crazy settler parties in Israel and Arab financed mid east anti-Israeli terrorists. How will the latter be impacted in any way? It is Israel that they want to hate/destroy. The Pals are a means to an end. Unless the Pals are willing to denounce and eradicate the anti-Israel terrorists, Israel will still be unsafe. Look at the stunts that Hamas pulled during/after their "truce".

As for any Israeli military options to resist, its absolutely crazy to think the vaunted Israeli military could stand up to the combined military might of the world's other armed forces. If nothing else, a world economic embargo of Israel would swiftly suffice. Any embargo against Israel will also have the result of doing worse to the Palestinians. Israel ships goods to Gaza. An embargo will stop those goods. Israel will have less, the Pals will have none. Is the UN going to deliver goods by boat with armed guards into Gaza and by truck into the West Bank.

comments in bold

 

[Lemon law]

Common Courtesy states the pro-Israeli standard revisionist history answer with, "Up to now, Israel has always given up something first in return for promises unfulfilled. Will she be expected to do the same; or will the Palestinians/Arabs be required to take the first step this time? "

But its time to ask, what exactly has Israel ever given up? Other than the can't grow a weed Sinai desert they never owned, and Gaza which is nothing but a glorified concentration camp they tossed the Palestinians into after they stole their lands, thus creating the right to return issue, we can ask, what has Israel ever given back? The short answer of what Israel has given back as far as I can see, is NOTHING.

But as a challenge to Common Courtesy, or anyone else, that question of what Israel has ever given back, should be put on the table.

As for the troublemakers on both sides, they may not just go away, but it will take away any possible motivations that there trouble making can gain them anything. And at such points in world history, the trouble making may not instantly stop, but we get a sharp reduction over time. Nor should we assume the trouble making will all come from the Palestinian side, there will also be likely to be large problems from extremist Israeli settler parties who already have a rich history of murder and arson.

 

[piasabird]

Show me the money. The USA will never solve the problems in the Middle East. Every president has tried to come up with a better plan. This is much todo about nothing.

 

[Lemon law]

There is much Common Courtesy has said in his previous post that are huge distortions, but perhaps the easiest to challenge is the following. "Any embargo against Israel will also have the result of doing worse to the Palestinians. Israel ships goods to Gaza. An embargo will stop those goods. Israel will have less, the Pals will have none. Is the UN going to deliver goods by boat with armed guards into Gaza and by truck into the West Bank."

I would remind everyone , Gaza as a glorified Israel concentration camp is now controlled and already on starvation rations from Israel, while Israel collect Gaza taxes it then with holds. But Egypt shares a common border with Gaza, would likely be more than happy to allow international aid shipments into Gaza. Likewise, Jordon would likely be more than happy to open up its West Bank border to allow in aid to the West Bank. Short answer, allowing Israel to control the aid to the West Bank or Gaza has been a huge disaster and never should have been permitted. But its a failed relic of the 1967 war and past policy. With a long history of Israel abusing
that advantage.

As for Hamas violating its truce with Israel, which then caused the latest Israel invasion of Gaza, there are many valid counterclaims that it was indeed Israel who violated the truce first.

 

[Lemon law]

Show me the money. The USA will never solve the problems in the Middle East. Every president has tried to come up with a better plan. This is much todo about nothing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only money to be shown is the huge one sided US economic aid Israel has received in the past. Short conclusion, that one sided US Israeli aid has been counterproductive to the peace process.

And every past US President has had their "better " plan fail, because of the failed assumption that the Palestinians and Israels would ever agree.

Removing that failed assumption of common agreement may well be a plan that will finally work.

 

[ElFenix]

ElFenix, may miss the point, since perfect justice is not possible, neither side may like the outcome, but at least there is a final peace deal that both sides can like or lump.

if neither side is satisfied the only way we're going to get them to agree with us is using some big carrots. and i doubt either will be satisfied with any american proposal. and obama only gets one shot at this, i think.

And every past US President has had their "better " plan fail, because of the failed assumption that the Palestinians and Israels would ever agree.

Removing that failed assumption of common agreement may well be a plan that will finally work.

wat

 

[EagleKeeper]

Common Courtesy states the pro-Israeli standard revisionist history answer with, "Up to now, Israel has always given up something first in return for promises unfulfilled. Will she be expected to do the same; or will the Palestinians/Arabs be required to take the first step this time? "

But its time to ask, what exactly has Israel ever given up? Other than the can't grow a weed Sinai desert they never owned, and Gaza which is nothing but a glorified concentration camp they tossed the Palestinians into after they stole their lands, thus creating the right to return issue, we can ask, what has Israel ever given back? The short answer of what Israel has given back as far as I can see, is NOTHING.

But as a challenge to Common Courtesy, or anyone else, that question of what Israel has ever given back, should be put on the table.

As for the troublemakers on both sides, they may not just go away, but it will take away any possible motivations that there trouble making can gain them anything. And at such points in world history, the trouble making may not instantly stop, but we get a sharp reduction over time. Nor should we assume the trouble making will all come from the Palestinian side, there will also be likely to be large problems from extremist Israeli settler parties who already have a rich history of murder and arson.

Response to question posed in bold within the quote

But as a challenge to Common Courtesy, or anyone else, that question of what Israel has ever given back, should be put on the table.

Israel controlled the West Bank after the '67 war.
Since then, they have returned most of it to control/governing of the Palestinians.

Israel controlled Gaza. In return for removing any settlements in Gaza; they were supposed to have peace from Gaza. What did they get; more attacks either controlled/blessed by Hamas who is governing Gaza.

 

[EagleKeeper]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only money to be shown is the huge one sided US economic aid Israel has received in the past. Short conclusion, that one sided US Israeli aid has been counterproductive to the peace process.

And every past US President has had their "better " plan fail, because of the failed assumption that the Palestinians and Israels would ever agree.

Removing that failed assumption of common agreement may well be a plan that will finally work.

A I D :
The US has provided $$ into the Palestinian coffers.

The US aid has also been a counterweight to all the aid (military/monetary/supplies) that the Arab and other countries have provided to the Palestinians.
You like to bring up numbers; look at the numbers of Palestinian supporters compared to those that are supporting Israel.

And every past US President has had their "better " plan fail, because of the failed assumption that the Palestinians and Israels would ever agree.

Removing that failed assumption of common agreement may well be a plan that will finally work

If the assumption is then that they will not agree, what would you do; lock the leaders in a room until they make nice. that was tried and the agreements were not worth the piece of paper they were writtne on. The result was a political grandstand for the US and snickers from the other participants.
That was tried

 

[EagleKeeper]

There is much Common Courtesy has said in his previous post that are huge distortions, but perhaps the easiest to challenge is the following. "Any embargo against Israel will also have the result of doing worse to the Palestinians. Israel ships goods to Gaza. An embargo will stop those goods. Israel will have less, the Pals will have none. Is the UN going to deliver goods by boat with armed guards into Gaza and by truck into the West Bank."

I would remind everyone , Gaza as a glorified Israel concentration camp is now controlled and already on starvation rations from Israel, while Israel collect Gaza taxes it then with holds. But Egypt shares a common border with Gaza, would likely be more than happy to allow international aid shipments into Gaza. Likewise, Jordon would likely be more than happy to open up its West Bank border to allow in aid to the West Bank. Short answer, allowing Israel to control the aid to the West Bank or Gaza has been a huge disaster and never should have been permitted. But its a failed relic of the 1967 war and past policy. With a long history of Israel abusing
that advantage.

As for Hamas violating its truce with Israel, which then caused the latest Israel invasion of Gaza, there are many valid counterclaims that it was indeed Israel who violated the truce first.

Question:
Presently Egypt has their border locked down - why are they not opening it up for the Palestinians to flow freely and allow shipments of supplies.

Answer
Possibly because the border is with Israel, not the Palestinians.
Also, Egypt does not want the Palestinians - that has been demonstrated previously and their actions still show it. They have received aid as requested as a result of making nice with Israel and have never offered to accept the Palestinians and/or be allowed to provide supplies to Gaza. This is when there are no tensions. An embargo would ratchet up tensions - what would it benefit Egypt benefit? Supplies in the amount that would make a difference can be easily tracked and intercepted.

Question:
What does Jordan have to gain by allowing embargo supplies through their territory? Israel already does not stop trade between Jordan and the Palestinians.

Answer:
Jordan has not desire to get involved with the Palestinian issue. Jordan does not want them back and is happy to let Israel have the problem.

The Palestinians wore out their welcome once.
Jordan showed a willingness to wash their hands of them by ceding the West Bank to Israel. That demonstrated the headache/hassle that the Palestinians are to Jordan. Jordan does not want anything to do with the issue - they do not even provide lip service.


Question:
How are supplies going to get to the Palestinians while Israel is under an embargo?

Answer:
Only by going through Israeli controlled territory.
Israeli enemies are lined up against her and again the UN is siding with them trying to get Israel to place nice.

Israel will raise a finger to the UN. Money speaks louder than politics.

As for Hamas violating its truce with Israel, which then caused the latest Israel invasion of Gaza, there are many valid counterclaims that it was indeed Israel who violated the truce first

Israel was attacked from Gaza within hours after the truce.

Hamas stated after the first incident that they were not going to stop anyone from attack Israel.

Whether Hamas set it up or not, the truce was broken by the Palestinians.
People that support Hamas will state that Hamas did not do it.
Blindly accepting the fact that Hamas had no problems with it being done by someone else. Hamas runs Gaza - they had to take responsibility.

These are the same people that feel that Israel should sit back and take anything that is thrown at it.

If civilian from Israel started shooting at a Palestinian, they hold Israel as a state responsibile.

Seems like the normal double standard.

 

[Lemon law]

Now Common Courtesy comes up with another somewhat myth, by saying, "The US has provided $$ into the Palestinian coffers.

The US aid has also been a counterweight to all the aid (military/monetary/supplies) that the Arab and other countries have provided to the Palestinians.
You like to bring up numbers; look at the numbers of Palestinian supporters compared to those that are supporting Israel."

But in terms of aid to the Palestinians, its dwarfed by the Saudi pledge of 7 billion. And none of it can arrive while Israel prevents the aid from arriving to Gaza.

As for the numbers of Palestinian v Israeli supporters, you may have a point in the USA because of very effective Pro-Israeli press and political lobby, far less of a point in the larger world, and no point at all in the Arab world where you would have to look under the bellies of snakes to find anyone not 100% anti-Israeli. The Arabs may not go to bat for the Palestinians military, some of the Arab hate is simple anti-sematism, but a larger part of the anti-Israeli hate has been earned by Israel.

As for your earlier not very valid point on what Israel has given back, namely "Israel controlled the West Bank after the '67 war.
Since then, they have returned most of it to control/governing of the Palestinians.

Israel controlled Gaza. In return for removing any settlements in Gaza; they were supposed to have peace from Gaza. What did they get; more attacks either controlled/blessed by Hamas who is governing Gaza."

It not that valid, until very recently, Israel was still settling in the West bank, and that was only stopped by international pressure. Israel still control water rights in the West bank so Palestinians can't dig their own wells, and Abbas, the nominal leader of the West Bank has almost zero authority and is barely on speaking terms with Israel who also controls all West bank taxing and funding.

As for Gaza, its far far worse, as Israel is actively starving Gaza funding while being in defacto control of Gaza still.

In short, Common Courtesy, that hardly meets anyone's definition of giving anything back.

But IMHO, Common Courtesy shows a complete misunderstanding of what binding third party arbitration would be by saying, "If the assumption is then that they will not agree, what would you do; lock the leaders in a room until they make nice. that was tried and the agreements were not worth the piece of paper they were writtne on. The result was a political grandstand for the US and snickers from the other participants.
That was tried "

Which is exactly the wrong song, in the binding arbitration, no Israelis or Palestinians would be locked in rooms until they agreed, but rather a groups of impartial judges would study the relative merits of all sides from 1948 until today, try to achieve a fair apportionment of Israel, and that would be the final settlement division with no appeal.

In much the same way two competing sides waited for a civil court settlement in a court of law. They can wait where they want to while the judges ponder, the decision is now out of their control, the basic reward for failing to come to a satisfactory mutual agreement.

 

[werepossum]

Common Courtesy states the pro-Israeli standard revisionist history answer with, "Up to now, Israel has always given up something first in return for promises unfulfilled. Will she be expected to do the same; or will the Palestinians/Arabs be required to take the first step this time? "

But its time to ask, what exactly has Israel ever given up? Other than the can't grow a weed Sinai desert they never owned, and Gaza which is nothing but a glorified concentration camp they tossed the Palestinians into after they stole their lands, thus creating the right to return issue, we can ask, what has Israel ever given back? The short answer of what Israel has given back as far as I can see, is NOTHING.

But as a challenge to Common Courtesy, or anyone else, that question of what Israel has ever given back, should be put on the table.

As for the troublemakers on both sides, they may not just go away, but it will take away any possible motivations that there trouble making can gain them anything. And at such points in world history, the trouble making may not instantly stop, but we get a sharp reduction over time. Nor should we assume the trouble making will all come from the Palestinian side, there will also be likely to be large problems from extremist Israeli settler parties who already have a rich history of murder and arson.

Now Common Courtesy comes up with another somewhat myth, by saying, "The US has provided $$ into the Palestinian coffers.

The US aid has also been a counterweight to all the aid (military/monetary/supplies) that the Arab and other countries have provided to the Palestinians.
You like to bring up numbers; look at the numbers of Palestinian supporters compared to those that are supporting Israel."

But in terms of aid to the Palestinians, its dwarfed by the Saudi pledge of 7 billion. And none of it can arrive while Israel prevents the aid from arriving to Gaza.

As for the numbers of Palestinian v Israeli supporters, you may have a point in the USA because of very effective Pro-Israeli press and political lobby, far less of a point in the larger world, and no point at all in the Arab world where you would have to look under the bellies of snakes to find anyone not 100% anti-Israeli. The Arabs may not go to bat for the Palestinians military, some of the Arab hate is simple anti-sematism, but a larger part of the anti-Israeli hate has been earned by Israel.

As for your earlier not very valid point on what Israel has given back, namely "Israel controlled the West Bank after the '67 war.
Since then, they have returned most of it to control/governing of the Palestinians.

Israel controlled Gaza. In return for removing any settlements in Gaza; they were supposed to have peace from Gaza. What did they get; more attacks either controlled/blessed by Hamas who is governing Gaza."

It not that valid, until very recently, Israel was still settling in the West bank, and that was only stopped by international pressure. Israel still control water rights in the West bank so Palestinians can't dig their own wells, and Abbas, the nominal leader of the West Bank has almost zero authority and is barely on speaking terms with Israel who also controls all West bank taxing and funding.

As for Gaza, its far far worse, as Israel is actively starving Gaza funding while being in defacto control of Gaza still.

In short, Common Courtesy, that hardly meets anyone's definition of giving anything back.

But IMHO, Common Courtesy shows a complete misunderstanding of what binding third party arbitration would be by saying, "If the assumption is then that they will not agree, what would you do; lock the leaders in a room until they make nice. that was tried and the agreements were not worth the piece of paper they were writtne on. The result was a political grandstand for the US and snickers from the other participants.
That was tried "

Which is exactly the wrong song, in the binding arbitration, no Israelis or Palestinians would be locked in rooms until they agreed, but rather a groups of impartial judges would study the relative merits of all sides from 1948 until today, try to achieve a fair apportionment of Israel, and that would be the final settlement division with no appeal.

In much the same way two competing sides waited for a civil court settlement in a court of law. They can wait where they want to while the judges ponder, the decision is now out of their control, the basic reward for failing to come to a satisfactory mutual agreement.

You list the things Israel has given back, then immediately once again claim that Israel has given "nothing" back. Then you accuse Common Courtesy of stating a "myth" that the US has given money to the Palestinians and immediately admit just that very thing. You should really stop quoting him, dude, it ain't helping your case. As far as Abbas goes, there's a simple rule for getting along with your neighbors: Don't fucking try to kill them!

Nothing new about this "new" Middle East policy, it's the same as Carter's: "Jew's are bad, m'kay?"

 

[Lemon law]

Werepossim kills his own case by saying, "As far as Abbas goes, there's a simple rule for getting along with your neighbors: Don't fucking try to kill them!"

But But But, the Fatah and Abbas tame dogs in the West Bank are now the good non-violent Palestinians and Hamas in Gaza are the bad Palestinians.

Exactly where has Abbas policy gotten Fatah in terms of a Palestinian State, short answer no where except to starve slower. Do you really think Fatah can stay in power by being roll over and play dead dogs?

Sooner of later Israel must give back all lands illegitimately captured during the 1967&73 wars, and to date and without stop, Israel keeps settling on those lands. Regardless of what Palestinians do.

I can somewhat understand a totally Pro-Israeli person being happy with such an outcome, but it will never lead to a just mid-east peace.

But those who are rational inside of Israel realize delaying tactic do not favor Israel, the Arab and Palestinian birthrates well exceed Jewish birthrates. And unlike Catholic or Muslims religions, Judaism is not an evangelistic religion seeking new members, because Judaism requires the hereditary Jewish material parent to qualify for membership as a valid Jew.

And if Israel does not permit a just and viable Palestinian State, the only other long term alternative will be to assimilate Jews, Arabs, and Palestinians with full voting rights into a single State. Which would put Israeli Jews as a distinct voting minority within Israel itself.

 

[Noobtastic]

I would remind everyone , Gaza as a glorified Israel concentration camp is now controlled and already on starvation rations from Israel, while Israel collect Gaza taxes it then with holds.

I always knew you were an antisemite. Gaza is far from a "concentration camp." Though many far-left Israel-haters try to portray the Palestinians as the new Jews, and Israel as Nazis.

Gaza is independent of ISrael, and Israel has zero control over its people or government. Israel has zero legal or moral obligations over Gaza.

Also, Israel does not collect Gaza taxes. Hamas does.

Gazans give zero dollars to the Israeli government.

Israel is the enemy, troll. Hamas has kidnapped and Israeli soldier. Hamas shoots rockets and mortars into Israel. 2 soldiers were killed last week in an ambush from Hamas. Just today Egypt found a massive stockpile of weapons headed for Gaza.

Egypt found a massive explosive on their border.

You have no credibility when you claim Israel has some absurd responsibility over Gaza, but Egypt too implements similar policies accept they don't let thousands of Palestinians to enter their state to use hospitals. Why is Israel expected to subsidize Gaza (it does anyways) but not Egypt?

Dear god, Palestinians shoot at Israeli soldiers escorted foodstuffs into Gaza. Palestinians shoot at oil depots and aid stations developed JUST FOR THEM, and forces Israel to close them down for a week.

How is this a fucking concentration camp? Palestinians are being governed by terrorists.

That's a gross distortion of Israel's far, far greater and more extensive movement of humanitarian supplies into Gaza. And these supplies didn't just start ''NOW." They've been occurring since Hamas violently took control of Gaza back in 2007. In just one week last month, Israel supplied Gaza with 12,000 tons of wheat, flour, meat, chickens, fish, vegetables, animal feed and medical supplies, plus 1 million liters of diesel fuel and 837 tons of cooking gas. And 483 Gaza medical patients and their escorts passed through what Zacharia describes as the "all but empty" Erez crossing for special treatment in Israeli hospitals.

In 2009, Israel sent 620,000 tons of humanitarian supplies into Gaza and opened its border crossing to more than 10,000 Gazans for medical treatment in Gaza.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/wapo_exculpates_hamas_in_terro.html

Want to compare how Israel treats their enemies with how WE treat our enemies?

Afghanistan and Iraq are a concentration camp. Gazans have a higher life expectancy than the vast majority of the Arab world (74), including Egypt and Jordan.

Israel's "blockade" is simply consists of a closed border. This is not illegal. Israel has every right to shut down its border with Gaza when it is an enemy state bent on destroying it.

LEMON LAW, retract this statement right now or forever be considered an antisemitic ahole.

Tell me lemon law, were their fatties, candy, hospitals, terrorist groups, RPGs, and extreme high standard of living in concentration camps?

Israel treats its enemies like no other. Better then we ever have. We as Americans have no reason to point the finger at Israel when we bomb our enemies to death.

But Egypt shares a common border with Gaza, would likely be more than happy to allow international aid shipments into Gaza.

WRONG.

Egypt shut down its border permanently when Hamas was elected. They only opened the Rafah crossing twice a day, but when 2 Egyptian soldiers were killed they closed it down permanently.

So no, Egypt doesn't give a fuck about Gaza. Arab world donates less than 2% of Palestinian aid. Israel gives more. Asshole.

Likewise, Jordon would likely be more than happy to open up its West Bank border to allow in aid to the West Bank. Short answer, allowing Israel to control the aid to the West Bank or Gaza has been a huge disaster and never should have been permitted. But its a failed relic of the 1967 war and past policy. With a long history of Israel abusing
that advantage.

Wrong. Jordan doesn't give a shit about the West Bank. Even though most Palestinians living in the WB are citizens of Jordan - they have less rights than other citizens. And Jordan has stripped over 20,000 Palestinians of their citizen on behalf of the PLO for fear they might be "resettled."

When Jordan controlled the WB, malaria was endemic, Palestinians could not go to university (Jordan forbid it for fear of promoting activism), and they had a life expectancy of 40.

When Israel showed up in 1967, she tried to move PALESTINIANS OUT OF THEIR REFUGEE CAMPS, built universities, built hospitals, allowed them to apply for citizen in Israel and work in Israel, and now the Palestinians in the WB have a life expectancy of 75 and are better educated than most Arab states.

Saudi literacy rate is 80%, Palestinians are nearly 100%.

And if you didn't know, Palestinians are trying to KILLL ISRAELIS!

Here is Israel, literally bending over backwards to take care of its enemies, and yet you still condemn?

HOW DO WE TREAT OUR ENEMIES LEMON LAW!

We fucking murder them. We kill millions. We have made over 2 million homeless in Afghanistan.

We should spend less time attacking Israel and more time subsidizing our enemies.

We are Nazis compared to Israel. We shit on our enemies Lemon Law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What happens when Israel and the Palestinians say "no"?

Harsh language? Another Afghanistan?

All the parties have to do is refuse to cooperate. Any invasion force will be repelled, and the world isn't unified as to a course of action.

There isn't a solution without the cooperation of both parties, and the purpose of the "peace process" was never for peace, but to have a process whereby active hostilities are diminished. It's harder shooting when people are talking. Others have long known this.

You will never force a peace unless you decide you want to invade. Good luck with that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

...
But IMHO, Common Courtesy shows a complete misunderstanding of what binding third party arbitration would be by saying, "If the assumption is then that they will not agree, what would you do; lock the leaders in a room until they make nice. that was tried and the agreements were not worth the piece of paper they were writtne on. The result was a political grandstand for the US and snickers from the other participants.
That was tried "
----------------
TONGUE IN CHEEK ABOUT LOCKING THE POEPLE IN A ROOM


Which is exactly the wrong song, in the binding arbitration, no Israelis or Palestinians would be locked in rooms until they agreed, but rather a groups of impartial judges would study the relative merits of all sides from 1948 until today, try to achieve a fair apportionment of Israel, and that would be the final settlement division with no appeal.

In much the same way two competing sides waited for a civil court settlement in a court of law. They can wait where they want to while the judges ponder, the decision is now out of their control, the basic reward for failing to come to a satisfactory mutual agreement.

With binding arbitration, people have to agree to it. ie. they feel that the arbitrator will be in their favor or be at least neutral.

Given the way the UN has acted toward Israel, is there any chance that there will be a fair 3rd party from with the UN community (administration) that Israel will agree to?

At present, the Palestinians do not have a single voice and are suceptable to outside influences that will not tolerate any type of comprimise

 

[EagleKeeper]

...


Sooner of later Israel must give back all lands illegitimately captured during the 1967&73 wars, and to date and without stop, Israel keeps settling on those lands. Regardless of what Palestinians do.

How are those lands illegitimately captured. Any land was taken in battle from the enemy. Any land that they control was part of the original Palestine. Land that they returned to other Arab nations in a guesture of peace. Every Arab nation that has accepted the land back has not had any conflict with Israel since the land swap for peace was initiated.

I can somewhat understand a totally Pro-Israeli person being happy with such an outcome, but it will never lead to a just mid-east peace.

But those who are rational inside of Israel realize delaying tactic do not favor Israel, the Arab and Palestinian birthrates well exceed Jewish birthrates. And unlike Catholic or Muslims religions, Judaism is not an evangelistic religion seeking new members, because Judaism requires the hereditary Jewish material parent to qualify for membership as a valid Jew.

And if Israel does not permit a just and viable Palestinian State, the only other long term alternative will be to assimilate Jews, Arabs, and Palestinians with full voting rights into a single State. Which would put Israeli Jews as a distinct voting minority within Israel itself.

The Palestinians up to this point do not want a viable Jewish state. What are they willing to give up in arbitration?

Again you use the word just - but under who's definition.
Israel, Arab or negotiated with unhappy people on both sides.
And Isreal also has the option of completely denying a Palestinian state.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe another Common Courtesy myth in, "At present, the Palestinians do not have a single voice and are suceptable to outside influences that will not tolerate any type of compriise"

Israel is also skating on very thin ice regarding their recent rape of Lebanon and Gaza.

I think the larger world now wants a just and fair mid-east settlement, and right now its a Netanyuhu government that has greatly overestimated their position.

If Obama withdraws support of continual Israeli settlement, Israel is going to be in a very tenuous position. And in terms of advancing US national interests, Israel is now a US net liability.

So we can somewhat look at a short term and long term future US foreign policy. If Obama fails to keep using the UN veto in the security council to bail Israel out, Israel is in deep and immediate problems. But if the Obama policy does not lead to a just Mid-East peace, will a future US president revert to previous policy or follow the Obama lead? Not an easy question to answer.

But as long as I am speculating, assuming Obama is now committed to a binding third party arbitration policy, how would he sell it to the larger world eager to have a just peace in the mid-east and thus have more world certainty? And for that matter, how would he sell it to an American public that is perhaps the most pro-Israeli on earth?

I submit a smart politician would sell the plan to most of his allies, and then let the world community take much of the lead. And then all Obama would have to do, is to forget to veto the world consensus in the UN security council.

Its been a whole three days or so since I posted, as OP on this thread, the NYT article that also speculates.

But three days is far far far too soon to make any predictions, and the current Washington and Israeli silence is somewhat deafening.

The other thing to point out is that Netanyuhu and his coalition of crazed settler parties holds a bare voting majority within Israel. By in large, the original Israeli Jews of European descent, understand democratic traditions, are far more rational and understand fairness and a just peace, and hence do not support Netanyuhu politics, but its largely imported Russian and Arab Jews who understand nothing of democracy that slightly tip the balance toward Netanyuhu. Because the former group are the brains and muscle of Israel, we may not find a larger Israel all that opposed to a just settlement.

 

[Noobtastic]

Maybe another Common Courtesy myth in, "At present, the Palestinians do not have a single voice and are suceptable to outside influences that will not tolerate any type of compriise"

Israel is also skating on very thin ice regarding their recent rape of Lebanon and Gaza.

I think the larger world now wants a just and fair mid-east settlement, and right now its a Netanyuhu government that has greatly overestimated their position.

If Obama withdraws support of continual Israeli settlement, Israel is going to be in a very tenuous position. And in terms of advancing US national interests, Israel is now a US net liability.

So we can somewhat look at a short term and long term future US foreign policy. If Obama fails to keep using the UN veto in the security council to bail Israel out, Israel is in deep and immediate problems. But if the Obama policy does not lead to a just Mid-East peace, will a future US president revert to previous policy or follow the Obama lead? Not an easy question to answer.

But as long as I am speculating, assuming Obama is now committed to a binding third party arbitration policy, how would he sell it to the larger world eager to have a just peace in the mid-east and thus have more world certainty? And for that matter, how would he sell it to an American public that is perhaps the most pro-Israeli on earth?

I submit a smart politician would sell the plan to most of his allies, and then let the world community take much of the lead. And then all Obama would have to do, is to forget to veto the world consensus in the UN security council.

Its been a whole three days or so since I posted, as OP on this thread, the NYT article that also speculates.

But three days is far far far too soon to make any predictions, and the current Washington and Israeli silence is somewhat deafening.

The other thing to point out is that Netanyuhu and his coalition of crazed settler parties holds a bare voting majority within Israel. By in large, the original Israeli Jews of European descent, understand democratic traditions, are far more rational and understand fairness and a just peace, and hence do not support Netanyuhu politics, but its largely imported Russian and Arab Jews who understand nothing of democracy that slightly tip the balance toward Netanyuhu. Because the former group are the brains and muscle of Israel, we may not find a larger Israel all that opposed to a just settlement.

Respond troll:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29653130&postcount=39

If you're going to make absurd statements PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.

As long as the Palestinian leadership has enablers like yourself, promoting the victimhood fallacy and encouraging rejectionism, while not expecting the Palestinians to behave like human beings - there will never, ever be peace.

Just cease-fire, war, cease-fire, war.

Sooner or later Israel will decide to deny the Palestinians a state and cease honoring agreements signed in the last 20 years (most have expired anyways, but israel continues to honor most stipulations).

Israel has a right to live in peace, Palestinians don't have a right to murder Israeli citizens and spoon-feed children antisemitism.

 

[woolfe9999]

I often don't agree with IHV, but I too am curious if Lemon Law can defend his comparison of Gaza to a concentration camp. I personally find the comparison afactual and morally offensive, but as with any assertion, I am open to persuasion.

- wolf

 

[Noobtastic]

I often don't agree with IHV, but I too am curious if Lemon Law can defend his comparison of Gaza to a concentration camp. I personally find the comparison afactual and morally offensive, but as with any assertion, I am open to persuasion.

- wolf

Gazans have a life expectancy of 75 and one of the highest birthrates in the world.

claiming gaza is a concentration camp is not only morally offensive, but simply cannot be spun in any way.

It certainly demonstrates Law's lack of moral credibility, when many nations truly do resemble a concentration camp - such as the millions living in IDP camps in Sudan, victims to Arab genocide, sponsored by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and protected by the Arab League.

Or the impoverished minorities in egypt, where 40% of the population lives on less than 2 dollars a day.

Ask yourself lemon law, why are black muslim sudanese fleeing to apartheid racist israel? why are they getting shop up by peace-loving egyptian border guards for daring to leave their prisons in sudan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTcwqhgOGEI&feature=related

I've seen the protests personally. Black muslim dinkas waving Israel flags.

Meanwhile, wealthy muslim arab oil states spend their money exporting terror, sponsoring genocides, and buying out british and american universities to shield their crimes and use israel as a lightening rod.

Shame shame shame Lemon Law that you single out Israel and accuse it of Nazism, when in reality its enemies are Nazis and have zero respect for human life.

Egypt is an extremely racist country. Palestinians are avid consumers of antisemitism.

Yet the LEFT does not CARE. Pallies hijack the UN and are the chosen people, while millions are murdered by the peaceful Arab tribes.

Don't expect USA to put pressure on Egypt to alleviate and help the refugees living in concentration camps. Don't expect the UN to punish peacekeepers for raping refugees.

Ohhh no...Gaza is most important. Fuck everyone else.

 

[rchiu]

I can only post the following NYT times link, but to some extent its something I have long advocated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/middleeast/08prexy.html?ref=global-home

Finally a somewhat sensible plan, to end a long standing mid-east problem. And to finally find a mid-east peace that has eluded a long series of US Presidents dating back to Nixon and arguable before.

The somewhat radical change is the abandonment of the total fantasy current conventional wisdom myth that Israel, Palestinians, and Arabs will ever agree. I somewhat also question the idea that its wise or just for the peace price settlement being a requirement on Palestinians being required to abandon the right of return in favor of some compensation.

I can only conclude that its hardly a done deal and only something being considered by the Obama administration, but I think its a positive plan. If the Netanyuhu government falls as a result, it will be another positive development.

But if it leads to a lasting mid-east peace, maybe Obama will finally deserve that Nobel Peace Prize.

Not sure if we are reading the article, but I absolutely don't see a plan from Obama admin at this moment. All the article said was the two side will talk....yeah....sure that's what they have been doing the past 20+ years.

From the article quote:

“He asked a lot of questions,” said one official at the meeting. “He didn’t say ‘great idea, bad idea.’ But he listened.”

Mr. Obama will have to consider suggesting a solution to get the two sides moving. Such a move is “absolutely not on the table right now,” a senior administration official said.

 

[JTsyo]

nm

 

[Lemon law]

There are two issues to comment on regarding the post IHV invited me to respond to best expressed in the final limes of, "Here is Israel, literally bending over backwards to take care of its enemies, and yet you still condemn?

HOW DO WE TREAT OUR ENEMIES LEMON LAW!

We fucking murder them. We kill millions. We have made over 2 million homeless in Afghanistan.

We should spend less time attacking Israel and more time subsidizing our enemies.

We are Nazis compared to Israel. We shit on our enemies Lemon Law.
__________________

The first error IHV makes is to assume that I in anyway approve of the Brainfarts of GWB, Cheney , and our prior piss poor leadership.

The second error IHV may or may not make is to assume our national has not paid and paid dearly for those errors in judgment as we won quagmires as a result. The cost we as a nation pay and continue to pay does not excuse our past national stupidity, but it does show that brutality and stupidity seldom pay off in the end.

The third error IHV makes as a total troll, is to rely on the deflection, and try to go totally off topic, and somehow imply that someones Else's injustice somehow justifies the injustice of the current topic. Get em clue, one given thread can only address one given set of injustices, and to address all past human injustices is a impossibly large subject.

The fourth subject we should address is Gaza itself, largely as a Israeli dumping grounds for Palestinians they stripped of all rights and property when they and their Israel neighbors
fled the violence of Arab and Israeli armies immediately following the formation of the State of Israel. History shows the Israeli side won and I think justly so, but when the Israeli civilian who fled was welcomed home and their Palestinian neighbor who also fled was instead stripped off all land and property, and instead shipped off to Gaza, we have the origin of the right to return that still drives the Palestinian questions today. But whoopie, Israel is not quite as horrible as the Nazi's, and instead consign Palestinians to a ghetto of no hope and opportunity, making them third class citizens in the land of their own birth. Short answer, we can't call that in any way humane, especially when some totally foreign Jew can immigrate to Israel and obtain first class rights by mere religious heritage while a Palestinian can never obtain that same first class citizenship. Which is not to say that some Palestinians were not total rascals by conduct, but to say all Palestinians are to be consigned to perpetual third class citizenship by birthright in Israel is something no just human being can endorse.

And now the Israeli tactics are slightly more subtle from those of Hitler, instead of simply sending SS men to kidnap and deport Jews, Israel now takes a higher road. Jews in East Jerusalem enjoy low property tax, while their next door Arab or Palestinian neighbor sees their property tax raised far past affordable levels, forcing them out.

But because Israel is somehow too sqeemish to simply murder all native Palestinians and Arabs, consigned them to conditions of concentrations camps with no opportunity is hardly more humane. In short we cannot build a just Israeli State at the total denial of the rights of other non Jewish inhabitants.

Israel, after its formation in 1948 could have granted equal rights to all Jewish and Palestinians original inhabitants, and sadly did not. And now knows no peace and never will until those mistakes are corrected. Israel can be shared to mutual benefit, but can never be pigged by any one group.

 

[Lemon law]

What happens when Israel and the Palestinians say "no"?

Harsh language? Another Afghanistan?

All the parties have to do is refuse to cooperate. Any invasion force will be repelled, and the world isn't unified as to a course of action.

There isn't a solution without the cooperation of both parties, and the purpose of the "peace process" was never for peace, but to have a process whereby active hostilities are diminished. It's harder shooting when people are talking. Others have long known this.

You will never force a peace unless you decide you want to invade. Good luck with that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hayabusa Rider delusion is that a UN army will be needed, and instead a world wide economic embargo against Israel is the likely effective course. The only country that has prevented that Israeli embargo has been the USA, and if the USA won't save Israel's butt with a UN Veto in the security council , what Country will? On the Palestinian side, they are more likely to take their chances with binding third party arbitration, rather than the shit deal Israel offers.

Maybe its time for you to peddle your delusions to the ex apartheid leaders of South Africa, they too lasted more than 62 years.