Palestine - US Double Standards or Cautious Diplomacy?

#1
After American pressure during the Palestinan troubles (Post Second World War) for the establishment of a Jewish state, is the threatened use of the US vetoe against state recognition, a wise move based on pragmatic diplomacy with a view to long term peace, or just pro Israeli US hypocrisy?
 
#3
After American pressure during the Palestinan troubles (Post Second World War) for the establishment of a Jewish state, is the threatened use of the US vetoe against state recognition, a wise move based on pragmatic diplomacy with a view to long term peace, or just pro Israeli US hypocrisy?
Really? it was a close thing that the USA recognized Israel in 48, since the State Department was all Arab friendly. where was that pressure from the USA? I was under the impression this all started with the British saying it could be a Jewish homeland back in the 1920's.

What are the "Palestinian" states Borders? or should we wait on that? Would the Palestinian State accept Israels right to exist, or as has been the case, run their suck with " drive the Israelis into the sea and take their women and farms" so typical of the Arab?

Palestinians lost in 48, the Israelis asked them to stay, their brother Arabs told them they could take the izzys stuff and womenfolk after the great arab army drove them into the med.

They chose unwisely .....


Too Bad


However lets say they get statehood and the rockets continue. Israel then has the right to declare war, and do as they see fit against attacks by a Nation. What are the chances the Palestinians will be intelligent enough to understand that they bit off more than they could chew?

1 in a 100,000?
 
#4
I think that actually we (the us) are actually right in this one. As much as I defend my country, I would admit that we do a lot of dumb stuff. This isn't one of them.

Palestinians are trying to force the issue with the UN instead of working with the people they have a dispute with. I don't think that overriding Israel in this case will result in more peace, I think it will result in more conflict. As much as it pains me to say, I think Barry-O is taking the right approach here.
 
#5
Where to begin. Beth- hal Homar. Might be a good starting point. The lone olive farmer sat in his enclave refusing to back down and sell up. I bet he feels like the little fella in the film 'Up'
I see it as a perception thing. I think people view' Palestine' as an abstract notion. Being Palestinian is like, to paraphrase Billy Joel, being in a 'New York State of mind'
The Israelis have the big psychological advantage of definable state borders, something tangible, that they feel at liberty to protect
to the death.
To get back to the point. Barack O'Bearmaigh (he's got Oirish roots t'be sure) seems to swing in the wind in a desperate effort to garner votes. Yeah, he's a hypocrite for sure.
 
#6
I've been itching to start a thread on this.

Can somebody in the know tell me where the damage is in giving the Palestinians their own state? Let's say they extended the borders to the pre-1960s line and became a state called 'Palestine'. Why would that be such a bad move?

I understand that there are Israelis living in the territory and I also understand that, hey, this country is Israel and Palestinians tend to support bad things such as terrorism. I can grasp that there are a lot of political difficulties. But it's not really that big a patch of land? Why can't we give the Palestinians what they want?

What's the point in preventing it and WHY do the US and UK choose to do so?
 
T

Tinman74

Guest
#7
I've been itching to start a thread on this.

Can somebody in the know tell me where the damage is in giving the Palestinians their own state? Let's say they extended the borders to the pre-1960s line and became a state called 'Palestine'. Why would that be such a bad move?

I understand that there are Israelis living in the territory and I also understand that, hey, this country is Israel and Palestinians tend to support bad things such as terrorism. I can grasp that there are a lot of political difficulties. But it's not really that big a patch of land? Why can't we give the Palestinians what they want?

What's the point in preventing it and WHY do the US and UK choose to do so?
Well what you say could happen and as Goldbricker states the usual suspects will start lobbing rockets over the border into Israel whats to stop them declaring war against them?
 
#8
The palestinians should have their own country consisting of the Gaza and the west Bank.

BUT

Whilst one of the main parties throws it's opposition colleagues off high buildings having kneecapped them first, when it sends the family of one of its victims that victims body cut into steaks and when it has the charter it has - that country cannot be allowed to be constituted.

Hamas needs to get a grip of its terrorists, change it's charter (as it promised to do) and get into meaningful peace talks with Israel alongside the PLO.
 
#9
is it not the case that the usual suspects are lobbing things over the border because they believe that they have no other option?
I may be wrong (and I usually am!) but was there not an agreement between all sides that, and here I reduce a very complex problem down to a few nuggets;
a, the Arab side acknowledged Israel's right to exist and was here to stay.
b, the Israeli side acknowledged that the Palastinians had a right to statehood also, and could live on the west bank and in Gaza.
c, both sides agreed to revert to the 1967(?) borders, and everyone would live happily ever after, but, almost immediately Israel reneged on the deal and has to date not moved everyone home.


If so, it would appear that the Israeli's have tried almost every solution to this problem except maybe the one they agreed to!

Now, I know the usual answers about returning the Golan heights would give unrestricted target practice to Palestinian rockets and so forth, but as we all know Israel took that area and others with little or no problems and as they still have the best armed forces in the region probably would have little trouble in retaking them should it be necessary to do so.

So what have they got to lose, at the moment they have almost everyone knocking them for their actions, the Arab world can keep calling them dealbreakers and baby killers etc, and they are on a continuous war footing.

If they actually put into practice that agreement then they would turn the spotlight on the palestinians and force those to step up and keep to their side of the deal, and if it all went tits up then its not their fault and its back to the status quo, but if it works........
 
#10
Rifleair

"a, the Arab side acknowledged Israel's right to exist and was here to stay."

One set (the PLO) did, but Hamas still has the destruction of Israel as part of its charter
and a string of Hamas leaders have vocalised this relatively recently.

"b, the Israeli side acknowledged that the Palastinians had a right to statehood also, and could live on the west bank and in Gaza."

It did, in the peace accords in France, with additionally offering arab areas of Jerusalem to be part of Palestine - including the Al Aksa?? mosque!! Arafat however (after agreeing verbally to the conclusions of the accords), went scuttling off to the french president (who had played no part in the accords) who then held a press conference with Arafat stood next to him and said that no agreement had been reached.

"c, both sides agreed to revert to the 1967(?) borders, and everyone would live happily ever after, but, almost immediately Israel reneged on the deal and has to date not moved everyone home."

It wasn't Baraks government who reneged but Arafat (although, to be strictly acccurate, he only agreed verbally)
 
#11
ok fair enough, I did say that I was often wrong, however, Arafat is dead and Hamas has said that it will recognise the 1967 border, and as such it maybe doesn't have to actually recognise Israel as long as they renounce violence.

And as Israel did agree to the borders thing maybe if they brought back all the settlers on the wrong side of the border, who knows?
 
#13
And this is exactly why the US is the most loved country in the world...
 
#14
And this is exactly why the US is the most loved country in the world...
Thanks for the insightful input. You always have a way of articulating your wisdom with such eloquence.
 
#15
And this is exactly why the US is the most loved country in the world...
Someones ring is burning, is it manlove thursday already?

Frankly we should let the pallys have a state. then when the sand people launch rockets again the Izzys can declare war on the Pally state and destroy it. Job done
 
#16
I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned, If Palastine is recognised as a state and they launch a rocket into Israel, Our Friends without foreskins under the hague convention of 1907 are allowed to open hostilise.
 
#17
GB. The consensus of the United States congress post war was pro Zionist and put pressure on Britain to allow 100,000 more Jewish immigrants above the 75,000 Britain had allotted visa's for pre war, with no regard for the feelings of the Arab population. The British government sought to put an end to the Immigration problem created by Zionists in Europe and the US, and tacitly supported by statements from Congress, by creating the Anglo-American Commitee of Inquiry in 1946. This concluded the American proposal to allow 100,000 extra Immigrants to enter the Mandate was viable if the US War Department accepted a British proposal for aid in combatting the Arab revolt, provoked by this increase in Immigrants. Whilst Truman supported the new Immigration figures the US declined to implement the other recommendations of the Commitee. Britain was now left to deal with the aftermath, struggling against both Arab and Zionist terrorists, as by the terms of the Anglo-American agreement for the Palestine Mandate, Britain could not withdraw unless the US ratified any withdrawl plan.

Following British withdrawl in 1948 and the declaration of indepence and the foundation of the State of Israel, by Ben - Gurion, it was immediately recognised by the US and the USSR, before any settlement had been agreed with the resident Arab population, the New state of Israel, and the UN.

So the reasons for not recognising the establishment of a Palestinian state now, should have been the same for not recognising the Israeli State in 1948, IMO.
 
#18
Why can't the West Bank be allowed to establish itself as an independent state of Palestine? Surely theres already a significant amount of co-operation between the PA in the West Bank and Israel that would allow them to deal with terrorist and public order incidents in a more constructive manner than declaring war as some on here fear would happen.
Hamas and Gaza should be excluded from any independent state until they renounce their desire to destroy Israel, but punishing the West Bank for the crimes of Gaza is just daft and short sighted. All Palestinians are not the same, in a similar manner to all Israelis not being Zionist warmongers. I'm still a firm believer that the best way to beat Hamas is to undermine its support which you do by showing them that the grass is greener on the other side.
 
#19
On TNI Palestinians Declare Independence from U.S. by Henry Siegman
The outpouring of commentary on the request that Palestinians intend to submit to the United Nations to affirm their right to statehood within the pre-1967 borders has fallen into two categories. The first supports the Israeli and American view that sees the Palestinian initiative as endangering the Oslo Accords and prospects for a two-state solution. As described by President Obama, it is a “distraction” from the serious business at hand. The second view supports the Palestinian right to apply for UN membership, or for non-member-state observer status, and rejects the notion that this would set back the peace process.

However, both approaches believe that UN action will not result in any practical changes on the ground and that Palestinians will have to return to the U.S.-orchestrated “peace process” to achieve a two-state solution. And both have in common a profound misreading of the significance of the Palestinian initiative, which is likely to be transformative, changing the rules of the game for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

According to the prevailing rules, every aspect of the Palestinians’ existence depends on Israel. Whether Palestinians can travel from town to town within the areas to which they are restricted, open a new business venture, see their homes demolished by an Israeli bulldozer—indeed whether they will live or die—are Israeli decisions, often made by armed Israeli eighteen-year-olds just out of high school.

The Oslo Accords, requiring as they do that Israel withdraw its occupation in stages from the West Bank, were intended to change that reality. But Oslo was quickly undermined by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who declared—“unilaterally”—that the dates established in the accords for the withdrawals are not “holy” and can be ignored by Israel. Furthermore, as noted by Uri Savir, who headed Israel’s Foreign Ministry at the time, Rabin had no intention of returning the Jordan Valley or of sharing Jerusalem. (He might well have changed his views on these issues, as he did on some others, had he not been assassinated by a settler.)

Although the Oslo Accords did not mention a Palestinian state, statehood was the goal implicit in the agreement’s terms and the permanent-status issues slated for negotiations between the parties. But the peace process overseen by the United States was based on an unstated principle that fatally undermined the achievement of a Palestinian state: that any change in the Palestinians’ status as a people under Israel’s occupation depended entirely on Israel’s consent. This effectively excluded everyone other than the occupiers from a role in deciding the Palestinians’ fate. The UN, which was established to assure compliance with international law and to facilitate the self-determination of peoples living under colonial domination, was shunted aside. Above all, this principle excluded the Palestinian people themselves.

To be sure, President Obama recently proposed that negotiations begin at the 1967 lines, with territorial swaps. What he failed to say is that if the parties cannot reach agreement on the swaps, the lines will be drawn by the Security Council. Indeed, he said the opposite—that peace terms cannot be imposed on Israel. His proposal therefore changed nothing. Netanyahu can continue to make demands he knows no Palestinian leader can accept, and the occupation persists.

The real meaning of the Palestinians’ decision to defy the United States is that they will no longer accept their occupier’s role in their quest for statehood. They demand national self-determination as a right—indeed, as a “peremptory norm” that in international law takes precedence over all other considerations—and not as an act of charity by their occupiers.

The American insistence on aborting the Palestinians’ initiative and returning them to a peace process in which their fate remains dependent on Israel is shameful. It stains America’s honor. It will not succeed, for the Palestinian decision to defy the American demand is itself a declaration of independence; that genie cannot be returned to the bottle.


On the ground, little will be changed by a UN affirmation of Palestinian statehood. But nothing will be the same again in the Palestinians’ dealings with Israel and the United States. The notion that Israel will decide where negotiations begin and what parts of Palestine it will keep is history. It is sad that America, of all nations, has failed to understand this simple truth, even in the wake of the Arab Spring. Sadder still is Israel’s continuing blindness not only to the injustice but also to the impossibility of its colonial dream. That dream may now turn into a nightmare as the international community increasingly sees Israel as a rogue state and treats it accordingly.

Henry Siegman is President of the U.S./Middle East Project. He is also a non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
My bold, I sense DC is somewhat conflicted here, Barry is plainly unable to shit or get off the pot.

The process is constipated. We have Israel drifting rightward, with coalition governments dependent on small shrill parties devoted to the settlement project and a unsustainable greater Israel. The Pals are badly led by an internationally supported but failing Fatah and the goons of Hamas that unfortunately can win in free and fair elections. The one thing the Pals seem to agree on is Pal self determination.

The publicly stated policy of the US since the beginning of the last Bush administration (privately decades before that) has been a two state solution, an idea that is plainly unworkable given maximalist Israeli territorial demands presented not just by Bibi's notably extreme government but their predecessors. Basically all the high ground on the West Bank, a line of defense out to the river Jordan for a explicitly recognized Jewish State. This would at best leave the Pals remaining as second class citizens in Israel and in charge of their own day to day confinement in a patchy set of disconnected dusty reservations.

DC under any imaginable administration supports Israel fully in this charade and effectively uses several billion tax diollars PA to subsidize the costly colonial business in Judea and Samaria. Barry ineffectually whining about the Israeli governments galloping West Bank construction programs has been his main contribution to the process that he now insists donnishly "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now", indeed it obviously just needs working on, much as a dead horse needs flogging.

The Pals have chosen to take a symbolic step under international law that demands recognition of their right to self determination, an idea the DC only pays lip service too. The Israelis don't like this, it highlights practical reality of the Oslo peace process, a dishonest one entirely dictated by their negligible graciousness to a defeated people.

I doubt if it will get the Pals very far but the current stasis in the midst of the "Arab Spring" has become a bad joke. If they had a whit of sense they would say, ok, so basically we've tried that, you have no respect for our aspirations to statehood. Well sod this for game of soldiers, Judea and Samaria is effectively part of Israel, a functioning democracy after all that notionally provides the freedoms other Arabs seek, give us our damned vote then we'll all decide what sort of state this is. Let my people go!
 
#20
Given that Israel's has effectively refused to enter any form of realistic negotiations and continues to devlop settlements and enhance its wall well inside the palestian side of the 1967 borders what other alternative did the Palestinians have? It is obvious that the US wasn't going to force Israel to negatiate in any realistic form and the Palestinians could see no point in continuing down that dead end path. I think the US is in the wrong in this one and that the Palestinians have already achieved a major goal by bring the issue back to the spotlight even if the US vetos the resolution.

It will be interesting to see how the UK votes given CMD's call to arms on the UN to act ala Libya in assisting repressed peope's rights to self determination and freedom from tyrany!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top