|
-
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Styx liked this post
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
Palestine rejected Statehood.
" JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Arabs made a “mistake” by rejecting a 1947 U.N. proposal that would have created a Palestinian state alongside the nascent Israel, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview aired on Friday."
The situation is truly awful between Hamas the P.A and Israel.
A horrible vicious circle of violence.
On the face of it, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to speak of a 'two state solution '. However, the Reuters article you've cited makes clear that Abbas is doing what politicians do; in this particular instance he was angling for the UN to extend recognition to a Palestinian state with a modest gesture of conciliation i.e. Arabs made a “mistake” by rejecting a 1947 U.N. proposal etc.
You may suppose that vindicates an assertion that Zionist leaders were willing to accept the 1947 boundaries. Remember however:
The UN sanctioned Partition Plan did not come into effect because neither side accepted partition:
In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole".…history does not support you.
Neither Israel nor its neighbouring Arab states had been willing to accept the 1947 border. Ordinary Palestinians have been pawns in regional and global power politics.
The 'two state solution ' has been a diplomatic fiction for three quarters of a century. Both sides have been two-faced in their respective negotiating positions. In the intervening years Palestinian and Arab politics has taken a turn for the worse in the form of Islamism. Zionists' recalcitrance, sadly, has played a large role in this — Islamism is largely a perverse counterpoint to Zionist nationalism reflecting Islamic frustration at 'Western' neocolonial interference.
For all these reasons, I believe one state is the only peaceful solution. Difficult as it would be to implement, given a century of mutual hostility, there is no viable two state arrangement that fairly satisfies a majority on each side.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
On the face of it, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to speak of a ' two state solution '. However, the Reuters article you've cited makes clear that Abbas is doing what politicians do; in this particular instance he was angling for the UN to extend recognition to a Palestinian state with a modest gesture of conciliation i.e. Arabs made a “mistake” by rejecting a 1947 U.N. proposal etc.
You may suppose that vindicates an assertion that Zionist leaders were willing to accept the 1947 boundaries. Remember however:
The UN sanctioned Partition Plan did not come into effect because neither side accepted partition:
In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole".…history does not support you.
Neither Israel nor its neighbouring Arab states had been willing to accept the 1947 border. Ordinary Palestinians have been pawns in regional and global power politics.
The ' two state solution ' has been a diplomatic fiction for three quarters of a century. Both sides have been two-faced in their respective negotiating positions. In the intervening years Palestinian and Arab politics has taken a turn for the worse in the form of Islamism. Zionists' recalcitrance, sadly, has played a large role in this — Islamism is largely a perverse counterpoint to Zionist nationalism reflecting Islamic frustration at 'Western' neocolonial interference.
For all these reasons, I believe one state is the only peaceful solution. Difficult as it would be to implement, given a century of mutual hostility, there is no viable two state arrangement that fairly satisfies a majority on each side.
Quote
"The Plan, devised in cooperation with Jewish organizations, was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, despite dissatisfaction over territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State.[5][6] Arab leaders and governments rejected it[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[8] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]
Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, a civil war broke out[10] and the plan was not implemented.[1"
Jewish Agency for Palestine accepted.
Arab leaders and governments rejected.
Ben- Gurion's private words out of context?
"Attitude towards Arabs
Ben-Gurion published two volumes setting out his views on relations between Zionists and the Arab world: We and Our Neighbors, published in 1931, and My Talks with Arab Leaders published in 1967. Ben-Gurion believed in the equal rights of Arabs who remained in and would become citizens of Israel. He was quoted as saying, "We must start working in Jaffa. Jaffa must employ Arab workers. And there is a question of their wages. I believe that they should receive the same wage as a Jewish worker. An Arab has also the right to be elected president of the state, should he be elected by all."[64]
Ben-Gurion recognized the strong attachment of Palestinian Arabs to the land and in an address to the United Nations on 2 October 1947, he doubted the likelihood of peace:
This is our native land; it is not as birds of passage that we return to it. But it is situated in an area engulfed by Arabic-speaking people, mainly followers of Islam. Now, if ever, we must do more than make peace with them; we must achieve collaboration and alliance on equal terms. Remember what Arab delegations from Palestine and its neighbors say in the General Assembly and in other places: talk of Arab-Jewish amity sound fantastic, for the Arabs do not wish it, they will not sit at the same table with us, they want to treat us as they do the Jews of Bagdad, Cairo, and Damascus.[65]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion
You may wish a one state solution though peace negotiators are working on a two state solution.
This causes a problem!
Israel is now innocent of building 'settlements'.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Styx liked this post
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
…You may wish a one state solution though peace negotiators are working on a two state solution.
This causes a problem! …
Negotiations have been on and off for 70 years.
Why do you suppose that is?
Either one side or other, or both do not wish a solution, just yet! Alternatively, there is NO TWO STATE SOLUTION!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
Negotiations have been on and off for 70 years.
Why do you suppose that is?
Either one side or other, or both do not wish a solution, just yet! Alternatively, there is NO TWO STATE SOLUTION!
Leaders have changed for Israel for Palestine and with all negotiating country envoys.
Sometimes time in office just ran out as with Clinton's efforts.
Israel has also made peace agreements with other Arab countries.
Times have changed and so I hope will be a renewed strategy
on the two state solution.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Styx liked this post
-
Diplomatic and military support – and a thriving arms trade – make the UK complicit in the oppression of Palestinians — Rafeef Ziadah ex: theguardian.com
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
Diplomatic and military support – and a thriving arms trade – make the UK complicit in the oppression of Palestinians — Rafeef Ziadah ex: theguardian.com
Ah SGZ
Saw this and thought of you.
https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-conten...136_170321.pdf
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Hamble and SandGroundZero. Still following this thread with great interest. Was just wondering what your respective views are on the likelihood of any future peace deals now that Netanyahu has been ousted?
For better or worse?
Edit: Having just watched a news article regarding this, I’m completely perplexed how such a polarised coalition can successfully govern a country?
Last edited by donkey22; 14/06/2021 at 03:19 AM.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by donkey22
Hamble and SandGroundZero. Still following this thread with great interest. Was just wondering what your respective views are on the likelihood of any future peace deals now that Netanyahu has been ousted?
For better or worse?
Edit: Having just watched a news article regarding this, I’m completely perplexed how such a polarised coalition can successfully govern a country?
I am glad Netanyahu has gone.
A Right Wing Nationalist Leader is still what Israeli's have chosen.
The surprise is the coalition
Quote
"How solid is the new coalition?
In appearance, Mr Bennett's government will be unlike any which has preceded it in Israel's 73-year history.
The alliance contains parties which have vast ideological differences, and perhaps most significantly includes the first independent Arab party to be part of a potential ruling coalition, Raam. It also has a record number of nine female ministers.
The inclusion of Raam and left-wing non-Arab Israeli parties means there could be friction on issues such as Israeli policies towards Palestinians - Yamina and another right-wing party, New Hope, are staunch supporters of Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, for instance.
There could also be difficulties over social policies - while some parties want to advance gay rights, such as recognising same-sex marriages, Raam, an Islamist party, is against this.
In addition, some parties want to relax religious restrictions more extensively than Yamina - a national-religious party - will likely allow."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57464794
I expect politics will be much discussed with little change if majority decisions cannot be made.
My hopes are on a fresh look at diplomacy with a fresh cabinet.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Benjamin Netanyahu'
Originally Posted by donkey22
…Was just wondering what your respective views are on the likelihood of any future peace deals now that Netanyahu has been ousted? …
In the Israeli Knesset, discourse is becoming increasingly personal and discordant.
The change will not advance peace in any foreseeable time frame.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
…Saw this and thought of you.
A very quick perusal of a supplementary document which cited examples of unacceptable content in UNRWA supported schools' curriculua — for example:
Rejection of Peace and the Two State Solution- The curriculum fails to teach peacemaking with Israel as preferred or even necessary.
- All peace agreements, summits and proposals with Israel post-1993 Oslo Accords that were previously included in PA textbooks, have been completely removed from the curriculum.
- Yasser Arafat’s call for a new era of coexistence, peace, and non-violence was removed from the new curriculum after appearing in the pre-2016 editions. 88
- Israeli concessions for peace are either absent or presented negatively. 89
- Students are taught to criticize Egypt’s peace process with Israel. The 2020 edition further erased a sentence about the political and economic relations established between the two countries. 90
- The single case of peace advocacy as a universal ideal that appeared in a 2018 social studies textbook, was deleted from the 2019 edition and has not been reintroduced for 2020. 91
- The peace treaty with Jordan is absent from the new curriculum after appearing in the pre-2016 editions. 92
- In the single mention of the 1993 Oslo peace process, the word Israel was newly put in parentheses in the 2020 editions, often used in Arabic as quotation marks, further challenging Israel’s legitimacy and recognition which ironically undermines the fundamental premise of the accords. 93
- Wording relating to negotiating final status issues, a permanent peace agreement with Israel, cooperation and common interests were removed from quotations of Oslo articles 1 and 5. 94
It is regrettable. But not altogether surprising in the circumstance, i.e. 75 years of mutual hostility compounded by the gross imbalance of power.
Naturally enough, the UN is limiting its purview to the so-called two state solution. The United Nations is at the centre of the charade.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
A very quick perusal of a supplementary document which cited examples of unacceptable content in UNRWA supported schools' curriculua — for example:
Rejection of Peace and the Two State Solution- The curriculum fails to teach peacemaking with Israel as preferred or even necessary.
- All peace agreements, summits and proposals with Israel post-1993 Oslo Accords that were previously included in PA textbooks, have been completely removed from the curriculum.
- Yasser Arafat’s call for a new era of coexistence, peace, and non-violence was removed from the new curriculum after appearing in the pre-2016 editions. 88
- Israeli concessions for peace are either absent or presented negatively. 89
- Students are taught to criticize Egypt’s peace process with Israel. The 2020 edition further erased a sentence about the political and economic relations established between the two countries. 90
- The single case of peace advocacy as a universal ideal that appeared in a 2018 social studies textbook, was deleted from the 2019 edition and has not been reintroduced for 2020. 91
- The peace treaty with Jordan is absent from the new curriculum after appearing in the pre-2016 editions. 92
- In the single mention of the 1993 Oslo peace process, the word Israel was newly put in parentheses in the 2020 editions, often used in Arabic as quotation marks, further challenging Israel’s legitimacy and recognition which ironically undermines the fundamental premise of the accords. 93
- Wording relating to negotiating final status issues, a permanent peace agreement with Israel, cooperation and common interests were removed from quotations of Oslo articles 1 and 5. 94
It is regrettable. But not altogether surprising in the circumstance, i.e. 75 years of mutual hostility compounded by the gross imbalance of power.
Naturally enough, the UN is limiting its purview to the so-called two state solution. The United Nations is at the centre of the charade.
I have some sympathy with the UN.
They go to great lengths and expense promoting a State for Palestine whilst Hamas trots out the usual threats to annihilate Jews and Israel.
It rather undermines the UN's efforts elsewhere in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=064zdUWnQV4
My hopes for peace lay in World State diplomacy with bribes.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
I have some sympathy with the UN. | They go to great lengths and expense promoting a State for Palestine whilst Hamas trots out the usual threats to annihilate Jews and Israel. …
The UN is a fig leaf for the machinations of powerful states. It has rarely been effective in the idealistic terms it was conceived.
As for Hamas and "the usual threats", it is a political organization that must be neutralized — not by force of arms, but by rendering it obsolete.
Israel's government (and supporters, abroad) appear to view Hamas as a useful foil in its long term objective. It would rather fight Hamas than make a peaceful settlement with the Palestinian people involving compromising hard-line Zionists' aim of an exclusively Jewish Israel from the River Jordan to the sea. That is the sad truth of the matter.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
The UN is a fig leaf for the machinations of powerful states. It has rarely been effective in the idealistic terms it was conceived.
As for Hamas and "the usual threats", it is a political organization that must be neutralized — not by force of arms, but by rendering it obsolete.
Israel's government (and supporters, abroad) appear to view Hamas as a useful foil in its long term objective. It would rather fight Hamas than make a peaceful settlement with the Palestinian people involving compromising hard-line Zionists' aim of an exclusively Jewish Israel from the River Jordan to the sea. That is the sad truth of the matter.
I disagree.
Israel supports Fatah (opposition party to Hamas).
If the Palestinian people democratically elected Fatah in power negotiations for a Two State solution would be possible.
The West does not negotiate with Radical Islamic Jihad Terrorists.
I have to ask again- you do recognise Hamas controls Gaza which has the weapons of war firing on Israel?
Israeli's soldiers did not go on foot into Gaza for fear of kidnap.
Palestinians protesting in Jerusalem and the West bank clash with Israeli soldiers on foot.
The West Bank and Fatah cooperate with Israel on security.
This is the basis for peace and Israel to support a new state of Palestine
in the many years it is going to take to control Radical Islamic Terrorism.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
I disagree.
…
The West does not negotiate with Radical Islamic Jihad Terrorists.
…
…which is what makes Hamas a useful foil. You and I differ on the nature of Israeli governments' strategic view of the conflict.
I do not expect to persuade you to my opinion. So, impasse ..!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|