Who doesn't want a Palestinian state? Palestinian leaders, that's who

[jaguar]

BUllshit dipolmacy is an option. Lets look at this aparant proposal for a state that is in reality, nothing more than an attempt at smoke and missors to attempt to further legitimise an occupation.

The offer is a vague, undefined idea of a state sometime in the undefined future. By accepting this, with no garantees on time, soverignty in the emantime or any other concessions they are meant to accpet this right? From a political perspective this this is designed to remove any legitimacy from active resistance (oh but we promised them a state and they still do it.......) while actaully delivering nothing.

Consider too the fact that Isreal now refuses to negoiate with arafat, that makes it kinda hard too. While arafat is no fantastic leader, he's the only one they've got (who hasen't been killed yet)

[Undertoad]

You must have missed my Clinton thread.

What the hell is this? Why is she turning the mistakes we {i.e., the US and Israel} made into the essence? The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism. That's the real story—all the rest is gossip.

-- Bill Clinton, recently.

Arafat isn't interested in diplomacy. The "you could have a state" offering, who knows why Bush is pushing this plan, but it's another concept that's put on the table, in any case. After diplomacy has comletely failed with this guy, the rest of the world pushes every diplomatic option they can think of, and none of it ever sticks.

Diplomacy isn't "we didn't like your idea so we're resorting to continuing our death culture's terrorism." Diplomacy is "we didn't like your idea so we're going to advance another one until we find a common ground." They certainly do have the option of diplomacy; and they have much much more influence than they are due, in my opinion, especially right now since the rest of the Arab world apparently wants Bush to pursue this project before persuing Iraq. That's real diplomatic power, and they are sqandering it because they would rather continue to develop a culture of death-worship in the name of deep religious intolerance. In the end, they are going to wind up much worse off. But now I've gone to babbling speculation, and I'll stop now.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Which means that, if you give them a state tomorrow, it doesn't solve anything whatsoever.

I would be against the notion of a state whose sorvernity is be violated by a conquering and occupying army, by the same thinking the Vichy French were right to collaborate with the Germans? They don't want a name, they want a place to live that is their home, not the territory of another government. Its that simple. Give them that, give them dignity, and then see how popular the bombers are.

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Give them that, give them dignity, and then see how popular the bombers are.

Unfortunately, this is all theory. The 51% of Palestinians that support Israel's destruction... well, that number might dwindle a bit, but it's not going away. And that subset of the Palestinian population is going to be represented in the Palestinian cabinet. It's not unreasonable to believe that, at least once in the future, that representation will be enough to warrant a Palestinian attack on Israel. That is certainly something that Israel wants to avoid.

I personally think that the creation of a Palestinian state is unavoidable and, in all honesty, a good idea when the proper conditions are met. But I can certainly understand Israel's reluctance at the idea. There's too much mistrust in the mideast.

[jaguar]

And when a german pollie critises Isreal he gets branded anti-semitic and kicked out of the party, when you've been persecuted like that feelings linger, and you can expect the same in any future palastine.

especially right now since the rest of the Arab world apparently wants Bush to pursue this project before persuing Iraq.

Where the heck did you get that from?

It's not unreasonable to believe that, at least once in the future, that representation will be enough to warrant a Palestinian attack on Israel.

I'm sure there will be some, it takes time to heal wounds that deep.

Arafat isn't interested in diplomacy. The "you could have a state" offering, who knows why Bush is pushing this plan, but it's another concept that's put on the table, in any case. After diplomacy has comletely failed with this guy, the rest of the world pushes every diplomatic option they can think of, and none of it ever sticks.

There are two issues here, the first is that arafat is on the way out, and doesn't want to be remembered as the person that sold out so a second-rate deal. The second is that no decent offer has been put on the table(or on paper). Full stop. If you can find evidence to the contorary ill be rather suprised indeed.

[Undertoad]

The Arabic countries all weighed in when various US guys have done their tours, Cheney and Powell. There was a lot of "How can you do Iraq when there's this bigger problem right over here?" I don't think they actually care that much about Hussein; after all, he's Persian.

As far as Arafat rejecting a second-rate deal,

HAW

Arafat can't accept any deal. As the two-bit leader of a tiny little country, he's a non-entity; as the two-bit leader of the violent front representing the hopes and dreams of 600 million Arabs, he has enormous power. That's why he carefully arranges his headgear draped over his right shoulder into the shape of the entire region, including Israel; the symbolic message to his homies is that he wants it all.

Plus, at this point, if Arafat were to accept the deal that was offered, he'd be the goat to that 51% -- and possibly be strung up by them.

[BrianR]

One other thing I haven't noticed:

If Israel conceded to a Palestinian state now, they'd be giving control of an airport to the PLO, who would likely fill up the nearest airliner with fuel and explosives and crash it into Israel somewhere, possibly the Likud.

It wouldn't take long and maybe even longer than it would take to scramble fighters to defend themselves.

I wouldn't give them the chance right away. I'd wait until the PLO stopped the terror tactics, bargained in good faith and use the "Palestinian State" as a reward at the end, not as a carrot to get things started. After all, you don't give kids dessert first to get them to eat their peas, do you? No. You give it to them after the peas are gone. And not to the dog under the table either.

My two cents.

Brian

[jaguar]

The arab/muslim world is becoming disfunctional, thats been known for years, there are many, many reasons why what was once the 'cradle of civilization' has fallen so far.

If Israel conceded to a Palestinian state now, they'd be giving control of an airport to the PLO, who would likely fill up the nearest airliner with fuel and explosives and crash it into Israel somewhere, possibly the Likud.

wtf.....

I wouldn't give them the chance right away. I'd wait until the PLO stopped the terror tactics, bargained in good faith and use the "Palestinian State" as a reward at the end, not as a carrot to get things started. After all, you don't give kids dessert first to get them to eat their peas, do you? No. You give it to them after the peas are gone. And not to the dog under the table either.

I supose that depends if you're fill up his plate twice as fast as he can eat it or not. The currant mess is the result of bad faith on the part of Isreal, if an acceptable offer had been put on the table in the first place, this degeneration would never have happened. I mean christ its like wacking a wasps nest with a stick for 10 minutes then wonder why the keep stinging you afterwards.

I do think he *could* accept a deal, the arabic world is not exactly united and i'm sure given the chance the vast majority of Palastinians just want to live without having thier doors blown off regulary by the IDF and their sons/husnbands kidnapped for interrogation.

[Undertoad]

What offer would have been "acceptable"?

None, because what wasn't understood when Clinton was working the tables was that he was not negotiating with the true source of power.

The true sources of power were and are in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: Arafat's sponsors. They were the ones to talk with. Arafat, it would appear, is the middleman. Arafat does not have the power to negotiate.

[BrianR]

Okay, jag. Here's my thoughts in total...



The establishment of a Palestinian state would force Israel to attack a sovereign nation, which would be roundly condemned in the UN and might even draw all the other Arab states into a major shooting war. Not a good thing.
Right now, Israeli forays into the disputed territories are "forays" and not "invasions". Why throw gasoline onto the fire by ratcheting up what Israel is going to do regardless?

Statehood would also allow the Palestinians to raise an army and air force to defend it's new "borders" even if temporary. This would make the job of rooting out terrorist bomb factories and training grounds more difficult. Following that thougt, Palestine would also be able to make treaties (new "Axis" powers in the middle east?) and import weapons to equip it's new army and air forces. Bad news for Israel and peace in general in the middle east.
Again, throwing fuel on the fire. Bad.

On the other hand it WOULD give Israel something to declare war on...

I personally see giving the Palestinians a state now as rewarding the terror tactics they have been using for years.
You don't reward bad behaviour in a child be giving it what it wants, you reward only good behaviour. I've not raised any children but I remember my own childhood and I didn't get what I wanted by screaming and begging and whining. I got it by being good as defined by my parents.

As I recall, Palestinian statehood was offered long ago. And rejected. The possibility has been raised more than once since the 1967 war and summarily rejected each time, at least once by Arafat himself. The stated goal of the power in Palestine territory is and has always been the eradication of Israel and Jews in general.

The only reason the US is in this at all is really traceable to oil interests. We need oil too much to make enemies of the Arabs and we're afraid of another embargo. My temptation is to let the Israelis take on all the Arabs and trade with them after the dust settles for the oil that they would then own. But sometimes I dream too much.

These opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of anyone else.

Brian

[thebecoming]

If you think Arafat doesnt support palestinian terrorism then you are missing something. A palestinian state will never exist untill Isreal is destroyed. Even if the creaton of a palestinian was to happen, the fighting would not cease....This battle between them is over control of the holy lands. And untill it rests in palstinian hands, its never gonna stop.

Every day another bombing in Isreal....
It's time for a car bomb derby.....

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The true sources of power were and are in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: Arafat's sponsors. They were the ones to talk with. Arafat, it would appear, is the middleman. Arafat does not have the power to negotiate.

That is as perverted as a news broadcast from Radio Moscow in the 1960s. Only right wing extremist Isrealis promote that thought. The Arab world is quite fractured with many power brokers and no central powers. One of the most powerful of Arab leaders is Mubarak of Egypt - more powerful than Syria or Iran. One need only review his long interviews with Charlie Rose during his last American visit to see how independent Arafat and everyone else in the Arab world is.

To even suggest that Iran is on that list is to endorse the mentality of a mental midget American leader. Iran is not even an Arab nation.

To say that Arafat is a middleman is to say that Mexico must get permission from the US for its foreign policy. However extremist right wing Israelis view the world entirely in terms of "us vs them". Israeli extremists are that unstable. To those extremists, there is no difference between Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Palistanis, Moroccan, Libyians, or Palestinians.

Arafat gets major support from the west. If Arafat is a middleman, then he must also get permission from the EU and the US before making any deals. The long list of governmental organizations attacked, confiscated, and destroyed by Israel (so that Arafat could not stop suicide bombers) were originally provided mostly from the US or European Union.

Previously posted were details on a backroom negotiation between Palestinian and Israeli leaders in Taba Egypt. Were these negotiations in vain? Yes, only because the dichead was about to take power and would confiscate everything anyway. Sharon's obvious intentions were to create an intafada and keep that violence ongoing (which is why his helicopters always attack Palestinian police stations and why Israel attacked the Palestinian police who worked directly with Israeli intelligence and Interpol on stopping suicide bombers). Those negotiations in Taba Egypt demonstrated that Arafat's people and Israeli negotiators could indeed negotiate when extremist leaders such as Sharon) were not involved:
a previous tw post


The person most responsible for the starting and encouraging violence in the Middle East. There is only one one who should be on trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity. The only reason for suicide bombers is the same person whose agenda has always been the destruction of UN 242, 338, and the Oslo accords. The enemy of mankind is Ariel Sharon. He is why people die in the streets of Jerusalem.

There were no waves of violence when the Oslo Accords were being created and developed. This violence was created by Ariel Sharon - the man who does everything he can to keep it ongoing. Every dead Israeli and Palestinian is now directly traceable to the man whose only interest is to expand Israelis borders at the expense of world peace. Those deaths are collateral damage for his greater objectives. Sharon's programs for Middle East conquest can continue as long as he continues the violence - drives everyone into extremist political camps. Only the dichead, and people who think like him, would lump all Arabs together as the same people.

If Arafat was only a middle man, then the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies would have been massing on Israel's borders during the war crimes of Jenin. To declare Arafat as a middle man is to endorse the concepts of Prime Minister dichead - the man who brings shame on all Israelis.

Sharon created Intafada 2. Everything he does is to steal the occupied territories so that peace will never happen. Sharon does not want peace. Todays announcement of permanent occupation and the 40% increase in new West Bank settlements is just another part of that process. Sharon wants an Imperial Israel - which is why he even risked the world to nuclear war for personal glory. There are no central powered in the Arab world - except in the minds of extremist, anti-humaity Israeli Jews.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by tw

To say that Arafat is a middleman is to say that Mexico must get permission from the US for its foreign policy. However extremist right wing Israelis view the world entirely in terms of "us vs them". Israeli extremists are that unstable. To those extremists, there is no difference between Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Palistanis, Moroccan, Libyians, or Palestinians.

Or Americans... Have ever tried to talk to Hasidic Jews? Well, most of them won't talk to you or even stomp on you if you were on fire. Racists are the same no matter who they are, they hate everyone else.

[jaguar]

If you think Arafat doesnt support palestinian terrorism then you are missing something. A palestinian state will never exist untill Isreal is destroyed. Even if the creaton of a palestinian was to happen, the fighting would not cease....This battle between them is over control of the holy lands. And untill it rests in palstinian hands, its never gonna stop.

Am i the only one that remembers Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire? Or for that matter the fundamentals of the theory of the subculture of poverty? Bloody hell people baisc sociology defeats that statement.

I personally see giving the Palestinians a state now as rewarding the terror tactics they have been using for years.
You don't reward bad behaviour in a child be giving it what it wants, you reward only good behaviour. I've not raised any children but I remember my own childhood and I didn't get what I wanted by screaming and begging and whining. I got it by being good as defined by my parents.

Well if your parents had beaten the shit out of you for years and then expected you to behave......You're ignoring half the issue.

What offer would have been "acceptable"?

How about a viable state? One without thousands of armoured Jewish settleents all the way though it? One not seperated into sections by IDF blockades? One inclusing part of jerusulem mabye?

As I recall, Palestinian statehood was offered long ago. And rejected. The possibility has been raised more than once since the 1967 war and summarily rejected each time, at least once by Arafat himself.

Aiaia, read above, the offers have been little more than cruel jokes. DO some research into these offers.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
Aiaia, read above, the offers have been little more than cruel jokes. DO some research into these offers.

The original UN partition in 1947 was no joke: Palestine, Israel, and Jerusalem as an international city. The Israelis accepted, the Palestinians rejected it.