Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
Former Israeli President Shimon Peres Calls for a Palestinian State
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/27586-former-israeli-president-shimon-peres-calls-for-a-palestinian-stateFormer Israeli President Shimon Peres said Thursday that a Palestinian state is necessary in order to “have a democratic Jewish state.”
His remarks were made during a visit with French President Francois Hollande.
“I told the president we are for a Palestinian state. That's not an argument between us. We think that in order to have a democratic and Jewish state, we need a Palestinian state as well,” Peres told reporters after a meeting with Hollande, in Paris. “The only problem is how to achieve the establishment of two states.”
The visit came one day after the European Union removed Hamas from its list of terrorist organizations.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Israeli
(4,159 posts)US secretary of state warns EU envoys not to bring resolution on Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a vote before March elections after Peres, Livni expressed concern it could bolster Netanyahu, Bennett.
Ynetnews
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4605683,00.html
Israeli
(4,159 posts)By Yossi Sarid
From the minute his disability was diagnosed – sluggishness and slowness – he was immediately marked to become the IDF chief of staff. A high-ranking officer in high army boots. Today he is the defense minister and often makes appearances in the settlements.
Two weeks ago he revealed to students of the Makor Haim Yeshiva in Gush Etzion that only because of the pressure from the United States administration the construction in the settlements is not being expanded; but “this administration will nor remain forever.” Bogie was right: True there are two years left, but the Obama administration is considered as if it was dead.
Since Sheldon Adelson rose to power, ministers and Knesset members are competing – who will bark louder at the passing convoy of the president and secretary of state. Sometimes it seemed as if U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry were hostile elements and not our last friends. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ran the pack – inciting them instead of silencing them; and Washington was scared off and fled.
No, what were you thinking: We are not interfering in American politics; we are just doing everything possible to harness other horses to the wagon. And even though we bet on the wrong horse this time at the command of the king of gambling from Las Vegas, we were not deterred from once again sticking our long noses in the affairs of others, and we have already seen a number of successes.
We are not interfering; what is hateful to us we will not do unto others. But it is permitted for us to publically wish for the end of the term of the “obsessive messianics,” whose ambassador has announced in their name their commitment to peace negotiations that will continue until the end of their term. And Israel Hayom, in a main and exclusive headline, cries out to warn about the gross American intervention in the election campaign. And the poor ambassador did not understand what they want from him, what had he said, and even this nothing was quickly revealed to be baseless.
The elders of the Don and the Dnieper in the southern Russian steppes do not remember any Cossacks who cried out like Netanyahu has done. This week he was forced to crawl to Rome to beg for an American veto in the United Nations Security Council, with Tzipi Livni’s tweets accompanying him. You didn’t need to do it, Bibi. The veto was guaranteed in advance, since America has given up a long time ago on its role as an “honest broker.” Even the Americans, as a superpower, have no “foreign policy,” only a “domestic policy.”
If Kerry is nor for us, then who is? Because Europe is an awakening continent finally. We, “the citizens of Israel who desire its peace and security,” we have tried over the past few months to awaken and arouse its parliaments, and we have managed quite a few achievements. What is allowed for the prime minister, who in his past was a “concerned citizen,” is also allowed for us, as “citizens concerned about the diplomatic freeze and the continued occupation.”
The fatigued Americans answered Netanyahu’s pleas; they have weakened and why do they need Jewish politics now? They too find it convenient to cling to the justification of “only through negotiations, and not thorough unilateral steps.” As if the settlements arise and multiply with consent, as if the Israeli soldier who chokes a Palestinian minister does it with the consent of both of them, as if the occupation itself is reciprocal and based on mutual understanding.
It is easy for Obama and Kerry to be tempted by these “today is the Sabbath,” “today is Passover,” “elections are soon” excuses: Pressure will only have a negative effect on local opinion – millions of Israelis will surround Bibi in the polling booths, they will defend him with flowers and ballots.
Don’t kill us with tears or laughter: Israelis are better known for their wallets and less for their anger. Once you tried using a stick on us, and it worked like a magic wand: It was actually a Republican president who canceled the loan guarantees for absorbing the Russian immigration – and the public took the hint, there were elections held at the time, and the government was changed in the blink of an eye.
Just two days ago, this column intended on imploring: America, do not cast your veto. Today it seems a lost cause. Be not ashamed Obama – and be not embarrassed Kerry? And Hillary too is remembered on the side of the bad. So be it, you are not helpful, but why cause damage? You had the last opportunity to make the one and only peace that would be credited to you, would justify the Nobel Peace Prize, and you missed out on even that. From here on, our blood is on your hands.
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.632563
Israeli
(4,159 posts)By Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man |Published December 20, 2014
The United States is trying to scuttle UN Security Council resolutions seeking an end to the occupation under the pretense that it could strengthen right-wing political parties in Israel’s upcoming elections, according to a report in Foreign Policy on Friday.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told a gathering of European diplomats that Tzipi Livni — who recently departed the far-right Netanyahu government to join forces with the centrist Labor Party — warned him that international steps against the occupation risk emboldening the Israeli Right.
“ Such a text imposed by the international community would reinforce Benjamin Netanyahu and the hardliners in Israel,” Livni reportedly told the American secretary of state.
It should be noted that at least one of the UNSC resolutions being discussed is a Palestinian initiative, and is not being “imposed by the international community.”
Livni essentially confirmed the story on Saturday, responding to the Foreign Policy article with a statement saying she, “is proud to have preserved key Israeli interests at the Security Council.” Those Israeli interests, she explained, can be safeguarded only “if Herzog and Livni form the next government coalition.”
In other words, in an attempt to scuttle Palestinian diplomatic moves aimed at advancing Palestine’s own political interests, Kerry is quoting Livni in order to warn Europeans that supporting such a move might embolden Livni’s political rivals, all while the secretary of state goes out of his way to declare that Washington is not meddling in Israeli elections.
Makes sense, right?
If we follow Kerry’s logic, it’s not actually the Europeans who run the risk of interfering in Israel’s upcoming elections, but the Palestinians themselves.
Who says that Palestinians don’t have a vote in Israeli elections?
Of course none of this touches on the absurdity of asking the Palestinians to hold off on their aspirations for equality and national self-determination in order to give the Israelis time to elect a new government that might, if we’re lucky, perpetuate a 20-year-old peace process that has brought far more wars and military operations than peace.
It is worth noting that although it is still early in the Israeli election cycle, none of the leading parties have made seeking peace a cornerstone of their platform. Perhaps, that too, would embolden Netanyahu and the Israeli Right.
Related:
America: The hand that holds the status quo together
Israel’s elections: A referendum on Netanyahu
Source: http://972mag.com/who-says-palestinians-dont-have-a-vote-in-israeli-elections/100317/
LeftishBrit
(41,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Without it, no one has any right to ask Palestinians to make peace, and no one has any right to ask the rest of the Arab world to accept Israel's existence.
Short of a Palestinian state being created, war can never end at all.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 25, 2014, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)
And it's not like accepting a Palestinian state would leave Israel helpless.
A two-state solution does NOT equal unilateral Israeli disarmament.
It might be different if the Occupation were showing any humanity, any recognition that Palestinians were equal victims in the conflict and equal in common humanity, but it refuses to do that.
Instead, it pretends, even as it takes more and more land, uproots more and more olive groves, hoards more and more water, inflicts more and more collective punishment, that Israelis are the only victims and that Palestinians haven't unfairly suffered in any of this.
In European history, Jewish people were victims of horrible persecution, and Europe and North America are still indicted in that.
But the I/P conflict is not connected to that, since Palestinians and other Arabs played no role in the Inquisition(in which some Arabs and Muslims were themselves victims)or the establishment of the ghettos, or the spreading of the blood libel, or 2000 years of Christian lies about who was responsible for the Crucifixion(the Romans did that, because they saw Jesus, as they'd have seen any colonial subject with a personal following, as a threat).
Hamas is a horrible organization, I've always opposed it, but all the Occupation ever did was to GROW Hamas(which didn't exist in 1948 or 1967-and no, the Muslim Brotherhood's existence in those years doesn't count as part of Hamas in its present form). And the fact remains that the military defeat of Hamas is impossible(f it could have been done, the IDF would have done it by now, world opinion or not), and, even if it did occur, could ONLY lead to the emergence of other, more extreme groups vowing revenge. So, while Hamas is loathesome, it has to be dealt with in some way involving negotiations, because it's simply always going to be there.
Palestinians cannot get a better leadership under the Occupation(obviously, if they could have, they would have)and the Occupation itself is ultimately just as dangerous to Israel's security as Hamas could be.
Why defend the status quo when there isn't any hope at all of anything good ever happening under it?
All the Occupation has done is to make Netanyahu the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history(at this point, he's outlasted Ben-Gurion, a man who, unlike Netanyahu, at least had humane and egalitarian social values). It's created and politically empowered the settlers, a group whose continued existence in their current homes depends on the Occupation never ever ending, and a group that has brought nothing but ugliness and hatred to the Israeli political scene(it's still a real possibility that their leader, hatemonger Naftali Bennett, could be the leader of the largest single party in the Knesset after the next elections).
The Occupation is nothing but a trap. It prevents any advancement of anything positive. Why not just admit it?
It's time to move on from what we all know can never work.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're not.
1. Your motto of "GTFO of the territories" will without question lead to a Hamas takeover of the W.Bank.
a) That would be HORRIFIC for the Palestinians there.
b) And it would inevitably lead to more wars like this summer in Gaza, and many more casualties.
c) You should understand that Israelis have been there, done it, and don't want many more of their fellow civilians killed by repeating the past. But you obviously have nothing but contempt for them.
d) I understand your radical Left Israel-hating friends don't care about the Palestinians either. No shocker there as the Gazan situation for Palestinians proves that without question. The W.Bank Palestinians would submit to Hamas control, which you believe (for no reason) would be so much better for them than what they have now. You're consigning them to Hell.
e) How about working towards a peaceful and secure 2-state solution? And NOT more war and insecurity for all people involved.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just that it's not really possible to work for that AND maintain the status quo on the West Bank.
Some intermediate steps I'd suggest:
1)An ABSOLUTE and PERMANENT moratorium on settlement construction or expansion. I think Palestinians at the very least, at the very least, need to know that they aren't going to ever lose any MORE land, and that any state they get will have contiguous territory.
2)Back off on the collective punishment for extremist acts. It's likely that the non-extremist majority of Palestinians are just as scared of the crazyheads on their side as the Israelis are, if not more so. And there is little that non-extremist majority can do to control the extremists, so they majority shouldn't be punished for them. Palestinians don't owe it to Israel to have an internal civil war.
3)No more restrictions at all on food imports into Gaza. Food can't be weaponized.
4)Admit that the issue is territory, not alleged Palestinian bigotry. Also, admit that MOST Palestinians are decent, moral human beings who mean no harm to anyone, just as can be said of most Israelis. There are some Palestinian antisemites(there's a much larger non-bigoted group that are driven by legitimate anger towards the Israeli security apparatus)but there's an equal degree of Israeli anti-Arab bigotry. You simply don't see acknowledgements of Palestinian humanity on the Israeli side, or admissions that Palestinians have suffered too, or that Palestinians, just like Israelis, can, in fact, be innocent victims of brutality by the other side.
None of these would negatively impact(dammit, I just used "impact" as a verb)Israeli security.
And I truly believe that acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering and common humanity by Israelis would do a lot to change attitudes in that nationality. You can't really expect Palestinians to agree to the Israeli notion that Israelis have suffered, but Palestinians haven't, or that Israelis have some special claim on morality while Palestinians are supposed to accept that they are nothing but soulless killing machines, none of whom have any reason for their anger.
Those are some things that would help.
As to "disarming Hamas", I don't think that can be done. They will need to be negotiated with(peace requires that everybody with weapons have "buy-in" on the deal), and the example of the Northern Ireland peace process(in Northern Ireland, the Unionist community basically saw Sinn Fein as being on the same moral plain with Hamas, and, weirdly enough, identified with Israel, even though pro-British Protestants have never been victims of any extermination campaign) is a model that can be used.
What has to be accepted is that no one side is going to get to claim "victory".
shira
(30,109 posts)There's no comparison and you know it.
Israel cannot negotiate with an organization like Hamas that is not only dedicated to murdering Jews and destroying Israel; they won't stop no matter what. They mean what they say and back that up with action. They incite, praise, and reward such acts against Jews and are never apologetic.
Israel cannot meet Hamas half-way so that Hamas recognizes Israel & won't kill Jews on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Sinn Fein was nothing like this. Sinn Fein at least agreed to halt all attacks BEFORE negotiations. And they did.
========================
As to your points:
This was done when Israel pulled out of Gaza. That was the end of settlements, occupation, and expansion there. After Sharon, Olmert ran a campaign in which he was going to do a similar disengagement from the W.Bank. Hamas couldn't stop firing rockets in order for that to happen.
The problem is you believe ANY response from Israel to terror is collective punishment. It's because you say you believe Israel has a right to self-defense, but if it was up to you, you wouldn't allow Israel to ACT upon that right to protect its civilians.
There are no restrictions on food imports into Gaza.
If that were the case, the Palestinians wouldn't have rejected one deal after the next from 1937 to this day.
The issue has always been that those who represent Palestine do not believe in Israel's right to exist in peace among its neighboring states.
The problem is you can't admit this very simple fact.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It is long overdue.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to at least pretend to support a negotiated settlement. Israel has rejected that path, so all Peres's platitudes really tell us is what Israel's future is.
