So why do people hate Israel? - Page 177




 
--
 
March 4th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
What?... you thought that a few days in the wilderness was going to allow us to forget your previous lies and attempted distortions and allow you to come back with a few lines of ........"otiose"........ remarks No, it doesn't work like that.

Just for your information the word "otiose" has been out of general use in the English language for nearly 300 years. Where the fcuk did your script writers (controllers) come up with a word like that????


You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.


Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, Too many lies for them to keep track of, eh? It doesn't say much for the investigative powers and findings of the Israeli High Court. I think that it would be easierjust to write them off as another branch of the Israeli Hasbara Department rather than any sort of Legal Justice system as understood by the rest of the free world.




So much for your childish deliberate lies about richochets and the foot being injured at some other time.

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf.

Your sources just have no credibility whatsoever, to the point that even you must realise this. Either that or you are the world's most gullible HasbaraTroll.
March 7th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Really so why do you think British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a 2002 interview with newspaper New Statesman

It would seem to me that it is common knowledge that Britain lead the Palestinians (Note they are what he calls them as well) to believe that in return for their support against the Ottoman Empire they would be given their land as a state, but by all means keep trying to deny it because it doesn't suit your indoctrinated mind.
At the time of the Palestine Mandate no one was talking about "Palestinians", they were Arabs. You can't change history today by saying they were "Palestinians" back then. It is true, and I told you more than once, that the British did not fulfill their assignment.
The British, nor anyone else, promised the "Palestinians" anything. The British promised the Arabs an Islamic caliphate to Sharif Hussein, who BTW recommended Jewish immigration but not a Jewish state.
My mind is not indoctrinated, yours is. You cannot seem to accept the fact that there was no talk of "Palestinians" nor a "Palestine" state back then. Not by the Arabs nor the British. The Arabs living in what is now Israel and the PA didn't want an independent state but annexation to Syria (first) and Transjordan (later). Both demands were dismissed by the British.

Quote:
Then of course there was the minutes of the Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon on the 15th December 1918 which documented...
First, the meeting was held on the 5th december not the 15th.
Second, this was not for an independent "Palestine" but to include the region of Palestine into the promised Islamic caliphate.
Third, it was the Palestine Mandate that would decide what would happen to the region.
Fourth, please give me the link to the minutes of that meeting.

Quote:
Lets not forget the memorandum from the British Foreign Office prior to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 that stated
Again, this was a British promise to Sharif Hussein. The international community thought otherwise.

Quote:
Still going to cling to the idea that Britain never made promises to the Palestinians?
The promises were made to Sharif Hussein, not to the "Palestinians".

Quote:
Please at least stop trying to spread the zionist narrative which is essentially little more than a fairy tale made up 100 years ago to pretend you have a 3000 year link to a region none of you have any right or link to, it is bad enough that we know you are doing it but your continued defense of an apartheid regime is only assisting us in making the world aware of it.
From the Palestine Mandate:

"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"


Why do you keep ignoring the facts?


Quote:
Anyway perhaps this is a reason Israel is not liked?

After Latest Incident, Israel’s Future in FIFA Is Uncertain
Dave Zirin on March 3, 2014 - 4:21 PM ET


The Palestinian national soccer team, a source of pride for many, has been under attack by the Israeli state. (Youtube)

Their names are Jawhar Nasser Jawhar, 19, and Adam Abd al-Raouf Halabiya, 17. They were once soccer players in the West Bank. Now they are never going to play sports again. Jawhar and Adam were on their way home from a training session in the Faisal al-Husseini Stadium on January 31 when Israeli forces fired upon them as they approached a checkpoint. After being shot repeatedly, they were mauled by checkpoint dogs and then beaten. Ten bullets were put into Jawhar’s feet. Adam took one bullet in each foot. After being transferred from a hospital in Ramallah to King Hussein Medical Center in Amman, they received the news that soccer would no longer be a part of their futures.

This is only the latest instance of the targeting of Palestinian soccer players by the Israeli army and security forces. Death, injury or imprisonment has been a reality for several members of the Palestinian national team over the last five years. Just imagine if members of Spain’s top-flight World Cup team had been jailed, shot or killed by another country and imagine the international media outrage that would ensue. Imagine if prospective youth players for Brazil were shot in the feet by the military of another nation. But, tragically, these events along the checkpoints have received little attention on the sports page or beyond.

Much has been written about the psychological effect this kind of targeting has on the occupied territories. Sports represent escape, joy and community, and the Palestinian national soccer team, for a people without a recognized nation, is a source of tremendous pride. To attack the players is to attack the hope that the national team will ever truly have a home.

The Palestinian national football team, which formed in 1998, is currently ranked 144th in the world by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). They have never been higher than 115th. As FIFA themselves said in assessing the state of Palestinian soccer, “Given the passion for football that burns among Palestinians, both in the Occupied Territories and the Diaspora, such lowly status hints at problems on the ground.” These “problems on the ground” consist, as Chairman of the Palestinian Football Association Jibril al-Rajoub commented bluntly, of “the occupation's insistence on destroying Palestinian sport."

Over the last year, in response to this systematic targeting of Palestinian soccer, al-Rajoub has attempted to assemble forces to give Israel the ultimate sanction and, as he said, “demand the expulsion of Israel from FIFA and the International Olympic Committee.” Al-Rajoub claims the support of Jordan, Qatar, Iran, Oman, Algiers and Tunisia in favor of this move, and promises more countries, with an opportunity at a regional March 14 meeting of Arab states, to organize more support. He has also pledged to make the resolution formal when all the member nations of FIFA meet in Brazil.

Qatar's place in this, as host of the 2022 World Cup, deserves particular scrutiny. As the first Arab state to host the tournament, they are under fire for the hundreds of construction deaths of Nepalese workers occurring on their watch. As the volume on these concerns rises, Qatar needs all the support in FIFA that they can assemble. Whether they eventually see the path to that support as one that involves confronting or accommodating Israel, will be fascinating to see.

As for Sepp Blatter, he clearly recognizes that there is a problem in the treatment of Palestinian athletes by the Israeli state. Over the last year, he has sought to mediate this issue by convening a committee of Israeli and Palestinian authorities to see if they can come to some kind of agreement about easing the checkpoints and restrictions that keep Palestinian athletes from leaving (and trainers, consultants, and coaches from entering) the West Bank and Gaza. Yet al-Rajoub sees no progress. As he said, “This is the way the Israelis are behaving and I see no sign that they have recharged their mental batteries. There is no change on the ground. We are a full FIFA member and have the same rights as all other members.”

The shooting into the feet of Jawhar and Adam has taken a delicate situation and made it an impossible one. Sporting institutions like FIFA and the IOC are always wary about drawing lines in the sand when it comes to the conduct of member nations. But the deliberate targeting of players is seen, even in the corridors of power, as impossible to ignore. As long as Israel subjects Palestinian athletes to detention and violence, their seat at the table of international sports will be never be short of precarious.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178642...fifa-uncertain
Did you verify that story?

"In response to inquiries, a Border Police spokesman said, “During operational activity, a group of individuals was seen just seconds before throwing bombs at security forces. When they saw the Border Policemen, the group attempted to run away and tried again to throw bombs at the policemen. The policemen initiated the protocol for opening fire in order to neutralize the threat. The suspects were apprehended, and a bomb was found on them, which has been deactivated.”

The response included a picture of the bomb, but did not include any answers to the claim that the suspects were beaten."


http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.572103

Someone said : "Lets not pretend it's not possible they're not involved in some terrorist cell just because they happen to play football."
March 7th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
What?... you thought that a few days in the wilderness was going to allow us to forget your previous lies and attempted distortions and allow you to come back with a few lines of ........"otiose"........ remarks No, it doesn't work like that.

Just for your information the word "otiose" has been out of general use in the English language for nearly 300 years. Where the fcuk did your script writers (controllers) come up with a word like that????


You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.


Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, Too many lies for them to keep track of, eh? It doesn't say much for the investigative powers and findings of the Israeli High Court. I think that it would be easierjust to write them off as another branch of the Israeli Hasbara Department rather than any sort of Legal Justice system as understood by the rest of the free world.




So much for your childish deliberate lies about richochets and the foot being injured at some other time.

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf.

Your sources just have no credibility whatsoever, to the point that even you must realise this. Either that or you are the world's most gullible HasbaraTroll.
You cannot have a blister on your toe when someone fires a steel bullet in your foot. Either he had a blister or he was shot in the foot. EVERYONE , including the victim, claimed it was a blister on his toe.
Your Nazi technique of "keep lying untill they believe it" won't work.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...english/otiose
--
March 8th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
At the time of the Palestine Mandate no one was talking about "Palestinians", they were Arabs. You can't change history today by saying they were "Palestinians" back then. It is true, and I told you more than once, that the British did not fulfill their assignment.
The British, nor anyone else, promised the "Palestinians" anything. The British promised the Arabs an Islamic caliphate to Sharif Hussein, who BTW recommended Jewish immigration but not a Jewish state.
My mind is not indoctrinated, yours is. You cannot seem to accept the fact that there was no talk of "Palestinians" nor a "Palestine" state back then. Not by the Arabs nor the British. The Arabs living in what is now Israel and the PA didn't want an independent state but annexation to Syria (first) and Transjordan (later). Both demands were dismissed by the British.



First, the meeting was held on the 5th december not the 15th.
Second, this was not for an independent "Palestine" but to include the region of Palestine into the promised Islamic caliphate.
Third, it was the Palestine Mandate that would decide what would happen to the region.
Fourth, please give me the link to the minutes of that meeting.



Again, this was a British promise to Sharif Hussein. The international community thought otherwise.



The promises were made to Sharif Hussein, not to the "Palestinians".



"
Yet you said no promises were made yet clearly they were made at least in the minds of British government officials between 1915 and 2002, it does not matter whether they made them to Sharif Hussein or Santa Claus they still made them.

You can dance around all you like playing with semantics and deflection techniques but you can not deny the root fact.

In the end what it boils down to is an argument of trust, who do I trust more the writings of British diplomats and departments or a guy who I am almost convinced is a made up persona of someone pretending to be a Belgian in Spain and to be frank you are not winning that competition by a long shot.

But hey lets keep up the pretense tell me why do you think those diplomats would say what they said if they thought otherwise, take your time maybe check with some of the folks in the other cubicles get some consensus before you respond.

Quote:
Did you verify that story?

"In response to inquiries, a Border Police spokesman said, “During operational activity, a group of individuals was seen just seconds before throwing bombs at security forces. When they saw the Border Policemen, the group attempted to run away and tried again to throw bombs at the policemen. The policemen initiated the protocol for opening fire in order to neutralize the threat. The suspects were apprehended, and a bomb was found on them, which has been deactivated.”

The response included a picture of the bomb, but did not include any answers to the claim that the suspects were beaten."
So lets if I am to understand what you believe is fact...
- first the suspects were observed about to throw bombs.
- then they were thoroughly disabled by shooting them in the feet.
- then a bomb was found.
Care to explain how it was observed earlier if it wasn't found until after they were shot.

I would also like you to explain to me or perhaps any one of our combat veterans from the forum could explain to me how hard it is to shoot someone 10 times in the feet accidentally, I would also like an explanation as to how the other guy only managed to get one shot in each foot, I am sure VD will have an autobot response perhaps they were kicking bombs at the Israelis?

However there is a further hitch in the idea that bombs were involved and that is that both kids were treated in Ramallah before being transfered to King Hussein Medical Centre in Jordan, if they were throwing "bombs" why were they treated in a military hospital first before being released to a civilian hospital in Ramallah and then allowed to travel to Jordan for further treatment.

My suggestion is that you should perhaps verify your story instead of publishing the scripted fairy tales that let Israelis get away with murder but would not stand up in a court anywhere in the civilised world.

Your continuous defense of the indefensible, the blind obedience to dogma and the xenophobic, ideological nonsense is what convinces me you are a fake, every time I have encountered people like you I realise the dangers of fanaticism.
March 8th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You cannot have a blister on your toe when someone fires a steel bullet in your foot. Either he had a blister or he was shot in the foot. EVERYONE , including the victim, claimed it was a blister on his toe.
I don't know why you are telling me this crap I have always disagreed with it. It was you who made this statement. I never ever said that the victim had a blistered toe,... or was it a bruised toe? Hmmm another mystery arises out of what is quoted as evidence of the Israeli Supreme Court. They don't seem very thorough do they for someone supposedly providing evidence for a High Court Case?
Also as seen in the review of the Court case the sh!tbags were convicted of having shot the victim in the foot. So who do you believe?



You also posted that Nahum Shahaf stated in his Official Court Affidavit that "the projectile never went anywhere near the victim's foot". Then produced possibly the most childish presentation supposedly demonstrating this miracle, which contradicts itself on the very first paragraph of the first page saying that the projectile was shot at a range of 1.5metres then presenting a drawing clearly showing it to be 4 metres.
They don't seem very thorough do they for someone supposedly providing evidence for a High Court Case?



http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...english/otiose[/QUOTE]
So you are writing from the dictionary, which has long out of use words over 1000 years old. I never indicated that it was not a word, I just told you that you are struggling with the English language because this word has not been in common use for nearly 350 years. A bit like the time you tried to tell me that "owning" something, and "occupying" it were the same thing.

You have lied yourself into so many blind corners that you are running out of corners
Quote:
You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.

Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, To many lies for them to keep track of, eh?

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf
March 24th, 2014  
udaka
 
Well, if American army or Japanese army attack Israeli,As the first wave of attack, the American or Japanese just need to bomb the airport,and seal the harbor of Israeli. War is over.

Reason: The Jews found them can't run away. Then they took out the American flags or Japanese flags under their bed.




March 24th, 2014  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by udaka
Well, if American army or Japanese army attack Israeli,As the first wave of attack, the American or Japanese just need to bomb the airport,and seal the harbor of Israeli. War is over.

Reason: The Jews found them can't run away. Then they took out the American flags or Japanese flags under their bed.

.........WHAT THE MAN?

How is that statement even relevant or logical?
March 25th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by udaka
Well, if American army or Japanese army attack Israeli,As the first wave of attack, the American or Japanese just need to bomb the airport,and seal the harbor of Israeli. War is over.

Reason: The Jews found them can't run away. Then they took out the American flags or Japanese flags under their bed.
The subject of this thread is, "So why do people hate Israel" which is nothing to do with attacking Israel.

If you want to talk about that, make a thread of your own.
March 28th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Maybe it is trying to politicise tragedies for their own gain that makes people dislike them?

Clearly Israeli foreign policy consists of "if in doubt Iran did it" and if you have absolutely no clue "Iran probably did it".


Ex-El Al expert: Iran likely involved in MH 370
By Debra Kamin March 16, 2014, 7:35 pm

Based on profiling, pilots are unlikely suspects, says Israeli airline’s former security chief; he and other experts believe plane intact.

A former security chief for El Al said that the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 points directly to Iran.

Isaac Yeffet, who served as head of global security for Israel’s national carrier in the 1980s and now works as an aviation security consultant in New Jersey, said investigators were correct in homing in on the two fake-passport carrying Iranian passengers on the doomed
flight, and they have wasted valuable time by exploring other leads.

“What happened to this aircraft, nobody knows. My guess is based upon the stolen passports, and I believe Iran was involved,” he said. “They hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”

In the immediate aftermath of the aircraft’s disappearance, which occurred last week during a standard night flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, Malaysian officials and the media were fixated on the story of two Iranians who had made it onto the plane with stolen passports. As the days wore on and the investigation uncovered new and confusing
details, with officials admitting that the plane could have traveled for as long as seven hours without radio contact, and that its potential location could be anywhere from northern Kyrgyzstan to the southern Indian Ocean, attention has shifted to the pilots and to far-flung conspiracy theories. This is a misstep, said Yeffet, and one that would not have happened in Israel.

“This would never have happened on an Israeli plane,” says Yeffet. “An El Al aircraft was hijacked for the first and last time in 1968. Since then, there has not been a single flight where security did not check every single name.”

However, it would have taken more than just a pair of Iranians with forged documents, Yeffet said, to pull off such an astonishing crime. “I can’t believe for a second that if these people planned to hijack the aircraft, it was just them,” he said. But based upon the tried-and-true Israeli intelligence strategy of profiling, the pilots, he said, are unlikely suspects.

“We are talking about a captain who is 53 years old, who has worked for Malaysia Airlines for 30 years, and suddenly he became a terrorist? He wanted to commit suicide? If he committed suicide, where is the debris?”

Adding that the captain in question, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was known to be happily married and comfortably well-off, Yeffet said the profile simply does not fit. “From the United States to China to Japan, everybody is searching for this aircraft or piece of it. And there is no sign. So in my opinion, the aircraft was hijacked. And it was an excellent plan from the terrorists, to land in a place where they can hide the plane and no one can find it.”

Lt. Col. (Res.) Eran Ramot, a former IAF fighter pilot and the head of aviation research at Israel’s Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, however, drew other conclusions.

“It would be very complicated [for someone other than the pilot to have flown the plane],” Ramot said, based on the stunning revelations that the flight not only made a total U-turn from its planned route but also dipped in between radar points for hours and had all of its tracking systems manually turned off. “It takes somebody that knows how to operate an airplane like this.”

Like Yeffet, Ramot believes the plane was being intentionally flown to a secret location, and he went as far as to say he is holding out hope that the 239 passengers and crew who were on board are still alive.

“We don’t know any better yet,” he said. “One of my theories is that the airplane landed in Bangladesh. It could reach there, it’s very close to Afghanistan. It could have landed on airstrip there, and everybody on board is still alive. It could be done.”

Asked what would have happened if the plane – which went undetected for hours as it blipped across Malaysian radars – had entered Israeli airspace, Ramot said, “It would not go unnoticed, that’s for sure.
Action would have been carried out, the least of which would have been an interception to escort it.”

That doesn’t mean that the Malaysian military wasn’t paying attention, he added. It’s simply that in Israel, the margin for taking chances is significantly reduced.

“It’s a matter of atmosphere,” he said. “Here, every blip on the screen is suspicious because that’s the way we live. That’s our daily program.
I can’t imagine they pay as much attention, but if a blip runs wide or runs strange, I would expect them to notice.”

Pini Schiff, one of Israel’s top aviation security experts, said that if there is any comfort that Israelis can take from the story of MH 370, which is proving to be one of the most confounding aviation disasters of all time, it is that it could never happen to a plane flying out of Ben-Gurion International Airport.

“It simply wouldn’t happen at Ben-Gurion,” he said. “The level of security at Ben-Gurion and on all El Al planes is so high, there is nothing more they could do… Nations are not spending billions of dollars the way the Israeli government is protecting Israeli aviation, because the threat against Israeli aviation is so high. What we are doing in Ben-Gurion is an operation that is not being done in any other airport in the world. Not in the
United States, not in Britain, not in Germany, not anywhere.”

Like his colleagues, Schiff said that his guess is as good as anyone’s as to the fate of MH 370, but he also believes there’s a good possibility that it has been brought down, intact, on a hidden runway in some far-flung corner of the world.

“It will be found. It may take a month or a year, but eventually, it will be found,” he said. “This aircraft didn’t vanish. It exists somewhere in the world, and it will be found, probably in one piece.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-el-a...ved-in-mh-370/
March 30th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
This seems like a realistic break down of the issues involved in reaching a peace deal...

Trudy Rubin: If two-state is ‘no’, then what?



The prospects for reaching an Israeli-Palestinian deal by John Kerry’s April 29 deadline are about as unlikely as Vladimir Putin giving up Crimea.
The secretary of state probably wishes he never launched his quixotic campaign for Middle East peace a year ago. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ meeting earlier this month with President Obama at the White House only illustrated the unbridgeable gulf between the Israeli and Palestinian positions.
But Kerry was right to warn in April that “if we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance.” The failure of these talks would signify it’s no longer possible to reach a two-state solution — a state of Palestine beside Israel.
This formula has been the basis of peace talks for more than two decades, and no one has come up with a realistic formula to replace it. That’s why there is a desperate need for fresh thinking about what to do if it dies.
Of course, it’s hard to think of a time less likely to produce a final agreement between the Palestinians and Israel.
The Arab world is in disarray, and there is an ongoing struggle within Islam. The strong Arab neighbors that Israel would require to guarantee the future of a weak Palestinian state no longer exist. And the issue of Iran’s nuclear program looms over all.
But the reason the two-state solution has become passé goes deeper than the press of current events. It has to do with the passage of time and changed facts on the ground.
The generation of Palestinians and Israelis that negotiated the Oslo accords in 1993 had faith in the two-state concept. Its strongest Palestinian advo- cates had served years in Israeli prisons as secular Fatah activists and knew Hebrew. They believed a two-state solution was the best deal the Palestinians would get.
Israeli activists and intellectuals had long contacts with their counterparts, at a time when Palestinians could travel freely inside Israel and vice versa. Unlike now, peace negotiators were discussing the nuts and bolts of ending the conflict: for example, how to divide Jerusalem into two capitals, and how to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in third countries.
Those days seem like ancient history. There’s no room to list all of the reasons the Oslo Accord failed, including Palestinian suicide bombers and Israel’s vast settlement project on the West Bank. Suffice it to say that today, Palestinians and Israelis are mostly cut off from each other by walls and fences and their youths rarely meet, except at Israeli military checkpoints.
So it’s unsurprising that the younger generation is more skeptical about two states than their parents. The two-state solution is still the most popular option on both sides, but that support is waning. A poll by Zogby Research Services showed barely one-third of Israelis and Palestinians believe a two-state solution is feasible, while younger Israelis take harder-line positions than their elders.
A similar generation gap emerged from a December poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. It found that, while 65 percent of Palestinians over 50 still supported the two-state idea, only 47 percent of those 18-34 did.
This brings us to the options other than two states. If Palestinians got full rights inside a single state, its Arab citizens would soon outnumber (and outvote) Jewish Israelis. That would mean the end of the Jewish homeland and would guarantee permanent civil war.
A hawkish Israeli version of the one-state solution is equally unrealistic. It argues that Palestinians would be satisfied to live without political rights in cantons essentially controlled by Israelis.
The one-state solution is a non-starter: Either Israel would remain an eternal occupier, or it would no longer be a Jewish state.
Some Israelis have suggested the country unilaterally withdraw from populated areas of the West Bank, but this would solve little. Those areas would be economically and politically unviable, becoming hotbeds of protest or rockets, as happened with Gaza. Others argue that Jordan might be persuaded to take control of segments of the West Bank. That hoary idea is anathema to Jordan’s monarch and people.
So Obama was not off base when he told the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg: “I have not yet heard ... a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state ... in the absence of ... a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario.”
The problem is that there is none, which is why the negotiators may ultimately produce a vague framework that keeps the talks going, to buy time to figure out what to do if they end.


http://www.omaha.com/article/20140330/NEWS08/140339993
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism