Saving Tame having to break this out of the other thread as I suspect this topic may take on a life of its own.


Why Israel had no chance to ever negotiate a Peace deal with Palestine.

For those that know the history of the region and the genesis of the conflict you understand it goes back far before the formation of Israel as a country. There was vast opposition in the region to even the premise of an Israeli State. That amongst people who say Palestinians deserve a State and who are unable to see the contradiction in those positions.

So first to the deep historical arguments.

Jews are one of two, what could be called Indigenous peoples that made up, what would be referred to as Palestinians historically. So if anyone is basing their argument that Palestinians deserve a State of their own, then therefore they are including Jews within that. No getting around that.

More recently history, post the formation of the Jewish State, is the issue of the remaining Palestinian people not getting their own State.

The definitely deserve their own State, and I will not touch upon questions of border disputes and just say both parties should have their own State.


So why has not the formation of Palestine been a priority (Clinton tried) and why have leaders like Arafat rejected focusing on a fight over first winning arguments over where the borders should be and not taking a State until that is resolved? Is seems a given to me that had a Palestinian State been formed under the Clinton plan, and today the argument with Israel was mainly over disputed territory, that the Palestinian people would be much better off.


the answer to the above is that this is not a battle between Israel and the Palestines and is an extension of the war between the Arabs and Israel and also the Palestinians.
The Arab's have the most to lose if the Palestinians gain a State and use that foothold and Nation status to start asserting claims in disputed territories. Sure Israel will face some claims, but all the oil rich land that Palestinians would have even a better claim over than they do, as to Jewish occupied lands, would be argued should be taken from Arab nations and given to the newly formed Palestine.

A Jewish and Palestinian State at their doorstep, is a nightmare for the Arab States as the Arab people have far less of a claim, by any measure, then the Palestinian people's do. Why would the Palestinians with a State put more effort into poor areas like the West Bank, when Jordan and other Arab countries are holding far more disputed lands and ones rich in Oil?


For those who do not know that history you need to read up on the Khartoum Summit as a great primer and the 3 No's, a joint resolution by the Arab States after the formation of Israel. In that summit they set out that there would be 'no peace with Israel', 'no recognition OF Israel', 'no negotiations with Israel'. they also identified they could weaponize the DESIRE of the Palestines for their own State against Israel. They saw the value of making their enemy fight their enemy.

Thus why Yasser Arafat died a billionaire as substantial amount of Arab money was flowing to him to keep the conflict going. In that same summit the Arab nations declared they would use Oil and the proceeds to continue the war against Israel.


And as such, that is why if there is ever a peace between the Palestinians and Jews, we must first see Israel establish that peace with the main Arab nations who will fund all efforts to undermine it. Then and only then can the Jews and Palestinians negotiate in good faith.


--------------------


So my view above has nothing to do with saying if the Jews or Palestinians are correct in their border wars. I make no attempt to litigate blame in that area and that should not be taken , in any way as me having a side. if you put the Palestinians in that spot, and instead they got the country of Palestine and the jews were left out, I am certain this plays out the same way. The Arab nations instantly go to war against the newly formed Palestine and try to weaponize the Jews desire for a homeland against them. There is zero reason to believe it plays out any different.


-----------------

Anyway while i am curious for anyone's take I am especially curious for Tame's take as the guy I consider our resident historian (just my view) on what anyone thinks i got wrong above?


(Also inb4 Trolly and others slander me with Palestinian hate, etc and other such specious accusations because they don't like my view and cannot figure out out how to effectively debate it)

You're not correct in suggesting that Arab states would never make peace with Israel, because Egypt and Jordan have actual treaties in place with Israel and Saudi Arabia is an informal ally of Israel against the common enemy Iran. The Palestinians have never produced a credible leader like Mandela and do not count for much at all in geopolitical terms. Jordan lost patience with the Palestinian militias in what became known as 'Black September'. Hostility to Israel is simply used by certain regimes, and certain Western political movements, as a kind of internal rallying point, the way that hating on Snowball was important in Orwell's Animal Farm.

It remains the case, though, that Israel has given itself an unsolvable problem in the West Bank. Its dominion will never be recognised as lawful, and nor will the apartheid regime it enforces there, with Arabs liable to be shot on sight if they use a Jews-only footpath, for instance, and Israel can't formally annexe the territory because then they would have to either give the Arab population the vote, which won't happen because it would dilute Israel's Jewish majority too much and annoy the far-right religious voters, or else deny the Arabs the vote as second-class citizens and admit to the apartheid system, which would cause problems for their important supporters in the United States. It's an unsquarable circle.

Israel is an apartheid state doing genocide. compare and contrast to what is going on in Ukraine and ask why the libs find this situation "complicated".

Uh, a lot of liberals have a problem with Israel, Kremlin Gremlin. Before Matt destroyed the old forums the I/P thread showed this. You're either ignorant or lying.

Lol, you literally have no political awareness and only have two political leanings "America bad" and "Liberals bad"... I'm just waiting for you to switch to being a MAGA commie like Jackson Hinkle.

My point was historically.

yes it is great that a few Arab States have made peace and that the key one Saudi are making moves in that direction. That in my view is the only way then that the Palestinians and Israel will get to a peace.

You have summed up Victor perfectly. I am not so sure he is pro any one but his hate for America and liberals is so blinding to him, that no matter the topic, he can see nothing but America and Liberals are worse.

the fact that both of you cant win an argument with me and need to invent that I am MAGA is pretty much proof that America bad, liberals bad is undefeated.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/70107...omars-comments

keep carrying that water

I get the feeling that a lot of the problem is a difference in the interpretation of the world "liberal". I and I think many others are not using it as precisely as you seem to be. I use it as a broad interpretation of left that includes everyone not center right or further right and everyone left of that who is not more specifically defined at the furthest margins of the left (as a communist, socialist, anarchist, etc). Both Omar and Pelosi exist in that definition.

World Management Corp webinar. no task too small. special guest speaker to be announced

it's a separate announcement!

Taking that approach can get you super far though. Not saying it's perfect but if you're going to be on autopilot then America bad, liberals bad is a pretty good setting.

If those two are bad, which countries and political leanings are good?

There might not be any good countries and I like Utilitarianism as far as ethics goes.

so does Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney and Donald Trump

They don't fit my definition and I doubt most others here so this illustrates the problem well.

you can quibble over Trump and the American far right. but most of the Republican party, especially historically, are text book liberals. after all, we live in a "liberal democracy."

the reason it doesnt fit "your definition" is bc your ideas are defined by team based entertainment politics presented by the current media. from a historical and semantic standpoint, Romney Cheney Bush Mccain are liberals.

this is important bc it helps to illustrate the idea that Dems and Repubs are very similar.

If I'm speaking with someone about modern American politics I'm going to assume the popular contemporary usage of political words. These are not my ideas anymore than correctly recognizing that when someone is talking about memes today they probably mean gifs. You're conflating classical liberalism with the modern American usage. You don't need to be on a "team" to correctly recognize the current popular usage of a word and if you're departing from that you should contextualize your statements.

This is a good post.

Cuepee's historical context is important to understand, but I don't think that most Arab nations are particularly concerned that a Palestinian state would press territorial claims elsewhere in the Arab world.

Over time, what you have observed are Arab leaders, Iranian leaders, and Israeli leaders doing iterative political calculations about whether they benefit more from supporting conflict or from supporting efforts to resolve conflict. Those calculations are very leader-specific and state-specific.

For example, it was never obvious to me that Arafat wanted to catch the rabbit that he was purporting to chase. Being a head of state can be a lot more tenuous and messy than being the titular head of a resistance movement.

And supporting "peace" as a abstract concept while resisting any concrete, realistic plan has always been the path of least political resistance for mainstream Israeli leadership.

I think the terms LIberal is stretched way to far if you include Bernie and AOC in a bucket with Nancy Pelosi and most corporate Dems.

I think the Progressives far more reflect how most people think of liberal (for the every day person) and instead Pelosi, et al should be perhaps considered Centrist. Liberal >>> Centrist >>>> Conservative.

I would see it as almost negligence if since Israel was forcibly placed in the region, to the Arab States great lament, if they did not strategically see any formation of a Palestinian State as a huge potential threat to their lands or at least a huge destabilizing force as they argued for the return of those lands and supported separatist factions in that regard.

I imagine the Clinton Palestinian deal done and the Palestinians have their own State with proximity to israel. Job 1 accomplished. So what is Job 2? To fight over the slivers of remaining land in dispute that have no resources and no real value beyond the dispute or to instead focus on the Oil rich lands that the Palestinians have an even stronger claim on? Stronger because it is not a Palestinian People vs another Palestinian People (Jews) contesting who should get that historical Palestinian land and instead is a Palestinian people arguing against Arab people who clearly have the much weaker claim, in that regard.

NOw of course you might think the military might of the Arab nations might deter that change in direction but would it? When Israel has more might than any one of them and they had no issue of going after Israel? And what if Israel gave support for them to go after Syria or Jordan, instead of fighting over the disputed lands between them? What if now that Palestine had a Nation the Israeli were just willing to agree to some form of Joint governance over the remaining disputed lands as their feeling of needing a buffer zone was greatly diminished with Palestinian statehood?


Any way regardless of all the 'what ifs', I maintain that from a strategic standpoint that the Arab nations, after seeing the formation of Israel would have had to have at least recognized the white board thread of a Palestine Nation side by side with Israel. Especially if those two groups made s working peace.

Free Gamblor!!!

(Am I spelling it right?)

Hahahaaa! Victor wins!


that was funny!


you guys should play some tekken. Victor wins! and its not even close-

"At the center of Jerusalem, in an area about twice the size of the Mall in Washington sit three major holy sites: the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in the world for Muslims; the Western Wall, part of the holiest site in the world for Jews; and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which marks the place where many ...06.12.2017
"

Why is Jerusalem so important to Muslims, Christians and Jews?

I concur and 57 on Red's post was good.

If we dive down below ideological rallying cry, there is a lot to unpack in the Israeli / Palestine conflict. As 57 on Red stated, these conflicts were not limited to only that region. Thus alliances and agreements exist on a spectrum that would probably surprise someone who only knows the conflict more casually.

Let us look at one simplified case study.

The PLO which historically has played a leading role in the Palestinian conflict (up until its conflict with the Islamist Hamas) was originally an umbrella organization that joined several organizations under joint leadership. The most well known of these is the Fatah and its former leader Yasser Arafat.

However, you also had member groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (now no longer a member, they left when PLO started engaging in peace talks), a radical socialist organization which carried out a series of terrorist attacks and hijackings. But, the PFLP in itself was also an umbrella organizations which attracted socialist revolutionaries from nearby countries. Especially in Jordan, this would result in many uprisings and many dead.

People from these groups would also leave to join even more extremist groups, the most well known example to us is probably Black September (for historical accuracy, it should be pointed out that this initially also had a lot of recruits from the Fatah). This is the terrorist group that assassinated the Jordanian prime minister in 1971 and carried out the 1972 Munich attacks that killed 11 Israeli athletes and a German police officer.

This does not mean that using broad strokes and aggregating into a larger historical context is always wrong. It is not. It simply means that there is a very convoluted mess of alliances and ideologies that should not be ignored out of convenience, because they actually matter.