• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

European nations recognizing Palestine?

You're asking what my point is, I ask you what your point is! You are saying then that both sides have a right to the disputed land.

Yes, I am saying that. I am also saying the reason both sides claim that part of the world as their ancestral homeland is because both sides are descended from the same ancestors. And the reason Zionists had to force Palestinians out of their homes is because, contrary to Golda Meir's catchy slogan, there was no "land without a people" in the area around Jerusalem for at least 4,000 years, and in the areas with a good water supply it was more like 10,000 years.

Then why do you want to see one side be a victim to a genocide?

I don't. I want to see both sides come to terms with each other and go back to the quiet, boring, uneventful relations they had for centuries before this current round of bloodshed and bigotry. And speaking of bigotry:

And if it did happen, what makes you think it will lead to peace there when there would still be open warfare between Sunni and Shite? The problem is right there in the koran. The Jew hatred started while the paedophile prophet Muhammad was still alive. The Jews loved life and would do anything to have life while the islamics loved death, they couldn't understand that life meant more than to die in the name of allah to the Jews and xtians and other infidels.

I get it that you hate Islam. And there are plenty of reasons to abhor violent Islamists. But when you paint every Palestinian with that broad brush of yours, and accuse each and every one of desiring nothing less than the death of all Jews worldwide, your posts become just as anti-Semitic as a neo-Nazi rant about how evil Jews are, and how they have a secret cabal that runs the world. And that's where you lose all credibility.

Palestinians are as varied a group as any other. Some are peaceable, some are not. Some are devout, some are secular. Accusing them of sharing some kind of Jew-hating hive mind is racism and bigotry at its ugliest.

At Camp David accord under the Clinton administration , the then Israeli pm Barak offered the Yassar Arafat 95% of his demands including Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and all of Judea, Samaria. It wasn't Barak who walked away from that offer, it was Arafat, who repaid that offer upon his return started an infidata that was responsible for thousands of deaths on both sides. Palestinians could've had their state years ago had they so chosen. But The famous "Verse of the sword"[Sura 9:5] considered the final word on Jihad instructs muslims to attack and kill non-muslims and also enjoin war against unbelievers.

About Camp David, did you read Robert Malley's article Camp David: The Tragedy Of Errors? I know I've linked to it many times, but so far it doesn't seem like you have. He was a participant and first hand witness to events, and he wrote a pretty good article about why it's a mistake to buy into the overly simplistic claim that Barak made a generous offer and that Arafat simply walked away:

Robert Malley article said:
In accounts of what happened at the July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we often hear about Ehud Barak’s unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat’s uncompromising no. Israel is said to have made a historic, generous proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. In short, the failure to reach a final agreement is attributed, without notable dissent, to Yasser Arafat.

As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one. For it has larger ripple effects. Broader conclusions take hold. That there is no peace partner is one. That there is no possible end to the conflict with Arafat is another.

For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. In so doing, it fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer. Worse, it acts as a harmful constraint on American policy by offering up a single, convenient culprit—Arafat—rather than a more nuanced and realistic analysis.

Each side came to Camp David with very different perspectives, which led, in turn, to highly divergent approaches to the talks.

If you really, truly want to discuss Camp David, I'm willing to discuss it with you. But we should probably start a new thread.
 
Robert Malley is coming from the far left. Any decent human who advises that the West negotiate with terrorist such as Hamas as he does in this article doesn't have credibility. HTF can he criticise Barak's offer of ,more than 95% of Arafat's demands blame the Israeli side?

Robert Malley has published several articles on the failed 2000 Camp David Summit in which he participated as a member of the U.S. negotiating team. Malley rejects the mainstream opinion that lays all the blame for the failure of the Summit on Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian delegation. In his analysis, the main reasons were the tactics of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the substance of his proposal which made it impossible for Arafat to accept Barak's offer.[2]

Malley argues that negotiations with the Palestinians today must include Hamas because the Palestine Liberation Organization is no longer considered the Palestinian people's sole legitimate representative.[10] He describes the PLO as antiquated, worn out, barely functioning, and, because it does not include the broad Islamist current principally represented by Hamas, of questionable authority. Malley favors negotiating with Hamas at least for the purpose of a cease-fire—citing Hamas officials in Gaza who made clear they were prepared for such an agreement with Israel.[11]

He supports efforts to reach an Israel-Hamas cease-fire which would include an immediate end to Palestinian rocket launches and sniper fire and a freeze on Israeli military attacks on Gaza. Malley's arguments rest on both humanitarian and practical reasons. Malley points to the blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip has not stopped Hamas's rocket attacks on nearby Israeli towns and notes that the siege has caused millions of Gazans to suffer from lack of medicine, fuel, electricity and other essential commodities, so cease-fire would avoid "enormous loss of life, a generation of radicalized and embittered Gazans, and another bankrupt peace process."[11]

In addition, Malley calls for Israel, the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and other Arab countries to resume negotiations on all tracks based on the Arab Peace Initiative which promises full Arab recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement in exchange for a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories to the 1967 borders, the recognition of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees.[10]

"Today, Malley still stands out for his calls to engage in negotiations with Syria and Iran and for finding 'some kind of accommodation' with Hamas", The Jewish Daily Forward reported in February 2008.[5]
 
Robert Malley is coming from the far left.

You mean somewhat to the left of Bibi and Dick Cheney? Agreed.

Any decent human who advises that the West negotiate with terrorist such as Hamas as he does in this article doesn't have credibility.


"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." - Moshe Dayan

HTF can he criticise Barak's offer of ,more than 95% of Arafat's demands blame the Israeli side?

Why not read the article and find out?
 
If a nation isn't recognized, can it still be a nation? Before this thing became popular, what qualities was nationhood based on? I dare say these qualities haven't changed that much.

And I can't really understand the problem with recognizing Palestine. Whether they are recognized or not, they can still make peace or war.
 
A divided nation cannot be recognised. Can the territory under ISIS be recognised as a nation? They claim enough territory to be one, so why not!
 
A divided nation cannot be recognised.

Not so. Israel was recognized in 1948 while it was still driving our non-Jews. Israel's forcible eviction of Palestinians didn't stop until 1951, and even then it only stopped because other nations insisted Israel stop creating more refugees, not because the people within Israel's borders were united.

Can the territory under ISIS be recognised as a nation? They claim enough territory to be one, so why not!

We'll find out if they ever try for international recognition of their new Caliphate.
 
Very obvious you have either a warped knowledge of the history of Israel or are deliberately posting disinformation. There were around 600.000 refugees created with the establishment of the Jewish state, but at the same time there were over 2 million Jews evicted from the Arab nations on the establishment of the state of Israel.
 
You're changing the subject (and using a Tu Quoque; also, the Jewish Virtual Library puts the total number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries between 1948 and1972 at 820,000, not 2 million). Nations can be recognized even if their population is not united. Palestine can be recognized as a nation even if it is under military occupation and is being heavily colonized by Israel.
 
Artish, reading your posts makes my blood boil! You love the Palestinians so much, why not go live there? I'm sure you'd be able to sort things out for them! I'm quite certain that leaving behind a democracy and go live in a theocracy would be right up your alley!
 
For others who may be reading this thread. Islamism's Jew hatred apart from having roots in the koran, in modern times it was spawned in Nazi Germany. Islam was on the Nazi side during WW2. The grand mufti requested Nazi aide to combat the Jews and Westerners, to which he was told that aide would be forthcoming as soon as the Allies were defeated, which never happened of course. Since then, the Arabs have experienced excruciating shame in losing three wars to the Israelis, [ 1948, 1967, 1973] and in observing the success and prosperity of the Jewish civilization right in their midst. In half a century a sliver of desert was turned into the modern thriving Israel we see today while the Arabs which surround this modern democratic oasis have shown nothing but backwardness. This is an agonising dose of reality for many Arabs, causing them to try to destroy the reminder of their failed civilasation : Israel!
 
Artish, reading your posts makes my blood boil! You love the Palestinians so much, why not go live there? I'm sure you'd be able to sort things out for them! I'm quite certain that leaving behind a democracy and go live in a theocracy would be right up your alley!

I find our conversations frustrating, too, mostly because you don't seem to want to check out sources of information other than the obviously faulty ones you already have. Even when I use Zionist-friendly sources like the Jewish Virtual Library, there's never any feedback.
 
Artish, reading your posts makes my blood boil! You love the Palestinians so much, why not go live there? I'm sure you'd be able to sort things out for them! I'm quite certain that leaving behind a democracy and go live in a theocracy would be right up your alley!

I find our conversations frustrating, too, mostly because you don't seem to want to check out sources of information other than the obviously faulty ones you already have. Even when I use Zionist-friendly sources like the Jewish Virtual Library, there's never any feedback.
I have faulty information? Here, read this with both eyes open and remove lefty coloured glasses.

Removed really, really long quote with no citation. Poster given opportunity to provide citation.

- - - Updated - - -

So much for Robert Malley!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So much for Robert Malley!

You've written nothing in the above against Robert Malley except that he holds opinions that you disagree with. He doesn't hate Iran, Hamas, the Palestinians, or Yasser Arafat in the way that you feel he should.
 
So much for Robert Malley!

You've written nothing in the above against Robert Malley except that he holds opinions that you disagree with. He doesn't hate Iran, Hamas, the Palestinians, or Yasser Arafat in the way that you feel he should.

What I find obvious about angelo's posts regarding the Palestinians is actually very little is said about Palestinians. It is a discussion of politics on THIS SIDE OF THE POND...about poking people in the eye...and a lot of stuff that would only matter if there was an actual contest for supremacy in the region. We already know angelo does not like Palestinians and sees any considerations given them as a sin of some type. So obviously he doesn't care for anybody who thinks the Palestinians should have rights and the right to pick their own leaders, and the kind of things he feels are okay for Israelis. I feel sorry for angelo because he appears support Netanyahu's racist obsession with Iran and any other Muslim.
 
Umm, angelo, why don't you properly cite that source you are quoting?

And this is supposed to reassure us that you are using unbiased sources?
 
I have faulty information? Here, read this with both eyes open and remove lefty coloured glasses.

<unsourced report critical of Robert Malley>

So much for Robert Malley!

I'm not sure if what you posted is the entire article, or if some portions are missing. If that's the entire article, there are a few problems.

The author claims Malley engaged in "Israel bashing" but has not provided any examples of it. The only incident he ties to Israel bashing is the same Malley article I linked to, where Malley lays out the case that the failure of the Camp David negotiations was ultimately due to the disconnect between the maximum the Israelis would offer and the minimum the Palestinians would accept, made worse by the mutual mistrust between Arafat and the Barak-Clinton alliance. I have no idea how that equates to "Israel bashing". It appears the author of your article is complaining that Malley refuses to spout the utterly simplistic party line about it all being Arafat's fault, and that's the same thing as hating Israel, or something along those lines.

The article does quote Malley in a couple of places, but those quotes look an awful lot like quote-mined nuggets that do not convey Malley's point in writing them. Here is the joint Agha-Malley article, and here are those quotes words in context:

Everywhere, Israel faces the rise of Islam, of militancy, of radicalism. Former allies are gone; erstwhile foes reign supreme. But the Islamists have different and broader objectives. They wish to promote their Islamic project, which means consolidating their rule where they can, refraining from alienating the West, and avoiding perilous and precocious clashes with Israel. In this scheme, the presence of a Jewish state is and will remain intolerable, but it is probably the last piece of a larger puzzle that may never be fully assembled.

The quest to establish an independent, sovereign Palestinian state was never at the heart of the Islamist project. Hamas, the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, harbors grander, less territorially confined but also less immediately achievable designs. Despite Hamas’s circumlocutions and notwithstanding its political evolution, it never truly deviated from its original view—the Jewish state is illegitimate and all the land of historic Palestine is inherently Islamic. If the current balance of power is not in your favor, wait and do what you can to take care of the disparity. The rest is tactics.

The Palestinian question has been the preserve of the Palestinian national movement. As of the late 1980s, its declared goal became a sovereign state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Alternatives, whether interim or temporary, have been flatly rejected. The Islamists’ plan may be more ambitious and grandiose but more flexible and elastic. For them, a diminutive, amputated state, hemmed in by Israel, dependent on its goodwill, predicated on its recognition, and entailing an end to the conflict, is not worth fighting for.

They can live with a range of transient arrangements: an interim agreement; a long-term truce, or hudna; a possible West Bank confederation with Jordan, with Gaza moving toward Egypt. All will advance the further Islamization of Palestinian society. All permit Hamas to turn to its social, cultural, and religious agenda, its true calling. All allow Hamas to maintain the conflict with Israel without having to wage it. None violates Hamas’s core tenets. It can put its ultimate goal on hold. Someday, the time for Palestine, for Jerusalem may come. Not now.

In the age of Arab Islamism, Israel may find Hamas’s purported intransigence more malleable than Fatah’s ostensible moderation. Israel fears the Islamic awakening. But the more immediate threat could be to the Palestinian national movement. There is no energy left in the independence project; associated with the old politics and long-worn-out leaderships, it has expended itself. Fatah and the PLO will have no place in the new world. The two-state solution is no one’s primary concern. It might expire not because of violence, settlements, or America’s inexpert role. It might perish of indifference.

An Islamist era that picks up where the Ottoman Empire left off, the shutting down of the nationalist interlude, is far from preordained. The Brotherhood flourished in opposition largely because it remained secretive, displayed patience, and ensured internal obedience. It built up influence through years of quiet labor and struggle. Once Islamists compete for power, many of their assets become obsolete. They must move openly because politics are more transparent, adjust quickly because of fast-paced change, and cope with diversity within their ranks because the system has become more plural.

Tunisia’s ruling Islamists must make a choice regarding Islam’s place in the new constitution; if they opt for a more moderate outcome, they will infuriate the Salafists, fail to reassure the non-Islamists, and befuddle countless of their own. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood faces attacks from secularists for injecting too much religion into public life and from Salafists for not injecting enough. Members split to join more moderate expressions of Islamism or more rigorous ones. The Brotherhood’s emphasis on free-market economics and the middle class does not play well to the underprivileged.

The new Islamist language, insofar as it emphasizes freedom, democracy, elections, and human rights, earns praise in the West but skepticism from critics. These might only be words but words can matter; they can take on a life of their own, force policy changes, make it difficult to renege. At that point, the Brotherhood can become the party it says it is, and then what will remain of its Islamism? Or it can persist as the movement it has been, and then what will remain of its pragmatism? Historically a tightly regimented transnational organization, the Brotherhood no longer speaks with one voice inside a country any more than it does across borders. As power beckons, each branch has different, often competing, political priorities and concerns.

Islamists also face the dilemmas of foreign policy. Egypt’s new assertiveness, its attempt at a more independent diplomacy, could put it at odds with the West. Its apparent decision to suspend its anti-Western and anti-Israeli positions risks alienating its public. Many Egyptians crave more than a Mubarak ornamented with Koranic verses.

Islamists prospered in opposition because they could blame others; they could suffer in power because others will blame them. Dilute their domestic and foreign agenda, and they may well lose their rank-and-file; pursue it and they will alienate non-Islamists and the West. Postpone the struggle against Israel, and their rhetoric will appear disconnected from their policy; wage it, and their policy will appear dangerous to their new allies in the West. If they explain that their moderation is tactical, they will expose themselves; stay silent and they will confuse the base. There are only so many contradictions they can simultaneously straddle in this Olympian balancing act. The power of political Islam flowed chiefly from not exercising it. Its recent successes could signal the eve of its decline. How much simpler was life on the other side.

Amid chaos and uncertainty, the Islamists alone offer a familiar, authentic vision for the future. They might fail or falter, but who will pick up the mantle? Liberal forces have a weak lineage, slim popular support, and hardly any organizational weight. Remnants of the old regime are familiar with the ways of power yet they seem drained and exhausted. If instability spreads, if economic distress deepens, they could benefit from a wave of nostalgia. But they face long odds, bereft of an argument other than that things used to be bad, but now are worse.

That leaves an assortment of nationalists, anti-imperialists, old-fashioned leftists, and Nasserites. Theirs was the sole legitimate ideology in the Arab world, invoked by those who fought colonialism and by those who replaced the colonial powers. Similar ideas have been invoked too, unwittingly but unmistakably, by the demonstrators and protesters of these past months who spoke of dignity, independence, and social justice, and thus borrowed from the same ideological lexicon as those they eventually ousted.

This non-Islamist, “progressive” outlook has roots, appeal, and foot soldiers; it lacks organization and resources and has suffered from having been so thoroughly tainted and corrupted by generations that ruled in its name. Can it reinvent itself? If the Muslim Brotherhood plays down people’s nationalist feelings, if it ignores their aspirations to social justice, if it fails to govern effectively, an opening might arise. The more nationalist, progressive worldview could yet stage a comeback.
^^ This is not the full article, but it's a pretty big portion of it. I wanted to include enough of the original to give readers an understanding of where Malley and Agha are coming from, and where they are going with this. IMO the rest of the article is well worth reading.

The other bit of Malley's words your article quoted comes from a New York Times op-ed piece. The quoted bit when placed in context reads:

For a U.S. administration that has essentially deserted the Arab-Israeli arena and in effect followed Israel's lead, this does not bode well. Yet it should be seen and seized as an opportunity for the United States to define policies in the region that will promote its interests and can at least begin to undo the harm inflicted by six years of diplomatic neglect. None of this need come at the expense of Israeli interests; indeed, most of it would in fact serve Israeli peacemaking options over time.

What would such a retooled policy look like? There is a temptation in Washington to focus primarily on Lebanon. It is understandable, but it would be wrong. Dealing with Lebanon to the exclusion of all else contributed to the latest crisis, and could fuel the next.

Instead, the United States should broaden its diplomatic reach. This would entail engaging Syria, with eyes open and expectations low, on the subject of Lebanon, of course, but also on bilateral issues and an eventual resumption of negotiations with Israel, which President Bashar al-Assad reiterated was his wish as recently as this week.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains the core issue in the region, also requires a fresh approach. A national unity government between Fatah and Hamas appears within reach, and the Europeans seem prepared to resume assistance to such a government once it takes shape. Should this happen, America shouldn't stand in the way - regardless of whether Hamas recognizes Israel or formally renounces violence. Instead, the United States should see this as an opportunity to achieve what is achievable: a Palestinian cease-fire involving all armed organizations, a halt to all Israeli offensive military actions, and the resumption of normal economic life for the Palestinian government and people.

So once again, Malley is calling for a thoughtful approach to understanding the conflict and a practical approach to resolving it. I hope you will read the linked articles and form your own opinion of the guy.
 
How about the reality of Hamas fighting:

http://www.jinsa.org/gaza-assessment

They deliberately put civilians in danger to get support from leftists in the west.

Did you just quote these guys?

"The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is a Washington, D.C.-based pro-Israel non-profit think-tank founded in 1976 focusing on issues of national security. JINSA's stated aim is to: Provide leadership and affect policy on crucial issues of national security and foreign policy; to promote American security cooperation with like-minded allies including, but not limited to, Israel; to engage the American defense community about the role Israel can and does play in securing Western, democratic interests in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions; and to improve awareness in the general public, as well as in the Jewish community of the importance of a strong American defense capability.

JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Joe Lieberman, General James T. Conway, and Chief William J. McSweeney of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, while Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith were all on JINSA's Board of Advisors before they entered the Bush administration. JINSA is officially a non-partisan organization welcoming advisors from both sides of the aisle including Democrats such as former Congressman Dave McCurdy and former Congresswoman Shelley Berkley."

What did I tell you about going full retard? You never go full retard.
 
I've never understood this "not recognizing" thing. It's not like it's a fictional nation.

Actually, right wingnuts insist exactly that.

Palestine doesn't exist. It's a fictional nation created as part of an elaborate conspiracy against Israel.
 
How about the reality of Hamas fighting:

http://www.jinsa.org/gaza-assessment

They deliberately put civilians in danger to get support from leftists in the west.

Did you just quote these guys?

"The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is a Washington, D.C.-based pro-Israel non-profit think-tank founded in 1976 focusing on issues of national security. JINSA's stated aim is to: Provide leadership and affect policy on crucial issues of national security and foreign policy; to promote American security cooperation with like-minded allies including, but not limited to, Israel; to engage the American defense community about the role Israel can and does play in securing Western, democratic interests in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions; and to improve awareness in the general public, as well as in the Jewish community of the importance of a strong American defense capability.

JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Joe Lieberman, General James T. Conway, and Chief William J. McSweeney of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, while Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith were all on JINSA's Board of Advisors before they entered the Bush administration. JINSA is officially a non-partisan organization welcoming advisors from both sides of the aisle including Democrats such as former Congressman Dave McCurdy and former Congresswoman Shelley Berkley."

What did I tell you about going full retard? You never go full retard.

Wait, did you just imply that there is something wrong with the advice that comes from Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, et. al.? How can you possibly be so biased in your attempt to prove bias? Lieberman and Cheney proved to be absolutely correct about every prediction made about how the Iraq invasion would turn out, and now you want to ignore their warnings about Hamas?

Let me guess, you're doing something this insane because you hate America and want the terrorists to win, right? I mean, we know that all of you atheists are secretly Muslims, that's why you want to drive all the Jews into the sea.
 
Back
Top Bottom