Swedish Social Democratic anti-semitism

[Jayjay]

If we believe in democracy Hammas has been elected to represent the Palestinians of Gaza. That's the perk of democracy. We can actually assign blame to where it belongs. The Palestinian people of Gaza.

But "the Palestinians" lump the West Bank with Gaza. And, of course, Hamas refuses to allow another election, even though their elected mandate ran out years ago.

It's down to incentives. Israel doesn't directly benefit for curtailing the Israeli settlers. It only directly benefits Palestinians. It'll only indirectly help Israelis if it leads to a positive reaction from the Palestinians. And since most Israelis are sick and tired of Palestinians they're not going to work all that hard to help them. Of course the Palestinian side are employing the same logic when it comes to stopping Palestinian terror attacks. It's because most people are fucking short sighted and stupid. That's universal for humanity.

Then it really doesn't make much sense to lay the onus on one side or the other, now does it?

No, but it's Palestinians who are hurt more by the status quo. If they want to improve their lot they need to get their shit together. Nobody else can do it for them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except "the Palestinians" are not utterly and completely unreasonable: Hamas is not "the Palestinians".

And, in most places, most people put down rabid dogs ASAP. So, why do the majority Israelis (who are like most people)allow the "absolutely retarded" small minority dictate national policy on this issue?

The majority of the Palestinians support continued war after a "peace" deal. It's not just a few rabid ones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's down to incentives. Israel doesn't directly benefit for curtailing the Israeli settlers. It only directly benefits Palestinians. It'll only indirectly help Israelis if it leads to a positive reaction from the Palestinians. And since most Israelis are sick and tired of Palestinians they're not going to work all that hard to help them. Of course the Palestinian side are employing the same logic when it comes to stopping Palestinian terror attacks. It's because most people are fucking short sighted and stupid. That's universal for humanity.

Exactly. The Palestinians go out of their way to ensure that anything positive from Israel doesn't improve the situation. Is it any wonder that they engage in fewer and fewer positive things?

 

[Arctish]

Except "the Palestinians" are not utterly and completely unreasonable: Hamas is not "the Palestinians".

And, in most places, most people put down rabid dogs ASAP. So, why do the majority Israelis (who are like most people)allow the "absolutely retarded" small minority dictate national policy on this issue?

The majority of the Palestinians support continued war after a "peace" deal. It's not just a few rabid ones.

That depends on the peace deal. The only peace deals Israel has indicated a willingness to accept is one that allows Israel to continue to build settlements, seize more territory, control the Palestinian aquifers, destroy Palestinian homes and infrastructure, develop Palestinian resources for the benefit of Israelis, etc. If that's the peace deal then the Palestinians will be forced to fight just to survive, so of course they are prepared to continue fighting. What other option do they have, roll over and die?

- - - Updated - - -

It's down to incentives. Israel doesn't directly benefit for curtailing the Israeli settlers. It only directly benefits Palestinians. It'll only indirectly help Israelis if it leads to a positive reaction from the Palestinians. And since most Israelis are sick and tired of Palestinians they're not going to work all that hard to help them. Of course the Palestinian side are employing the same logic when it comes to stopping Palestinian terror attacks. It's because most people are fucking short sighted and stupid. That's universal for humanity.

Exactly. The Palestinians go out of their way to ensure that anything positive from Israel doesn't improve the situation. Is it any wonder that they engage in fewer and fewer positive things?

Can you give an example of something positive from Israel that the Palestinians ensured would not improve the situation?

 

[angelo]

Put simply. Negotiations cannot begin until Fatah etc accept the Jewish state. So far they refuse to do that.

The PLO recognized the State of Israel decades ago. The only thing that changed was the location of a few goalposts.

This is straight from the horse's mouth! ...........................http://www.jta.org/2014/04/27/news-...s-will-never-recognize-israel-as-jewish-state

 

[Arctish]

The PLO recognized the State of Israel decades ago. The only thing that changed was the location of a few goalposts.

This is straight from the horse's mouth! ...........................http://www.jta.org/2014/04/27/news-...s-will-never-recognize-israel-as-jewish-state

Yup. That's the wandering goalposts that I was talking about.

Years ago it was said that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's right to exist before there could be peace. So the PLO did just that. But then it was said that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace and security before there could be peace. So the PLO did that, too. Now it's being said that the Palestinians have to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State before there can be peace, and it's bulllshit.

First, it doesn't matter if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State or a Scientologist State or a Pastafarian State. A peace treaty does not depend it. From your link:

Abbas told the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Central Council at a meeting Saturday that the PLO recognized Israel as a state in 1993 and should not have to accept its religious identity, the French news agency AFP reported. He added that neither Egypt nor Jordan was required to recognize Israel’s Jewish character when they signed peace treaties with Israel.

And second, even the Israelis haven't declared Israel to be a Jewish State. Every time they talk about it they keep getting stuck on what it means to be Jewish, with one side arguing for a religious definition, another side arguing for an ethnic/ancestral definition, and a third side trying to find a way to keep the issue from ripping the coalition government apart.

The notion the Palestinians have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is just a ploy Netanyahu and his supporters are using to stall for time while Israel continued to annex more and more of the West Bank.

I sometimes wonder what the next shifting of the goal post will bring. Suppose the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Any guesses what the next demand for recognition will be?

 

[angelo]

The PLO negotiations are what I was referring to earlier. They announce to westerners and to the lefties media what they want to hear and something else entirely different at the negotiating table. I wouldn't trust those people as far as I could kick them!

 

[Arctish]

The PLO negotiations are what I was referring to earlier. They announce to westerners and to the lefties media what they want to hear and something else entirely different at the negotiating table. I wouldn't trust those people as far as I could kick them!

So don't trust them. But don't make stupid demands and then get all pissy when they say your demands are stupid.

 

[angelo]

No, I could never in all honesty trust terrorist! PLO, Hamas, Fatah. They are all painted with the same brush.

 

[Arctish]

No, I could never in all honesty trust terrorist! PLO, Hamas, Fatah. They are all painted with the same brush.

So don't trust them.

But don't make stupid demands and then get all pissy when they say your demands are stupid.

 

[angelo]

No, I could never in all honesty trust terrorist! PLO, Hamas, Fatah. They are all painted with the same brush.

So don't trust them.

But don't make stupid demands and then get all pissy when they say your demands are stupid.

Who is making stupid demands? The Palestinians are the ones making unrealistic demands on Israel.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is straight from the horse's mouth! ...........................http://www.jta.org/2014/04/27/news-...s-will-never-recognize-israel-as-jewish-state

Yup. That's the wandering goalposts that I was talking about.

Years ago it was said that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's right to exist before there could be peace. So the PLO did just that. But then it was said that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace and security before there could be peace. So the PLO did that, too. Now it's being said that the Palestinians have to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State before there can be peace, and it's bulllshit.

It's not bullshit. Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state. That's their basic demand. They want Israel to have freedom of religion. But they want Israel's identity to be unquestionably Jewish. They also want the law of return to apply to Jews only. That's a Jewish state. I'm not saying that's good or bad. That's just the situation. If the Palestinians don't agree to all of this, they've just bought themselves a free ticket to break the peace deal at any time pointing to the fact that Israel is still an identifiable Jewish state.

What Israel is trying to avoid is a peace which has as a sole purpose to let the Palestinians build up fire power so the next time it's war Palestinians will hit them even harder. A peace like that is not a peace worth having. It's not peace at all.

First, it doesn't matter if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State or a Scientologist State or a Pastafarian State. A peace treaty does not depend it. From your link:

Abbas told the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Central Council at a meeting Saturday that the PLO recognized Israel as a state in 1993 and should not have to accept its religious identity, the French news agency AFP reported. He added that neither Egypt nor Jordan was required to recognize Israel’s Jewish character when they signed peace treaties with Israel.

And second, even the Israelis haven't declared Israel to be a Jewish State. Every time they talk about it they keep getting stuck on what it means to be Jewish, with one side arguing for a religious definition, another side arguing for an ethnic/ancestral definition, and a third side trying to find a way to keep the issue from ripping the coalition government apart.

The notion the Palestinians have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is just a ploy Netanyahu and his supporters are using to stall for time while Israel continued to annex more and more of the West Bank.

I sometimes wonder what the next shifting of the goal post will bring. Suppose the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Any guesses what the next demand for recognition will be?

If what is being pushed for is a one state solution, then I could understand the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. But if it's a two state solution, then I don't get it? The whole idea is that Israel is identifiably Jewish and the Palestinian territories are identifiably Palestinian. The only reason I can see to why the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state would be if the end goal of the peace treaty was to break it and remove Israel from the map all together. Which is what Israel worries about. I think they have good reason to.

 

[Jokodo]

Yup. That's the wandering goalposts that I was talking about.

Years ago it was said that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's right to exist before there could be peace. So the PLO did just that. But then it was said that the Palestinians had to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace and security before there could be peace. So the PLO did that, too. Now it's being said that the Palestinians have to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State before there can be peace, and it's bulllshit.

It's not bullshit. Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state. That's their basic demand. They want Israel to have freedom of religion. But they want Israel's identity to be unquestionably Jewish. They also want the law of return to apply to Jews only. That's a Jewish state. I'm not saying that's good or bad. That's just the situation. If the Palestinians don't agree to all of this, they've just bought themselves a free ticket to break the peace deal at any time pointing to the fact that Israel is still an identifiable Jewish state.

Did Sweden recognise Russia as an Orthodox country at the end of the Finnish War 1808-09? Did Russia recognise Sweden as a Protestant country? I don't think either did. Does this mean Russia now has a "free ticket to break the peace deal at any time pointing to the fact that Sweden is still an identifiably [Protestant] state"? Indeed I can't think of any conflict more recent than the Thirty Years' War whose resolution involved not only the conflict parties recognising each other, but recognising each other as a <religious_identity> state.

 

[Togo]

It's not bullshit. Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state. That's their basic demand. They want Israel to have freedom of religion. But they want Israel's identity to be unquestionably Jewish.

How does a statement from a Palestinian political group help?

They also want the law of return to apply to Jews only. That's a Jewish state.

That's already negotiable. Palestinians have been talking about downgrading the Right to Return to a cash settlement for over a decade. The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is something different.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. That's just the situation. If the Palestinians don't agree to all of this, they've just bought themselves a free ticket to break the peace deal at any time pointing to the fact that Israel is still an identifiable Jewish state.

??? Can you explain how?

The whole idea is that Israel is identifiably Jewish and the Palestinian territories are identifiably Palestinian.

A principle which the settlement program trashes entirely.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not bullshit. Israel wants to exist as a Jewish state. That's their basic demand. They want Israel to have freedom of religion. But they want Israel's identity to be unquestionably Jewish. They also want the law of return to apply to Jews only. That's a Jewish state. I'm not saying that's good or bad. That's just the situation. If the Palestinians don't agree to all of this, they've just bought themselves a free ticket to break the peace deal at any time pointing to the fact that Israel is still an identifiable Jewish state.

Did Sweden recognise Russia as an Orthodox country at the end of the Finnish War 1808-09? Did Russia recognise Sweden as a Protestant country? I don't think either did. Does this mean Russia now has a "free ticket to break the peace deal at any time pointing to the fact that Sweden is still an identifiably [Protestant] state"? Indeed I can't think of any conflict more recent than the Thirty Years' War whose resolution involved not only the conflict parties recognising each other, but recognising each other as a <religious_identity> state.

No. Because it wasn't necessary. In this case it is necessary. The Finnish war wasn't a nationalistic war. It was motivated by pure imperialistic reasons. The Russians had zero historical claim on Sweden. They had zero historical claims on Finland either. The Russians took Finland because they could and Sweden had to accept peace on any terms. At the end of that war Sweden was profusely bleeding from our raped anus due to an inept leadership was so mind-bogglingly inept that it defies all reason, and is the best argument I can think of against hereditary rule. Our king was a moron of the highest order. He got deposed of it in a military coup. This was the direct ancestor of Gustav Vasa, the founder of our nation. Of which Finland was a central part. Finland had since the dawn of Sweden always been a part of Sweden. They still have a large Swedish minority. Russia knew this and made no effort to deny this. Partly because they didn't have to. Nobody cared. Kings ruled countries, not because they were destined to, but simply because they could. The Swedish king wasn't deposed lightly. Nationalism was a new thing at this point. The Napoleonic wars was really the starting spark for nationalism all over Europe.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is purely a nationalistic conflict. The war is motivated by hereditary claims to land. So in this conflict it is crucial that a peace is coupled with the combatants giving up on whatever hereditary claims they've had on each other's land. They need to prove to each other they are serious about it. Back in 1809 terrorism wasn't really a problem. They didn't have the military hardware to wreak havoc in the way a modern bomb-vest can do on public transportation. So it's vital that it's not just empty words. They've got to be serious about it and be able to show they are.

 

[Togo]

The Israel-Palestine conflict is purely a nationalistic conflict. The war is motivated by hereditary claims to land. So in this conflict it is crucial that a peace is coupled with the combatants giving up on whatever hereditary claims they've had on each other's land. They need to prove to each other they are serious about it.

OK, this is making more sense. So in a conflict where Israel is systematically settling Palestinian land, peace talks can't proceed because a group of Palestinians won't sign a bit of paper giving up all claim to Israel in advance of the talks taking place. You're saying this is an obstacle that Palestinians have put up that makes peace talks impossible?

Can you talk me through your logic here, because it seems terribly one-sided?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Israel-Palestine conflict is purely a nationalistic conflict. The war is motivated by hereditary claims to land. So in this conflict it is crucial that a peace is coupled with the combatants giving up on whatever hereditary claims they've had on each other's land. They need to prove to each other they are serious about it.

OK, this is making more sense. So in a conflict where Israel is systematically settling Palestinian land, peace talks can't proceed because a group of Palestinians won't sign a bit of paper giving up all claim to Israel in advance of the talks taking place. You're saying this is an obstacle that Palestinians have put up that makes peace talks impossible?

Can you talk me through your logic here, because it seems terribly one-sided?

I think you're putting me inside a box that I don't fit. Yes, obviously it goes both ways. And both sides suck.

 

[laughing dog]

Except "the Palestinians" are not utterly and completely unreasonable: Hamas is not "the Palestinians".

And, in most places, most people put down rabid dogs ASAP. So, why do the majority Israelis (who are like most people)allow the "absolutely retarded" small minority dictate national policy on this issue?

The majority of the Palestinians support continued war after a "peace" deal. It's not just a few rabid ones.

I'd like to see such a poll after a real peace deal is made. Until then, this is all propaganda.

 

[laughing dog]

So don't trust them.

But don't make stupid demands and then get all pissy when they say your demands are stupid.

Who is making stupid demands? The Palestinians are the ones making unrealistic demands on Israel.

Insisting that one party conform to one's wishes as a condition for negotiations is unrealistic. In fact, one could make a convincing case it is a cynical attempt to torpedo any negotiations and then dupe people into blaming the refusing party.

 

[Togo]

OK, this is making more sense. So in a conflict where Israel is systematically settling Palestinian land, peace talks can't proceed because a group of Palestinians won't sign a bit of paper giving up all claim to Israel in advance of the talks taking place. You're saying this is an obstacle that Palestinians have put up that makes peace talks impossible?

Can you talk me through your logic here, because it seems terribly one-sided?

I think you're putting me inside a box that I don't fit. Yes, obviously it goes both ways. And both sides suck.

But does it go both ways? I keep on asking what it is that Palestinians need to do for peace negotiations to start, and the best we've so far come up with is that they refuse to make a statement in principle that they surrender all their claims before the negotiations start?

You compare that to the settlement program, and conclude there are faults on both sides? Really?