The PLO admits the truth

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...olution-is-impossible/?utm_term=.80a3dbb9fef6

The other shared experience of Palestinians is exile, with millions of Palestinians not allowed to return to live in their homeland because they are not Jewish.

Oops--they're asking for a two-state solution which would make the West Bank/Gaza their homeland. It's not Israel that controls immigration there, nor would not being Jewish have anything to do with it.

The only way this statement makes sense is if they consider Israel to be the Palestinian homeland--but a two-state solution does nothing about that.

Next June will mark 50 years since the Israeli military occupation began in 1967.

However, for the Palestinians, who have continuously suffered from Israeli settlements and its associated regime for more than half a century,

In other words, the settlements predate the "occupation"--which only makes sense if the "settlements" are Israel itself.

 

[Jayjay]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...olution-is-impossible/?utm_term=.80a3dbb9fef6



Oops--they're asking for a two-state solution which would make the West Bank/Gaza their homeland. It's not Israel that controls immigration there, nor would not being Jewish have anything to do with it.

The only way this statement makes sense is if they consider Israel to be the Palestinian homeland--but a two-state solution does nothing about that.

While Saeb Erekat may have been thinking of the entire old Palestine as the "homeland" of these refugees, you are incorrect because Israel is occupying West Bank, so it also controls immigration there. Besides the text clearly says that Palestinians compromised on the homeland demand and I think you are reading too much into a separate comment on the refugee experience.

Next June will mark 50 years since the Israeli military occupation began in 1967.

However, for the Palestinians, who have continuously suffered from Israeli settlements and its associated regime for more than half a century,

In other words, the settlements predate the "occupation"--which only makes sense if the "settlements" are Israel itself.

Settlements and the regime as Erakat calls them do predate the occupation of West Bank. Just because PLO accepts 1967 borders, doesn't mean that anything that happened before is erased from history.

 

[Bronzeage]

Israeli settlements in the West Bank Territory made a two state settlement, a political impossibility. Israel would rather live in a state of perpetual war, than make the concessions necessary for a stable political situation.

A truly far sighted Palestinian statesman would argue against a sovereign state, in favor of being annexed by Israel, with citizenship for Palestinians. In two generations, Palestine would be theirs, again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While Saeb Erekat may have been thinking of the entire old Palestine as the "homeland" of these refugees, you are incorrect because Israel is occupying West Bank, so it also controls immigration there. Besides the text clearly says that Palestinians compromised on the homeland demand and I think you are reading too much into a separate comment on the refugee experience.

Not having access to every square mile of the homeland is not the same as not having access to the homeland.

Next June will mark 50 years since the Israeli military occupation began in 1967.

However, for the Palestinians, who have continuously suffered from Israeli settlements and its associated regime for more than half a century,

In other words, the settlements predate the "occupation"--which only makes sense if the "settlements" are Israel itself.

Settlements and the regime as Erakat calls them do predate the occupation of West Bank. Just because PLO accepts 1967 borders, doesn't mean that anything that happened before is erased from history.

Huh? You realize that before 1967 those areas were controlled by Egypt and Jordan. You honestly think they permitted Jewish settlements to be built there??? After ethnically cleansing the area in 1948?

- - - Updated - - -

Israeli settlements in the West Bank Territory made a two state settlement, a political impossibility. Israel would rather live in a state of perpetual war, than make the concessions necessary for a stable political situation.

A truly far sighted Palestinian statesman would argue against a sovereign state, in favor of being annexed by Israel, with citizenship for Palestinians. In two generations, Palestine would be theirs, again.

They choose a state of war over concessions followed by a state of war. A quite reasonable choice in my book. The Islamists are not interested in peace, no concessions Israel can make will change this. Thus the war will continue until either one side is destroyed or the Islamist money goes away. The Israelis realize this, that's why they no longer care about peace.

 

[Bronzeage]

Israeli settlements in the West Bank Territory made a two state settlement, a political impossibility. Israel would rather live in a state of perpetual war, than make the concessions necessary for a stable political situation.

A truly far sighted Palestinian statesman would argue against a sovereign state, in favor of being annexed by Israel, with citizenship for Palestinians. In two generations, Palestine would be theirs, again.

They choose a state of war over concessions followed by a state of war. A quite reasonable choice in my book. The Islamists are not interested in peace, no concessions Israel can make will change this. Thus the war will continue until either one side is destroyed or the Islamist money goes away. The Israelis realize this, that's why they no longer care about peace.

This is a use of the term "quite reasonable" with which I am unfamiliar, unless "quite reasonable" can be synonymous with "totally insane".

You are advocating the annihilation of an entire people, something which has been attempted in the past, but has never truly succeeded.

 

[Arctish]

Thus the war will continue until either one side is destroyed or the Islamist money goes away. The Israelis realize this, that's why they no longer care about peace.

You're saying the Israelis no longer care about peace and are willing to continue the war to their utter destruction. And you're okay with that?

 

[Jayjay]

Not having access to every square mile of the homeland is not the same as not having access to the homeland.

Exactly. So just because they might complain about not having access to every square inch of their homeland doesn't mean that they would not deserve or settle for less.

Next June will mark 50 years since the Israeli military occupation began in 1967.

However, for the Palestinians, who have continuously suffered from Israeli settlements and its associated regime for more than half a century,

In other words, the settlements predate the "occupation"--which only makes sense if the "settlements" are Israel itself.

Settlements and the regime as Erakat calls them do predate the occupation of West Bank. Just because PLO accepts 1967 borders, doesn't mean that anything that happened before is erased from history.

Huh? You realize that before 1967 those areas were controlled by Egypt and Jordan. You honestly think they permitted Jewish settlements to be built there??? After ethnically cleansing the area in 1948?

I was not denying that Erekat is talking also about Israel proper when he says "over half a century". But just because he does, does not negate his other comment about accepting 1967 borders. It's merely acknowledging history.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank Territory made a two state settlement, a political impossibility. Israel would rather live in a state of perpetual war, than make the concessions necessary for a stable political situation.

A truly far sighted Palestinian statesman would argue against a sovereign state, in favor of being annexed by Israel, with citizenship for Palestinians. In two generations, Palestine would be theirs, again.

They choose a state of war over concessions followed by a state of war. A quite reasonable choice in my book. The Islamists are not interested in peace, no concessions Israel can make will change this. Thus the war will continue until either one side is destroyed or the Islamist money goes away. The Israelis realize this, that's why they no longer care about peace.

Israel wanting to keep the West Bank settlements has nothing to do with "islamist money". If the islamist money were to disappear tomorrow, do you think Israel would tell the settlers to pack up and return to Israel proper? Of course not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They choose a state of war over concessions followed by a state of war. A quite reasonable choice in my book. The Islamists are not interested in peace, no concessions Israel can make will change this. Thus the war will continue until either one side is destroyed or the Islamist money goes away. The Israelis realize this, that's why they no longer care about peace.

This is a use of the term "quite reasonable" with which I am unfamiliar, unless "quite reasonable" can be synonymous with "totally insane".

You are advocating the annihilation of an entire people, something which has been attempted in the past, but has never truly succeeded.

No--I'm saying the status quo is superior to the annihilation of either side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thus the war will continue until either one side is destroyed or the Islamist money goes away. The Israelis realize this, that's why they no longer care about peace.

You're saying the Israelis no longer care about peace and are willing to continue the war to their utter destruction. And you're okay with that?

And you're ok with them being genocided? Because that's what you're asking for.

The choice isn't war or peace. The choice is war or death.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. So just because they might complain about not having access to every square inch of their homeland doesn't mean that they would not deserve or settle for less.

Next June will mark 50 years since the Israeli military occupation began in 1967.

However, for the Palestinians, who have continuously suffered from Israeli settlements and its associated regime for more than half a century,

In other words, the settlements predate the "occupation"--which only makes sense if the "settlements" are Israel itself.

Settlements and the regime as Erakat calls them do predate the occupation of West Bank. Just because PLO accepts 1967 borders, doesn't mean that anything that happened before is erased from history.

Huh? You realize that before 1967 those areas were controlled by Egypt and Jordan. You honestly think they permitted Jewish settlements to be built there??? After ethnically cleansing the area in 1948?

I was not denying that Erekat is talking also about Israel proper when he says "over half a century". But just because he does, does not negate his other comment about accepting 1967 borders. It's merely acknowledging history.

What is shows is that the comments about the 1967 borders are simply deception for western ears. They have no intention of settling for the 1967 borders and in fact it would be a death penalty crime for him to even propose doing so.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a use of the term "quite reasonable" with which I am unfamiliar, unless "quite reasonable" can be synonymous with "totally insane".

You are advocating the annihilation of an entire people, something which has been attempted in the past, but has never truly succeeded.

No--I'm saying the status quo is superior to the annihilation of either side.

Using that reasoning, since complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank settlements is p preferably to annihilation of either side, you favor that policy as well.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is a use of the term "quite reasonable" with which I am unfamiliar, unless "quite reasonable" can be synonymous with "totally insane".

You are advocating the annihilation of an entire people, something which has been attempted in the past, but has never truly succeeded.

No--I'm saying the status quo is superior to the annihilation of either side.

I'm sticking with totally insane. You have created a system of mutual predators, each unable to kill enough to remove the threat, and each new death is incentive to continue.

 

[Arctish]

You're saying the Israelis no longer care about peace and are willing to continue the war to their utter destruction. And you're okay with that?

And you're ok with them being genocided? Because that's what you're asking for.

The choice isn't war or peace. The choice is war or death.

No.

The choice, as always, is war or peace, tribalism or inclusiveness, religious rule or secular governance, oppression or respect for human rights. Just because you can't imagine Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, Bahá'í, Yazidis, etc. living peaceful, boring, uneventful lives side-by-side in Palestine doesn't mean it didn't happen for centuries on end, or that it couldn't happen again.

But you avoided my question. Are you okay with the Israelis giving up on peace and pursuing war to their utter destruction?

 

[Jayjay]

Exactly. So just because they might complain about not having access to every square inch of their homeland doesn't mean that they would not deserve or settle for less.

Next June will mark 50 years since the Israeli military occupation began in 1967.

However, for the Palestinians, who have continuously suffered from Israeli settlements and its associated regime for more than half a century,

In other words, the settlements predate the "occupation"--which only makes sense if the "settlements" are Israel itself.

Settlements and the regime as Erakat calls them do predate the occupation of West Bank. Just because PLO accepts 1967 borders, doesn't mean that anything that happened before is erased from history.

Huh? You realize that before 1967 those areas were controlled by Egypt and Jordan. You honestly think they permitted Jewish settlements to be built there??? After ethnically cleansing the area in 1948?

I was not denying that Erekat is talking also about Israel proper when he says "over half a century". But just because he does, does not negate his other comment about accepting 1967 borders. It's merely acknowledging history.

What is shows is that the comments about the 1967 borders are simply deception for western ears. They have no intention of settling for the 1967 borders and in fact it would be a death penalty crime for him to even propose doing so.

Then I presume Erekat must now be sitting in death row, because his opinion piece not only proposed but stated as a fact that PLO agrees to 1967 borders and has given up on rest of Israel.

You are reading too much into his complaining about Israeli oppression before 1967, which is a fact, to current situation with the settlements. In fact, even if you are right and Erekat is just singing a song for "western ears", it still would not matter. If Palestinians want X and Y, and only X is a legitimate claim, them wanting Y in no way diminishes that legitimacy. Israeli land theft in West Bank is not justifiable by some hypothetical demands or aggression that Palestinians might engage in the future.

If I were to steal your wallet, and you want to not only get the wallet back (a legitimate claim) but also punch me in the face (a non-legitimate claim), does that mean I would be somehow morally entitled to keep your wallet? Of course not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No--I'm saying the status quo is superior to the annihilation of either side.

Using that reasoning, since complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank settlements is p preferably to annihilation of either side, you favor that policy as well.

You are making the fallacious assumption that that would bring peace.

 

[Jayjay]

Using that reasoning, since complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank settlements is p preferably to annihilation of either side, you favor that policy as well.

You are making the fallacious assumption that that would bring peace.

And you are making a fallacious assumption that he is making such an assumption. He's just pointing out the false dichotomy of peace versus annihilation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No--I'm saying the status quo is superior to the annihilation of either side.

I'm sticking with totally insane. You have created a system of mutual predators, each unable to kill enough to remove the threat, and each new death is incentive to continue.

The problem is there's nothing better available at present.

The eternal argument for 1967 borders is nonsense. There wasn't peace when that was the border, there won't be peace if it were made the border now. The Palestinians have adopted a strategy of trying to take whatever they can by negotiation but not giving up fighting. They'll take the 67 borders and continue to fight. Most Israelis understand this by now, hence the lack of interest in peace. Getting an Israeli interested in peace is about like getting a scientist interested in a perpetual motion machine.

- - - Updated - - -

And you're ok with them being genocided? Because that's what you're asking for.

The choice isn't war or peace. The choice is war or death.

No.

The choice, as always, is war or peace, tribalism or inclusiveness, religious rule or secular governance, oppression or respect for human rights. Just because you can't imagine Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, Bahá'í, Yazidis, etc. living peaceful, boring, uneventful lives side-by-side in Palestine doesn't mean it didn't happen for centuries on end, or that it couldn't happen again.

But you avoided my question. Are you okay with the Israelis giving up on peace and pursuing war to their utter destruction?

1) Peace takes both sides to agree. The Palestinians have made it very clear that they aren't interested.

2) I am not favoring pursuing it to annihilation. I am saying they should continue the status quo--low level conflict. It's far less harmful than any real alternative.

 

[laughing dog]

Using that reasoning, since complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank settlements is p preferably to annihilation of either side, you favor that policy as well.

You are making the fallacious assumption that that would bring peace.

As Jayjay pointed out, my observation does not require any assumption. I simply pointed out that using your reasoning, you would be infer of a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank since that does not result in the complete annihilation of either side. Your response does not rebut that conclusion.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm sticking with totally insane. You have created a system of mutual predators, each unable to kill enough to remove the threat, and each new death is incentive to continue.

The problem is there's nothing better available at present.

The eternal argument for 1967 borders is nonsense. There wasn't peace when that was the border, there won't be peace if it were made the border now. The Palestinians have adopted a strategy of trying to take whatever they can by negotiation but not giving up fighting. They'll take the 67 borders and continue to fight. Most Israelis understand this by now, hence the lack of interest in peace. Getting an Israeli interested in peace is about like getting a scientist interested in a perpetual motion machine.

Yes, there is nothign better available now... for Israel. But if you consider for a moment that Arabs are people too instead of cattle, then there clearly is a better solution: Current status quo except without civilian settlements in West Bank. It would be far more equitable for Palestinians, somewhat cheaper for most Israeli citizens (as they wouldn't have to subsidize the settlers), not any less likely to escalate the low-level or reduce Israeli security, more palatable to the international community, and the only ones who'd be butthurt would be the religious zealots who think they are on a mission from God to banish all non-Jews from Eretz Israel.

You are also correct that Israel couldn't care less about peace, but you are wrong about the reasons. They don't care about peace because the spoils of war are greater than the cost. If Palestinians were by some monkey-paw magic suddenly turned pacifists and put down all their weapons, Israel still would not withdraw from West Bank, and quite reasonably so because there is nobody to force them. Only way to change the equation is to either reduce the spoils by removing the possibility of land theft via settlements, or increase the cost by amping up the violent resistance in the occupied territories (on the other hand, increasing the intensity of the conflict outside West Bank tends to have the opposite effect).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, there is nothign better available now... for Israel. But if you consider for a moment that Arabs are people too instead of cattle, then there clearly is a better solution: Current status quo except without civilian settlements in West Bank. It would be far more equitable for Palestinians, somewhat cheaper for most Israeli citizens (as they wouldn't have to subsidize the settlers), not any less likely to escalate the low-level or reduce Israeli security, more palatable to the international community, and the only ones who'd be butthurt would be the religious zealots who think they are on a mission from God to banish all non-Jews from Eretz Israel.

1) Why should they make a massive concession like that for no gain?

2) The lack of control of the West Bank would probably mean more attacks.

You are also correct that Israel couldn't care less about peace, but you are wrong about the reasons. They don't care about peace because the spoils of war are greater than the cost. If Palestinians were by some monkey-paw magic suddenly turned pacifists and put down all their weapons, Israel still would not withdraw from West Bank, and quite reasonably so because there is nobody to force them. Only way to change the equation is to either reduce the spoils by removing the possibility of land theft via settlements, or increase the cost by amping up the violent resistance in the occupied territories (on the other hand, increasing the intensity of the conflict outside West Bank tends to have the opposite effect).

No--a pullback won't reduce the cost of the war at all, although it might increase it. On the other hand, a government that spends a few years worth of revenue (the cost of the pullout you are asking for) for no gain at all is going to be wildly unpopular.