US to cut off aid to Palestinian, veto Palestinian recognition in UN

[Banana]

Some Indians are confused about what India's position is on Palestine. Maybe they feel more Israeli than Indian.

For the record, India recognized Palestine as a separate state in 1987 comprising the areas of West bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. It is India's official policy to support the two state solution in this form as the final settlement of the peace process. Even under the NDA govt., the same policy was reiterated publicly and privately.

If the vote comes to UNSC, India would be reiterating something it has already done and Israel is probably already aware of this.

The point is really simple, Israel has two options: (1) Either stop the occupation of West Bank and Gaza and create the separate state that was agreed by Israel in the 1992 accords and reaffirmed by the Arab League as a basis of bilateral diplomatic recognition.
(2) Give equal voting rights to the people in the occupied territories so at least Israel can finally claim to be a true democracy.

Now at the UN vote, this time around, even countries like UK, Germany and France are leaning towards realizing this ground reality. These countries are pro-Israel. They know that it is in Israel's interests and as a friend of Israel that the occupied territories should be given their freedom so that Israel can reach its full potential and not remain a pariah and under the siege mentality. A true friend of Israel would actually make the Israeli govt. understand this fundamental fact. There was already the pre-run in February on the UNSC resolution that basically declared that settlement expansions in the occupied territories is illegal. The resolution did not call for a boycott of Israel, nor did it question the legitimacy of Israel, it did no say Zionism is racism. Just a statement that is recognized by the UN when it refers to Palestine as Occupied Territories on its records and something the US has itself mentioned time and again.
The resolution was supported by over 120+ countries but it was vetoed in the UNSC 14-1 by the US. India was one of the countries that voted yes.

In fact, people should really read what Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic wrote in FP today. For those who don't know, he is one of the most pro-Israel writers out there constantly defending Israel from all sorts of criticisms left right and center. He is someone no one can call a "self hating jew".



Solomon2, I hope you do respond to this post too.

But the Truth is:

 

[silko]

^^^^Actually US gets its oil from Canada followed by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico and Nigeria. Iraq has hardly started pumping out any oil

But what is stupid is what would you pray to the Taliban for? Taliban are helping Muslims? They kill more innocent civilians than the NATO forces in Iraq. If you cared about muslims, you would praying that the Taliban are finished as soon as possible.

2 things

1. nato forces wasnt in iraq. it was usa and some allies, not necessarily nato!

2. i thought usa had put sanctions on venezuela and hated Hugo Chavez? why is it the third biggest oil supplier then?

 

[bularab]

silko, NATO is USA and USA is NATO. USA uses NATO just to test their new weapons on innocent civilians. Who used white posphourus? ( I don't know how to spell it correctly)

 

[EjazR]

2 things

1. nato forces wasnt in iraq. it was usa and some allies, not necessarily nato!

2. i thought usa had put sanctions on venezuela and hated Hugo Chavez? why is it the third biggest oil supplier then?

1, Sorry I meant Afghanistan as the Taliban is there and so are the NATO forces.

2, Sanctions are not on crude oil, just like Iran. So Us does get a lot oil from Venezuela. A google search will clear this up

 

[Jihad]

Nothing new, and the world will continue watching.
The U.N. will condemn it once again and say that it's a violation of yet another one of their resolutions and that will be it.
Nothing gained.

Double standards are applied here and it's disgusting.

 

[Solomon2]

So people like me, who support the idea that Israel has a right to exist as a separate state in the Jewish majority areas as well as having a separate state for the Palestinians are surprised and wonder what more does Israel want?

I'm not sure about the Israelis, but as a former Spanish prime minister put it:

A Palestinian “government” of a unilaterally established, self-declared “Palestinian state,” in which Hamas is a member of the governing coalition, will make negotiations, much less a peace agreement, impossible: no negotiation is possible, and no agreement is possible, when one side is committed to the other’s destruction...There cannot be two states, living in peace side by side, unless Palestinians accept that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people and the Israelis accept that the Palestinian State will be the state for the Palestinian people. Absent that basis, no genuine progress will be made. link

And with what that would mean about settlements and their legal status?

The settlements in the West Bank are legal under international law. That's because the West Bank, though not annexed by Israel, is legally part of the British Mandate which set aside Palestine as a Jewish homeland: Jews can settle anywhere as long as they respect Arabs' civil and property rights, and Israel's courts have enforced this upon Israeli Jews.

(Only Pakistan and Britain recognized Jordan's illegal annexation of the West Bank and lordship over the Palestinians, something of an embarrassment since Jordan gave up this claim over twenty years ago - and a position of deadly consequence in 1970, when Zia commanded Jordan's Army and killed many thousands of Palestinians.)

So why do people discuss giving the West Bank away to create the 23rd Arab state? i guess it boils down to the generosity of Israeli hearts, their wish to live in peace with their neighbor. (Not quite unique; Denmark gave up part of Scleswig-Holstein to Germany after WWII for the same reason.)

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the 1 state solution, under GIVEN circumstances would mean that Palestinians live with un-achieved nationhood; and would live as third-class citizens and not be treated equally. .

it's very naiive to bury Palestinian aspirations under the rug. It's a failed policy, and the reason for anger and resentment.


what would you do if you were removed forcefully from your own home...lost your farmlands --while in your hand you had the deeds to these properties and your ancestors resided there.

 

[Solomon2]

- what would you do if you were removed forcefully from your own home...lost your farmlands --while in your hand you had the deeds to these properties and your ancestors resided there.

A fate Jews have suffered many times...

Before 1947 Jews acquired land by purchase because that was the only way - neither the British nor the Turks nor the Arabs would permit otherwise, and the Jews lacked the force to do so.

During the independence war many hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled. Over 20% were allowed to return: those who swore allegiance to the Jewish State and renounced violence. link The remainder chose to nurse their hostility outside of Israeli control and have lived on the U.N. dole - for the Arab dictators did not allow them to immigrate as citizens to their countries.

In the meantime Israel had to deal with a shocking number of refugees: some 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries into Israel during 1947-49. The 1946 Jewish population of Palestine was what, 550,000? Remember, entire Arab villages had departed. Some Israelis settled in these abandoned - I would choose to say forfeited - villages and farmlands. The Arabs who chose to remain hostile to Israel had sacrificed their civil rights - the Caliphs would have considered them to be in rebellion - and with that avowed hostility to sovereign authority their property rights became an open question, to put it mildly.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Uprooting Olive Trees

 

[Solomon2]

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

- Prince Feisal bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi, Arab representative to the Paris Peace Conference that created the British Mandate link

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

- Prince Feisal bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi, Arab representative to the Paris Peace Conference that created the British Mandate link

Fair enough.


What about this?


Neturei Karta - Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism

at least you can't label them as anti-semitic!

 

[silko]

just wondering, on those pictures it says stuff like "torah forbids a jewish state", "judaism rejects zionism". is that actually true? some jewish members who can tell us that?

 

[Solomon2]

What about this?

The diplomacy that created the British Mandate was between Arabs, Turks, the Allies, and Zionists. I don't recall that anti-Zionist Jews were involved. It can be an interesting discussion but I classify it as "family matters". The transaction was completed despite the objections and non-participation of some family members.

just wondering, on those pictures it says stuff like "torah forbids a jewish state", "judaism rejects zionism". is that actually true? some jewish members who can tell us that?

As I understand it, the NKs believe that, based on an old Midrashic tale, not the Torah. This Midrash is conditional upon (1) good treatment by non-Jews of their Jewish minority and (2) envisions a minority Jewish presence in Palestine.

The oppressed Russian, European, and even Yemeni Jews who immigrated to Palestine in the late 19th- and early 20th-century had already experienced poor treatment at the hands of non-Jews. Anti-Jewish riots and large-scale violence began in Jerusalem itself in 1920, generally targeting the old community pre-dating the Zionist arrivals. (The cry wasn't Allahu Akbar but Al Yahud Kelabna - "the Jews are our dogs.")

Once the independence war started and Arabs were viciously killing Jews en masse most anti-Zionists (there are other anti-Zionist Jewish groups) switched sides. Since the current Palestinian leadership has vowed that not one Jew will remain in an Arab-controlled Palestine the NKs position appears untenable.

at least you can't label them as anti-semitic!

I don't see why not. I find the NKs repulsive in their penchant for siding with enemies of Jews and subscribing to their lies, even to the point of supporting the outright murder of Jews - as demonstrated when their leaders stood with Arafat and Ahmedinijad in their most murder-minded moments.

Why do the NKs do it, then? Is it resentment at the leadership role of other Jews and the wish for power? Is it desire for the non-Jewish money that supports them? Is it bloody-minded stubbornness? I don't know, 'cause I've never met one.

In short, the political and religious influence of the NKs upon their "fellow" Jews is just about zero. Why would they be of any import in this discussion?

 

[EjazR]

@Solomon2

This is not about settlements, its about accepting that a Palestine sovereign state has the right to exist or not?

It is not about HAMAS or PA, but whether the PALESTINIANS have the right to not live without voting rights or in militarily occupied territories for the rest of their lives or not? There are extremists on both sides and plenty of Israelis who love shouting "Death to Arabs" just like HAMAS supporters would shout "Death to jews", but we are not in a who scores higher in a hate speech contest or which side has killed more civilians here.


But since you have brought up the legal validity of settlements, I am surprised you would do that because that is the weakest position for Israel.

Israeli PMs themselves have stated that territories caputred after the 1967 war will be returned earlier. The International Court of Justice has clearly stated its legal opinion on the matter stating that under the 4th Geneva convention, settlements are illegal.

In the US itself as early as the 1980s or possibly late 1970s, the top legal aide their Hansel categorically stated that the settlements are illegal. This was the policy under Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations were they publicly said that the settlements in the occupied territories were illegal.
Only later did the US and Israel started changing their stance on the matter.

And finally most recently, the UNSC resolution stating the settlements are illegal was again vetoed 14-1 by the US. All major countries including UK, France, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan and many others voted for the resolution.

None of these countries are "enemies" of Israel. But the overwhelming evidence is so clear that the settlements are illegal that they did not even abstain from the vote.


Again, my point is this, the UN recognition DOES NOT define the borders. It recognizes that the Palestinians have the right to have a state of their own, just like the Israelis do. Infact, in the Palestine papers, Abbas negotiated to have Jewish Palestinians as part of their state if they choose to stay too.

The question again as I keep mentioning is, is the two state solution still on the table? And if not, then the only other option is to have a one state solution with equal voter rights for all. Something, not only leftists but even rightists in Israel like the former Defence minister Moshe Arens seem to be advocating.

 

[Solomon2]

@Solomon2This is not about settlements, its about accepting that a Palestine sovereign state has the right to exist or not?

One dedicated to the destruction of its Jewish neighbor? I don't see how.

It is not about HAMAS or PA, but -

Right now it is about Hamas and the P.A., not the Palestinians. These are near-totalitarian groups. The ordinary citizen has as much say in the business of the state as the average Syrian or Iraqi under Ba'athist rule.

There are extremists on both sides and plenty of Israelis who love shouting "Death to Arabs" just like HAMAS supporters would shout "Death to jews", but we are not in a who scores higher in a hate speech contest or which side has killed more civilians here.

Then why bring it up?

The International Court of Justice has clearly stated its legal opinion on the matter stating that under the 4th Geneva convention, settlements are illegal.

Would you point to the exact opinion you're referring to, please?

And finally most recently, the UNSC resolution stating the settlements are illegal was again vetoed 14-1 by the US.

Yes, not all U.N. resolutions are created equal, and anyway this one was vetoed.

All major countries including UK, France, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan and many others voted for the resolution.

Why would they bother voting against it when they knew the U.S. would veto it? Nobody else wants to risk the lives or business of their citizens.

the overwhelming evidence is so clear that the settlements are illegal that they did not even abstain from the vote.

You're not talking evidence. You are not talking about what things ARE, only about what things are CALLED.

Infact, in the Palestine papers, Abbas negotiated to have Jewish Palestinians as part of their state if they choose to stay too.

Airy-fairy stuff never part of any public record or official negotiation.

The question again as I keep mentioning is, is the two state solution still on the table?

On the table, but where to go with it?

...the only other option is to have a one state solution with equal voter rights for all.

I can think of more options:

1) There is to keep the current situation which so many, including Arabs, are quite comfortable with - it is no humanitarian disaster.

2) Other Arab countries can open their gates and allow the Palestinian Arabs to immigrate, the Arabs themselves continuing to sell their lands to Jews in a process over a century old.

3) There is the option of expulsion, completing the exchange-of-populations that the Arabs began in 1920. Just as the Jews respected the civil rights of the Arabs in the territories that came under their control, the Arabs were always supposed to respect the civil rights of Jews in their lands but did not do so, their newly-minted ruling classes preferring to seize Jewish property as easy game to reward themselves or their followers.

That would probably end the cycle-of-abuse that has dominated ever since and keeps the conflict alive: the Arabs attack, the Jews defend themselves but don't seek mass revenge, the Arabs threaten to kill any of their own who want to talk peace so they rebuild their strength to attack the Jews again. Separation-of-populations - nowadays called "ethnic cleansing" - may be ugly but it can work. It worked in Europe EXCEPT in those areas where it wasn't applied after WWI, serving as flashpoints for future wars: the Saarland, Kosovo, Alsace, and Danzig.