The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
This idea being floated around by the right-wing, in regards to President Obama and the Democrats not fully supporting Israel because they support bilateral talks with the Palestinian leadership, is ludicrous. In fact, I would make the argument that the left-wing of this country has shown through their actions that they are in fact more supportive of Israel than the right, and significantly more so than the Christian right.
The right-wing makes the argument that we need to fully support Israel not matter what they do. Evidence of this was seen recently, when the Obama administration became angry at Israel’s announcement that it was going to build new settlements in East Jerusalem. The announcement coming as Vice President Joe Biden was making a visit to Israel. The right-wing argument at that time, was that President Obama is not fully supporting Israel when he condemns them for going ahead with housing units in disputed areas.
This notion that people on the liberal side of the political spectrum who are against Israel continuing to build new settlements in these disputed areas, are somehow anti-Israel is completely wrong. Everyone from both sides of the aisle wants to see Israel and Palestine achieve peace, but how is supporting Israel as they continue to build these settlements and pissing off the Palestinians achieving the ultimate goal?
The right-wing makes the argument that Israel should not have to compromise on land, including, but not limited to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and all of Jerusalem. They say that this land is the rightful property of Israel, and that they should not have to give up anything. You could certainly make that argument, but it does nothing to achieve the ultimate goal.
At this point in our history, it makes no difference which party is more entitled to these disputed areas. In order for Israel and Palestine to have peace, both sides are going to have to make land compromises, regardless of who can make a better argument as to who the rightful owner of this land is. If the United States truly wants to see peace come to the region, they are going to have to support a two state solution, and Jerusalem is most likely going to have to be either split up between the Israelis and the Palestinians, or they are going to have to come to some sort of agreement to share Jerusalem. Israel is most likely going to have to give up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This is the only way that I can see peace being achieved.
The United States needs to be a true friend to Israel, and make it clear that we can only support a two state solution if peace is ever to be achieved. The right-wing will say that asking Israel to give up land that they claim is rightfully theirs is anti-Israel. This is completely false. Supporting a two state solution, with the West Bank and Gaza Strip going to the Palestinians, is a very pro-Israel stance. This is the only way that Israel is ever going to achieve peace.
Now onto the religious right, the only party that truly doesn’t care about Israel. For purposes of this blog post, when I speak about the Christian right, I am referring to the Evangelical Christians, the largest religious group in the country according to Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. These people are not pro-Israel. They pretend that they are, but make no mistake, they are not. Evangelical Christians only support Israel because the Bible, which they believe is the inherent word of god, says that in order for Christ to make a second coming to Earth, all but a few thousand Jews who decide to convert to Christianity are going to die. I am not making this up, this is absolutely true, and this is the only reason why Evangelicals pretend to support Israel. Evangelicals believe that Jews who don’t convert are going to spend eternity in hell, how can one make the argument that these people are looking out for Israel’s best interest. It is absurd.
The only way peace will have hope of being achieved in the Middle East, is if the Israelis and Palestinians can come to an agreement on a two state solution. The Palestinians currently seem ready to negotiate, but every time the Israelis build new settlements in disputed areas, it makes peace talks much more difficult. At this point, who is more entitled to the land is irrelevant. The Israelis think it’s theirs, the Palestinians think it’s theirs, nothing is ever going to change this. If the United States is truly concerned about achieving peace in the region, they are going to have to act as a broker between the two parties, and let Israel know that we cannot support continued construction on disputed land. I think that President Obama has made steps in the right direction, but every time he does, we hear cries from the right about the President not supporting Israel. This is not the case and should not be presented as such.
Archives
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
Recent Posts
- RocketHub Brings Crowdfunding To Canada
- Hiding From Reality
- Hypocrisy, Lies, Nuclear Arms, and National Security
- Reality Justice – A Short Film
- COVERT OPERATIONS – The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama
- Inception
- The Lunatic’s Manual
- Hoping Against Hope
- Changes Are a Coming….
- Smodcast
Favorite Podcasts
Friends of Mine
April 16th, 2010 - 11:48
Most of your points are good, but you’ve made a few egregious errors -
The right-wing makes the argument that Israel should not have to compromise on land, including, but not limited to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and all of Jerusalem. They say that this land is the rightful property of Israel, and that they should not have to give up anything. You could certainly make that argument, but it does nothing to achieve the ultimate goal.
You could make that argument how? The only way that argument has any legs at all is if you accept the Jewish religion as a substitute for international law, which is utterly ludicrous.
And international law clearly forbids simply annexing parts of another country, so “right of conquest” doesn’t work.
On what other basis could you make that argument? I’d really like to hear your answer on this.
At this point in our history, it makes no difference which party is more entitled to these disputed areas. In order for Israel and Palestine to have piece, (sic) both sides are going to have to make land compromises, regardless of who can make a better argument as to who the rightful owner of this land is.
You conveniently ignore United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which clearly calls for Israel to withdraw behind her 1967 borders. This resolution carries the weight of international law. Ronald Reagan even endorsed it, though he suggested that a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank should be administered in cooperation with Jordan.
So there is no argument about whose land it is. Israel is an illegal occupier, in direct violation of international law, in direct defiance of the UN security council. All of Jerusalem outside of the historic “Jewish Quarter” is part of Occupied Palestine. It is not part of Israel.
At this point, who is more entitled to the land is irrelevant.
Irrelevant? This was the part of your post that truly pissed me off. For the reasons outlined above, the land belongs to the Palestinians. It never stops mattering who is right and who is wrong. Israel is an illegal occupier. Israel is in violation of international law. That is most emphatically not irrelevant.
In conclusion, let me quote Lord Caradon, who was the principal author of Resolution 242 -
It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.
In the name of practicality, Resolution 242 pointedly does not insist on exact adherence to pre-1967 lines, it purposely leave somes room for minor land swaps. It’s also worth noting that 242 is a comprehensive plan for peace; there is far more to it than just Israeli withdrawal.
April 16th, 2010 - 11:49
Let me preface this by saying that I completely agree with you, I do not think that Israel has any right to the Gaza Strip & the West Bank.
However, there are some Israilies and many people in the right-wing of the U.S who would make the argument that under Resolution 242, the withdrawal by Israel was conditional on a negotiated peace treaty that has not come to fruition. Palestine & other Arab states were also supposed to offer full diplomatic recognition to Israel. We both know that there is a significant portion of the Arab world, the current leaders of Palestine (Hamas) included who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Some Israeli’s would say that Palestine is not obeying the resolution so why should they. One again, let me re-iterate that I agree with you on this point (which I thought I made very clear in my post). I am simply acknowledging&n bsp;the other sides argument.
I think you completely missed the fundamental point that I was trying to convey in my post. I DO NOT IN ANY WAY think that Israel has a right to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. That is exactly why in my post I was stressing the point that the Israeli’s sho uld stop arguing over who the rightful owner of the land is, if they want peace they need to let it go and give up the Gaza Strip & the West Bank.
In my post, I was taking the stance of talking to the right-wing. They are the ones who try to make the ridiculous ar gument that Israel has a claim to this land, I DO NOT.
I think that you either didn’t read my post in context or you simply didn’t understand the point that I was trying to make. You are so quick to assume that I am siding with Israel, which is absolutely not the case. If it were up to me, I would hand over the Gaza Strip & the West Bank to Palestine and get rid of all the Israeli settlements there. I was presenting the moronic right-wing argument, which I strongly disagree with.
April 16th, 2010 - 11:50
The evangelicals do support Israel because they don’t want to wait a thousand years for the millenium of peace under Christ’s rule to return. You are correct when you say their support is disingenuous.
East Jerusalem is the stumbling block because it contains the temple mount. Israelis are not going to give up the temple mount and the Palestinians are not going to negotiate away the Dome of the Rock or the Al-aqsa mosque.
I maintain there is no economic or political advantage for the Palestinians to make peace, so they will not. With almost no natural resources, the Palestinians have nothing to attract development. The Israelis control Lake Kinneret and without new sources of water, the west bank will be an economic backwater.
It’s fantasy to think that once there is a peace treaty that the economy will grow quickly. Who will provide the development aid when there are so many others in need. The Palestinians are surviving on aid alone. It will be another Haiti.
On the political side, there is not central speaker for the Palestinians. Without a clear leadership empowered to make a decision for all, no one will accept any decision. Waste of time.
One nation, one people with protection for all religions.
April 16th, 2010 - 12:02
What in god’s name are you talking about…
First of all, the whole thing about not wanting wait a thousand years for “the millennium&n bsp;of peace under Christ’s rule” it absolutely correct but absurd. I really hope you don’t really believe that christ is going to magically come down and we will all have peace on earth and hold hands singing cum ba yah. If you really believe that, then I have some magic beans to sell you.
You said, “It’s a fantasy to think that once there is a peace treaty that the economy will grow quickly.”
Did I ever say in my post that once there is peace the economy would grow!? Did you even read my post? I never mentioned anything about Palestine’s economy in my post, you pulled this out of thin air.
And the notion that the Palestinian people do not want peace because there is no economic or political advantage&nb sp;is absolutely absurd. I’m sure there are some Palestinians who do not want peace for whatever reason, but let’s make one thing clear, the vast majority of Palestinians do want peace.
Forget about whether peace has some sort of political or economic advantage, how about the not having to worry about being blown up advantage or shot advantage. I’m sure that most want to live in peace for the sole reason of not wanting to die.
And just to entertain your moronic point, there absolutely IS an economic and political advantage to peace. Okay, so Palestine does not manufacture a lot of things, their economy would still be greatly helped if there was peace and they could start trading and buying from the rest of the industrialized world. Peace in the country would certainly help with economic and political stability.
But once again, this whole thing is irrelevant because I never mentioned ANYTHING about any of this in my post, you just pulled it right out of your butt.
April 16th, 2010 - 23:50
Before Israel was reestablished, “Palestine” was nothing but sand and tent makers. The Jews took back their birthright and created an economic powerhouse and a staunch allie of America.
Since Obama’s election the radical Islamist in his administration have been attempting to sabotage the most successful economy in the middle East and destroy that relationship.
April 16th, 2010 - 23:51
Since Obama’s election the radical Islamist in his administration have been attempting to sabotage the most successful economy in the middle East and destroy that relationship.
Oh my, Obama is a “radical Islamist” now.
That is so far from the truth, and the gap is so painfully obvious, that I’m not even going to try to reason with you, Larry.
I think you’re just trolling anyway.
April 16th, 2010 - 23:51
I’ve gotta ask! justinp writes, “the only way peace will have hope of being achieved …” seriously, in a situation like this, what does that word even mean?! it’s clear that SOMEONE IS GOING TO LOSE OUT – big time!! basic definitions for the word ‘peace’ are : ” a. the absence of war or other hostilities. 2. an agreement or a treaty to end hostilities. 3. freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations. 4. public security and order … ( the american heritage college dictionary, 2007).
this is a situation where – standing back and looking at it neutrally – someone is going to come away from the negotiation table feeling ‘cheated’, ‘overlooked’, ‘frustrated’ and/or ‘hostile’. we all know the hisory, the israelis had no homeland after WWII. after appealing to various countries for a region to settle, and being repeatedly denied that option, they looked towards the lands of their ancestors. through “questionable” means they acquired it. the palestinians had been there for CENTURIES and suddenly found themselves dispossessed and inhabitants of occupied lands.
now, x number of years later, the bodies, atrocities and battles are piling up and the majority of the world would like to see the issue settled. how? who decides? and if we decide on who that person is, why should EITHER SIDE listen to them?!
isreal can’t pull back to the ’67 coordinates for the simple fact that THEIR POPULATION IS EXPANDING. there are jews from all over the world returning to israel; they would have to start turning them away. in order to accommodate a healthy population and economy, they need to expand.
the palestinians are displaced, shoved aside and are the victims of first, theft, and now, expansionism. they need relief, support and room to grow as well. something has to give and i believe that the ‘something’ is going to be peace. peace is going to get the short end of the stick in this dilemma. it may be israel. they have only one strong ally: the united states. then again, it may be palestine. the united states is a powerful force to reckon with. regardless of the muslim countries chaffing to chase israel out of the area, the US has held them at bay for decades and will continue to do so.
i think that this latest nuclear treaty is a STRONG AND CLEAR MESSAGE to more than a few muslim countries. acquiring nuclear weapons and launching them at the US and/or its allies (i.e. israel) is a sure way of getting handed your head!
as to the whole christian-right and their reasons for supporting israel, i’m not sure ALL OF THEM are gung-ho about seeing the destruction of jews. believe it or not, some of them actually adhere to the messiah’s ultimate commandment: ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’. having said that, i do not doubt that there are a hefty percentage who are anxious for the second coming and if that means war in the middle-east , then, yes, they are gung-ho for war and/or the destruction of jerusalem (not the jews!). but in the end, this isn’t even about them! who cares what they endorse or why?! they have no say in the matter and do not hold any sort of political/economic sway in what is said around a negotiation table concerning the israeli/palestinian conflict!!
there SHOULD be a way for the developement of a two-state treaty/negotiation. it seems as if that is the only way to settle the entire conflict. no one wants to abandon their claim. again, israel believes it is the land of their forefathers, palestine has been there for centuries and have been displaced … so, i agree with a lot of what justinp has outlined. i simply believe that in order to acheive justice surrounding the israeli/palestine conflict, peace will be the first victim.
April 16th, 2010 - 23:52
Your “expansion” argument is b.s. Does that mean that if the U.S population begins to greatly expand we can just move into Mexican and Canadian territory. You stay within your countries borders, period.
April 17th, 2010 - 12:50
Remember the US went through its own civil war. I live in Vietnam where they had a civil war. It takes a few generations, but eventually everyone wants to do business and make money.
The main sticking point is the Zionist principle that Israel must be a “Jewish state”. This was one of Herzog’s main principles when he founded Zionism in the 1880′s. Instead if Israel were to drop this requirement and recognize the equality of all religions everything else can fall into place over time.
The demographics issue is disingenuous. Most Israelis like to have sex and babies are the easiest way to solve that problem. With a stable government and strong economy, many Jews would be willing to emigrate, but the current government as well as the past ones have been unfathomable to most Americans.
There is no way the nation will survive removing all the settlers. There is no way the Palestinians are going to give up their land, and why should they. Neither side wants to admit defeat. Make it one state, everybody wins, nobody has to move. Pay off the worst terrorists and evict them, then allow all the refugees to come back and reinvigorate the economy of Israel.
It wouldn’t be easy, there would be some pain, but anything that is worth doing is always has a price.
April 26th, 2010 - 18:20
Before Israel was reestablished, “Palestine” was nothing but sand and tent makers. The Jews took back their birthright and created an economic powerhouse and a staunch allie of America.
Since Obama’s election the radical Islamist in his administration have been attempting to sabotage the most successful economy in the middle East and destroy that relationship.
April 26th, 2010 - 20:47
Since Obama’s election the radical Islamist in his administration have been attempting to sabotage the most successful economy in the middle East and destroy that relationship.
Oh my, Obama is a “radical Islamist” now.
That is so far from the truth, and the gap is so painfully obvious, that I’m not even going to try to reason with you, Larry.
I think you’re just trolling anyway.
April 26th, 2010 - 23:19
The evangelicals do support Israel because they don’t want to wait a thousand years for the millenium of peace under Christ’s rule to return. You are correct when you say their support is disingenuous.
East Jerusalem is the stumbling block because it contains the temple mount. Israelis are not going to give up the temple mount and the Palestinians are not going to negotiate away the Dome of the Rock or the Al-aqsa mosque.
I maintain there is no economic or political advantage for the Palestinians to make peace, so they will not. With almost no natural resources, the Palestinians have nothing to attract development. The Israelis control Lake Kinneret and without new sources of water, the west bank will be an economic backwater.
It’s fantasy to think that once there is a peace treaty that the economy will grow quickly. Who will provide the development aid when there are so many others in need. The Palestinians are surviving on aid alone. It will be another Haiti.
On the political side, there is not central speaker for the Palestinians. Without a clear leadership empowered to make a decision for all, no one will accept any decision. Waste of time.
One nation, one people with protection for all religions.