- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Israeli Arab Citizenship has been offered for nearly 40 years ... WTF???
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:38 am
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:38 am
Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967 and later annexed, were offered Israeli citizenship, but most have refused, not wanting to recognize Israel's claim to sovereignty. They became permanent residents instead.[12] They have the right to apply for citizenship, are entitled to municipal services, and have municipal voting rights.
I don't get this so Every Palestinian can become an Israeli citizen but they choose not too and butcher any and all who do along with their families...
Sounds like this could have ended decades ago and people would be living much better international environment instead or perpetuating an un-winnable jihad.
Why will the Palestinian not become part of the solution instead of the secular theocratic separatist?
Seems like they are a small people, greedy and neanderthalish after learning about their history.
I don't get this so Every Palestinian can become an Israeli citizen but they choose not too and butcher any and all who do along with their families...
Sounds like this could have ended decades ago and people would be living much better international environment instead or perpetuating an un-winnable jihad.
Why will the Palestinian not become part of the solution instead of the secular theocratic separatist?
Seems like they are a small people, greedy and neanderthalish after learning about their history.
2
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:43 am to BarberitosDawg
They cannot become Israeli citizens on equal footing with Jews.
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:45 am to cwill
quote:+1
They cannot become Israeli citizens on equal footing with Jews.
The Israeli side continually misrepresents this.
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:48 am to cwill
I need more explanation for your position. There are even Arabs and Muslims serving in Israel's government. How are they not on equal footing?
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:50 am to BarberitosDawg
quote:Just the ones in Jerusalem (the Golan is mostly Druze).
Every Palestinian can become an Israeli citizen
The ones in the West Bank and Gaza, lol nope.
This post was edited on 8/2/14 at 8:58 am
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:54 am to Iosh
quote:
The ones in the West Bank and Gaza, lol nope.
I'm not familiar with the West Bank, but isn't Gaza considered Palistine? I thought Israel gave up that land.
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:07 am to Iosh
quote:Has Israel annexed the West Bank or Gaza? Offering citizenship to residents of foreign territory would be an interesting gesture. What other countries offer citizenship to people living outside their borders?
The ones in the West Bank and Gaza, lol nope.
The United States doesn't offer citizenship to all people inside its borders much less those outside.
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:07 am to imjustafatkid
Israel exerts total control over the land and the sea. They have tanks permanently stationed yards from the border to shoot if anyone gets too close (which doesn't necessarily entail crossing, just "getting too close" as arbitrarily determined by them.) Gaza cannot develop its offshore resources, is totally reliant on Israel for food, fuel, and electricity, and has less international contact than North Korea, not by virtue of being hermits, but by virtue of being prisoners. Israel doesn't acknowledge it as an independent country because that would make its total blockade a seven-year ongoing act of war (recall Israel famously asserted a blockade of a single port as an act of war in 1967).
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:09 am to Poodlebrain
quote:Funny how Israel doesn't seem to have a problem offering citizenship to "residents of foreign territory" in the West Bank if they're of the right religion.
Has Israel annexed the West Bank or Gaza? Offering citizenship to residents of foreign territory would be an interesting gesture. What other countries offer citizenship to people living outside their borders?
LINK
This post was edited on 8/2/14 at 9:13 am
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:19 am to Iosh
Palestinians and Arabs have to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
Palestinians must recognize the Jewish historical, religious and emotional connection to the Temple Mount. This is consistent with Islamic traditions. While it is true that in times of decline in Islamic history Muslims violate precepts of coexistence, the religion of Islam clearly acknowledges and respects the rights of Jews, as well as Christians.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not inherently hegemonic. However, in the context of power politics, Jews, Christians and Muslims have and do justify hegemonic practices. In keeping with the Islamic tradition and precepts, the Palestinians should accept Jewish identity.
Palestinians must recognize the Jewish historical, religious and emotional connection to the Temple Mount. This is consistent with Islamic traditions. While it is true that in times of decline in Islamic history Muslims violate precepts of coexistence, the religion of Islam clearly acknowledges and respects the rights of Jews, as well as Christians.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not inherently hegemonic. However, in the context of power politics, Jews, Christians and Muslims have and do justify hegemonic practices. In keeping with the Islamic tradition and precepts, the Palestinians should accept Jewish identity.
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:39 am to BarberitosDawg
quote:They probably will as part of a final two-state peace deal. Israel insisting on it as a precondition for negotiations is bullshite because it puts the Palestinian leadership over a barrel to accept any two-state solution, no matter how crappy. If Israel offers sub-divided land, no sovereignty or resources, and Palestine walks away having acknowledged Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition, then Israel can just pursue the one-state solution without worry of a South Africa style push for a secular binational state because now Abbas has given them their implicit justification for apartheid. "Sorry guys we gotta keep it Jewish, you know how it is."
Palestinians and Arabs have to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
Compare this with the most common Israeli precondition insisted on: settlement freezes. There's nothing binding about those. They're simply a lack of action. They can and have been restarted at any point.
There's a reason the Netanyahu government was insisting on "Jewish state" as a precondition while the Barak and Olmert governments didn't. Netanyahu has a very good feel for the American electorate, he knew exactly why the Palestinians (and any diplomat familiar with the negotiation process) would see it as an unacceptable but also that it would play very sympathetically with the hoi polloi here.
LINK
quote:
Olmert defended Abbas for refusing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s demand for him to already recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said such a request should only come at the end of the process, when he receives commitments from the Israeli side.
This post was edited on 8/2/14 at 9:42 am
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:41 am to Iosh
quote:Previous refusals notwithstanding?
They probably will as part of a final two-state peace deal
Posted on 8/2/14 at 9:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:They haven't yet gotten to a final two-state deal. The previous refusals have been a refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a mere condition to negotiations, which isn't something any sensible negotiator would do because it essentially concedes any equitable one-state solution and justifies subsequent apartheid if the negotiations fail.
Previous refusals notwithstanding?
Posted on 8/2/14 at 10:30 am to Iosh
quote:
They haven't yet gotten to a final two-state deal. The previous refusals have been a refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a mere condition to negotiations, which isn't something any sensible negotiator would do because it essentially concedes any equitable one-state solution and justifies subsequent apartheid if the negotiations fail.
Moving past the Pollyanna principle please define the parties who would negotiate?
HAMAS, PLO and Hezbollah have very different idealistic agenda's who quite frankly 'can't agree to dis agree' on the pre-menial of points.
Self-evidently, not all Israelis and Palestinian are accepting of the other, or open to the reality that they
are each other’s neighbors. The irredentists among both groups insist that no real change has taken place in the context of their relationship. There are Palestinians and Israelis who recognize that the relationship between the two parties has changed, but they are incapable of acting on their conclusions. Palestinians and Israelis have no other viable choice but to live beside each other. The security of the Israelis and the dignity of the Palestinians go hand in hand.
Consensus requires a cooperative model of Israeli-Palestinian relationship that focuses on the benefits of stable peace for both.
HAMAS will never in a million years agree on a point of mutual consensus. Fatah will but will not abide by it.
Hezbollah is waiting its turn now that it backed the present Syrian government and hates HAMAS and Fatah more than Israel.
So who is credible and can negotiate for the Palestinian cause in a faithful and accountable manner? The United Nations... obviously not seeing how they can't even get a 24 hour ceasefire to stand without reciprocates...
Who fills the vacuum?
Posted on 8/2/14 at 11:28 am to BarberitosDawg
quote:Hamas and Fatah agreed to a unity government several months ago. In fact, Israel could have easily continued negotiating with the interim government, if it so chose. Abbas remained in charge and while Hamas backed the government, it didn't have any members of the cabinet, which was exclusively Fatah + independents. It was Netanyahu who pulled out. LINK
Moving past the Pollyanna principle please define the parties who would negotiate?
HAMAS, PLO and Hezbollah have very different idealistic agenda's who quite frankly 'can't agree to dis agree' on the pre-menial of points.
quote:Thus the contradiction. The hardliners carp incessantly that negotiations are a waste of time because Abbas cannot ultimately negotiate for the entirety of Palestine due to the Fatah-Hamas split. A deal gets struck whereby Abbas can negotiate for Palestine, and a rather generous deal at that since Hamas does not gain any power in the civil government, and still Israel pulls out, using weasel words like "backed by Hamas," "supported by Hamas" to imply that Hamas members had anything more today than they had yesterday, de facto control of Gaza. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Israel suspended peace negotiations with Abbas after the reconciliation pact, and the United States said it would reconsider annual aid to the Palestinians worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
"The government would be under my command and my policy," Abbas told senior leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) at his presidential headquarters in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah.
"Its purview will be what happens domestically. I recognize Israel and it would recognize Israel. I reject violence and terrorism," he said.
The deal between Hamas and Abbas's Fatah party envisions agreement on a government of independent technocrats within five weeks and elections at least six months later.
Hamas's opposition to Israel does not necessarily contradict Abbas's position, as both sides have agreed that the unity government will not include Hamas members but be comprised of technocrats.
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ruled out talks with such a government.
"That's the oldest trick in the book. It's called the front office-back office gambit," he said, in which "shady organizations" put forward "smooth-talking frontmen - the men in suits," Netanyahu said in an interview with MSNBC on Thursday,
"We will not sit and negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas in which Hamas has effective share of power," Netanyahu said.
Of course, the entire reason Abbas was able to get such generous terms was because Hamas was in an incredibly weak position after the ouster of Morsi in Egypt, and looking for any way out of their isolation. The Gaza economy was in shambles, their corruption was being exposed, and even though Israel had pulled out of the negotiations then, if they had just let the elections transpire in six months, there was every likelihood that Hamas would have lost badly and Fatah would have returned to power in both territories on a permanent, rather than interim basis.
If Israel wanted peace, the correct course of action would have been to treat the unity government as an opportunity to strengthen the moderates, allow the election, and if they won, allow Fatah forces to enter Gaza and peacefully transfer power, not trump up an invasion on questionable pretenses.
(I'm ignoring Hezbollah because it has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue. It's a Lebanese issue. They're also more than a bit tied up in Syria and Iraq at the moment.)
This post was edited on 8/2/14 at 11:32 am
Posted on 8/2/14 at 1:05 pm to Iosh
quote:
If Israel wanted peace, the correct course of action would have been to treat the unity government as an opportunity to strengthen the moderates, allow the election, and if they won, allow Fatah forces to enter Gaza and peacefully transfer power, not trump up an invasion on questionable pretenses.
"Fatah-Hamas split"
Technocratic representation without accountability...Hmm, I'm not sure I would buy into that either.
Given present realities, the Israelis cannot be defeated militarily; yet, they cannot win politically. The loss of ability to force a verdict by armed conflict imposes limitation on the practice of Israeli-Palestinian statecraft...But it is a limitation that leaves room for vigor, imagination and skill in framing
and executing reconciliation and coexistence between both parties.
I can't rationally explain how a "dog wags its tail" by only looking at the 'tail.
If Israel were to accept the return of Palestinian refugees, only a small percentage of the refugees would return. It is generally agreed that a significant number of Palestinian refugees would remain in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria if the governments of these countries were given incentives and were willing to integrate them into their societies.
Hezbollah is a major factor in the problem, therefore must be included in the solution.
Fatah has lost full credibility because of its own corruption and ineffective representation of the Palestinian people, something new and unique must fill the void for any future negotiated settlement.
The Israelis need to abandon the practice of exploiting inter-Arab tensions. In international forums, Israel needs to refrain from voting against Arab states. In Arab countries, in public discourse, Israel should be treated as a neighbor rather than an enemy. Israelis and Arabs need to move away from the adversarial posture that both have adopted toward one another in the region and the international arena, toward a cooperative relationship.
Israelis and Palestinians need to recognize the rights of each other’s people. Israel should acknowledge its role in creating the plight of Palestinian refugees. Palestinian refugees should be given the choice to live where they want. Jewish settlers should be granted similar rights to settle in the West Bank.
Palestinians should also be compensated for the property that they lost as Jews are now being
compensated in Eastern Europe for the same. The same applies to the compensation of Jews who lost
property in Arab countries.
I don't envy your position in defending the indefensible but, I do salute your persistence.
This post was edited on 8/2/14 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 8/2/14 at 1:45 pm to BarberitosDawg
quote:What am I defending? You started this thread quoting a fact about Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem and immediately engaging in outright falsehood by extending it to "every Palestinian." When I pointed out the lie, you began a retarded Gish Gallop of bringing up a new issue in every subsequent post, from "recognition as a Jewish state," to the Hamas-Fatah split, and now bringing up the issue of Palestinian refugees. All I'm doing is pointing out the errors and assumptions in your positions. I doubt you could accurately describe my position if you tried. Or you'd make some pithy comment about "libs love Hamas," collect your upvotes, and call it a victory.
I don't envy your position in defending the indefensible but, I do salute your persistence.
Also, if you're going to mindlessly mix in quotes from a 15-year old peace proposal, you should probably source it since the copypasta sticks out like a sore thumb among your bullshite. I doubt the people who wrote this:
quote:would have much to say in favor of your characterization of the Palestinians as "neanderthalish" in the OP. I also doubt the people who wrote this:
Israel must also see itself as a Middle Eastern country. Israel is projecting itself in the region as a superior Western country, oblivious to its actual geography, an attitude that rekindles Arab resentment of Western colonialism and continued hegemonic behavior.
quote:in the year 2000 would have anything favorable to say about the blockade of Gaza and the walling off of 75% of the West Bank that has gone on since then. So it's a little disingenuous to cite them for only the parts that agree with your propositions. Especially since the proposal you're lifting from envisions an unlimited right of return which no Israeli government will ever be on board with, ever. EVER. (And you call me Pollyanna?)
Israeli society and industry are technologically sophisticated, but Israel has not demonstrated willingness to help Palestinians. Israelis should pursue policies that promote Israeli investment in Palestine and development of the Palestinian economy. Encouraged by the Palestinians, Arab countries must end the economic boycott of Israel and promote trade and commercial transactions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm flattered that you're having to plagiarize and cherry-pick just to keep up the appearance of a debate here. But since you're not so much interested in a discussion as you are not losing face on the internet, I'm not really interested in continuing this "discussion," such as it is. Maybe if someone else would like to step up with actual thoughts of their own.
This post was edited on 8/2/14 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 8/2/14 at 2:06 pm to cwill
Jews, Christians, Buddihsts, Sikhs and Atheists all live together in peace.
Muslims live with Jews - War
Muslims live with Christians-War
Muslim live with Buddhists-War
Muslims live with Sikhs - War
Muslims live with Atheists-War
Muslims live with Muslims --
MEAGA WAR
Muslims live with Jews - War
Muslims live with Christians-War
Muslim live with Buddhists-War
Muslims live with Sikhs - War
Muslims live with Atheists-War
Muslims live with Muslims --
MEAGA WAR
Posted on 8/2/14 at 2:20 pm to Iosh
quote:
The previous refusals have been a refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a mere condition to negotiations, which isn't something any sensible negotiator would do because it essentially concedes any equitable one-state solution and justifies subsequent apartheid if the negotiations fail.
it makes no sense not to do everything you can to get to the negotiation table, when one side has everything and you have nothing.
Posted on 8/2/14 at 2:54 pm to SammyTiger
quote:The falsity of this argument can be easily proven by taking it to a logical extreme. Suppose Israel were to demand, as a precondition for negotiations, that the PLO not only accept their existence as a Jewish state, but total demilitarization, Israeli control over borders, and and final borders at the current settlement walls, with zero pullouts. The current map would be the final status map. No land swaps, and Palestine would exist as a state only in the discontinuous beige areas.
it makes no sense not to do everything you can to get to the negotiation table, when one side has everything and you have nothing.
Now, when one side has everything and you have nothing, clearly you should do everything you can to get to the table, right? But in this case, Abbas would obviously say no. He wouldn't go to the table. Because Abbas doesn't have "nothing." He has plan B, which is more or less the South African strategy. He dissolves the PLO and officially renounces an independent Palestine: LINK
quote:If Israel pushes Abbas too hard, if they make too many demands, he will simply step down, announce that the dream of an independent Palestine is dead, and force Israel to put its money where the settlers' mouths are and reoccupy the entirety of the West Bank in earnest. Which will lead to the South Africa scenario. Again I will quote Olmert, who is sort of the Israeli Nixon in that he is corrupt as frick domestically but smarter than any two of his successors in terms of foreign policy: LINK
This past week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas renewed his threat to dissolve the PA and hand responsibility for the administration of Palestinian lands back to Israel unless peace talks begin yielding results. Though the news was quickly overshadowed by the announcement of Hamas-PLO reconciliation. Abbas’s threat ought to be taken seriously.
...
Having once again reached an impasse, a new tactic has begun to emerge. In televised remarks last week, Abbas said, “This Authority has no authority anymore, and the reason is that it lost all its powers that it received after the Oslo agreement. We do not have any political, logistical, economical, or territorial responsibilities anymore. We have nothing. So we said that if Israel wants to continue with this policy and not give this authority its rights, let it come and take this authority.”
By threatening to dissolve the PA, creating a power vacuum in the West Bank, Israelis must contemplate the resumption of the occupation of millions of Palestinians. Israel vacated administration of major Palestinian population centers in the West Bank and Gaza after a painful and costly military occupation, which most Israelis have no interest in resuming.
...
If the PA is dissolved and Israel doesn’t assert control, a more radical group will fill the void, as Hamas did in Gaza and Hezbollah did in southern Lebanon. Or, local security chiefs might assume control, dividing Palestinian territories into personal fiefdoms. In either case, the result would likely be the maladministration of Palestinian territories, a suspension of international aid and an increase in misery and violence.
Worse, Israel would have the pretext to permanently wash its hands of peace negotiations and annex territories in the West Bank and east Jerusalem for settlements and security. Under such a scenario, peace, already a distant dream, would become nearly impossible to achieve.
quote:The idea that "Israel has everything and the Palestinians have nothing" is false. Unless Israel wants to cross the historical Rubicon and engage in an actual genocide or a mass ethnic cleansing (which they aren't, their moral compasses are not yet that warped, and it will probably lose them their American support), the Palestinians have two major assets: birthrates and time.
If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished". Israel's supporters abroad would quickly turn against such a state, he said.
"The Jewish organisations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents," he said.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News