The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > There will be no Palestinian State on Netanyahu's watch > Comments

There will be no Palestinian State on Netanyahu's watch : Comments

By Alon Ben-Meir, published 16/2/2017

To establish Netanyahu's lack of commitment, one has to simply observe his actions in the occupied territories and listen to his public narrative.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Never was going to be! And a waste of time trying to negotiate. All that remains is the commercial boycott! And that needs to ramp and ramp up until those who voted for this man, hurt in the hip pocket so badly, they will remove him from office!

Anything else, including armed insurrection just plays into this man's hands!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 16 February 2017 9:15:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As long as the US keeps on supporting Israel - nothing
will change.

Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi once stated "Now is the
time for the US, for the international community, the
Quartet, to stand up and say, this is not finished."

"Israel does not have the right to act unilaterally, it does
not have the right to wreak havoc and destroy the prospects
for a peaceful solution."

Isarel has been calling the shots since 1967, always
without Palestinian consultation, and clearly believes that
the USA will support it no matter what.

Sadly, once again the international community will place a
higher value on Israel's vision of its historic destiny
than on the humanity of the Palestinians.

The moment anyone criticises Israel - the cry of "antisemitism"
is brought out and guarantees an abusive and vitriolic
response. The message is clear - anyone who dares to criticise
Israel receives threats and abuse. You're either with us or
against us.

However as Thomas Friedman wrote back in 2002,

"Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is vile.
But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international
sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the
Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is
dishonest."
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 16 February 2017 9:38:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And there should never be a Palestinian state, irrespective of who leads Israel. Iran-backed Hamas is intent on 'wiping Israel from the face of the earth'. The areas released to the Palestinians are already used as launching areas for further attacks on Israel. Houses built by Israel market gardeners were razed and replaced with tunnels for getting into Israel. Nothing grows where once were industrious Israelis. The requirement is not for a Palestinian state - it is for the total destruction of the state of Israel.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 16 February 2017 4:08:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As long as Hamas and other reactionary Palestinian groups deny the right of Israel to exist, and speak in terms of extermination, then why should Israel come to the negotiating table ?

As I understand it, there are more than a million Arab citizens in Israel, represented in the Knesset. Arabs live freely in Israel, so why not Jews in Palestine ? Why is that unthinkable ?

Once Palestinians recognise the right of Israel to exist, then negotiations can begin. I'm not suggesting that a separate and sovereign state of Palestine has to be as democratic as Israel, that would be up to Palestinians.

But how can there ever be an independent Palestine if it doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist, if it wants to push all Jews into the sea (or eliminate them in other ways), and if it would immediately and forever be at war with its neighbour, the very neighbour which is supposed to be solely responsible for bringing it into existence ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 17 February 2017 8:29:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Do your research on this issue before posting.
It may surprise you - as to who's been calling
the shots in that area - and why the Palestinians
react the way they do. It's not that they don't
want a state of Israel. It's that they don't want
it at their expense.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 17 February 2017 12:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dearest Foxy,

No, they don't want a state of Israel. When they say they do, then the negotiating can begin. Maybe a future state of Palestine can have z Jewish population in proportion to the Arab one currently living and voting in Israel, a state with signs in both Arabic and Hebrew, where Jewish kids can go to school with Palestinian (Muslim, Christian and Druse, etc.) kids. I look forward to that day, if I live long enough.

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 17 February 2017 2:35:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Palestine is willing to negotiate with Israel.
Always was willing, but not on Israel's terms
only. Therein lies the problem. Why is the world
told to believe that the Palestinians should
only accept peace on Israel's terms?

Anyway, we shall have to agree to disagree on this
issue. I have no wish to argue with you.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 17 February 2017 5:25:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who were the Philistines in relation to the Palestians.
The Philistines overran the land of the jews and made Jesus and his people
refugees in their own land.

So it raises the question about the real historical ownership of the land.
I dont set much store by who used to own the land, though.
Reality tells me that whoever can hold the land militarily, are the ones who
obviously control the land (country). This has always been the way of things
and still is in every country in the world.
Democracy and justice courts only exist in countries where the army is governed
by people who allow democracy.

Seeing as how the muslims who live in Australia, like to bring up the Aboriginals as the rightful owners of Australia,
maybe they should look into history as to the original owners in Palestine.
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 18 February 2017 8:00:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Cherful,

'Palestinian' is more of a geographical description than a historical one: the Philistines were quite probably closely related to the ancient Hebrews (cf. Sternberg's 'Hebrews between Cultures'), who may have been the lower classes, peasants and slaves, in a single society with 'Philistines' (perhaps a name coined after the event) as a ruling, and/or urban class - i.e. perhaps the Philistines and Hebrews were part of one single society. There is mention of a 'Hebrew Revolt' in Genesis.

The region has been called 'Palestine' since at least Roman times, if not (see above) much earlier. Whoever has lived there would be 'Palestinian'. When the Arabs swept out of Arabia in the seventh century and conquered Mesopotamia and what was then a Christian 'Holy Land', Palestine, their usual demographic policy was to enslave the men and 'incorporate' the women. Most likely, the male DNA of current Palestinians is strongly Arab, while the female DNA is much more diverse, probably including similar DNA to that of Syrian, Lebanese and Jewish women.

So now, in 2017, most Palestinians would count themselves as Arab: Christians, Muslims and Druse, etc. But their ancestral links to ancient Palestinians, or Philistines, may be very tenuous, except through the DNA of Palestinian women.

So who were the original owners of 'Palestine' ?

As for Aboriginal people being the original owners of Australia, certainly they have legitimate claims as the hunting-gathering population of Australia for sixty-odd thousand years. But strangely, I suspect there is a backing away from that in some quarters, judging by recent attempts to portray Aboriginal people not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers, who presumably (if is this the rationale for this moronic claim) would have much stronger claims of land ownership.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 19 February 2017 10:03:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

«The region has been called 'Palestine' since at least Roman times»

The region was so coined by the Romans in order to humiliate the Jews to the max.

The Philistines were a nation that lived to the West (mainly South-West) of Judea, along the Mediterranean coast. They are mentioned many times in the bible, even from Genesis, but especially in the books of Judges and Samuel. They had five cities, among them Gaza while the other four are today part of modern Israel: at some point in time they even controlled the area which is now Tel-Aviv. Israel and the Philistines were considered bitter enemies with many wars between them.

It is believed that the Philistines came from the islands of Crete or Cyprus and in any case they were not Arab.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 February 2017 10:49:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

This is probably going even further off the track but:

* when you suggest that "Israel and the Philistines were considered bitter enemies with many wars between them ...."

yes, indeed, that's the nature of tribal societies, even those with a common origin. The history of the 'Palestinian' coast-line from 2000 BC is complex and fascinating. But even in the bible, there are plenty of references to co-operation or collaboration between Philistines and Hebrews/Israelites: even David worked for them for a bit, even against his 'own' people; Samson of course was enthralled to them through his love of Delilah. A tribal group breaking into two or more bits, each of which stoutly believe that they have always been enemies of the other, is probably a common story for many anthropologists.

Anyway to get BTT, Netanyahu, the two-state solution, and settlements: of course, until the two pats can come together in a single, democratic and fully equal state, say in a couple of hundred years, a two-state solution is a necessary measure.

But building settlements is a provocation - perhaps it is being used to drive the PA and Hamas to the negotiating table, to recognise the right of Israel to exist and then agree to the two-state solution. Clearly, the PA and Hamas DON'T agree to a two-state solution if they don't/won't recognise one of the states' right to an existence. I don't think building more settlements will speed up the process.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 19 February 2017 12:34:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Yes, the settlements are definitely an unhelpful provocation, but I think that their intention is more to do with internal Israeli politics then with Palestinians.

A recent article in Israel described Netanyahu as "the only responsible adult". He wants a two-state solution and understands that anything else would result in the loss of Jewish majority in Israel, a majority that is already about to be lost in the next elections for the council of Jerusalem, where an Arab mayor will starve the Western half of the city. However, there is little Netanyahu can do against his childish own party and coalition partners.

Now what could Netanyahu gain by getting the Arabs to "recognise" the existence of Israel? only a political advantage against his peers as the Arabs wouldn't mean what they say anyway.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 February 2017 2:55:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth and Yuyutsu,

Thank you for some historical perspective on the Palestinian question.

It seems the land is the highly coveted bone of contention, especially the new settlements by Israel.

Is there nowhere else that Israels population can spread.?

And ditto the Palestianians.

As the population grows in Australia, the land is taken up very quickly by the spreading
suburbs and houses around cities and towns.

Is this the issue here or not? That each side is blocking the growth in population and their need for ever more land for families.
If both sides had millions of acres of land to spread into would the new settlements even be an issue?
Posted by CHERFUL, Sunday, 19 February 2017 5:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

You're probably right about the settlements and Netanyahu's support.

As for Palestinian recognition of Israel, that would represent a huge change in that it would be done in the eyes of the entire world and all its international forums, etc. For the PA and Hamas to do that would be a huge back-down, as they might see it, and a loss of a bargaining chip, and of the support of much of the Muslim world.

I'm puzzled about how Jerusalem (and Palestine) ever became Muslim and/or Arab in the first place: the only 'evidence' I can find is that, on the night he was dying, Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse with a woman's face (there was a bloke south of Medina who bred them) and then climbed Jacob's Ladder, the only way in JEWISH tradition, to get into Paradise, i.e. from the site of the Old Temple of Solomon. Why did Muhammad need to get into Paradise the Jewish way ? If he was so favoured by Allah, why not just whisk him up in a whirlwind, or in the arms of 72 lusty virgins ? Why mimic Jewish practice ?

And if that's the only link between Islam and Jerusalem, I have to suggest respectfully that it's a pretty piss-weak one.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 19 February 2017 5:01:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I basically agree with Joe.
The area became Arab when the Arabs invaded Mesopotamia and a hundred
or so later prompted the Crusades to rescue the Christians and Jews
from the persecution of the Moslems. Nothing changes.
The original inhabitants, before the Jews I think would have been Canaanites.

So the Arab claim to the land is based on military action.
The Jewish claim is based on recent military action and previous ownership.
A complication to this is the Koran injunction that land once occupied
by moslems always remains moslem even if taken back by military action.
This is the reason why the Palestinians insist that in any agreement
Jerusalem must be part of their territory as it is moslem land.
The Israelis of course cannot accept that.
So if you accept that the Koran is the ultimate authority the whole
area must be passed to the Arabs.
If you do not accept the authority of the Koran then it is Jewish.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 21 February 2017 12:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy