Obama asks for 1967 border as 'basis' for peace between Israel and Palestine

[Insula Dei]

Why is it okay for Israeli's to vote and influence their national government's foreign policy to be obstructionist and lead to war?

[Insula Dei]

Actually what I think this might very well be, is the US trying to create distance between itself and Israel. From a purely geopolitical PoV Israel has been a client state gone sour for decades now, hurting the US image in the region probably about as much as NK damages the Chinese image with Japan or South Korea. As longs as Israel continues to embarras the US with situations like Operation Cast Lead or the Gaza flotilla massacre, it's not in the US's interest to stand 100% behind it.

[Insula Dei]

The US is much more of a client state of Israel than Israel is a client state of the US.

(That is to say, the Israeli government can influence US politics more than the US government can influence Israeli politics).

Hence the 'gone sour'.

[Insula Dei]

Well, you were comparing it to the North Korea-China relationship - surely China has far more influence over North Korea than vice versa.

Occasionally one does wonder,... I wouldn't be too surprised if the higher echelons of the People's Republic aren't particulary charmed by some of the North Korean shenanigans.

[Insula Dei]

Yeah, actually jmfcst, why do you hate your Christian brethren in Palestina?

[Insula Dei]

Why is God especially attached to a certain people and a certain place? Aren't you denying the univeralist pretences of Christianity?

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1 Cor 12:13 "For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink"

Acts 2:5-12 "5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

I'm sure there are even better illustrations of the general principle. A nice book to read on the topic is Alain Badiou's St. Paul book. The Universalist pretence of christinaity is quite a big deal with the 'theological turn' (please allow me this joke) in contemporary culture criticism.

[Insula Dei]

And for those that might lionize the Palestinians, yes I do share some sympathies with them. However their leadership must accept the reality of what has occurred, whether it was wrong or right in the first place and then try to make the best of the situation. Israel obviously isn't going anywhere and the Palestinians will have to accept this.

Although some might say I'm on the Palestinians "side", I also recognize that if this had happened in almost any other part of the world, the Palestinians would have a state by now and it would be on terms quite favorable to them. Unfortunately this is a desert culture that respects only force and violence. They are incapable of producing people like Gandhi or MLK.

Wow, the US press is really good at diabolizing the Palestinian people.

[Insula Dei]

@ Sbane,

I seek to disagree with just about every premisse in your first post

1) I don't think there is any thinkable peace deal which could be considered favourable to the Palestinians. In the best of cases (1967 borders with Palestinians gaining some territories, which appearantly is already pretty impossible), the Palestinians still lose more than half of their ancestral lands and will have to witness the perpetual exile of 4,5 million of their fellow countrymen. Any durable peace deal only benefits the Israeli's, who would have gained a generally accepted Jewish homeland.

2) You regret the Palestinians 'never produced a Ghandi': But at what time could they potentially have? When their villages were being massacred by the Irgun? When they were graciously granted the right to retain some parts of their ancestral lands by the Imperialist powers? When large swaps of the lands they supposedly could have retained were deemed too essential to Israel's self-defence? When all of their nation was occupied? At what point of a history of 60 years of being slaughtered could a credible Palestinian leader have advocated a Ghandiesque approach? And what would this hypothetical leader have demanded? If you think Israel is going to give in on even a single issue where they don't feel the neccesity to do so, I think you're mistaken.  As long as Israel doesn't see that any form of durable peace is in their best interest, peace in the Middle-East is a fata morgana.

3) To qualify any culture as 'violent' is a tricky thing. I could characterize the American culture as that of a nation of superficial, materialist people who've never experienced any significant national trauma and generally have little to no notion of what goes on beyond their frontdoor, yet deem it their natural born right to be the rulers of the planet and who will not hesitate to kill on a massive scale if it serves their goal, only superficially dedicated to freedom or civil liberties. Large swaths of the globe might agree with that characterisation. Do you think it's correct? Generalisations are a bad idea, bro.

[Insula Dei]

But what do you expect? That there is any people on the surface of the earth which would have meekly made its position known, only to then sit back and watch the zionists and their Western allies take their country from them? The Palestinians didn't give a crap about PR; they were never going to win US public opinion for them, and they already had the ear of the main Arab leaders.

Ironicallly, what happened to the Palestinians is pretty much what the Daily Mail would have us believe is happening to Western Europe today. Mass influx by a unadaptive minority, followed by a bloody campaign of terrorism and a 'enemy take-over' of the country.

[Insula Dei]

At what point of a history of 60 years of being slaughtered could a credible Palestinian leader have advocated a Ghandiesque approach?

How does a population more than triple during 60 years of slaughter?  Is it your ignorance that causes you to say something this stupid, or are you lying on purpose for some reason?

You've got me there. I'm being paid by Hamas to spread my radical anti-semitism on the internet.

[Insula Dei]

The idea that population growth indicates a period of great prosperity and a total lack of violence against a people is perhaps a bit too awkward for me to seriously reply to it. The Chinese population has doubled, if not tripled since 1950. Yet at the same time the country went trough the hardships of the Mao years. Also, anyone who takes a look at the cards the Palestinians have been dealt, should feel at least a degree of empathy towards them.

[Insula Dei]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. You can't possibly be denying that 60 years of bloodshed has resulted in the violent death of quite a large number of Palestinian civilians.

[Insula Dei]

And quite a large number of Israeli civilians too, were they slaughtered?

Well, there's a difference between the victims of terrorism and those of organised violence as perpetrated by the Israeli government. It's purely semantics though. I'd prefer the term 'killed' in the later instance. And you're shifting away from what you were trying to say. According to you it would be incorrect to say Palestinians have been killed on a very large scale, 'because their population grew'. That still strikes me as a very poor argument.