[Sandwich]

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6023/palestinians-missed-opportunities

Personally, I feel like he's on to something. Thoughts?

[Phantom Hoover]

my thoughts are that wow sandwich is blaming everything in the middle east on the palestinians again big surprise

[Luis Dias]

but wait #NotYourShi.... aaaah **** wrong thread

[karajorma]

my thoughts are that wow sandwich is blaming everything in the middle east on the palestinians again big surprise

I don't think anyone can deny that the Palestinians are responsible for a lot of the hardship they suffer from. A great example is their refusal to enter peace talks when instead they should enter them and show what a hollow sham Netanyahu offers would be.

[Phantom Hoover]

Yes, the difference though is that you're saying that the Palestinians aren't blameless, and immediately follow up by criticising the Israelis too. Sandwich, meanwhile, has shown time and time again that he believes that blame for and agency in the conflict belongs entirely to Palestine.

[karajorma]

I don't disagree with you, but then again I don't disagree with the article. So given that Sandwich hasn't expressed any views on the article that I don't disagree with, I think it's reasonable to stick with what has been said on this thread and the article itself and avoid making the subject personal.

Of course if you want to give the other side of the argument and point out exactly where Israel is also going wrong, that's fine too.

[666maslo666]

No matter where the blame is, the fact is that it is pointless and stupid to fight against a vastly superior enemy that has you cornered, even if you are in the right - you are only hurting yourself. Until Palestinians get this and learn to admit defeat at least when it comes to basic Israel demands, they will continue to suffer needlessly. Sometimes it takes courage to admit defeat.
But I have a feeling the Palestinian leadership does not care much about the welfare of their own people, but about their own pride and whatever power they have over their little strip of land.

[Bobboau]

I don't think anyone can deny that the Palestinians are responsible for a lot of the hardship they suffer from.

[Luis Dias]

Karajorma nailed it. We should heed his advices.

[Gee1337]

Toe treading time! 

My personal belief in all of this is that no deal or peace or genuine solutions to problems can happen, whilst politics still wears the shackles of religion.

In all honesty, that is all I have to say on the matter without deconstructing all religions into their wrongs whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism... whatever!

[Dragon]

That's why I often said that both sides sometimes act like they didn't mind being at war at all. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people (again, on both sides) actively working to maintain the status quo. The article points out the monumental hypocrisy on the Palestinian side, now we could use a counterpart pointing out equally monumental hypocrisy on the Israeli side. It's almost as if they're taking turns. One wants peace, other turns it down, then swap.

Regarding the actual article, it mostly talks about clearly bone-headed stuff Palestinians did quite some time ago (boycotting Isreali products and jobs) and still occasionally do, shooting themselves in the foot. It seems that they lack a leader who would also be a skillful politician. They're fighting against a superior enemy, which is a fight you can only win with politics, not by brute force. It is certainly not a hopeless fight - the Irish did it, breaking off from British Empire when it was still very strong. However, the Irish were willing to compromise and knew how to play their cards right. Palestinians need their own Michael Collins, so to speak. What they're currently doing only serves the Israeli, allowing them to easily "justify" their racism and bigotry.

TBH, I think that the best thing Palestinians could do would be not trying to separate themselves from Israel or destroy it. Instead, they should attempt to change it from a "Jewish state" to simply a state, then let the democracy take care of the rest. Then they could coexist for mutual benefit in a modern, advanced country. That said, it'd require both sides to tone down their bigotry (and religious fanaticism) by a lot, so I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon.

[Bobboau]

Karajorma nailed it. We should heed his advices.

The problem is many people do deny this, a lot. whether or not they are correct, they deny it. so it is clear that this is something you can do. maybe I'm being pedantic, I do that sometimes.

[Gee1337]

Fundamentally, I agree with you Dragon.

Like you said a the end of your post, it won't happen soon because, for me, the reason is because religion is driving the politic rather than the welfare of the people, which echoes what you said as well.

It should be called "Israstine" as part of the compromise!

[Luis Dias]

There are systemic tactical problems with Dragon's solution. The whole issue comes up with Israel itself, which is a nation founded on a genetic / religious identity, created out of sheer humanitarian necessity, but at its root it inherents what is its biggest sin: to precisely create a nation founded on racial / religious identiy.  I feel, as Dragon does, that to strip out Israel of this identity would be a necessary step for it to become a secular, democratic project that could, in theory, shine a light of democracy and freedom throughout the middle east.

However, the reality on the ground is absolutely different. In reality, if such an Israel would be enacted, muslim fanatics would start to overpopulate Israel until they dominated the country in terms of democratic majority. The effects of this demographic change would change its own politics until they represented muslim moral traits, at which point it would become just like another muslim country near it. Now, you can jump at me and tell me this is just a fearmongering right wing scenario, so I'll say also this: I can totally see the israel fanatics fighting this demographic war on their own, and we would end up with a country demographically filled with two religious fanatical groups. "What could go wrong".

Israel will have none of this. To fight this possibility, they will fight to maintain Israel's identity. Which is, again, based on racial and religious traits, rather than, say, a secular idea about what a society should be like (as in the USA, for instance). Which is, again, terribly "right wing" in itself.

I see no solutions here. In that sense, I'm just as intelligent as the next idiot.

[karajorma]

The problem is many people do deny this, a lot.

No one on this site though. I don't think we've ever had anyone that stupid. And if someone that stupid were to post, they would get educated into dust very quickly because I doubt even those on this site viewed as most anti-Israel would agree with them.

[headdie]

While religion certainly has it's place in the conflict, I think that it is more of a rhetoric tool rather than a true reason.  Ultimately the ongoing conflict is a cornerstone of the political paradigm of the region for both sides and is a means for those in power to maintain the current power structures and the member's places within it.  Removal of the conflict would fundamentally shift the internal balance of power in both territories and as such the populous view of the leaders of the territories

[DarkBasilisk]

Hey it's our friends in the Gatestone Institute!

The Gatestone Institute, formerly Stonegate Institute and Hudson New York, is a think tank based in New York City that specializes in strategy and defense issues. Gatestone was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald, who serves as its president.

Nina Rosenwald is an American political activist and philanthropist. An heiress to the Sears Roebuck fortune, Rosenwald is vice president of the William Rosenwald Family Fund and co-chair of the board of American Securities Management.[1] She is the founder and president of Gatestone Institute,[2][3] a New York-based think tank and policy council. A descendant of philanthropists and Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe, Rosenwald has focused on donating to pro-Israel organizations. She has been "an ardent Zionist all her life".[4] The Nation and the Center for American Progress have categorized her and the Gatestone Institute as anti-Muslim.[5] Practicing Muslim activists affiliated with the Gatestone Institute have come to her defense in response to this accusation.

Her family fund has given financial support to two settlements in the disputed Palestinian territory of the West Bank: the Beit El yeshiva, which counsels its students to defy government orders to evacuate illegal outposts, and Ariel University.

The talking points go over every usual deflection : look at Iran, look at ISIS. And generally say everything possible positive about Israel. The only 'opportunity' he seems to offer is that is a list of things to stop doing, and then everything will work out in genuine negotiation. Which is, again, the exact talking points we get from the Israeli PM.

It also ignores, marginalizes, or tells to drop any advantage in negotiation the Palestinians currently have.

Look, I try really hard not to go over the top, or drip with sarcasm. But when a think tank founded by a known backer of anti-muslim groups releases an article that says nothing but argue for Israel's talking points on the conflict, nearly word for word... why am I the first one calling out bias and suspicion on the quality of the article?

Personally, I have my own thoughts on what the Palestinians should do that diverge from what they're actually doing, true. But the situation has always been more complicated than the article makes it out to be. Simple doesn't exist in the real world, we wouldn't have problems that last for decades if there was some magic fix for them.

EDIT : 5 minutes later realization that left a chunk of reasoning out

[karajorma]

Now that's a much better criticism of the article.

That said, I still can't see that the article itself is really wrong on any point. It's not a lie, it's just a half truth.

[666maslo666]

Two populations with long history of mutual conflict trying to live in one state is a very bad idea. I see two state solution as the only viable one.

[Dragon]

Two populations with long history of mutual conflict trying to live in one state is a very bad idea. I see two state solution as the only viable one.

Long history? More like 60 years at best. The biggest problem with one state solution was what Luis Dias stated - Muslims would overwhelm Israel's population and this might result in fanatics coming into power. Some safeguards could be added (sort of like the US constitution) to prevent this from becoming too bad, but it doesn't solve the problem of Jews becoming a minority in their own country. Minorities have little to no say in a democracy and Palestinians are not considerate enough to care for minority rights, so the usual Western way of doing that (majority sympathizes with the minority enough that it gives it a voice) would not work. Even if you constitutionally ban religion from politics entirely (something most countries could use, really), it wouldn't fix all of the potential problems, including plain old ethnic discrimination.

All in all, I consider the "One state, secular by constitutional rule" solution to be the one with the least potential of going bad, but I also know it's asking too much even from a more advanced country than Israel - I don't know of any country with an outright ban on religion in politics. And even then, it's not a perfect solution, just one that would make everyone equally unhappy. It also assumes that there are reasonable people available to govern the place, whose first action would not be to repeal the ban on religion. Unfortunately, this is probably an incorrect assumption. Though I'm afraid that any proposed solution will, to a degree, depend on similar assumptions that rational people have any sort of say in this conflict, which they don't.

That said, I still can't see that the article itself is really wrong on any point. It's not a lie, it's just a half truth.

It's sort of like the "Israeli rhetoric guide" that leaked out some time ago. Israeli supporters are careful not to lie, but have quite a good record of only acknowledging what's convenient for them. The other side also does this. In the end, we've got two complimentary half-truth which, put together, could be summarized as "You're all a bunch of bastards." And in many cases, like ethnic discrimination and religious fanaticism, it's pot calling the kettle black.