Why did Netanyahu say "New Zealand's resolution against Israel is a declaration of war?"

[Mr Fixit]

4 hours ago, Commodore said:

because Arafat and Abbas have both been offered land for peace, and have both rejected it, without a counteroffer

You do know that is factually incorrect, don't you? Speaking of both Abbas and Arafat. I mean it's all right there, anyone can check it.

As a poster upthread correctly pointed out, it's funny how the Palestinians are constantly being accused of not wanting to recognize Israel (and thus are not really for peace), when Palestinian authorities over the last 20+ years have repeatedly re-affirmed their desire for a two-state solution that, yes, includes the state of Israel in its pre-1967 borders. The same internationally-recognized borders that even today, 50 years later, appear on maps in every Geography classroom in the world, US included.

It's not the Palestinians who don't want "land for peace", it's the Israeli government! Their position has always been, with the short exception in the mid-90s, to eventually formally annex the West Bank (and possibly other territories) as part of "Greater Israel" while in the meantime they implement apartheid policies on the ground aimed at removing the Palestinian population into isolated zones and sectors subject to harsh provisions of de facto martial law.

As a response to (1) the ongoing 50-year-old occupation of their lands (they are called Occupied Territories after all) and (2) horrible policies directed at them, Palestinians have turned to armed resistance just like any oppressed people in an invaded land would. Yes, that resistance has turned to terrorism and slaughter of civilians on many occasions which is to be condemned and in no way supported. But still the underlying problem, one which is the root cause of all this is not the fault of the Palestinians: Israel occupied their lands in the Six-Day War of 1967 and refuses to return them 50 years later all the while illegally settling hundreds of thousands of its citizens, in direct contravention of international laws and treaties governing the rights and duties of occupying powers, and displacing the indigenous population in the process.

To make matters even more perverse, since it's impossible to flat-out refute that Israel is the occupying power that illegally settles the land, the counterargument then inevitably shifts to Palestinian terrorism and how no peaceful solution can be reached until they renounce violence. Hence, "land for peace". But the thing is, any impartial observer with basic human decency who looks at casualty reports in Israel and Palestine has to be astounded by the disparity in the civilian casualties. Watching the mainstream media one could get the impression that it's Israelis who daily suffer under barrages of Hamas rockets while any retribution by IDF is of a reactionary and proportional character. But the truth, easily verifiable and publicly available, paints a starkly different picture.

Since 2009 Palestinians have killed 76 Israeli civilians, including 12 children or around 10 per year. As a point of comparison, in year 2009 alone total number of murders in Israel was 135. If you're Israeli, there's actually a far greater chance that you'll be killed by "one of your own" than a Palestinian. In the same time frame, Israeli forces have killed at least 2489 Palestinian civilians or over 300 per year including a staggering number of 1042 children. For every Israeli child that dies, almost ONE HUNDRED little Palestinians perish.

It's worth keeping in mind that while the numbers of Israeli casualties are accurate, Palestinian figures are very conservative, and likely higher, due to the fact that they have no formal army which makes it difficult to independently assess the affiliation of the deceased i.e. civilians vs "engaged in hostilities". Only people who were verifiably not engaged in hostilities were counted in the numbers provided. There are hundreds more that either couldn't be independently verified or who were "engaged in hostilities" which, from Israeli point of view, qualifies if you throw a rock at a protest. Indeed, dozens if not hundreds of people, many of them minors, have been killed indiscriminately by Israeli security forces for doing things that one can see in any European mass protest that turns a bit ugly.

All of this, however appalling, is just the tip of the iceberg of what the Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is forced to endure: mass deportations, land expropriation, destruction of property, malnutrition (in Gaza predominantly, where 60% of pre-school children out of population of 2 million are anemic) and horrific poverty brought about by Israeli sanctions and blockades, water shortages due to intentional Israeli policies of limiting access to water sources in this arid region (illegal settlements and consequent "relocations" of Palestinians are mainly in the richer lands next to rivers or others sources of fresh water), endless roadblocks and checkpoints that make it impossible for Palestinians to move more than a few miles unimpeded in any direction. A number of people died due to lack of medical aid because they were stuck at these roadblocks for hours for absolutely no reason while heading to a nearby hospital. The Israeli apartheid system is constructed top-to-bottom to demean and humiliate an entire nation, to strip it of basic dignity, human rights and, finally, of land. 

Having all this in mind, and the fact that this naked land grab has been going on for 50 years now, it's completely unthinkable to me how anyone can actually support Israel and place the overwhelming blame on the Palestinians in this mess unless they have been unwitting subjects of a massive and successful misinformation campaign.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

You do know that is factually incorrect, don't you? Speaking of both Abbas and Arafat. I mean it's all right there, anyone can check it.

As a poster upthread correctly pointed out, it's funny how the Palestinians are constantly being accused of not wanting to recognize Israel (and thus are not really for peace), when Palestinian authorities over the last 20+ years have repeatedly re-affirmed their desire for a two-state solution that, yes, includes the state of Israel in its pre-1967 borders. The same internationally-recognized borders that even today, 50 years later, appear on maps in every Geography classroom in the world, US included.

It's not the Palestinians who don't want "land for peace", it's the Israeli government! Their position has always been, with the short exception in the mid-90s, to eventually formally annex the West Bank (and possibly other territories) as part of "Greater Israel" while in the meantime they implement apartheid policies on the ground aimed at removing the Palestinian population into isolated zones and sectors subject to harsh provisions of de facto martial law.

As a response to (1) the ongoing 50-year-old occupation of their lands (they are called Occupied Territories after all) and (2) horrible policies directed at them, Palestinians have turned to armed resistance just like any oppressed people in an invaded land would. Yes, that resistance has turned to terrorism and slaughter of civilians on many occasions which is to be condemned and in no way supported. But still the underlying problem, one which is the root cause of all this is not the fault of the Palestinians: Israel occupied their lands in the Six-Day War of 1967 and refuses to return them 50 years later all the while illegally settling hundreds of thousands of its citizens, in direct contravention of international laws and treaties governing the rights and duties of occupying powers, and displacing the indigenous population in the process.

To make matters even more perverse, since it's impossible to flat-out refute that Israel is the occupying power that illegally settles the land, the counterargument then inevitably shifts to Palestinian terrorism and how no peaceful solution can be reached until they renounce violence. Hence, "land for peace". But the thing is, any impartial observer with basic human decency who looks at casualty reports in Israel and Palestine has to be astounded by the disparity in the civilian casualties. Watching the mainstream media one could get the impression that it's Israelis who daily suffer under barrages of Hamas rockets while any retribution by IDF is of a reactionary and proportional character. But the truth, easily verifiable and publicly available, paints a starkly different picture.

Since 2009 Palestinians have killed 76 Israeli civilians, including 12 children or around 10 per year. As a point of comparison, in year 2009 alone total number of murders in Israel was 135. If you're Israeli, there's actually a far greater chance that you'll be killed by "one of your own" than a Palestinian. In the same time frame, Israeli forces have killed at least 2489 Palestinian civilians or over 300 per year including a staggering number of 1042 children. For every Israeli child that dies, almost ONE HUNDRED little Palestinians perish.

It's worth keeping in mind that while the numbers of Israeli casualties are accurate, Palestinian figures are very conservative, and likely higher, due to the fact that they have no formal army which makes it difficult to independently assess the affiliation of the deceased i.e. civilians vs "engaged in hostilities". Only people who were verifiably not engaged in hostilities were counted in the numbers provided. There are hundreds more that either couldn't be independently verified or who were "engaged in hostilities" which, from Israeli point of view, qualifies if you throw a rock at a protest. Indeed, dozens if not hundreds of people, many of them minors, have been killed indiscriminately by Israeli security forces for doing things that one can see in any European mass protest that turns a bit ugly.

All of this, however appalling, is just the tip of the iceberg of what the Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is forced to endure: mass deportations, land expropriation, destruction of property, malnutrition (in Gaza predominantly, where 60% of pre-school children out of population of 2 million are anemic) and horrific poverty brought about by Israeli sanctions and blockades, water shortages due to intentional Israeli policies of limiting access to water sources in this arid region (illegal settlements and consequent "relocations" of Palestinians are mainly in the richer lands next to rivers or others sources of fresh water), endless roadblocks and checkpoints that make it impossible for Palestinians to move more than a few miles unimpeded in any direction. A number of people died due to lack of medical aid because they were stuck at these roadblocks for hours for absolutely no reason while heading to a nearby hospital. The Israeli apartheid system is constructed top-to-bottom to demean and humiliate an entire nation, to strip it of basic dignity, human rights and, finally, of land. 

Having all this in mind, and the fact that this naked land grab has been going on for 50 years now, it's completely unthinkable to me how anyone can actually support Israel and place the overwhelming blame on the Palestinians in this mess unless they have been unwitting subjects of a massive and successful misinformation campaign.

They're not a nation. They just happen to live in the area. There was no Palestinian state before the Six Day War, from whom the lands were annexed.

Egypt might feel agrieved about the Gaza strip, Syria about the Golan heights and Jordan about the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but there is no Palestinian state that could claim it owned these territories before.

[all swedes are racist]

But... there have been, like, people living there, no?

[Free Northman Reborn]

8 minutes ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

But... there have been, like, people living there, no?

Yes. Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians. Who all should have a home state in Jordan, Egypt and Syria, and be free to return there, if they are not happy with the change in sovereignity over their territories as a result of a lost war.

Most states in the world today owe their current borders to the outcomes of wars. This war just happened to end in 1967 instead of 20 years earlier in 1945, when large parts of the world had to negotiate political borders at the end of a big war.

 

[chuck norris 42]

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

They're not a nation. They just happen to live in the area. There was no Palestinian state before the Six Day War, from whom the lands were annexed.

What is your point? If you nation dissolved itself would other Nations be free to Annex it. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

As I pointed out before, the Maori in 1840 were not a state. They were a collection of tribes. Didn't stop the British Crown (you know, the international superpower of the era) from recognising their existence and signing a treaty with them.

Incidentally, if the two state solution is no longer viable because of these settlements, that leaves the one state solution.If Israel is going to take over their land, then those Palestinians have a right to be Israeli citizens.

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Incidentally, if the two state solution is no longer viable because of these settlements, that leaves the one state solution.If Israel is going to take over their land, then those Palestinians have a right to be Israeli citizens.

It's still viable. The focus on the settlements is merely a new (and, as far as I can tell, fairly effective) means of propaganda aimed at influencing border negotiations. The settlements themselves are another means of influencing the same.

That said, if it ever stops being viable, there is a variety of solutions most of which are quite different from the one you propose and the latter is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely.

 

[Mr Fixit]

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Incidentally, if the two state solution is no longer viable because of these settlements, that leaves the one state solution.If Israel is going to take over their land, then those Palestinians have a right to be Israeli citizens.

Exactly. But Israel doesn't want that because it'd massively "dilute" the ethnic composition and make Jewish citizens a minority. On the other hand, they can't exactly "disappear" nearly 5 million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Hence, the long game of starving out, segregating, and otherwise making life a living hell for the occupied population. It's pretty obvious to the entire world except to the US for some macabre reason where you can get fired or subjected to total media blackout for just mentioning the plight of Palestinians in a positive light.

[MerenthaClone]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Yes. Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians. Who all should have a home state in Jordan, Egypt and Syria, and be free to return there, if they are not happy with the change in sovereignity over their territories as a result of a lost war.

Most states in the world today owe their current borders to the outcomes of wars. This war just happened to end in 1967 instead of 20 years earlier in 1945, when large parts of the world had to negotiate political borders at the end of a big war.

 

I love how you're insisting that a group of people can't be assigned arbitrary lines on a map because they've already been assigned arbitrary lines dammit.  

[Mr Fixit]

In my long post I used the word 'apartheid' on several occasions to describe Israeli official policies in the Occupied Territories. It is a strong word and as such I feel the need to point my fellow posters to some informative links, if you so choose. Please do read; the texts from Haaretz, Independent, and Intercept are well-written and aren't a bore. 

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/1.671538

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/calling-israels-occupation-of-palestine-apartheid-isnt-lazy-or-inflammatory-its-based-on-fact-a6893706.html

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/06/u-s-admits-israel-is-building-permanent-apartheid-regime-weeks-after-giving-it-38-billion/

Oh, and let me end with this. Remember how Palestinians are supposedly against Israel and the two-state solution, while Israel is all for it if only Palestinians would let them? Well, this is a direct quote by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during the last election cycle: 

I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands, is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel. 

Bibi and many of his ministers have PUBLICLY railed against the Palestinian state and called for the land of Israel from Mediterranean to the Jordan river and STILL so many people like to pretend it's the Palestinians who are the main problem!

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Mr Fixit said:

In my long post I used the word 'apartheid' on several occasions to describe Israeli official policies in the Occupied Territories. It is a strong word and as such I feel the need to point my fellow posters to some informative links, if you so choose. Please do read; the texts from Haaretz, Independent, and Intercept are well-written and aren't a bore. 

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/1.671538

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/calling-israels-occupation-of-palestine-apartheid-isnt-lazy-or-inflammatory-its-based-on-fact-a6893706.html

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/06/u-s-admits-israel-is-building-permanent-apartheid-regime-weeks-after-giving-it-38-billion/

Oh, and let me end with this. Remember how Palestinians are supposedly against Israel and the two-state solution, while Israel is all for it if only Palestinians would let them? Well, this is a direct quote by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during the last election cycle: 

I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands, is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel. 

Bibi and many of his ministers have PUBLICLY railed against the Palestinian state and STILL so many people like to pretend it's the Palestinians who are the main problem!

Well for starters, I believe that Israel has made it clear that the Golan heights can never be returned, due to its strategic value from a military perspective, which would leave Israel much more vulnerable to attack should they not occupy it anymore.

As for Gaza, Israel has already withdrawn from it. That leaves the West Bank, which I guess is where the big disagreement will remain for some time.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

Exactly. But Israel doesn't want that because it'd massively "dilute" the ethnic composition and make Jewish citizens a minority. On the other hand, they can't exactly "disappear" nearly 5 million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Hence, the long game of starving out, segregating, and otherwise making life a living hell for the occupied population. It's pretty obvious to the entire world except to the US for some macabre reason where you can get fired or subjected to total media blackout for just mentioning the plight of Palestinians in a positive light.

Dude, dunno if you're from the US or not, but FNR doesn't speak for all of us.  I'd say at least half of this country doesn't buy into the IsraelGood / PalestineBad dichotomy.  I'd agree that the media coverage is mostly very anti-Palestine here but we aren't all the dumb slobbering dunces our election outcomes in other than 2008 and 2012 would lead you to believe.

[Mr Fixit]

30 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Dude, dunno if you're from the US or not, but FNR doesn't speak for all of us.  I'd say at least half of this country doesn't buy into the IsraelGood / PalestineBad dichotomy.  I'd agree that the media coverage is mostly very anti-Palestine here but we aren't all the dumb slobbering dunces our election outcomes in other than 2008 and 2012 would lead you to believe.

Sorry I gave you the wrong impression, but I was not talking about the position of ordinary people but of US government, big business, mainstream media, and overall elites which formulate and shape public policies. And the sad fact is that, some mild slaps on the wrist aside, US has been a strong de facto supporter of pretty much any and all Israeli policies.

The curious thing in all this, and one I was trying to highlight in my post, is that US is practically the only country in the whole world in which Israel is unconditionally supported with a total carte blanche despite overwhelming evidence of Israel's apartheid and criminal policies. When you get to various resolutions passed or proposed down the years US is almost regularly the only country that votes against or vetoes. So we had this recent Security Council Resolution where 14 (from France and Britain to Russia and Ukraine to Senegal and New Zealand) countries voted for, but America abstained (better than veto!). The situation get even more comical in the General Assembly where votes usually go something like 100+ vs 5, where those five include Marshall Islands, Nauru, and similar US protectorates in the Pacific. 

As for your point that "at least half this country doesn't buy into IsraelGood / PalestineBad dichotomy", I'm sadly not as convinced as you seem to be, commendable as your positions on the subject may be. The recent Pew Research Center's poll shows that 54% Americans sympathize more with Israel while only 19% say the same about Palestinians. Other polls show similar results. This is far from conclusive, of course, but I'd say it suggests which way the US public is leaning. I admit that even so it's much better than the 100% one-sided propaganda that is being fed by the national media.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Dude, dunno if you're from the US or not, but FNR doesn't speak for all of us.  I'd say at least half of this country doesn't buy into the IsraelGood / PalestineBad dichotomy.  I'd agree that the media coverage is mostly very anti-Palestine here but we aren't all the dumb slobbering dunces our election outcomes in other than 2008 and 2012 would lead you to believe.

I certainly don't but I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist.  Would a "two State" solution merely continue the perpetual war?

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I certainly don't but I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist.  Would a "two State" solution merely continue the perpetual war?

Maybe?  I don't think we've ever found a remedy for war. A two state solution seems better than just Israel with everyone else living as less than citizens.

 

Things right now are pretty fucked up too.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe?  I don't think we've ever found remedy for war. A two state solution seems better than just Israel with everyone else living as less than citizens.

 

Things are right now are pretty fucked up too.  

No question.  I did see Netanyahu's BS about "not understanding" why everyone is so upset about Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  Should we take that to mean he's willing to surrender Israeli sovereignty over those settlements and allow a Palestinian State to have sovereignty over those settlements?

Somehow I doubt that.

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well for starters, I believe that Israel has made it clear that the Golan heights can never be returned, due to its strategic value from a military perspective, which would leave Israel much more vulnerable to attack should they not occupy it anymore.

 

The Golan Heights aren't Palestinian though, that's Syrian territory, and so not that relevant when we're talking about a Palestinian state.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

The Golan Heights aren't Palestinian though, that's Syrian territory, and so not that relevant when we're talking about a Palestinian state.

Why are the Golan heights Syrian, but the West Bank not Jordanian or the Gaza strip not Egyptian, according to your description?

[Maltaran]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why are the Golan heights Syrian, but the West Bank not Jordanian or the Gaza strip not Egyptian, according to your assessment?

Because it's not claimed by the State of Palestine as being part of its territory.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

34 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe?  I don't think we've ever found remedy for war. A two state solution seems better than just Israel with everyone else living as less than citizens.

 

Things are right now are pretty fucked up too.  

clearing quote