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

[Happy Ent]

39 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If the current Israeli government favoured a two state solution, it wouldn't be actively trying to encourage settlements.

If it's about Bibi we have no disagreement. “were never ever” just mean different things to us.

[Commodore]

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

Hm... Israel is constructed as an apartheid state, and so is the Arab state of Palestine.

Arabs (including Arab Muslims) live in Israel.

Jews are not permitted to reside in Palestinian territories. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Arabs (including Arab Muslims) live in Israel.

Jews are not permitted to reside in Palestinian territories. 

Commodore,

I'm curious.  Would Netanyahu consider surrendering sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank as part of a two State solution to this mess?  He is the one who called the exclusion of Israeli Jews from the West Bank "ethnic cleansing".  If he's not willing to surrender sovereignty over those settlements isn't he just talking out of his ass?

[Commodore]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Commodore,

I'm curious.  Would Netanyahu consider surrendering sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank as part of a two State solution to this mess?  He is the one who called the exclusion of Israeli Jews from the West Bank "ethnic cleansing".  If he's not willing to surrender sovereignty over those settlements isn't he just talking out of his ass?

Israel has consistently shown a willingness to offer land for peace. 

And of course any Palestinian state would be cleansed of Jews. That's their charter. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Commodore said:

Israel has consistently shown a willingness to offer land for peace. 

 

Commodore,

Okay, in the past Israel (in Gaza and Sinai) has evacuated settlements for peace.  This is a different question: is Israel willing to surrender sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank "for peace"?  If yes, please direct us to statements from the current PM of Israel supporting such an assertion.

[Commodore]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Commodore,

Okay, in the past Israel (in Gaza and Sinai) has evacuated settlements for peace. 

What peace? The intifada?

Quote

This is a different question: is Israel willing to surrender sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank "for peace"?  If yes, please direct us to statements from the current PM of Israel supporting such an assertion.

Based on what historical evidence should they surrender land for a promise of peace? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Commodore said:

What peace? The intifada?

Based on what historical evidence should they surrender land for a promise of peace? 

You're nitpicking.  Then you're refusing to answer my question.  Does Netanyahu have any intention of ever surrendering sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

[Happy Ent]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is a different question: is Israel willing to surrender sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank "for peace"?  If yes, please direct us to statements from the current PM of Israel supporting such an assertion.

Let me barge in here.

The answer is yes, repeatedly, and demonstrably. For the opposite question (“is the Arab state of Palestine, using whatever governing body you want, in order to make your position maximally flattering to your point of view, …”), the answer is no, repeatedly and  demonstrably.

Now, “the current PM” is a different kettle of fish. So, there is a way of substituting “Israel” with the most malevolent interpretation that is still not as bad as “Palestine” with its most benevolent interpretation. Imagine that.

Still, it's a fair question, provided we agree on the premise that we need to judge Israel by different standards. So, for the sake of an argument, let's do that. Let us judge Israel harshly, and assume the most malevolent interpretation of their position while simultaneously assuming the most benevolent position of the Arab position.

Even then, I can only go as far as agreeing that Bibi supports the settlement in order to improve Israel's bargaining position in case a two-state solution should appear. (Which won't be on his watch.) And that is Land for Peace.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Let me barge in here.

The answer is yes, repeatedly, and demonstrably. For the opposite question (“is the Arab state of Palestine, using whatever governing body you want, in order to make your position maximally flattering to your point of view, …”), the answer is no, repeatedly and  demonstrably.

Now, “the current PM” is a different kettle of fish. So, there is a way of substituting “Israel” with the most malevolent interpretation that is still not as bad as “Palestine” with its most benevolent interpretation. Imagine that.

Still, it's a fair question, provided we agree on the premise that we need to judge Israel by different standards. So, for the sake of an argument, let's do that. Let us judge Israel harshly, and assume the most malevolent interpretation of their position while simultaneously assuming the most benevolent position of the Arab position.

Even then, I can only go as far as agreeing that Bibi supports the settlement in order to improve Israel's bargaining position in case a two-state solution should appear. (Which won't be on his watch.) And that is Land for Peace.

I think "Israel" might be willing to do this.  I would be shocked if Netanyahu were willing to surrender sovereignty over pre-existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

[Commodore]

26 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You're nitpicking.  Then you're refusing to answer my question.  Does Netanyahu have any intention of ever surrendering sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

If it would ensure peace and Jews could live there, sure it's a possibility.

But it's a ridiculous hypothetical since neither of those things would ever happen.

[IheartIheartTesla]

How do NZ and Israel even conduct a war? Unless its Bibi and the NZ Prime Minister playing Battleship I dont see how this plays out.

[Happy Ent]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think "Israel" might be willing to do this.  I would be shocked if Netanyahu were willing to surrender sovereignty over pre-existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

So would I. I would be equally shocked if there was a Palestinian leadership that was in favour of a two-state solution. But both things can happen. Until they do, Bibi is just improving his hand. I disagree with this, but I must also admit that “our” side has been unable to solve the conflict in another way.

[Mr Fixit]

3 hours ago, Commodore said:

Israel has consistently shown a willingness to offer land for peace. 

Twice you wrote this. Care to provide evidence for your statements? When has Israel offered a 2-state solution in good faith and not only with wink-wink to pretend they're all for negotiations?

They hold all the cards. They have almost unconditional support of the most powerful country on Earth. Had Israel wanted a peaceful solution, they'd *have* a peaceful solution or at least we'd be well on our way towards finding it. But sure, Israel wants "land for peace" while they construct hundreds of new settlements in the Occupied Territories. 

Also, I urge people to find a map of the settlements. It's not hard. Google it. It's not just that Israel is illegally taking over ever-increasing parts of the West Bank, they build their settlements in such a way to completely criss-cross the land with them, often separating Palestinian areas into dozens of non-linked pockets so that if they were to give some kind of independence to Palestine, it'd be a meaningless Frankenstein that'd be completely unsustainable. 

It's not hard to spot. Takes only a bit of intellectual honesty.

ETA: I decided to provide you all with a link to the map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Tell me what you see and what conclusions you draw from this image.

http://imemc.org/wp-content/uploads/may2015/israeli_settlements_map.gif

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

I never found that line of reasoning relevant or convincing, and here is why.

It is correct that an area called Palestine existed prior to 1948, and that some people were referred to as Palestinians.

However, this terms did not refer to Arabs.

For instance, the Palestine Post was a Jewish paper. It is now called the Jerusalem Post. Cover of the 1948 Palestine Post issue reporting on the birth of the state of Israel. If, as a European, you knew “a Palestinian” in the 1930s, that person would probably be a Jew (namely, one living in Palestine). I would be surprised if you can find many Arabs from that time that referred to themselves as Palestinians (I could be wrong and am genuinely curious). Another example is the oft-cited atlas that shows a Star of David as the flag of (Mandate) Palestine link to pro-Israeli site.

All of that is reasonable and fair. My point is simply what you said later, which is that the idea that because something didn't exist in name x years ago means the idea is completely invalid, and the easiest way to point out the fallacy of that is to simply point out that it did, actually exist in name. I don't subscribe to that notion of legitimacy either, but it's far easier to defeat the argument using its own internal logic than it is to convince someone that their moral basis is wrong.

[Mr Fixit]

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Even then, I can only go as far as agreeing that Bibi supports the settlement in order to improve Israel's bargaining position in case a two-state solution should appear. (Which won't be on his watch.) And that is Land for Peace.

Let me get this straight.

(1) You say that a two-state solution won't be on Bibi's watch (presumably because he wouldn't allow it)

(2) You further say that Bibi is illegally grabbing ever more land to improve Israel's position in any future negotiations

(3) And then you call these two points Land for Peace.

That is some warped definition, I have to admit. The original meaning of Land for Peace is related to UN Security Council Resolution 242 which involves the various Arab factors in the region recognizing Israel's right to exist in exchange for Israel withdrawing back to its internationally-recognized borders. Hence, it's on Israel to give up land it occupied and up to Arabs to make peace with Israel.

Your definition turns it around, as far as I can see. Now, if Palestinians want peace, they need to give up *their* land and what's more, with settlements constantly expanding, with each passing year they'll have to give up even more land.

[snake]

8 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

So would I. I would be equally shocked if there was a Palestinian leadership that was in favour of a two-state solution. But both things can happen. Until they do, Bibi is just improving his hand. I disagree with this, but I must also admit that “our” side has been unable to solve the conflict in another way.

According to Wikipedia the mainstream Palestinian leadership has recognized a two-state solution since 1982.

[The Marquis de Leech]

12 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

How do NZ and Israel even conduct a war? Unless its Bibi and the NZ Prime Minister playing Battleship I dont see how this plays out.

Not least because while ANZUS is inoperable between New Zealand and the US (nuclear ships), it is still operable between New Zealand and Australia. So Israel going after us means they go after Australia too. And *that* drags in the US.

[Happy Ent]

4 hours ago, snake said:

According to Wikipedia the mainstream Palestinian leadership has recognized a two-state solution since 1982.

And Israel has done so since 1948. That gets us nowhere. Is any current Arab Palestinian leadership a realistic partner in a two-state solution? Is Bibi? I think not.

Will there be a Israeli government (again) that is realistically working for a two-state solution? I believe so. Will there ever be a Arab Palestinian one? Maybe. If so, both sides will be expected to hand over land for peace, probably the Jews will be asked to hand over more. This is what Bibi is preparing for. I find that cynical, but I believe that my side as lost all legitimacy in this conflict, so I don't see much of an alternative I can put forward. My ideas don't work. Bibi's do.

[Happy Ent]

13 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

Let me get this straight.

(2) You further say that Bibi is illegally grabbing ever more land to improve Israel's position in any future negotiations

Just for the record: I didn’t say “illegally”.

[Yukle]

13 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

Twice you wrote this. Care to provide evidence for your statements? When has Israel offered a 2-state solution in good faith and not only with wink-wink to pretend they're all for negotiations?

They hold all the cards. They have almost unconditional support of the most powerful country on Earth. Had Israel wanted a peaceful solution, they'd *have* a peaceful solution or at least we'd be well on our way towards finding it. But sure, Israel wants "land for peace" while they construct hundreds of new settlements in the Occupied Territories. 

Absolutely agreed. The decision to build settlements in Palestine is so that any eventual permanent solution, including a two-state solution, has Israel as large as possible and these settlements are leverage to that effect.