With the peace process in serious jeopardy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the United States, Palestinians looked at his speech with baited breath, anticipating that his meeting with President Obama before the speech would reflect some movement on the issue.
The speech opened with a brief bit about the “brutal” Syrian government, and segued into a condemnation of Iran. Then another, then another. Netanyahu’s speech was materially all about condemning the P5+1 talks with Iran, and demanding harsher terms on Iran, and threatening to attack Iran.
Palestine only came up way at the end, and even then was mostly an excuse for Netanyahu to portray the BDS movement as anti-Semitic. While claiming Israel is ready to accept a Palestinian state, Netanyahu made no suggestion that anything new was coming, and his sole direct comment was a demand for Palestine to immediately accept Israel as an eternally Jewish state.
Peace talks were such an afterthought in the speech that Palestinian leaders say they believe the speech effectively amounted to the end of the process, since if Netanyahu can’t produce anything new in the high-profile speech, the talks are clearly not moving forward.
There wasn't any peace talks to begin with, the USG only intention to safe guard Israel interests, they never cared about Palestinians and Obama administration haven't changed anything but adding to people problems in Middle East, by cooperating with more of Saudis and their barbarians then peace efforts.
Palestinians have had a hard time finding a partner for peace.
The West and Israel will not change their behavior unless at the point of a gun. That is why I applaud Mr Putin for finally being these bullies who think the world is theirs for the taking and the ruling. I welcome the rekindling of the cold war as it was the threat of having a powerful adversasy that kept the west and Israel in their place. The only thing that bullies understand is the threat that they too will have their nose bloodied.
Yes there has always been a "piece" process and that continues …. that of erasing Palestine from the face of the map piece by piece…..
The longer this conflict goes on, the more legitimate Israel will be with the land grabbing. It will be hard for anyone to evict people that have lived in a place for more than a decade or two. or more. This is really Israeli's plan along with the attention it gets from the world. The U.S. continues to give Israel 3 billion plus a year because of the unrest, surely Israel doesn't want to lose that along with all the aide it gets from Jewish groups and other countries.
"It will be hard for anyone to evict people that have lived in a place for more than a decade or two". I guess this means the Palestinians who lived there long before the 1947 don't count has having lived there at all. What is the difference between you and the zionists?
"I guess this means the Palestinians who lived there long before the 1947 don't count has having lived there at all."
Are you suggesting that it wasn't hard to evict them? Maybe you missed, oh, the WAR that it took to evict them?
@Thomas L. Knapp: "Maybe you missed, oh, the WAR that it took to evict them?"
Me: Given that the J-population in P grew from ~3% in 1897 to ~30% in 1947, during which the Zs managed to purchase a *whopping* ~6% of P, why is that WAR not called what it actually is = alien-invasion by stealth (i.e. unwanted immigration), followed by armed aggression aimed at land/property theft = murder for spoil, here soil?
Further, any "peace process" was in serious jeopardy, latest since this:
Ben-Gurion: «… said that he wanted a Jewish-Arab agreement "on the assumption that after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."»
Note that almost *any* agreement would do, most especially one whereby the Ps acknowledged that Z-I is a J-state. Q: What is the Zs' usual #1 demand, again? IMHO, IF the Ps *ever* agree to *anything*, THEN its all-over, red-rover.
Q: Why does the (decent) world tolerate this *utterly horrid* situation, in any way, shape or form? Posited A: Because the decent are not free, and the world is dominated by psychopathic tyrants. Yeah; that'd do it.
horrid
Øadjective
1 the horrid apparitions frightened her
DREADFUL, horrific, horrifying, terrible, frightful, awful, fearful, hideous, grim, ghastly, grisly, gruesome, revolting, abhorrent, abominable, loathsome, monstrous, nightmarish, unspeakable.
skrik,
I made a very specific statement.
Your comment, while interesting, in no way conflicts with that statement. In fact, it supports that statement to the extent that it demonstrates that it took 50 years of preparation AND a war to achieve the evictions in question.
Ooo-Kaye; and thnx for the prompt, polite response.
Q: Is there any basis in morals, let alone (just) law, for acquiring "Lebensraum" by what amounts to nothing other than aggressive invasion? (If needed, hint: Recall the Nuremberg principles.)
Note that any persecutions of the erstwhile native owner/occupiers going on over there, are basically rooted in the fact that «They [were] living in the country and [still] own the land, …» (Ben-Gurion, again – a 'good' source, even if more than a bit self-incriminatory!)
For any offering support to the Zs, or even comprehending the Ps' plight but not attempting to bring justice to those hapless victims (silence may be, i.e. 99%, considered complicity, and see acquiescence) – might be interested in Principle VII.
Ooops!
POD: evict v. expel (a tenant etc.) by legal process. – eviction n. [Latin evinco evict- conquer]
See my "Q: Is there any basis in morals, let alone (just) law…" and recalling my posit "only just law may earn respect;"
Noting "by legal process," please explain what you mean by "the evictions in question."
skrik,
In my opinion, no, there is no basis in morals or in just law for acquiring "lebensraum" by aggressive invasion.
As far as the use of the term "eviction" is concerned, I was replying to a comment that used the term, and making a very specific point (that the "eviction" of Arabs living in Palestine was not "easy") that didn't seem to require contesting the term.
But once again, you seem to be interested in arguing something that is not, with respect to my specific comment, is not at issue. I'm not trying to justify the Nabka, if that's what you think.
@JREwing. "The longer this conflict goes on, the more legitimate Israel will be with the land grabbing. It will be hard for anyone to evict people that have lived in a place for more than a decade or two."
– where "evict people" refers to aggressive alien invaders = Zs.
@Thomas L. Knapp: "Are you suggesting that it wasn't hard to evict them?"
– where "evict them" refers to Economist's "the Palestinians who lived there long before the 1947…" = Ps.
Me: Thomas, instead of evicting JREwing's ethnic-cleansing by genocidal methods Zs – which would be just, you turned it 180° around, to the eviction of the erstwhile native owner/occupiers = Ps – which was, is and ever will be *totally unjust*.
skrik,
Great. So you continue to make the point you want to make. But I see no reason why you have to free ride on my COMPLETLY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT POINT to make your point.
My point was about difficulty, not justice. You don't have to like it. It is what it is whether you like it or not.
True, I do tend to harp, on the basis of 'the noisy wheel gets the grease.'
But not at *the expense* of anything you may write, but your *errors* (sometimes factual, sometimes moral) attract attention.
For your info, the ELO/Os (= erstwhile legal owner/occupiers = mostly native Ps) were *not* evicted, but … yes, I'll say it again; improperly dispossessed = ethnically cleansed, by genocidal methods, by aggressively invading Zs.
It may be helpful to quote ICH's thought for the day:
“Don’t turn your face away.
Once you’ve seen, you can no longer act like you don’t know.
Open your eyes to the truth. It’s all around you.
Don’t deny what the eyes to your soul have revealed to you.
Now that you know, you cannot feign ignorance.
Now that you’re aware of the problem, you cannot pretend you don’t care.
To be concerned is to be human.
To act is to care.”
~Vashti Quiroz-Vega
Comparing US policy over Crimea to US policy over Palestine shows the sharp contradictions in US policy-making, and the utter stupidity and arrogance of US politicians and government employees such as Obama, Kerry and Nuland.
Russia's actions to protect its interests on it borders is labeled "aggression", while Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people and Israeli squatting on Palestinian land is fiercely defended and called self-defense.
What it shows is that U.S. foreign policy is controlled by ethnic groups.
I think it should be "bated breath"