Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Netanyahu promises to annex Jordan Valley

Options
  • 10-09-2019 5:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭


    The BBC is reporting that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising to annex the Jordan valley in the occupied West Bank if returned to power in the forthcoming Israeli general election.

    If my knowledge and geography is correct, this would mean that Israel would completely surround the entire West Bank area, installing a buffer zone between West Bank/Palestine and the Jordan river. It would then be a matter of time before Israel picked off the rest of the territory controlled but not strictly ruled by them.

    Suppose he's being consistent. He said before the last general election that he would no longer support a "two-state solution" to the Israel-Palestine problem.

    Ethnic cleansing would seem to be his preferred option. Squeeze the Palestinians into emigration by making their lives unbearable.

    <snip - Snickers Man does not approve of Netanyahu in the strongest but politest terms>


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    I don't think anyone can really doubt my credibility when it comes to defending Israel on these forums. Yet even I'm taken aback by this decision, if for no other reason than it's sheer short sightedness. Fundamentally, Israel needs to be able to establish a modus vivendi with its neighbouring states, and essential to that is the ability to reconcile the Palestinian population (inside and outside Israel proper) with the current situation.

    At the most basic level, this means the Palestinians having themselves a state to be able to conduct their lives unmolested by foreign soldiers and under their own rule. I'm not wedded to the idea that such a state must be entirely congruent with 67 borders or some other arbitrary historical measure, but they need enough to be able to live on, not such a grand request I might have thought.

    Anyway, I guess we're back to seeing how things develop, not that I'm terribly hopeful about a positive outcome.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    At this stage troops should be moved in to stop the Israelis. It's the slow erasion of a people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    At this stage troops should be moved in to stop the Israelis. It's the slow erasion of a people.

    What or who's troops should be deployed ,

    Considering even the arab state's have had little or nothing to say about it suggests it's no big deal as it stands


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,086 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Gatling wrote: »
    What or who's troops should be deployed ,

    Considering even the arab state's have had little or nothing to say about it suggests it's no big deal as it stands




    Doesn't read that way to me. You may have missed the following


    "The Arab League regards these statements as undermining the chances of any progress in the peace process and will torpedo all its foundations."


    In a series of separate statements, Qatar criticised "Israel's continued contempt of international law"; Turkey slammed the annexation pledge as "racist"; Jordan called Netanyahu's plan a "serious escalation"; and Saudi Arabia called for an emergency meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
    The United Nations, meanwhile, warned that Netanyahu's plan would have "no international legal effect".
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/netanyahu-annexation-pledge-denounced-dangerous-racist-190911080929932.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Gatling wrote: »
    What or who's troops should be deployed ,

    Considering even the arab state's have had little or nothing to say about it suggests it's no big deal as it stands

    The same we would to any area were tyrants are engaging in illegal and immoral activity. Regardless, it's moving beyond the stage were intervention is needed IMO.

    Not so.
    Also, if it looks like Israeli behavior will infringe on their interests, you'll see a change more swiftly, but the Israeli's will be careful not to harass the relationship between the US and Arab nations. Basically once the right people are making money they may turn a blind eye to the slow eradication and land theft in the interim.
    Netenyahu is willing to forgo any chance of peace to court the right wing voters. Despicable man.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,086 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    I don't think anyone can really doubt my credibility when it comes to defending Israel on these forums. Yet even I'm taken aback by this decision, if for no other reason than it's sheer short sightedness. Fundamentally, Israel needs to be able to establish a modus vivendi with its neighbouring states, and essential to that is the ability to reconcile the Palestinian population (inside and outside Israel proper) with the current situation.

    At the most basic level, this means the Palestinians having themselves a state to be able to conduct their lives unmolested by foreign soldiers and under their own rule. I'm not wedded to the idea that such a state must be entirely congruent with 67 borders or some other arbitrary historical measure, but they need enough to be able to live on, not such a grand request I might have thought.

    Anyway, I guess we're back to seeing how things develop, not that I'm terribly hopeful about a positive outcome.


    One of the most probable scenarios proffered over the years is that areas unannexed by Israel will become pockets of "self governing" palestinians - geographically seperate from each other, dispersed amongst the annexed tracts. Effectively these will be like the old bantustans in apartheid south africa, a source of cheap labour for the annexed areas, and, as non citizens, not threatening the Israeli majority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    Odhinn wrote: »
    One of the most probable scenarios proffered over the years is that areas unannexed by Israel will become pockets of "self governing" palestinians - geographically seperate from each other, dispersed amongst the annexed tracts. Effectively these will be like the old bantustans in apartheid south africa, a source of cheap labour for the annexed areas, and, as non citizens, not threatening the Israeli majority.

    To be honest I suspect a more likely scenario is the continuation of the long decline in Palestinian prospects both politically as well as economically and (arguably) demographically. If the present trends continue Palestine becomes less and less liveable, there is more pressure to emigrate, more violent flare ups with retaliation and ultimately, more settlements. Any Bantustan like situation is more than likely going to be a transitory phase, but a particularly ugly one at that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    Ethnic cleansing
    Expected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    I don't think anyone can really doubt my credibility when it comes to defending Israel on these forums. Yet even I'm taken aback by this decision, if for no other reason than it's sheer short sightedness. Fundamentally, Israel needs to be able to establish a modus vivendi with its neighbouring states, and essential to that is the ability to reconcile the Palestinian population (inside and outside Israel proper) with the current situation.

    At the most basic level, this means the Palestinians having themselves a state to be able to conduct their lives unmolested by foreign soldiers and under their own rule. I'm not wedded to the idea that such a state must be entirely congruent with 67 borders or some other arbitrary historical measure, but they need enough to be able to live on, not such a grand request I might have thought.

    Anyway, I guess we're back to seeing how things develop, not that I'm terribly hopeful about a positive outcome.
    Who asked you to defend Israel? Anyway, I as an Israeli don't need it. Thanks.
    Now, Israel is an independent state and it knows what it needs or doesn't need to do according to its national and security interests. That's why the Jewish state was created. Thanks for advise.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    hamsin wrote: »
    Who asked you to defend Israel? Anyway, I as an Israeli don't need it. Thanks.
    Now, Israel is an independent state and it knows what it needs or doesn't need to do according to its national and security interests. That's why the Jewish state was created. Thanks for advise.

    The two state solution is dead. The future will be an ever growing Palestinian population within Israel. How are you going to deal with that?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,667 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    hamsin wrote: »
    That's why the Jewish state was created. Thanks for advise.

    For the sake of polite discourse and the avoidance of the discussion descending into accusations of anti-Semitism, please don't invoke the Jewishness of the Israeli state as a justification.

    Nethanyahu's aims in the annexation of the Jordan valley are abhorrent and affront to the norms of international relations that Democracies proclaim to uphold.

    It would be wrong Ireland did it, it would be wrong if Canada did it and it is certainly wrong if Israel do it.

    Its a rise of the right amongst a nation that has traditionally been quite socially progressive and that it is sabre rattling by the most militaristic nation in the M.E is a worry.

    I think we are far beyond the days of an Arab League declaring war on Israel, but if one was to try an provoke a pan-Arab reaction?
    How would you think Israel might be most successful at that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    The two state solution is dead.
    I hope.
    The future will be an ever growing Palestinian population within Israel. How are you going to deal with that?
    1. There is no "Palestinian population" in Israel. There are Israeli Arabs in Israel.
    2. Jews and Arabs have the same birth rate in Israel. Plus constant Jewish immigration.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Odhinn wrote: »
    One of the most probable scenarios proffered over the years is that areas unannexed by Israel will become pockets of "self governing" palestinians - geographically seperate from each other, dispersed amongst the annexed tracts. Effectively these will be like the old bantustans in apartheid south africa, a source of cheap labour for the annexed areas, and, as non citizens, not threatening the Israeli majority.

    That’s seems to be the aim. That said this could be just election gimmcrackery.


  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭bunderoon


    hamsin wrote: »
    I hope.

    1. There is no "Palestinian population" in Israel. There are Israeli Arabs in Israel.
    2. Jews and Arabs have the same birth rate in Israel. Plus constant Jewish immigration.

    Is there an Israeli (Arab / Jewish) population in Palestine?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,617 ✭✭✭golfball37


    Putin has criticised this move. That may invite Trump to do the same.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    hamsin wrote: »
    Who asked you to defend Israel? Anyway, I as an Israeli don't need it. Thanks.
    Now, Israel is an independent state and it knows what it needs or doesn't need to do according to its national and security interests. That's why the Jewish state was created. Thanks for advise.
    [W]ithout consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, it [Germany] must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.
    — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 1

    Nobody buys the security lie. That excuse can be used for continued land theft and killing. Where's the safe point? It's self importance and putting the Israeli state, (as yet to be defined) above all others. If a state could be racist, Israel would be it.
    hamsin wrote: »
    I hope.

    1. There is no "Palestinian population" in Israel. There are Israeli Arabs in Israel.
    2. Jews and Arabs have the same birth rate in Israel. Plus constant Jewish immigration.

    Denying their existence. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Israel under Netenyahu is a criminal state.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    Nobody buys the security lie. That excuse can be used for continued land theft and killing. Where's the safe point? It's self importance and putting the Israeli state, (as yet to be defined) above all others. If a state could be racist, Israel would be it.



    Denying their existence. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Israel under Netenyahu is a criminal state.
    I don't discuss with antisemitic idiots.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    hamsin wrote: »
    I don't discuss with antisemitic idiots.

    You shouldn't. Fair play.
    Now back to Israel...you know Israel isn't the people of the Jewish faith right? Don't insult Jewish people by linking them to Israeli policy and actions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,086 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    hamsin wrote: »
    I hope.

    1. There is no "Palestinian population" in Israel. There are Israeli Arabs in Israel.
    .......


    There are Palestinian-Israeli arabs in Israel, that make up about 20% of the population overall (afaik).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭rapul


    hamsin wrote: »
    I don't discuss with antisemitic idiots.

    You have no credibility now, pathetic post


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    Odhinn wrote: »
    There are Palestinian-Israeli arabs in Israel, that make up about 20% of the population overall (afaik).
    Your opinion is irrelevant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭bunderoon


    hamsin wrote: »
    Your opinion is irrelevant.


    It's AS relevant as yours.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,086 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    hamsin wrote: »
    Your opinion is irrelevant.




    That's not my opinion, it's a factual observation based on existing data
    Ethnic Groups

    Jewish 74.4% (of which Israel-born 76.9%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 15.9%, Africa-born 4.6%, Asia-born 2.6%), Arab 20.9%, other 4.7% (2018 est.)
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    rapul wrote: »
    You have no credibility now, pathetic post
    I don't care.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey




  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    Odhinn wrote: »
    That's not my opinion, it's a factual observation based on existing data

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html

    "Arab", not "Palestinian".
    So, what did you prove? Stupid post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,086 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    hamsin wrote: »
    "Arab", not "Palestinian".
    So, what did you prove? Stupid post.




    The vast majority of that 20% are Palestinian Arabs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    Odhinn wrote: »
    The vast majority of that 20% are Palestinian Arabs.
    Now go to my initial reply.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,086 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    hamsin wrote: »
    Now go to my initial reply.




    The fact is that 20% of the Israeli population is composed of Palestinian Arabs.




    Back to the topic - What's your opinion on the planned annexation?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭hamsin


    Odhinn wrote: »
    The fact
    And now I stop discussion with you.


Advertisement