Does Europe really want a solution for Palestine?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/16143-does-europe-really-want-a-solution-for-palestine

Europe claims that it wants a solution for the Palestine question, which is a fine sentiment. The problem is, Europe can't agree on what the solution should be and may not even want a solution at all.

Minutes before the end of 2014, European voices were disparate in the UN Security Council during the vote on the Arab proposal calling for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine within two years. In other words, that the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis resume with a fixed deadline for their conclusion. The draft resolution basically proposed an additional two years of tedious negotiations to add to the experience of a quarter of a century of talks.

The net result was that Europe could not even agree about this. France and Luxembourg supported the Palestinian resolution while Britain and Lithuania obstructed its passage by abstaining. So what exactly does Europe want?

Do European diplomats possess another solution? Or are they prepared to wait for another quarter of a century, as long as the Israelis can maintain their occupation and control of the Palestinian territories; pursues their settlement policies; create facts on the ground in Jerusalem; attack the Gaza Strip; and consolidate their emerging model of apartheid against the Palestinians?

[Mosby]

1. who cares what Europe wants.

Last edited Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Some of those countries might not even exist in 10 years time.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. "who cares what Europe wants?"

Spoken like true a isolationist.

Speaking of Isolation, if that shortsighted mentality of yours grows much larger in Israel they will find that nobody will be there for them. Be careful for what you wish for.

[Scootaloo]

8. "Some of those countries might not even exist in 10 years time. "

could you expand on this idea, Mosby? I'd be interested in knowing where you're coming from on this.

[shaayecanaan]

22. Ahmadinejad said something like that

right before the Europeans introduced financial sanctions and brought his country to its knees within a fortnight.

[oberliner]

23. Fortunately DU posters don't have to worry about that sort of thing

As this is just a discussion board.

[Codeine]

28. Meaning? nt

[oberliner]

2. What about Africa?

Only one of the three African countries on the UNSC voted for the resolution. The other two did not.

What exactly does Africa want?

[King_David]

3. What about Asia?

What does Asia or Russia or Uzbhekistan want?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Ah yes, it's the look everywhere else defense. Thanks for the usual comedy, king.

[King_David]

6. Look everywhere else but Europe?

I don't care what Europe wants.

Mosby said it best in post 1.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. "I don't care what Europe wants."

Yes, please keep up with the isolationist bravado.

[procon]

7. I suspect many countries take a position that aligns with US policy

for their own economic and financial interests. Uncle Sam is the world's acknowledged master when it comes to pressuring other nations to fall in line. We certainly have a smorgasbord of juicy incentives in our basket to sweeten the deal and persuade foreign governments to go along with whatever policies we're pushing.

[Scootaloo]

9. What about Mars?

...I was feeling left out.

[Fozzledick]

10. Well, at least now we know where you're coming from...

[Igel]

12. Your question is ambiguous.

And the block quote doesn't distinguish between the possible readings. It's incoherent in a technical sense.

Does Europe want a solution to the I/P problem?

Let's rephrase and find the ambiguity.

First, let's assume that we can agree on what "the I/P problem" is. I think that's wildly ambiguous, and it needs to be clarified first, but this is a discussion board and can't be taken too seriously.

Second, let's get the "want" bit out of the way. "Is it the case that Europe would like there to be a single solution that the member countries could agree on?" I think the answer to that is "yes"--although it's unclear to what extent any single country wants to be inconvenienced.

I think it unlikely that "It is the case that Europe would not like there to be a single solution (etc.)" is true. If it is, we'll overlook it in the interest of good will. It gets nobody anything except outrage and pouting to claim that it's not true, and leaves open possibilities that might lead to something decent.


Third, "a" is ambiguous in English. It can be specific or non-specific.

In other words, "Is there a single definite solution that Europe has considered that all the member countries of Europe can agree on?" Not so far. So the answer is no. (This is like going to a restaurant and telling the hostess, "I'm looking for a woman, 30 years old, 5' 8", brown hair--she's my wife and I'm meeting her here." You know who you're after, and use "a" because you're introducing the topic.)

Versus, "Is there a single possible solution that might arise that Europe could agree on?" Arguably yes. (This is like going to a brothel and telling the hostess, "I'm horny and I'm looking for some woman at a reasonable price." Any woman in that set will do, so it's non-specific.)


But only "arguably," because it's where the solution itself comes into play, and that means you have to have a clue what the problems are--and we're not there yet, because neither side is monolithic. And arguably the Palestinian side has more of a dichotomy going on than the Israeli side. Is it primarily based on money and wealth? Religion? Honor and dignity? How do you handle "refugees" that have never been to where they're refugees from? Do the competing issues allow unique items like the Temple Mount and Abraham's Tomb, whatever you call them, to be compromised on or is there no compromise possible? Is the green line suddenly secularly holy or can it be changed? What happens in the case of hostilities against Israel, whether by Lebanon or by individual Palestinians engaged in "martyrdom operations"? How about border security with places like Jordan? Will "Palestinia" have a military? Impose, assist in, or be subject to an economic blockade?

Every solution I've seen proposed ignores big chunks of this, and so there's no point trying to agree on it. Israel's shown it can resolve some issues and ignore components of its own population when it wants to, it can muster the political will. The PA has shown much lesser ability. Push it and it might decompose further. Don't push it and there's still no solution except the maximalist solution that satisfies all the Palestinian factions, and while some Europeans may think that's a fine solution, most wouldn't.

[oberliner]

13. The poster just like articles with the word "apartheid" in them

That's pretty much it.

Edit to add: The word is neither bolded nor underlined in the actual article - those were added by the poster.

[King_David]

14. It's a result of Googling Israel+ Apartheid

And those articles are bolded,underlined and posted.

No matter the content or topic.

[procon]

15. Oh, there are any number of search parameters

that produce the same dismal results. Its not exactly like Israel's systematic policies of oppression and discrimination of other groups is a secret, yeah?

Apartheid is a crime and there is no point in pretending that Israel isn't actively denying others the right to marry or be secure in their lives and liberty without being subjected to arbitrary arrest or confiscating their lands and property and segregating non-Israelis into refugee ghettos. Those policies didn't work in South Africa either, so why would any reasonable person think that another country would be "successful" in subjugating an entire population group?

[oberliner]

16. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word

The definition is: a former social system in South Africa in which black people and people from other racial groups did not have the same political and economic rights as white people and were forced to live separately from white people.

This is not the case in Israel.

Why not just address the oppression and discrimination using words in English or Hebrew or Arabic?

Why Afrikaans?

[procon]

18. I think you need to fire up the Google machine

I find your argument petty and irrelevant. Regardless of it's origins, Apartheid has been recognized by the UN the ICC and other multinational conventions an international crime against humanity for several decades.

If your Google is busted try Wiki, their entry is sick (popular American slang word) and covers several legal descriptions and examples of Apartheid as referenced in international treaties on crimes.

[oberliner]

20. That's where the definition came from

Anyone who relies on Wikipedia editors for their information is in a lot of trouble.

In any case, the word is an Afrikaans one. People like to use it so they can link Israel with South Africa.

Use the word if you like - I know it is a pet hobby for some folks.

[procon]

21. You know, the same links cited in Wiki are also available on the Google

Your choice, to be sure. People "like" to use term Apartheid because it accurately describes Israel's oppressive policies towards other people, which are similar to the crimes that occurred in South Africa. The peoples of Palestine and other minority groups that suffer under Israels discriminatory domestic policies are not "pets" and referring to their plight as a "hobby", does not bolster your position

Nonetheless, denying Israeli's Apartheid policies exist based on something as specious as the national origin of a word, is an unbelievably threadbare position to take in light of all the existing evidence.

[King_David]

17. Maybe but none of it is true,

Apartheid was in Africa but not Israel ...

Anything else...?

[procon]

19. There's no treatment for those lyin' eyes, eh?

Look, I gather that you want to be all gung-ho for your team and be totally, passionately pro-Israel, but it's like having kids, you know. As parents love 'em so much that you start wearing blinkers so you only see the good stuff and block out everything else. End the end, the only one who suffers for the mistakes of those spineless enabling parents is the out of control kids.

[oberliner]

24. "Look, I gather that you want to be all gung-ho for your team.."

Have you considered doing some introspection and directing your own words towards yourself?

[procon]

25. Exactly so. I'm always going to stand up with people who seek equality

I'll always be on the side that condemns oppression, segregation and discrimination, and I'll support those who are working to end the practice of Apartheid. That's my kind of "team". It's an easy choice. Go Team!

[oberliner]

26. Good points

Can't really argue with that.

Those who support Israel would probably make the point that Israel is not actually practicing apartheid. It certainly does not practice segregation as a stroll through Tel Aviv would quickly illustrate. Discrimination, definitely - that's an issue that most countries struggle with around the world (and particularly in the region).

That's where I would ask the introspection to come in. Consider whether all the things you believe about Israel are entirely true or possibly you are predisposed to hold certain beliefs and to dismiss others.

Have you read, for instance, President Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" and noted his comments on the subject?

If not, I would encourage you to do so.

[procon]

27. Absolutely. Before testing any opinion, I find it's best to review multiple diverse sources.

When I consider the sources for most pro-Israel messaging, I find only a very few actors offering up uncritical support that is largely centered on commentators in the US and Israel. It comes as no surprise that the two nations share a common interconnected agenda of bias and enablement when it comes to the great sacred cow of their mutually advantageous policies.

In contrast, on the opposition side, the sources are many and disparate from a global perspective of multiple governments, religious leaders, other NGOs and a very broad spectrum of public and private concerns. I place more value the less biased observations of parties that do not have a dog in the fight.

Yes, I've always admired Carter and I recall reading his book many years ago, probably around the time it was released. I remember being struck by his assessment that it was the acquisition of land -- vital, arable, rich in natural resources, land -- was the at the root of the policies against the people of Palestine. It certainly focused my attention on the severity of the situation at that time, snd Carter's efforts in raising awareness is even more relevant today as world opinion on Apartheid is shifting as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is thrust into the global dialog again.

[oberliner]

29. Great points

It's encouraging to see how much thought you've put into this subject.

What got you interested in this particular topic in the first place?