Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ericson00

(2,707 posts)
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 05:09 PM Nov 2016

Why Carter is wrong on State of Palestine

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/opinions/carter-call-recognizing-palestinian-statehood/index.html

President Carter had his shot at Arab-Israeli negotiations, and, with the help of Sadat and Begin, made the most of it. President Obama has now had his. In the last couple of months of his administration, he should let this issue rest. Instead, he should adopt the diplomatic equivalent of the Hippocratic oath and do no harm. Because right now there's not a whole lot of opportunity to do good.
Ultimately, the key to solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not rest in President Obama's hands, nor in those of his successor. It's the parties, stupid. And neither they nor the peace process are ready yet for prime time.
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

dubyadiprecession

(6,282 posts)
1. The Arab-Israeli negotiation was not about convincing both sides to...
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 05:53 PM
Nov 2016

come to an agreement, it was about what each side would take from our federal treasury to stop fighting each other.
Israel receives 6 billion a year and Egypt receives 3 Billion a year since 1978.

 

ericson00

(2,707 posts)
2. Or maybe if the Palestinians would accept the permanent presence
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 06:20 PM
Nov 2016

Of a Jewish state, they'd have gotten something outta it

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
7. Let's not forget the FACT that
Thu Dec 1, 2016, 07:41 AM
Dec 2016

if the Palestinians have accepted their state in 1947, none of this would be happening.

Response to ericson00 (Original post)

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
4. Maybe the Palestinians should've accepted any one of the numerous offers....
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 09:03 PM
Nov 2016

...for their own state going back 70 years. They'd have their state already. Of course we know why they haven't accepted, because that would entail acceptance of the Jewish state of Israel which they reject. Heck, you reject Israel as well so it's disingenuous pretending if only Israel did....

FAIL.

Response to shira (Reply #4)

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
6. No they didn't. Palestinian rejectionism & the Left's support of that rejection....
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 09:19 PM
Nov 2016

....is what has killed it. There were no settlements before 1967 and yet there weren't 2 states because Palestinians rejected Israel outright, just as you do now.

You even oppose the 1947 Partition plan, proving the point.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
8. the OP is right--the Middle East (Israel included) is a shitshow
Thu Dec 1, 2016, 11:04 AM
Dec 2016

that we should avoid touching whenever possible.

There is no two-state future in that region. Rather, it will be annexation, apartheid, and then finally (time uncertain, at least decades) a single binational state.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
9. Then the single binational state will split up into separate independent states
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 08:46 PM
Dec 2016

Like Czechoslovakia did.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
10. Not big enough and there's too much interspersal
Fri Dec 2, 2016, 09:05 PM
Dec 2016

Both sides will have to skip ahead a few millennia and put aside tribal religious rivalries.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»Why Carter is wrong on St...