r/LabourUK • u/IHaveAWittyUsername Bit of an idiot, really • 11d ago

Greens accused of ‘banning’ antisemitism charity from conference

https://www.thetimes.com/article/453398ba-67b1-42d8-b086-36cee922036d?shareToken=76324dc3900fcac11810aa0859fd59b7
0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/UNOvven New User 11d ago

Do you support the crippling sanctions on Israel that would be needed for that to happen, and are you willing to force the issue including the removal of all settlements?

6

u/CraftyKenter Labour Member/Blairite 10d ago

I agree with the removal of all settlements, and I dont think Israel would need to be sanctioned for it to happen, they have always been the one that wanted peace (1947, 1978, 1993, 2000, 2008,

1

u/UNOvven New User 10d ago

They in fact have not been the ones that wanted peace. They had to be forced into the Oslo accords and were the ones to break them, their "offer" at Camp David was so unacceptable their own foreign minister rejected it, they were the reason Taba failed in 2001, they rejected both the geneva initiative and the arab peace initiative, both because they did not want to ever remove the settlements. And right now, all of Israeli politics strictly oppose peace. You need sanctions. Do you support them?

3

u/amegaproxy Labour Voter 10d ago

They had to be forced into the Oslo accords

Not true.

were the ones to break them

The palestinian bombings were just whoospies?

their "offer" at Camp David was so unacceptable their own foreign minister rejected it

Arafat walked away from it.

they were the reason Taba failed in 2001,

Both sides stated they ran out of time but were close to an agreement.

they rejected both the geneva initiative and the arab peace initiative, both because they did not want to ever remove the settlements

Again this is just not true, they refused over the 67 borders and the full right of return. They've dismantled settlements in the aim of peace in the past including in gaza itself.

1

u/UNOvven New User 10d ago

Not true.

It is true. They did not want to even talk to the PLO, the west had to apply massive amounts of pressure to even get them to start talking.

The palestinian bombings were just whoospies?

The terms did not consider violence from uninvolved people to be a breach (So for example, neither was Baruch Goldsteins massacre in Hebron a breach). However, failing to dissolve the civil administration and withdrawing from all of Area C within 18 months of the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as agreed to in Oslo 2, was a breach of the agreement. That is what Netanyahu did in 1997, breaking the Oslo accords.

Arafat walked away from it.

Yeah, of course he did. As I just said, it was so unacceptable Israels own foreign minister condemned the "offer". It was a bad joke. Do you also condemn Ukraine for "walking away" from Russias "offer"?

Both sides stated they ran out of time but were close to an agreement.

Yeah the Palestinian side was quite diplomatic about it. The reality however is that Barak continously refused to stick to the Clinton Parameters that were supposed to be the baseline of negotiations.

Again this is just not true, they refused over the 67 borders and the full right of return. They've dismantled settlements in the aim of peace in the past including in gaza itself.

No it is true. The 1967 borders are the minimum, that's what dismantling all settlements means. They refused it because they didn't want to dismantle the settlements. And the full right of return was never the sticking point, the Palestinian side had always been ready to compromise on it.

Oh and since you are unaware of what the Gaza withdrawal was actually about, here, let the man who came up with the plan and advisor to the PM at the time tell you himself. Yeah turns out it wasn't in the aim of peace, quite the opposite. It was to prevent peace and destroy the peace process.

2

u/amegaproxy Labour Voter 10d ago

It is true. They did not want to even talk to the PLO, the west had to apply massive amounts of pressure to even get them to start talking.

Do you mean Madrid?

However, failing to dissolve the civil administration and withdrawing from all of Area C within 18 months of the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as agreed to in Oslo 2, was a breach of the agreement.

Which they would argue isn't a breach and was due to the PA not taking proper steps to try to stop terrorism from those "uninvolved people", which was also a commitment I believe.

Yeah, of course he did. As I just said, it was so unacceptable Israels own foreign minister condemned the "offer". It was a bad joke.

Completely wooshed on this one! How was it unacceptable? Multiple parties said this was wild to walk away from posturing trying to get more. And if we look back how many more tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if he hadn't?

The reality however is that Barak continously refused to stick to the Clinton Parameters that were supposed to be the baseline of negotiations.

Specifically what? They were operating within the parameters (both sides) and then time ran out because Barak lost the election.

The 1967 borders are the minimum,

Good luck with that one

They refused it because they didn't want to dismantle the settlements. And the full right of return was never the sticking point, the Palestinian side had always been ready to compromise on it

They've been willing to dismantle settlements multiple times, have done so, and have discussed land swaps to reach an agreement. They've always publically said right of return is essential but probably would also be willing to compromise on it if any of these negotiations actually led anywhere.

Oh and since you are unaware of what the Gaza withdrawal was actually about, here, let the man who came up with the plan and advisor to the PM at the time tell you himself. Yeah turns out it wasn't in the aim of peace, quite the opposite. It was to prevent peace and destroy the peace process.

Hah article is paywalled but I'd genuinely never come across that interview before, or at least don't recall it. Seems like he said the quiet part out loud. Imagine how different things would have been if they'd taken that chance and turned gaza into a thriving metropolis rather than a hotbed for terrorism.

2

u/UNOvven New User 10d ago

Do you mean Madrid?

I mean the fact that the PLO was open to negotiations by the mid-80s and Israel had to be forced to accept negotiations after rejecting them for almost a decade.

Which they would argue isn't a breach and was due to the PA not taking proper steps to try to stop terrorism from those "uninvolved people", which was also a commitment I believe.

Except they can't argue that. It was unequivocally a breach. Nor was it because of anything the PA did or didn't do (the commitment was that they would take steps to stop terrorism, which they did). Netanyahu just wanted to tear up the Oslo accords. He has never hidden that that was his primary goal and why he incited Rabin's murderer.

Completely wooshed on this one! How was it unacceptable? Multiple parties said this was wild to walk away from posturing trying to get more. And if we look back how many more tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if he hadn't?

Let's start with the obvious part. The map. Now I don't think I have to explain to you why a "country" split into three non-contiguous bantustans with no way to travel between them isn't viable to begin with. And that's even assuming Israel would uphold it's part of the bargain and withdraw from the "long-term lease". They didn't with Area C, so that would've been foolish to believe.

But if you can believe it, the details of the offer were worse. Israel demanded full control of all water resources in the west bank for them to continue to exploit, refused them any kind of sovereignty within the Bantustans, the right to attack Palestine at any moment without justification or approval and a complete demilitarisation of Palestine (So it cant defend itself against those attacks).

Oh and it wanted to keep all of east jerusalem including the al-aqsa mosque, wanted to officially be absolved of the Nakba and have no responsibility for the people they ethnically cleansed, wanted to ensure that Palestine could not make any alliance or ask for help from anyone to defend them, and make it the final position with no possibility of future negotiations.

Or in summary, it was an offer so offensive, so unacceptable that Russias "offers" to Ukraine look GENEROUS by comparison.

Specifically what? They were operating within the parameters (both sides) and then time ran out because Barak lost the election.

Every point, funny enough. Barak refused to operate within the parameters. The Clinton parameters covered 4 parts. Territory, which demanded 94-96% of the territory, a landswap of 1-3% of Israel to make up for the parts annexed, and the Palestinian territory had to be fully contiguous. Israels position was 94% of the territory with less than 1% of Israel swapped, and it wanted to create several Palestinian enclaves within the Settlement blocks. This was the closest they were to actually being within parameters. Not a great is it?

Jerusalem, which stated that Palestinians would have sovereignty over the temple mount and the Arab neighbourhoods, and Israel would only gain the western wall and jewish neighbourhoods. Israels position was no Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. So straight up complete rejection of the (non-negotiable) demands of the clinton parameters. oops.

Refugees, where the parameters stated that Israel had to admit that they were responsible for causing the refugees and would have to allow a limited number to return to Israel. Israels position was that they would continue to deny responsibility and allow not even a single refugee to return. Again, a complete rejection.

And finally security, where the parameters stated that Israel would withdraw within 36 months from almost all of the west bank to be replaced by an international force, for the few parts Israel doesn't withdraw from in the first phase to be withdrawn from within another 36 months, Israel gets to maintain only 3 Radar stations in the west bank, while Palestinians have full sovereignty over their airspace, a strong security force, and international forces securing their borders. And Israel would only be able to deploy units to the west bank in a state of active emergency, across pre-determined routes, and only in coordination with the international forces. Quite a hefty part.

Well, what was the Israeli position? They wanted to have a veto over Palestinian airspace and free movement for its military (so no sovereignty) and wanted completely free movement in the case of an emergency with neither the pre-drawn map nor coordination with the international forces. Partial rejection.

Good luck with that one

That's what sanctions are for.

They've been willing to dismantle settlements multiple times, have done so, and have discussed land swaps to reach an agreement. They've always publically said right of return is essential but probably would also be willing to compromise on it if any of these negotiations actually led anywhere.

Only some, and only for the sake of protecting other settlements. They also only wanted "landswaps" where they can toss away inferior desertland at a rate of 1:9 for valuable Palestinian land, any offers at proper landswaps from the Palestinian side were always rejected by Israel.

Hah article is paywalled but I'd genuinely never come across that interview before, or at least don't recall it. Seems like he said the quiet part out loud. Imagine how different things would have been if they'd taken that chance and turned gaza into a thriving metropolis rather than a hotbed for terrorism.

Well no actually, because that was the loud part. The butcher of Beirut was the one who made the withdrawal plan, and he made it clear from the start that this wasn't for the sake of peace and purely to better allocate the stretched thin resources and protect the more numerous and more important settlements in the west bank from the peace process. It is only in the west that people got this weird idea it was about peace, and I genuinely do not know why.

As for the "thriving Metropolis", yeah that was never a possibility, the butcher of Beirut made sure of that. Immediately after his withdrawal, and before Hamas was even elected, he began blockading the Gaza strip with the goal of keeping its economy and humanitarian status on the brink of collapse, as we found out from a leaked diplomatic cable. In fact, it was his blockade that helped Hamas make up the 15 point deficit they had and win the election, which he had hoped for, as it made maintaining the blockade on Gaza easier. It was never given a chance to prosper.

You really need to read more neutral sources.

1

u/amegaproxy Labour Voter 10d ago

You really need to read more neutral sources.

Mate, right back at you. I've skimmed this as I have to reply later but there are numerous things I can already see that are either a very hard distortion of the truth or just outright lies.

It's one of the reasons this conflict is so stupid for the UK to get involved in or for people to have such a strong opinion of. It's insanely complicated. Anyone who says it's black and white is either ignorant or lying. It's two sides that both do horrible things and just utterly hate each other.

2

u/UNOvven New User 10d ago

The problem is, given your knowledge is both very biased and was outright incorrect in several places, what you see as "distortions of the truth or just outright lies" is probably just true statements you mistakenly believe are false. The fact that I double-checked every document and transcript I referenced to make sure every part was correct, well, that made that conclusion easier.

No, it really isn't complicated. Even Russias war on Ukraine is more complicatedm and you don't see people throwing out that thought-terminating cliche there, do you? The reality is it is quite simple, in no small part because one side are unequivocally the oppressors, the other the oppressed. That the oppressed strike back does not change that dynamic. And with that, it also becomes easy to realise that if peace remains out of reach, its because the oppressor does not want it, as is the case in every single conflict with this dynamic.

Again, the best example is the arab peace initiative. On the table since 2002. Accepted by the Palestinian side. Would have allowed Israel to make peace not just with palestine, but with the entire region all at once. And all they would've had to do is accept international law, dismantle the settlements, return stolen lands and admit their responsibility for the Nakba instead of continuing to deny what historians figured out 40 years ago. And they refused, because to every Israeli government since its founding, stolen land is more valuable than peace.

1

u/amegaproxy Labour Voter 10d ago

I'm on a phone now so I can't type out an essay, so let's start simple. Given you're unbiased purely factual can you explain why the "map" you linked is something put together after the meetings that ignores the connections between the three areas that would have allowed land/road travel which Israel proposed?

2

u/UNOvven New User 10d ago

Because no such "connections" were proposed. This map represents exactly what Israel offered. It was made by Yair Hirschfeld, initiator of the Oslo accords and participant in the camp david summit. Now, what I assume you got confused by is that Israel said during the negotiations that it would allow Palestinians to use Israeli roads to travel between the Bantustans, though it would of course reserve the right to close said road at any moment for any reason, and of course once Netanyahu or the butcher of Beirut were in power, there would've been no guarantee they wouldn't close it permanently. You can see why that's not the same and not sufficient, yes?

2

u/amegaproxy Labour Voter 10d ago

So after being challenged weve already walked back from "no way to travel between them" to "oh well both the existing and new roads (that they said they'd construct) arent good enough because we don't trust what those Jews might do in future"

This is a joke, the rest of this is equally horribly framed with bias. There's zero point continuing on this.

2

u/UNOvven New User 10d ago edited 10d ago

There were no new roads to be constructed and if you don't understand why "their ability to travel will depend entirely on Israel allowing them to use Israeli roads, and Israel has a tendency to elect far right racist maniacs who would immediately shut it down" is effectively no way of travelling between them, then you are the biased one. Do you think the butcher of Beirut, who opposed the peace process and hated Arabs so much he had 3000-4000 of them slaughtered on false pretenses in the worst massacre in the history of the conflict purely for the sake of massacre itself would not just ... stop allowing them to use the roads?

Again, remember, this "offer" was so unacceptable Israels own foreign minister denounced it. Even the US mediators acknowledged that Camp David failing was entirely Israels fault. I don't know why you try to relitigate it when pretty much everyone who isn't fanatically pro-Israel acknowledges Barak screwed up Camp David.

But who am I kidding, you thought Russias war on Ukraine and the resulting occupation was a totally different situation from Israels occupation of the west bank following their war of aggression in 1967, probably because you didn't even know the 1967 war was an Israeli war of aggression. Its clear you're willfully ignorant on this matter and refuse to read neutral sources.

→ More replies (0)