Johnboy, the key difference being that when the US tells the Palestinians have done something "unhelpful" in terms of their sham of a peace process (ie US-Israeli demands), the threat of lost revenue and a new round of wholesale bombing for the PA is real, whereas when the same comments are directed at Israel, the threat of any of any real pressure from the Americans is non-existent. Time and time again, whenever the Palestinians are close to surrendering and accepting the full breadth of US-Israeli demands, Israel (fully backed by the US) always launches attacks, tries to provoke reaction, witholds tax revenue. This is well documented and before the internet was widely available, Israeli officials would discuss this openly, just google "Palesinian peace offensive" for a little taste of the history.
The last example was when Palestine was accepted into Unesco, the US didn't have to use language like "unacceptable", they just withdrew funding from Unesco. The PA's revenues are of course a more serious threat, with Israel regularly withholding tax revenues and the US withholding aid (the PA is a virtual client regime, contracted through Oslo to run the occupation of Israel in portions of the West Bank using their US trained and run security force) whenever the status quo of constant expansion is threatened. Again, well documented.
I think it's more than a little disingenuous for you to mention this propaganda line of HAMAS not "recognizing" Israel, or it's "right to exist". There is no such precedent in history, for a political party (especially under brutal military occupation) to "recognize" the existence of a state, or the legitimacy or right of that state to exist. Being a historian, maybe you would be aware of this glaring misrepresentation of the facts?
Would anyone take seriously a demand that Mexico recognize the right for the U.S. to exist on half it's land? Or the legitimacy of it's existence? How about the scattered enclaves of First Nations survivors on this continent, would anyone expect them to take such a step? HAMAS has accepted the 2 state solution, ie '67 borders, and has agreed to abide by any popular vote made by the Palestinian population in this regard. They have held this position since 2006, google can demonstrate this in 10 seconds with countless links to mainstream media articles saying as much.
That you don't mention this, and the propaganda for what it is, is really shocking. Anybody with even a remotely minimal understanding of the documented record on this case knows full well that recognizing anything about Israel is not a roadblock. We have Norman Finkelstein's detailed studies, UN resolutions and annual GA votes, formal acceptance of '67 borders by the PLO and PA, time and time again over the last 40 years (starting in January '76 when Syria introduced a PLO backed resolution that was vetoed by the U.S.) to tell us who the rejectionists are in this case. We have, time and again, Israeli belligerence ramping up whenever peace deals are close (what Israeli officials termed "Palestinian peace offensives" that must obviously be derailed). lol, I mean, you don't even mention the fact that this is an imaginary demand, invented by the Israelis and pushed by the U.S., a demand that has no basis in international law (the ICJ ruling, countless UNSC/UNGA resolutions and the major rights groups have clearly laid out what is required of the Palestinians - and recognizing Israel, or it's right to exist, or the legitimacy of it's existence, or it's status as the homeland for Jews, or whatever other moving goal posts you wish to conjure up, are not one of them. In fact, on every issue - refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and borders, the Palestinians have given up more than they are legally required to.
They give up more than the '67 borders, they allow for settlements to stay, they gave up the universal right of return for a "just settlement of the refugee" issue, they have even given up their UN protected right to use force to remove the occupation (codified in Security Council resolutions that protect national liberation movements, specifically citing apartheid regimes and military occupations) and have allowed the illegal annexation wall to remain. You mention no legal requirements, or lack thereof, yet pretend to be speaking on this issue in some kind of authoritative manner?
I really don't understand how you would include such a blatant piece of propaganda in your comments. It's beyond ridiculous.
I'm not one to ignore bias in the media, especially when it comes to Israel, but I'm just wondering if anyone really considers this a serious issue. I mean, when the Guardian destroyed it's Snowden material under the threat of basically a blanket gag order, is that not the same thing? Destroying the material allowed them to continue reporting on the issues. Do news outlets not regularly accept and respect gag orders?
Now, of course, claiming you are some type of "investigative journalist" or outlet, or that you are hostile to power and government, while at the same time respecting gag orders that clearly have no public interest, is utter hypocrisy and a clear demonstration that you are the opposite - a shill for establishment orders - but we already know this about the New York Times. We know where their funding comes from, we know the limits of the "free press", is anyone really shocked about this?
Johnboy, the key difference being that when the US tells the Palestinians have done something "unhelpful" in terms of their sham of a peace process (ie US-Israeli demands), the threat of lost revenue and a new round of wholesale bombing for the PA is real, whereas when the same comments are directed at Israel, the threat of any of any real pressure from the Americans is non-existent. Time and time again, whenever the Palestinians are close to surrendering and accepting the full breadth of US-Israeli demands, Israel (fully backed by the US) always launches attacks, tries to provoke reaction, witholds tax revenue. This is well documented and before the internet was widely available, Israeli officials would discuss this openly, just google "Palesinian peace offensive" for a little taste of the history.
The last example was when Palestine was accepted into Unesco, the US didn't have to use language like "unacceptable", they just withdrew funding from Unesco. The PA's revenues are of course a more serious threat, with Israel regularly withholding tax revenues and the US withholding aid (the PA is a virtual client regime, contracted through Oslo to run the occupation of Israel in portions of the West Bank using their US trained and run security force) whenever the status quo of constant expansion is threatened. Again, well documented.
I think it's more than a little disingenuous for you to mention this propaganda line of HAMAS not "recognizing" Israel, or it's "right to exist". There is no such precedent in history, for a political party (especially under brutal military occupation) to "recognize" the existence of a state, or the legitimacy or right of that state to exist. Being a historian, maybe you would be aware of this glaring misrepresentation of the facts?
Would anyone take seriously a demand that Mexico recognize the right for the U.S. to exist on half it's land? Or the legitimacy of it's existence? How about the scattered enclaves of First Nations survivors on this continent, would anyone expect them to take such a step? HAMAS has accepted the 2 state solution, ie '67 borders, and has agreed to abide by any popular vote made by the Palestinian population in this regard. They have held this position since 2006, google can demonstrate this in 10 seconds with countless links to mainstream media articles saying as much.
That you don't mention this, and the propaganda for what it is, is really shocking. Anybody with even a remotely minimal understanding of the documented record on this case knows full well that recognizing anything about Israel is not a roadblock. We have Norman Finkelstein's detailed studies, UN resolutions and annual GA votes, formal acceptance of '67 borders by the PLO and PA, time and time again over the last 40 years (starting in January '76 when Syria introduced a PLO backed resolution that was vetoed by the U.S.) to tell us who the rejectionists are in this case. We have, time and again, Israeli belligerence ramping up whenever peace deals are close (what Israeli officials termed "Palestinian peace offensives" that must obviously be derailed). lol, I mean, you don't even mention the fact that this is an imaginary demand, invented by the Israelis and pushed by the U.S., a demand that has no basis in international law (the ICJ ruling, countless UNSC/UNGA resolutions and the major rights groups have clearly laid out what is required of the Palestinians - and recognizing Israel, or it's right to exist, or the legitimacy of it's existence, or it's status as the homeland for Jews, or whatever other moving goal posts you wish to conjure up, are not one of them. In fact, on every issue - refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and borders, the Palestinians have given up more than they are legally required to.
They give up more than the '67 borders, they allow for settlements to stay, they gave up the universal right of return for a "just settlement of the refugee" issue, they have even given up their UN protected right to use force to remove the occupation (codified in Security Council resolutions that protect national liberation movements, specifically citing apartheid regimes and military occupations) and have allowed the illegal annexation wall to remain. You mention no legal requirements, or lack thereof, yet pretend to be speaking on this issue in some kind of authoritative manner?
I really don't understand how you would include such a blatant piece of propaganda in your comments. It's beyond ridiculous.
I'm not one to ignore bias in the media, especially when it comes to Israel, but I'm just wondering if anyone really considers this a serious issue. I mean, when the Guardian destroyed it's Snowden material under the threat of basically a blanket gag order, is that not the same thing? Destroying the material allowed them to continue reporting on the issues. Do news outlets not regularly accept and respect gag orders?
Now, of course, claiming you are some type of "investigative journalist" or outlet, or that you are hostile to power and government, while at the same time respecting gag orders that clearly have no public interest, is utter hypocrisy and a clear demonstration that you are the opposite - a shill for establishment orders - but we already know this about the New York Times. We know where their funding comes from, we know the limits of the "free press", is anyone really shocked about this?