Israeli Establishment Literally Wants Ethnic Cleansing

I know you guys are all tl;dr but seriously you have to read this if you ever want to understand the current state of Israel's political establishment.

Israeli foreign minister wants Palestinians stripped of citizenship and relocated - The National Newspaper

Quote:

Israeli foreign minister wants Palestinians stripped of citizenship and relocated
Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent


NAZARETH // Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s far-right foreign minister, set out this week what he called a “blueprint for a resolution to the conflict” with the Palestinians that demands most of the country’s large Palestinian minority be stripped of citizenship and relocated outside Israel’s future borders.

Mr Lieberman said that Israel faced growing diplomatic pressure for a full withdrawal to the Green Line, the pre-1967 border, and if such a partition were implemented, “the conflict will inevitably pass beyond those borders and into Israel”.

He accused many of Israel’s 1.3 million Palestinian citizens of acting against Israel while their leaders “actively assist those who want to destroy the Jewish state”.

Mr Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party campaigned in last year’s elections on a platform of “No loyalty, no citizenship” and has proposed a raft of loyalty laws over the past year targeted at the Palestinian minority.

True peace, the foreign minister claimed, would come only with land swaps, or “an exchange of populated territories to create two largely homogeneous states, one Jewish Israeli and the other Arab Palestinian”. He added that under his plan “those Arabs who were in Israel will now receive Palestinian citizenship”.

Unusually, Mr Lieberman, who is also deputy prime minister, offered his plan in a commentary for the English-language Jerusalem Post daily newspaper, apparently in an attempt to make maximum impact on the international community.

He has spoken repeatedly in the past about drawing the borders in a way to forcibly exchange Palestinian communities in Israel for the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

But under orders from Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, he has kept a relatively low profile on the conflict’s larger issues since his controversial appointment to head the foreign ministry more than a year ago.

In early 2009, Mr Lieberman, who lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim, upset his own supporters by advocating the creation of “a viable Palestinian state”, though he has remained unclear about what it would require in practice.

Mr Lieberman’s revival of his “population transfer” plan – an idea he unveiled six years ago – comes as the Israeli leadership has understood that it is “isolated like never before”, according to Michael Warschawski, an Israeli analyst.

Mr Netanyahu’s government has all but stopped paying lip service to US-sponsored “proximity talks” with the Palestinians after outraging global public opinion with attacks on Gaza 18 months ago and on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla four weeks ago in which nine peace activists were killed.

Israel’s relations with the international community are likely to deteriorate further in late summer when a 10-month partial freeze on settlement expansion in the West Bank expires. Yesterday, Mr Netanyahu refused to answer questions about the freeze, after a vote by his Likud party’s central committee to support renewed settlement building from late September.

Other looming diplomatic headaches for Israel are the return of the Goldstone Report, which suggested Israel committed war crimes in its attack on Gaza, to the United Nations General Assembly in late July, and Turkey’s adoption of the rotating presidency of the Security Council in September.

Mr Warschawski, a founder of the Alternative Information Centre, a joint Israeli-Palestinian advocacy group, said that, faced with these crises, Israel’s political elite had split into two camps.

Most, including Mr Lieberman, believed Israel should “push ahead” with its unilateral policies towards the Palestinians and refuse to engage in a peace process regardless of the likely international repercussions.

“Israel’s ruling elite knows that the only solution to the conflict acceptable to the international community is an end to the occupation along the lines of the Clinton parameters,” he said, referring to the two-state solution promoted by former US president Bill Clinton in late 2000.

“None of them, not even Ehud Barak [the defence minister and head of the centrist Labour Party], are ready to accept this as the basis for negotiations.”

On the other hand, Tzipi Livni, the head of the centre-right opposition Kadima party, Mr Warschawski said, wanted to damp down the international backlash by engaging in direct negotiations with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas.

Mr Lieberman’s commentary came a day after he told Ms Livni that she could join the government only if she accepted “the principle of trading territory and population as the solution to the Palestinian issue, and give up the principle of land for peace”.

Mr Lieberman is reportedly concerned that Mr Netanyahu might seek to bring Ms Livni into a national unity government to placate the US and prop up the legitimacy of his coalition.

The Labour Party has threatened to quit the government if Kadima does not join by the end of September, and Ms Livni is reported to want the foreign ministry.

Mr Lieberman’s position is further threatened by a series of corruption investigations.

However, he also appears keen to take the initiative from both Washington and Ms Livni with his own “peace plan”. An unnamed aide to Mr Lieberman told the Jerusalem Post that, with a vacuum in the diplomatic process, the foreign minister “thinks he can convince the government to adopt the plan”.

However, Mr Warschawski said there were few indications that Mr Netanyahu wanted to be involved in any peace process, even Mr Lieberman’s.

This week Uzi Arad, the government’s shadowy national security adviser and a long-time confidant of Mr Netanyahu, made a rare public statement at a meeting of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem to attack Ms Livni for “political adventurism” and believing in the “magic” of a two-state solution.

Apparently reflecting Mr Netanyahu’s own thinking, he said: “The more you market Palestinian legitimacy, the more you bring about a detraction of Israel’s legitimacy in certain circles. [The Palestinians] are accumulating legitimacy, and we are being delegitimised.”

Mr Warschawski doubted that Mr Lieberman believed his blueprint for population exchanges could be implemented but was promoting it chiefly to further damage the standing of Israel’s Palestinian citizens and advance his own political ambitions.

In his commentary, Mr Lieberman said the international community’s peace plan would lead to “the one-and-a-half to half state solution”: “a homogeneous, pure Palestinian state”, from which Jewish settlers were expelled, and “a binational state in Israel”, which included many Palestinian citizens.

Palestinians, in both the territories and inside Israel, he said, could not “continue to incite against Israel, glorify murder, stigmatise Israel in international forums, boycott Israeli goods and mount legal offensives against Israeli officials”.

Now that Israel has been discredited in the International Community as a lawful international actor, the far right government under Netanyahu is starting to push for a whole hog hail mary ethnic cleansing of Arab Israelis.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Eventually enough time will have passed since the holocaust for it not to be seen as a terrible thing to kill jews again and the rest of the world will side with the arabs and wipe Israel off the map. I like that their security adviser is called Uzi though.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shin

the rest of the world will side with the arabs and wipe Israel off the map.

Right after Hell freezes over. Besides, killing people en masse is never good regardless of the circumstances. I think Israel's actions are pretty indefensible, but I'd rather the rest of the world not sink to their level.

I honestly wonder if there's any solution the Palestinians would really accept though. If Israel withdrew back to their pre-1967 borders, I can't help but think the Palestinians would still want all the land for themselves.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Many different Palestinian factions have already stated that they would go for this solution [the return to green-line borders] if it where to bring peace. The Israelis are the ones who are blocking it tooth and nail, because they are looking to expand their territory to include anything worthwhile as far as resources and trade routes goes while boxing in the Palestinian territories.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, most of it already is siding with the Palestinians in the sense that they are condemning the Israel Defense Forces' constant incursions into Gaza. The United States is one of the only countries who continues to defend their aggression, not surprising since they are sponsoring it to a large extent. There are a few other governments who side with the States on this one - I'm sad to say that Canada under Harper pretty much adopts the US position in its entirety - but the gist of it is that the world doesn't believe Israel's actions are justified in most cases. If the States ever reverse gear on this matter, we can expect to see a very real reduction in the amount of bloodshed, if only because the UN won't be roadblocked at every step of the way. Also, the Israelis would have a much harder time getting away with some of the war crimes they are committing where they to lose the US veto support and vows of legitimacy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Somewhat related: Ken O'Keefe - American-born badass

YouTube Video

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Right after Hell freezes over. Besides, killing people en masse is never good regardless of the circumstances. I think Israel's actions are pretty indefensible, but I'd rather the rest of the world not sink to their level.

I honestly wonder if there's any solution the Palestinians would really accept though. If Israel withdrew back to their pre-1967 borders, I can't help but think the Palestinians would still want all the land for themselves.

I don't think European nations would ever invade Israel but I certainly don't think they'd put up much of an argument if Syria or Lebanon did (Again) and even less so if a confederation of Arab nations turned on Israel. It really is only America that supports Israel internationally and if they ever lost that support, I don't see anyone else rushing to their defence.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Which is precisely the reason why I think the next country to actually pop off with a nuke will be the Israelis.

If Israel goes down, believe she'll try to take everyone else in the region with her.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Shin

I don't think European nations would ever invade Israel but I certainly don't think they'd put up much of an argument if Syria or Lebanon did (Again) and even less so if a confederation of Arab nations turned on Israel. It really is only America that supports Israel internationally and if they ever lost that support, I don't see anyone else rushing to their defence.

That I will agree with. Nobody, even America is going to care enough about Israel after all that has happened. Nobody will register more than a token protest if Arabs take decisive action. It won't be considered a good thing but plenty of nations if not all will be happy to turn a blind eye.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Rychord

Many different Palestinian factions have already stated that they would go for this solution [the return to green-line borders] if it where to bring peace. The Israelis are the ones who are blocking it tooth and nail, because they are looking to expand their territory to include anything worthwhile as far as resources and trade routes goes while boxing in the Palestinian territories.

I stand corrected.

Quote:

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, most of it already is siding with the Palestinians in the sense that they are condemning the Israel Defense Forces' constant incursions into Gaza.

Sure. That's true, and I don't deny it. I just don't think any non-Arab nation is actually going to join in with direct action. They might sympathise, but that's as far as it goes.

How ya doing, buddy?

sanctioning the voyages of Gaza Aid Flotillas is pretty serious direct action that sends a significant message to Israel.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

sanctioning the voyages of Gaza Aid Flotillas is pretty serious direct action that sends a significant message to Israel.

But it's not military action, which is what Soluzar and Shin were talking about.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Nobody will register more than a token protest if Arabs take decisive action.

Any "decisive action" Arabs might want to take is going to result in their utter destruction until at least one of them becomes a nuclear weapons state. They know this, which is why the last Arab-Israeli war was in 1973.

Most amazing jew boots

You really think Israel would have the bollocks to drop a nuke? If nothing else, turning an oil rich area into a radioactive wasteland is going to really upset your government.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Given that first, we're operating under the premise that Israel is a nasty, racist rogue state that will do what it wants; second, that Israel's first response to problems tends to be overwhelming force; third, that people are treating very seriously the idea that Israel might nuke Iran to destroy it's nuclear weapons program; and finally, that the objective of this Arab attack you're hypothesizing here is to wipe Israel off the map and the rest of the world sans the United States is cheering for the Arabs to do just that? Yes, they would have the bollocks to drop a nuke.

With the circumstances you gave, Israel wouldn't have anything left to lose, and no reason not to take as many of their enemies as possible down with them.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Israel is most likely to drop a tactical nuke, maybe a bunker-buster on Iranian facilities. Nothing that would seriously precipitate nuclear exchange, but something that would still cause a major international incident and put Israel in some seriously hot water.

I was speaking idiomatically.

It would be rather hard for a non-Arab country to join in with military action against Israel, seeing how it would be tantamount to a war declaration on the United States.

Russia is the country that consistently comes the closest to this by selling arms (or in some cases, gifting jet fighters) to Arab countries, mainly Lebanon and Syria.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

"MiG-29 fighter jet"


FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Any "decisive action" Arabs might want to take is going to result in their utter destruction until at least one of them becomes a nuclear weapons state. They know this, which is why the last Arab-Israeli war was in 1973.

I acknowledge the point, at the present it would be impossible. However, I'm not sure it will be that long before there's a certain Arab nation with nuclear weapons capability. You must appreciate however, that I don't regard the scenario under discussion as in any way likely. I just don't suppose that the rest of the world would waste much time in weeping about it. They might issue an official statement condemning the actions taken against Israel, but it would be a token gesture.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Sanctioning the voyages of Gaza Aid Flotillas is pretty serious direct action that sends a significant message to Israel.

Yes, it is. As per Styphon's post, may I correct my previous statement to say 'direct military action. Ultimately if anything is going to happen it will be down to the Arabs to do it. The most likely development is going to be that Iran develop nuclear weapons capability and restore somewhat of a balance of power. There are several potential paths this could take the situation down from there, and I don't claim to be prescient enough to know exactly what the outcome would be.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

However, I'm not sure it will be that long before there's a certain Arab nation with nuclear weapons capability.

Only if they keep it so far under wraps that Israel, the U.S. or anyone else likely to tell them don't hear a word about it. Israel tends to respond to suspected nuclear weapons programs in countries it doesn't like and who don't like them with air strikes, assassinations and whatever other violent mischief they deem necessary.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Only if they keep it so far under wraps that Israel, the U.S. or anyone else likely to tell them don't hear a word about it. Israel tends to respond to suspected nuclear weapons programs in countries it doesn't like and who don't like them with air strikes, assassinations and whatever other violent mischief they deem necessary.

So that's what Israel would do about it, but what exactly do you think the U.S. would do about it? I'm thinking a lot of saber-rattling but not a lot of action. I could be dead wrong, but I'm thinking that the Americans don't have a lot of appetite for getting involved in yet another middle-east war right now.

As for the Israeli response, I don't doubt you're right but things are different now than they were. Isn't it possible that knowing about the Israeli propensity for such actions the putative nuclear power might take greater precautions? I admit I might just be naive here...

Also we talk about "what if", but isn it already starting?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

So that's what Israel would do about it, but what exactly do you think the U.S. would do about it?

If the U.S. found out about a nuclear weapons program in a state hostile to Israel, it's a safe bet that the U.S. would tell Israel about it.

Quote:

As for the Israeli response, I don't doubt you're right but things are different now than they were. Isn't it possible that knowing about the Israeli propensity for such actions the putative nuclear power might take greater precautions? I admit I might just be naive here...

Greater precautions to keep from being discovered? In order to fill my required history infodump quota, let me point out that the Manhattan Project and Ultra were two of the biggest secrets of World War II. Very few people were on the lists of people authorized to know what they were, or even that they existed. The Soviets, despite being on our side in the war against Germany, were not on the list of people authorized; Soviet intelligence penetrated both of them. Mossad is, or at least was, an intelligence service of the same caliber. They'd find out, even if the resources required for nuclear weapons research weren't enough to make it known something was up.

It would be much simpler to not hide it and just say you're researching peaceful applications for nuclear technology, in a way that's plausible, and hope enough of the world buys it for long enough to get a bomb done.

As for physical security from air strikes, they can put them underground in bunkers reinforced enough to withstand air strikes like the ones against Iraq in 1981 and Syria just a couple years ago. Which is why people are talking about Israel potentially taking things a step or more further and employing bunker-busting tactical nukes in a strike on Iran's nuclear program.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Israel could always just go all Munich Solution on the nuclear scientists in Iran until the rest consider a career change. That'd cause a lot less fallout (Of both kinds) and if there's one thing they've a proven track record off it's political assasinations.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Iran doesn't seem like the easiest place to pull off a Mossad assassination campaign these days.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Behave, I'll wager that there are agents from most major nations all over Iran right now and probably half the SAS dotted about the place. I'd be amazed if we saw nukes in Iran before we saw gunships in the suburbs and carbombs and shit.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I don't doubt that there are agents IN Iran, but nuclear scientists are an extremely valuable commodity to the Iranians, and assassinating an Iranian VIP isn't like globetrotting to bust caps in FLO terrorists.

FELIPE NO

That depends. Unless Iran sequesters them all, along with their families, in lots of undisclosed locations, the scientists have lives outside of their work, as well as homes. Intelligence operatives can identify those and act accordingly, be it with gunmen, bombs or something else.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

haha Lolman is filthy Zionist scum

Jam it back in, in the dark.