Mashaal says Israel will 'disappear'

[oberliner]

Israel will eventually disappear from the world, and the Palestinians should be prepared for that, Israel Radio reported Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Mashaal saying Tuesday during a meeting in Teheran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad.

At a press conference, Mashaal was asked if Hamas had now recognized Israel.

The Hamas leader did not answer directly, but said: "The Palestinian government insists on June 4, 1967 borders (for Israel), full Palestinian sovereignty with Jerusalem as its capital."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173173943943&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[jimmyclyde]

1. Once again

the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
<P>Sad, really sad.

[MADem]

2. Wow, that's .... helpful. .... ~~~~` .......... Not. NT

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. You know, he's right.

Israel will one day disappear, just as we will, and just as had every other nation on earth that pre-existed today's nations. It's called history.

Even those that can claim some continuity are not the nations they were - Egypt has been around for 5000 years, but has disappeared and reappeared several times in that time.

[jimmyclyde]

6. When Hamas

talks about Israel disappearing it is always in the context of the death of every Jewish man, woman and child and the violent destruction of the nation of Israel.
Egypt was always Egypt. The people may have changed over 5,000 years, it may have been controlled by others throughout its history, but it was never wiped off the map. Sadly this is what Hamas wants to do Israel.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. You're worried that 10 or 12,000 Hamas militants are going to

wipe out a nation of 6 million? That's just silly.

If Israel would just return to the '67 borders and not prevent the Palestinians from forming their own state, Hamas would lose virtually all its support. People, whether Israeli or Palestinian, do not like living in a state of perpetual war.

[Shaktimaan]

10. Right!

It will be exactly like the anti-Hamas, pro-peace reaction the Palestinians had when Israel pulled out of Gaza, only BIGGER. Remember how they converted those synogagues into schools and expanded the greenhouses that were left for them? Everyone working together for the common good? Heartwarming, isn't it.

:sarcasm:

Some folks think that examples of what happened when Israel handed over autonomy in the past like in Gaza or Jericho/Ramallah/etc. or Lebanon are not good indicators of what Hamas and Hezbollah supporters will do now. They actually think that if Israel gives HUGE concessions then everyone will respond in the exact OPPOSITE way than they always have when Israel gave modest concessions.

Nevermind that terrorism against Israel was common since 1949. Forget that terrorism against the Jews of Palestine began in the 1920's. Forget that the Palestinians didn't start talking about having their own state in the territories until the late 1980's. Forget that the occupation is not the cause of the resistance.

Yes, forget all that stuff, because it is inconvenient and complicated.

[breakaleg]

11. Look at it this way...

Let's say you hold someone prisoner for years. You abuse them, you rule them in every possible way, making their lives miserable.

Then one day, you tell them they can leave. Would you expect that person to say thanks and walk away? Or would you expect that once freed, he might come back to take a parting shot at you?

It's unfortunate that Gaza wasn't a success. But it certainly isn't that surprising.

[jimmyclyde]

16. Yeah keep blaming the Jews

for the deplorable behavior of the Palestinians. What they did in Gaza was detestable. A shame and black mark for the world to see.
But it was against the Jews so no big deal.

[breakaleg]

17. Welcome to DU.

[Shaktimaan]

22. So according to you,

if Israel cedes more territory they can again expect a huge increase in violence. And it is to be expected that the Palestinians not keep a single one of their promises in any treaty that they signed or will sign. Palestine should have no expectations placed on them, in other words?

By the way, you know it wasn't Israel that made Gaza miserable, right? Look at it this way. Israel doesn't want Gaza. They have every reason to make Gaza a success story, not a failure. There is plenty that Israel and America did for them to try and make their autonomy a success. They have to be responsible for some aspects of their own destiny at some point. There's some things that they will have to overcome themselves.

[breakaleg]

23. Care to answer the question?

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Funny. I seem to remember that when Israel returned the Sinai to

Egypt, Egypt recognised Isreal and signed a peace treaty that holds to this day.

Then, when Israel precipitously left Gaza, not as a result of negotiation because they refuse to negotiate with Hamas, they bulldozed all the settlements they were abandoning, including the water and sewer systems, out of pure spite.

Now if someone moved into your town, built a big expensive house next door to you, then blew up your house, that might piss you off. Then, when they decide to leave again and you are thinking 'well, at least I'll get the house they built to replace the one they blew up', they go and blow it up too. Wouldn't that piss you off even more?

It was not acknowledging Gaza's sovreignity, but was a tactical withdrawal because they knew they were about to launch their (disastrous) attack on Lebanon and did not want to have to try defending the Gaza settlements while fighting Hezbollah in the north.

Everybody knew that the Gaza withdrawal was not done in good faith and in the spirit of peace and reconciliation. Especially since, at the time the withdrawal was announced it was also declared that they were expanding West Bank settlements.

It starts with talking. If the Palastinians elected Hamas representatives, talk to Hamas. Talk to Iran, to persuade them to stop funding Hezbollah. Talk to Saudi Arabia to persuade them to stop sending weapons to Hamas. Talk to Egypt and Jordan, to use their influence to show how peace can benefit everybody by their own example. And don't leave the negotiations in the hands of religious zealots, whether Arab or Jewish or especially Christians who are anxious for Armegeddon.

You know, maybe if Israel would stop assassinating Palastinian leaders there might be someone for them to talk to.

[Shaktimaan]

32. Good Lord.

OK, Hamas was not in charge of the PA when Israel left, the election was AFTER the pullout. They DID negotiate the withdrawl with the PA, just not as part of any long term peace deal, and all of the details were agreed to by the Palestinians. The buildings were demolished as an agreed upon result of said negotiations as the homes were not suitable for large Arab families. The cleanup was PAID for beforehand and was supposed to be a civil project to give some Palestinians work immediately following the withdrawl. That never happened and the money disappeared somewhere in the PA's incredibly corrupt system.

I'd love to see a link that says Israel bulldozed the water/sewer system.

Israel also left the greenhouse infrastructure, which was supposed to provide employment for Gazans, and instead were looted and torn apart. Also torn apart were the synogauges left behind despite assurances that they would be protected. Of course, they were not protected for even a single day.

At the time of the withdrawl four West Bank settlements were CLOSED and an announcement was made that more were to be CLOSED in the future. That plan was only scrapped after months of increased violence from the Palestinians.

If the attack on Lebanon was planned as you say and the whole point of the withdrawl was to avoid having to fight on 2 fronts then WHY did they invade Gaza and Lebanon at the same time? Because they were attacked first by both Lebanon and Gaza and had no choice, that's why. But maybe you have some kind of evidence that suggests that leaving Gaza was a sham to allow Israel to better attack Lebanon. Maybe you have a credible link that says Israel's invasion of Lebanon was planned. You know, something more legitimate than the psychotic ravings that you seem to have mindlessly gobbled up as stone truth. Because it sure doesn't seem you've been so much as reading a newspaper throughout the past few years of this conflict.

[Ian David]

44. Uhm... it was Hamas that MADE them destroy the settlements. It wasn't Israel's idea. n/t

[jimmyclyde]

15. My friend your ignorance is showing.

Silly? It's not silly at all it is very serious in fact.
Hamas controls the Palestinian government and all the billions of dollars the west foolishly gives them.
The 67 borders mean nothing. Arabs have been killing Jews long before the 67 war and they will continue to kill them.
You do not reward a group of terrorists with a state. You exterminate them.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Where has Hamas said it wants to kill every Jew?

Or is that some overimaginative reading between the lines happening?

As for yr claim that Israel has existed for thousands of years, that's complete nonsense. The state of Israel came into being in 1948. You might want to check out maps before that time and take notice of the fact that there was no state prior to that to wipe off the map...

[jimmyclyde]

25. Honestly Dude read their mission statement.

Enjoy...
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

I never said that Israel has existed for thousands of years. I said that Jews have been in that land for over 3500 years. That is a historical fact. One that the Arabs try to deny.
I know the state of Israel came into being in 1948. When it did the Arabs declared war and boasted that they would drive the Jews into the sea. Do a little research next time and check out the attacks on the Jews before 48, during 48 and after 48.
You'll notice a pattern.

[bemildred]

26. Doesn't say anything about killing all the jews.

Talks about fighting them, and killing them, but in the context of taking back Palestine, like a war. If you conflate people fighting FOR Israel with genocide you will get in a lot of trouble here, the same ought to apply to the other side it seems to me.

[jimmyclyde]

28. When Hamas talks of taking back Palestine they mean all of Israel.

Thus all the Jews living in Israel now get killed.

[bemildred]

29. No shit, all of it?

That means the current residents of Israel would be residents of the new political entity, whatever it turned out to be. Like the people that lived there before 1948 were residents of the British Mandate.

[Shaktimaan]

33. are you arguing in defense of Hamas rule over Israel?

Or suggesting that there is no difference between Hamas' stated goals (and likely results) and the goals/results of the British Mandate? Or suggesting that a moral equivalence between the two somehow exists?

[bemildred]

35. No, I'm arguing with the idea that they intend genocide against Jews.

If you want to defend Israel, that's fine with me, and I'm not much on Hamas, or Islamic fundies, or any kind of fundies, for that matter.

However, hyperbolic rhetoric of the "they want to kill all the Jews" sort doesn't help anyone in the region, it just perpetuates the present pernicious situation, and is used as an excuse not to talk. It is true that Hamas opposes the present Israeli state, and would like to see it disappear, as do many or most of the Palestinians whom they represent, but that doesn't mean much unless they can carry it out, and they know they haven't the means to do anything about it. In the meantime they have stated many times, in a surly tone it is true, that they are willing to live with Israel as long as Palestinians get full political sovereignty and Israel lives within the 1967 borders. You don't have to agree with that either, but it is a long way from "they want to kill all the Jews".

[msmcghee]

36. Believe what you like bemildred.

Hamas Covenant 1988
The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement
18 August 1988

In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah

<snip>

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

<snip>

When the idea was ripe, the seed grew and the plant struck root in the soil of reality, away from passing emotions, and hateful haste. The Islamic Resistance Movement emerged to carry out its role through striving for the sake of its Creator, its arms intertwined with those of all the fighters for the liberation of Palestine. The spirits of its fighters meet with the spirits of all the fighters who have sacrificed their lives on the soil of Palestine, ever since it was conquered by the companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, and until this day.

<snip>

This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

*************************************

I had trouble finding the part about Jews being free to live in peace behind the '67 borders. Maybe you can find it.

[bemildred]

38. Thank you so much for permission.

Am I allowed to read carefully too? Or must I accept any sort of babble as fact lest I be attacked?

[msmcghee]

40. You think you were attacked in my post?

Why is it the anti-Israel folks here seem so sensitive that simply disagreeing with their pov and offering evidence for that (after they offered no evidence for their pov) is now considered an attack. (Recall famous Harry Truman quote here.)

That probably explains why you think Hamas has the best intentions of living in peace with Israel as soon as they withdraw behind the green line. i.e. little or no grasp of reality, 75 years of history in the region and what's in plain view of your eyes.

I guess you think the Hamas Charter is just babble? Why would you think that? Because it puts the lie to your laughable assertion that they have peaceful intentions - if Israel would just "do the right thing"?

I mean, how can one carry on a discussion with someone who doesn't even believe the carefully written anti-semitic hate rantings of the people he is defending?

[Violet_Crumble]

45. He didn't say you attacked him in yr post...

Nor did he say that Hamas has peaceful intentions, nor did he defend Hamas. In fact, he was very clear in pointing out that he doesn't support Hamas, and that he is addressing the claims that Hamas want to kill all Jews.

You claim you gave evidence supporting the claim that Hamas wants to kill all Jews. What you posted by way of evidence didn't support that at all, but seems to be more a case of trying to read what you want to see into a document that clearly states it doesn't want Israel to exist, but does not state any genocidal intentions against all Jews...

[bemildred]

47. Don't bother Vi. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Sometimes talking to a brick wall is fun n/t

[bemildred]

52. Yeah, OK.

I was thinking of poor reading skills, but yeah, defend me all you want. I just don't see any point in writing much when I know it will be ignored.
:-)

[Englander]

61. This is worse than talking to a brick wall.

I mean, a brick wall wouldn't come up with incredibly partisan views, or extremist rhetoric, or
alternate versions of reality. :)

[msmcghee]

48. That's pretty funny.

Those poor Hamas folks are stuck in a place where they can't just out and say "Kill the Jews" in their mission statement. Bad PR and all that - that could cut into funding.

So they say it in code. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." - as they continue to send rockets into Israel aimed at innocent civilians and swear that the whole of Israel is an illegal entity that they intend to destroy with the help of other Arab entities.

. . just so people like you can say with a straight face that they have no genocidal intentions. Excuse me while I enjoy a good laugh at the lengths you will apparently go to to re characterize the words of the proud murderers of innocent civilians.

If you recall - bemildred claimed that Hamas only wanted Israel to withdraw to the '69 cease fire line. That's what was being ridiculed.

Added on edit: Some of his exact words were "It is true that Hamas opposes the present Israeli state, and would like to see it disappear, as do many or most of the Palestinians whom they represent, but that doesn't mean much unless they can carry it out, and they know they haven't the means to do anything about it."

Now, just how do you think Hamas would make Israel disappear if they did have the means?

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Since when has Hamas given a shit about PR?

Or tone down their language to try to get funding? That's news to just about everyone else on the planet but you. After all, you admit that Hamas are proud about the murder of civilians. That's not a good PR stance to have, so why would they get all coy about genocide? One thing about Hamas is they say what they mean, regardless of how unpalatable the outside world finds it or how bad it makes them look. If they really did want to kill all Jews, they'd not be backwards in coming forwards about saying it. The fact is that they don't say it in their Charter because there is no genocidal intentions. Wanting Israel not to exist is not genocidal. Wanting to wipe out an entire people is what's genocidal, and you have yet to show any evidence other than yr overly creative readings of things that Hamas wants to do that...

Unlike you, what I recall is what Bemildred actually said, not something that he never said. What he said was that Hamas would like to see Israel vanish, but they have rather sulkily admitted that they'll settle for Israel withdrawing to the Green Line. If you want to ridicule that, then do it by showing that Hamas have never done the sulky stuff about the Green Line. The fact is that you can't do it because what Bemildred said was true....

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

53. the claim that Hamas wants to kill all Jews

How about this excerpt from the Hamas charter:

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)

[bemildred]

55. Yeah, I read that.

That doesn't say kill all the Jews, that says fight them, and kill them, like in war. It's spose to be a quote from the Koran, which also says Jews are "people of the book", and thus protected. It's about spreading Islam, about conquest. It's not pretty, but it's not about genocide either, unless Jewish conquest of Palestine was genocide too. That's how these things are done. Are all the Palestinians dead? And what the hell does it matter if they lack the means to carry it out?

It also says this:

Article Thirty-One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

That isn't Hitler. It's full of lots of other looney religious stuff too. So what? Nationalist movements all tend to be a bit nuts. They call the Zionists Nazis, would they do that if they mean to emulate the Nazis?

[oberliner]

56. So would it be fair to say that Hamas wants to kill many Jews?

Just not necessarily all of them.

It just seems to me that from the words and actions of Hamas that they hold as one of their objectives the killing of Jews.

[bemildred]

57. As many as it takes to "destroy Israel".

Pragmatically, as I said, they would have to take something less, if nothing else because they would lose support if they were too intransigent. They have risen in power because of Fatah's failure to improve the situation, they would go just as quickly if a few decent-size carrots were offered and they refused to consider them. The problem in the present situation is that the Israeli government will not talk unless they get all their demands before the talks start. Rabin made the point that you don't make peace with your friends, and I think that it is NEVER wrong to talk to anybody, even if you agree on nothing. What do you ever lose by talking things over and making yourself look reasonable? True, you give legitimacy to Hamas, but they already have that, they got elected, so has the current course given them legitimacy too?

How can you make peace if you won't talk?

[msmcghee]

58. You argued against the notion . .

. . that Hamas intended genocide against the Jews. You said, "No, I'm arguing with the idea that they intend genocide against Jews."

You followed that with another statement, "That doesn't say kill all the Jews, that says fight them, and kill them, like in war."

Well, war is like when two armies go into battle.

In this "war" people strap explosives to their bodies and become human bombs detonating themselves in markets, discos, pubs and places where innocent civilians gather. Or, they aim crude rockets at schools and population centers.

That doesn't sound like war to me. That sounds like the purposeful murder of civilians including women and children.

Your insertion of the phrase "kill all the Jews" is a diversion from an argument you are about to lose.

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Hamas most certainly does advocate the genocide of people because they happen to be Jews and in reach of their "martyrs". Their charter spells it out and can only be interpreted in that way - unless you just want to deny the patently obvious.

Israel most certainly does not advocate the killing of people who happen to be Arabs or Muslims.

I find your repeated attempts to establish some moral equivalence between the two, disgusting.

[breakaleg]

59. "Israel most certainly does not advocate the killing of people who happen to be Arabs or Muslims."

And yet they kill far more Palestinians than the other way around. I think the intent is clear.

[msmcghee]

60. Ann Coulter likes to play the numbers game too!

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&i...

In her remarks, Coulter made light of the murder of abortion doctors and clinic personnel.

Noting that seven doctors and clinic personnel had been killed, Coulter said, “Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened....The number of deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade about 40 million aborted babies and seven abortion clinic workers; 40 million to seven is also a pretty good measure of how the political debate is going.”

****************************

Ann also seems to believe that if you've got the numbers you can claim any kind of bullshit you want.

[Shaktimaan]

72. The intent is clear?

I think the intent is clear too, but I think we probably don't agree as to what it is.
Care to elaborate on your thinking? Right now it looks like you are saying that because more Palestinians than Israelis have died in this conflict, seeing as Palestinians are overwhelmingly both Arab and Muslim, it is clear that Israel advocates killing Arabs and Muslims.

Is this correct?

By that same reasoning, do you also think America and England also advocate the killing of Arabs and Muslims, as shown by the great discrepency between American/British civilians killed and Iraqi civilians killed in the present Gulf War? Does Iran advocate the killing of Arabs and Muslims as well based on their past actions in war? (They've killed more Arabs and Muslims than everyone else on this list all added together!)

[breakaleg]

74. Of course it's not correct. Why not just stick to what I said rather than go off on your own?

[Shaktimaan]

76. I thought that is what you said.

If not then please elaborate a little for me. I am trying to understand you point of view.

[bemildred]

62. I quote myself, since nobody seems to want to read it the first time:

"If you conflate people fighting FOR Israel with genocide you will get in a lot of trouble here, the same ought to apply to the other side it seems to me."

I am sure you do find any moral equivalence between the two disgusting, that way you don't have to think about it, but the fact is they are all human beings just like anyone else.

[msmcghee]

64. I agree there is a lack of thinking going on here.

I equate genocide with genocidal statements and genocidal actions.

I don't apply the word genocide to the operations of a military defending its citizens from attack from across its borders. Especially when that military has vastly superior weapons and technology and could easily conduct genocide against their enemy if that was their intention.

That may seem a little complicated for you but work on it.

[bemildred]

65. Your mind seems to be hermetically sealed. It seems more like lack of reading to me.

Please read the quote again. I did not assert that the IDF is committing genocide; I said that if you can't call IDF actions genocidal, you should not be able call Hamas genocidal either. I am asking that the term be not used at all, unless someone actually does something that amounts to genocide, which has not occurred so far. Of course, you can then start to bicker about the meaning of the term, a fertile field of dispute, but it won't get you far, since both sides have indisputably committed many atrocities. But atrocities are not genocide.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

67. "Of course, you can then start to bicker about the meaning of the term, a fertile field of dispute"

Boy, can I call 'em, or what?

[msmcghee]

68. It would be my belief that when terms are used . .

. . that justify unspeakable acts and ultimately result in the death of innocent civilians - it is worth some bickering.

These words can affect the lives of innocent people if they are improperly applied - or if they are not applied where they should be. The whole theory of law is based on such precise word meanings.

Besides, you are the one who started objecting to the use of certain terms when describing the actions of the Pal leadership in this thread. Not me.

You thought some here were being too mean to the Palestinians when they used the term genocide to describe their actions. Remember? Re-read your post #35 to refresh you memory.

When I corrected you with formal definitions and evidence - you now complain that we are "bickering about the meaning of terms" - and patting yourself on the back for having predicted such an outcome.

Amusing.

[bemildred]

69. The thing is, you really can't compel anyone with words.

You can't make them read what you wrote, you can't make them listen, you can't make them agree, and it's all just noise unless communication occurs. I did not "complain now", I complained in advance, and you completely ignored that, as you appear to have ignored almost everything else I have said.

I'm just asking that the term "genocide", if it is to be used, be used in a consistent way, same rules for everybody, otherwise it is just a propaganda term. But apparently that is too much for some, so maybe it is better not to use it at all. But I expect this will be ignored too ...

[msmcghee]

70. Then we both are asking that the term "genocide" . .

. . be applied in a consistent and reasonable way, same rules for everybody. I also agree that when powerful terms are misused the intention and result is often propaganda.

I am asserting that the term genocide applies consistently and reasonably to the actions and statements of the Palestinians (esp. their leadership) over the last several decades.

I am asserting that Israel's defensive operations to protect Israelis from the attacks of the Palestinians is not, by any stretch of the definition, genocide.

I offered formal definitions and evidence to back up my assertions.

You don't like it because that says the Palestinians, not the Israelis, are the bad guys in this conflict. Since most of your posts and threads seem focussed on presenting the Israelis as the bad guys and the Palestinians as their innocent victims I can understand why you object to me correctly describing the Palestinians' intentions and actions as genocide.

I think we've both carried this about as far as necessary to fully establish our positions on this. Let's drop it unless you have some new angle on it that we haven't covered.

[bemildred]

71. I'll speak for myself, if that's OK with you.

That's another of your bad habits, telling other people what they think, I imagine it fits rather comfortably with ignoring what they say, no danger of confronting any information that conflicts with your biases. You want "same rules for everybody", but only Palestinians are to be called "genocidal", and only Israelis are "defending themselves", and so on; there are no guilty on one side, and no innocent on the other. Your bias speaks for itself, do carry on.

[msmcghee]

54. I think you failed to answer my direct question.

"Now, just how do you think Hamas would make Israel disappear if they did have the means?"

Here's a clue. How do Islamic states typically disappear an enemy in this part of the world?

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Here's the answer...

I have no fucking idea. Nor do I have any idea what this question has to do with the discussion...

[msmcghee]

88. I think the first sentence . .

. . of your answer very accurately describes your understanding of this whole topic. Thanks.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. You think wrong, as usual...

Of course, it's an easy out to simply try to write off anyone who disagrees with you as not knowing anything, isn't it?

[msmcghee]

90. Well, you did give me a rather refreshing . .

. . opportunity to agree with you.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. Where did I say I didn't fucking know anything about the conflict?

I didn't. So yr not agreeing with me because I never said it. btw, it's very clumsy to accuse those who do know something about the conflict of knowing nothing merely because they don't agree with yr stance...

[msmcghee]

92. Please don't spit.

VC - I can only play this game with you for a while before I start to feel like I'm really wasting my time. I think I've made my points well enough known on this issue now that anyone who cares to read these posts will know where I stand.

I'm off to other interests for now. But thanks.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. You think accusing other people of things they don't say is a game?

If you think this forum is about yr games, why the hell do you post here? All anyone reading this subthread will have established about where you stand is that when someone answers one of yr questions, they get rewarded with you insulting their knowledge of the conflict and claims that they said something they didn't....

[oblivious]

97. Article Six: ...followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety ...

Article Six: The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

107. Noooooo!!!!

Haven't you gotten the memo yet? Yr supposed to ignore those bits ;)

[Shaktimaan]

43. when did they state that?

In the meantime they have stated many times, in a surly tone it is true, that they are willing to live with Israel as long as Palestinians get full political sovereignty and Israel lives within the 1967 borders.

Along with full right of return for the 4-5 million Palestinians classified as 'refugees' and full control over both al-aqsa and the western wall, right? So... the destruction of Israel. After which they will "consider" peace negotiations.

Or have you heard differently?

By the way, why would you trust Hamas anyway? Have they stood behind any of their so-called "hudnas" to date?

[Violet_Crumble]

77. There's been quite a few times that's been stated...

This is just one I found, but there's plenty more examples of it in the archives in this forum.

'Past statements by assassinated Hamas leader Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi pointed to an acceptance of Israel within its borders before 1967, in return for ending the armed struggle and Hamas' recognition of Israel.

"We haven't the force to liberate all our land," he said in a BBC interview in 2002. "We can't recognise Israel, but we can accept a truce with them and we can live side by side and refer the issue to coming generations."'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4686844.stm

[Shaktimaan]

81. Ah, I see now.

So when you mean "acceptance of Israel" you aren't talking about the kind of truce they have with Egypt or Jordan or even Oslo. See, I thought "acceptance" actually meant the same thing as "recognition," in that both implied that an admission would be made by Hamas that they view Israel as a sovereign state and are no longer committed to its destruction in order to claim all of the land for Palestine. I thought it was like, y'know, a peace treaty acknowleging Israel's right to exist. In other words, Recognition of Israel.

But that's not what he is offering at all is it?

It's like the reporter who wrote this article isn't listening to what Hamas actually says. He quotes it and then says that it means the opposite. This article is really hysterical. Hysterical and sad. Check out this statement... The mere fact of their taking seats in the Palestinian parliament - a body formed under PLO auspices in the context of the Oslo peace process - can be taken as de facto acceptance of Israel.

Soooo, what Hamas says is not really important. Even though they keep saying that they will NEVER recognize Israel we can read into their actions and deduce what they REALLY mean. (Is this US magazine? Am I reading about Britney and Kevin?) And this crazy sentence doesn't even make any sense to begin with, check it out, it seems to basically say, "Hamas will accept Israel in return for Hamas recognizing Israel."

'Past statements by assassinated Hamas leader Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi pointed to an acceptance of Israel within its borders before 1967, in return for ending the armed struggle and Hamas' recognition of Israel.

OK, besides that, the article says that Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi suggests that he'd recognize Israel in exchange for them withdrawing to the 67 borders, right? He deduces this from a quote which plainly states, "We can't recognise Israel," so we know that whatever Abdul means by truce, it does NOT include recognition. So what DOES it mean? Let's see...

1. We aren't strong enough to fight Israel and take their land by force.

2. We won't admit Israel has a right to exist no matter what. We can't do it.

3. We may be able to accept a truce with them. (The conditions of which are not mentioned here. The author thinks it is in return for withdrawing to the 67 borders, however, he is clearly a moron. I suspect it is for withdrawl AND control of Al-Aqsa and the western wall AND full right of return to Israel, and the author just left those out since he clearly has an agenda.)

4. Even if we sign a truce, we can change our minds later. Maybe in 50 years we will be stronger than Israel, in which case we will take back our land by force.

So, THIS is what you mean by living in peace? That's the deal? I had no idea that this is what you considered a great PEACE offer. It looks like the peace offer I just described above doesn't it? Like, the shittiest peace offer ever. Give us everything and we'll decide whether or not to kill you after.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. No, it seems you don't...

You asked for some examples after reading this comment: 'In the meantime they have stated many times, in a surly tone it is true, that they are willing to live with Israel as long as Palestinians get full political sovereignty and Israel lives within the 1967 borders.'

I gave you just one example of that having been stated. Like I said, there's plenty of other examples. Whether you want to pooh-pooh them or not is up to you, but the fact is that they do exist...

[Shaktimaan]

100. OK, so I do get it.

I always took a phrase like "that they are willing to live with Israel" as meaning peace and recognition. You know, something permanent. If, for you, that phrase's meaning is fulfilled by Hamas' sketchy non-commitment to a temporary hudna then it seems Hamas has in fact stated what you claim.

But what's the point of playing semantic games as opposed to using straightforward terms? Hamas can agree to a binding peace treaty or they can agree to an at-will truce or they can merely announce a temporary cease-fire or they can do nothing at all.

In this case they are offering an at-will truce in exchange for Israel meeting an obscene list of demands. Which is a more straightforward way of presenting it, in my opinion.

Oh, by the way, the article you stated didn't say anything about Hamas' requirements for the truce. What do they want from Israel? The reporter seemed to attempt it but he writes as though he had just experienced a severe trauma to the head and I'm not sure we can trust (or even understand) his version of exactly what the real story is. But if you do have a link with Hamas' offer, complete with a simple list of demands and deliverables, I would want to check it out.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. No, you don't...

You asked for examples of where Hamas has expressed a desire that they are willing to live side by side with Israel. You got given one of many. You don't like that they actually have expressed it, and completely ignoring the fact that any of Israel's expressions of a desire to live alongside a Palestinian state also comes with unpalatable baggage, proceed to act as though you asked for proof that Hamas has asked for an unconditional truce...

Instead of shooting the messenger by having what I consider to be a childish go at the writer of the article (btw, their writing style surpasses that of many posts in the I/P forum, including yrs), why don't you accept that Hamas have on quite a few occassions expressed that they will grudgingly live side by side with Israel?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Yes, I did...

Yr question to pelsar was: 'when did they state that?' to this comment: 'In the meantime they have stated many times, in a surly tone it is true, that they are willing to live with Israel as long as Palestinians get full political sovereignty and Israel lives within the 1967 borders.'

You got shown one of quite a few instances where they did state that, but you just don't want to admit it, as per usual...


In any case, I learned that I have to be very very very specific with you now because you seem to care far more about not being "wrong" than you do about having a real discussion. So when you use a term like "side by side" in the future I will be sure to check and make sure exactly what you mean since it could be virtually anything.

Most mature folk in this forum have the ability to grasp the idea that "side by side" means two states living next to each other.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

4. Aww. Meanwhile, he's willing to wait for a Palestinian state to appear.

Why is that?

[PDJane]

5. Israel has its policy wrong.

I understand perfectly what he is saying, and if Israel continues to do the things it is doing, and the US continues to support them, they will commit a kind of national suicide.

And to be honest, Israel existed as Israel for about 240 years, more than 2,000 years ago,and it was taken from the Caananites....it has less right, it seems to me, to the land than the Palestinians do.

[jimmyclyde]

7. Your history is wrong

Please site your sources.

[PDJane]

9. No. I'm quite correct.

Go to any history of Palestine and Israel. The Canaanites were in the area before the Jews ever arrived.

According to Jewish tradition, the 12 tribes entered from Egypt and conquered the land circa 1,000 BC.

Israel split into Israel and Judeah, and both kingdoms fell to conquerors.

You can get a fine thumbnail history at several places, mideast web being one:

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Israel science and tech homepage has a somewhat more biblical analysis which disagrees slightly in timeline but not in basic essentials at:

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp

A somewhat less religious view comes from http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/may02_index.php?l=1
This site has a map of the land of Canaan and an appended history.

There is a long history of this land before the Jews ever got there, and a long history after they were sent the way of most conquerors. This is a fact of life; this happens to most people. However, it's chutzpah to say that the land still belongs to the Jews after 2,000 years of the diaspora.

[Shaktimaan]

12. and the non-diaspora jews?

Hebron has been Jewish for something like 3000 years. There has been continuity between the diaspora's start and modern times. Not to mention that many Israeli Jews are sephardic refugees from Arab nations. In some, like Iraq, the Jewish population existed before the Arabs settled there. So Iraq expelled their Jews but took in refugee Palestinians.

Additionally, the term "Palestinian" is a pretty fluid category. It does not necessarily imply that they are all descended from the native population of Palestine's mandate borders. UNRWA defines a Palestinian as anyone who lived in Palestine for at least 2 years prior to 1948 (and anyone descended from them.) Arafat, for example, was an Egyptian who moved to Palestine in his youth, as did many other Arabs during the early 20th century to take advantage of increased economic opportunities created by the influx of Europeans (Jews.) So it isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.

The fact is there are many groups who have perfectly valid claims to the area and there are very few Israelis who are into the idea that God promised them all of the land there and no other ethnic or religious group has any rights to it. That's a pretty extreme religious Zionist mindset, it is a fringe movement, albeit a highly vocal and visible one.

[PDJane]

13. Hebron may have been predominantly

Jewish, but not totally, and no, it's not clear cut.

HOWEVER, that said, it's still true that the majority of the land, even after the Jews started to arrive, was in the hand of the Palestinians of whatever stripe.

They were a mostly agrarian society, and the olive groves that Israel keeps bulldozing were their livelihood. Forget about everything else for a moment. Think of the aquifier that Israel has occupied (it was not even in the 1967 boundaries), and understand that it is a finite resource.

If the Jews would allow the Palestinians to live in their land, remove the settlements and the Jews-only roads, and admit that others have as much right to the area, if not more......things would get easier. Much easier. Suicide bombings didn't start until after the second intifada, and I have to say that under the circumstances of their lives, the Palestinians have a point.

[Shaktimaan]

20. OK, so the majority of mandate land was Arab.

So Arabs received most of the mandate land. Between 70 and 80% if I remember correctly. It was specifically sectioned off and restricted from Jewish emigration although Palestine remained open to Arab immigration. (Obviously, as we've discussed.) It is now called Jordan. Jordan occupied the west bank and east Jerusalem after 49 and expelled the Jewish population, destroyed temples, cemetaries (some hundreds of years old) and used the materials as paving stones. So, when Jordan expelled or killed the inhabitants of those areas, they automatically became Palestinan? Explain how that works for me.

Regardless, the Zionists were not adverse to a one state, shared solution. After the Arab instigated violence they were happy to settle for a much smaller portion under the Peel plan which was rejected by the Arabs, as was the UN partition plan, also accepted by the Jews. After the 49 war Israel attempted negotiation for peace, again rejected. After 67 they offered to hand over all of the gained territory for peace, rejected. Getting the picture?

Here's the thing I think people do not like to face, or maybe do not agree with. The occupation in no way caused the conflict. It is not the reason for Palestinian terrorism which existed long beforehand. The occupation gave the Palestinian side justification in the eyes of many and is often used as a device through which the entire conflict is framed. Yet every aspect of the occupation that you cite as an impetus is a clear reaction to Palestinian aggression. The Israeli (not Jewish) only roads, for example, were only established to eliminate constant attacks on Israeli vehicles. Had the Palestinians not been shooting at passing cars there would have been no need for seperate roads.

You refer to all of the west bank, and I guess east jerusalem, here as Palestinian land. OK, why is it strictly Palestinian? They weren't thrown off any of this land, it was state land or previously held Jewish land 98% of the time. The western wall, towards which Jews have faced to pray for 2000 years is Palestinian... why? Because Jordan occupied it for 20 years, defying the armistice agreement by refusing access to non-Muslims? It is Palestinian even though the PLO's charter specifically states that they make no claims to the West Bank or Gaza? (I guess they meant, "as long as it's under muslim control.") The land that's disputed is supposed to be negotiated as outlined under Oslo, no one ever said it was all Palestinian land. Israel's border's are subject to future negotiation, at ARAB insistence, since 1949. And Jerusalem was never supposed to be part of Palestine, it wasn't even predominantly Arab!

As far as I can see, the Palestinians ARE living on their land. 99% of Palestinians live on land that is completely under the control of the PA. And the PA is doing a super shitty job, it is true. But it seems that you think that Israel is supposed to comply with all of Hamas' demands, drop any claims to areas inhabited by Jews for thousands of years, return to poorly defendable borders and hand over the most holy sites in the Jewish religion to be destroyed, (the few that came under PA control due to Oslo were razed, despite assurances to the contrary. Joseph's Tomb in Nablus was smashed and now they're planning to build a mosque over it.) And unless they do this, it is perfectly justifiable, in your opinion, for Arab militants to target Israeli civilians for terrorist attacks? And why would this help exactly? Has anyone said it would, like Hamas or the PA? Or have they specifically said the opposite, that there won't be peace even if Israel returns to the 67 borders? And have they kept ANY of the promises that they have made to this point? Did leaving Gaza create more peace or more violence? How about leaving Lebanon?

And I have no idea what you're talking about with the Aquifer. Which Aquifer anyway? There's a few. All of which are administrated according to the Oslo Accords, (from Israel's standpoint anyway. The PA hasn't followed through on any of their responsibilities as to water. Wonder what happened to that money?) and ALL of which fall within the 67 borders. Israel actually pumps water INTO Palestine as per their agreement, and is talking about a joint project with America to build desalination plants to service the WB and Gaza, (currently on hold because GUESS WHY.) So, what are you talking about?

[jimmyclyde]

14. The Jews came into the land of Canaan

around 1500BC. They stayed in the land up until the present day, a period of 3500 years, not the 240 years that you said in your post. You were quite wrong in that statement. The links you gave me as your sources only confirm that.

I hope that you are not trying to make a connection with the Palestinians with the Canaanites, because there is none.
As I said the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Palestinians to demand that they get a state with Jerusalem as it's capital, while calling for the destruction of Israel everyday and calling Jews pigs and monkeys on Palestinian radio.

Israel has been attacked by her arab neighbors at least 5 times. In each and every time they won the war and gained more land. Yet the world never has recognized the war time gains of Israel. Why? The Arabs whine and complain after they start fights they can't finish. Had the Arabs won the Yom Kipper war in 73 and had overrun Israel, the world would have turned her back on the Jew as they did in WWII.

That, my friend, is the problem.

[PDJane]

18. The world hasn't recognized those gains

Because under current international law, using war and occupation to increase your territory is illegal. Go back to the Geneva conventions. Frankly, even before that, the practice was losing ground.

The vast majority of the population in Israel was not Jewish. They were Muslims and coptic Christians. Jews have lived in every state in the middle east, yes. There is a fairly large number even in Iran. However, the state of Israel was not and has not been an entity for more than 2,000 years, and they lasted only about 240 years as a state. That is a fact. Israel was conquered and they conquered other peoples, and they did not move into Palestine in any numbers until the Balfour Declaration made it clear that Britain would cede part of the territory of Palestine to them.

The Jewish state of Israel was won by acts of terrorism by the Israelis. The plan was for Israel and Jew to live together; the Zionists wanted a state. They got it by acts of terrorism against the palestinians, against the British, and against their own people in the middle east; the idea was to blame the Arabs for the destruction and get the Jewish peoples to move into the state of Israel.

Yes, Israel has been attacked. Israel has also attacked her Arab neighbours several times, most recently last summer. Lebanon was not a threat, particularly. The missing soldier was in Lebanon when he was captured, not kidnapped. She tends to go for civilian infrastructure and targets too; they're easier. Settlers spit on and harass Palestinians in the land that they are in the process of stealing, and those stolen lands are not the result of war. They are the result of an occupation, in the same way that the quagmire in Iraq is a result of an occupation. Occupations take an exorbitant amount of money to prosecute. I would also point out that those settlements are subsidized by the government of Israel to "change the facts on the ground." It is theft, blatant and outright theft, and a great deal of it has to do with the aquifiers.

The biggest propaganda success in the entire world has been the difference between what the governments of the US and Israel are really doing, and what the population of the US and most of the western world think they are doing.

[oberliner]

19. The missing soldier was in Lebanon when he was captured, not kidnapped?

That is false.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Oh, now I get it.

the idea was to blame the Arabs for the destruction and get the Jewish peoples to move into the state of Israel.

You have been reading subway pamphlets. OK, no seriously. Let's talk about the single, above statement. What specifically are you referring to? Are you insinuating that Jewish settlers instigated the violence in mandate Palestine against Arabs? Or am I misunderstanding?

[jimmyclyde]

27. Not one Arab country follows Geneva when it comes to Israel.

Using war to increase your territory is exactly what the Arabs nations tried to do when they attacked Israel. It backfired and now they complain about occupation. Please.

The Jewish state of Israel was won by acts of terrorism by the Israelis. The plan was for Israel and Jew to live together; the Zionists wanted a state. They got it by acts of terrorism against the palestinians, against the British, and against their own people in the middle east; the idea was to blame the Arabs for the destruction and get the Jewish peoples to move into the state of Israel.

Your historical revision when it comes to Israel is blatant.

I know that the Stern group and Irgun where active from 1920 to 1948. Both Stern and Irgun operated outside of the Jewish Agency, and in fact were hunted down by the Jewish Government. They were not, as Hamas is, running the government.

Both Stern and Irgun never called for the destruction of all Arabs on Jewish land. In fact most of the attacks perpetrated on the Arabs were reprisal attacks. It is well documented that the Arab fayhedden, murdered Jews and razed Jewish villages in an attempt to drive them off their land. To terrorize them, to turn a phase.

As for the British, they cast their lot in with the Arabs who they looked on as little children. They Jews were different to them. To uppity. It is well documented that the British government did everything in their power to stop Jews from coming in the land of Israel.

They armed the Arabs and sent them out to attack the Jews. Both Stern and Irgun felt that armed resistance to both Britain and the Arabs was the only way to stop the terror attacks by both Britain and the Arabs.

To compare Hamas, who, deliberately attacks and kills civilians, and who, continues to call for the eradication of every Jewish man, woman and child from the middle east, who blows up buses and pizza shops, who shots pregnant women on their way to synagogue, to the Stern Gang and Irgun, is intellectually dishonest.

Both the Stern gang and Irgun were not part of the Israeli government that took shape in 1948. The Irgun leaders did join the government some years later after, and here's the key, they renounced terrorism. Something that Hamas will never do.

The biggest propaganda success in the entire world has been the difference between what the governments of the US and Israel are really doing, and what the population of the US and most of the western world think they are doing.

My friend your tin foil hat needs adjusting.

[PDJane]

37. No.

As for the "Arabs" not respecting Israel, that's not quite the truth either. Israel could live in relative peace, the mini-superpower in the middle east. They don't want to. Their overreaction on everything that might have to do with safety is no longer understandable, except as the result of a guilty conscience!

The Irgun renounced terrorism, and then proceeded to annex territory instead, bulldozing olive groves and separating farmers from their fields by Jewish only roads. That's where the "facts on the ground" quote came from, folks. Direct from Israel Sharon.

That is why the settlements (illegal under international law) are being subsidized. To change the facts on the ground. It's a kind of terrorism in itself, and has become a state tactic. The only country with more UN resolutions against it than Iraq is Israel, and they do have nukes....which is, of course, why their neighbours would like to have a few too.

The wall around Israel is twice as long as its borders.......the wall to prevent terrorism. Of course, it just happens to appropriate more of the aquifier too. Get it straight. The settlements are not on territory belonging to Israel, they are not on land that has been purchased, they are not on land that has been won in any sense, they are not on land that just happens to be vacant. They are on appropriated land, and Israelis have no right to the land. They haven't been there for 2,000 years, and their security doesn't demand that they shove off every Palestinian. It's just a land grab, and its vile and stupid.....and self destructive, because it's drowning out all the moderate voices.

If you want to know anything about what Israel does, go to Machsom watch.

http://www.machsomwatch.org/eng/summariesEng.asp?link=summariesEng&lang=eng

Historical maps are at:

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/0_pal_facts_MAPS.htm

The area enclosed by the wall, with shaded areas showing the land being appropriated:



Military checkpoints in the Gaza strip:



roadblock areas around Jerusalem:



A report on the depletion of water resources is at:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/296ee705038ac9fc852561170067e05f!OpenDocument

And a map of same:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/2038e590b06d602285256e2800735c01!OpenDocument

A capsule history of the incredible shrinking Palestine, with maps:

http://www.naiadonline.ca/book/palhist.html

I have not revised the history, it's just that no one wants to really look at the history; it might change minds and hearts.

How much brutality can we accept? How much of what Israel does is justified under the self-defense meme? Suicide bombings are the tactic of a poor, powerless and hopeless people. The gaza strip is starving, and has to pay five times as much for water as Israel. It's outrageous, and it's almost hopeless as long as the US supports Israel.

[Phx_Dem]

39. Question about settlements

Do you think that a Jew should be able live in the future state of Palestine? Or does it need to be Jew free? Just curious.

[PDJane]

41. Now that depends on the level

of mutual respect and whether or not he actually has a deed to the land, now doesn't it? As for citizenship........well, when Israel extends equal citizenship, we'll talk.

[Phx_Dem]

42. The PA holds all the deeds

All I'm asking is in your view whether or not Jews should be able to seek citizenship in the future Palestine. For the sake of argument let's assume that a deed was obtained.

There are currently over 1 million arab citizens of Israel, do you think that the Palestinian government will extend citizenship to the current settlers?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I think this deserves the same answer you gave me in another thead...

You remember that thread where you argued that Israel was entitled to make whatever citizenship laws it liked, regardless of how discriminatory they were?

[Phx_Dem]

63. I recall the discussion

and I don't consider Israel's immigration policies discriminatory, but they are I suppose fairly unique.

The question I asked, was whether the future state of Palestine will accept the remaining settlers* like Israel did with the arabs who stayed after the '48 war.


*working off the assumption that the Clinton ideas would bring 75-80% of the current settlers into Israel proper, leaving 100-125K or so in Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. Of course Israel's policies are discriminatory...

To answer yr question, I'm not sure why you'd think anyone here would be able to say with certainty what any future Palestinian govt would do, but I think any future govt that would accept folk like the Hebron settlers or anyone who'd demand a govt should accept them would have rocks in their heads...

[breakaleg]

75. There's a difference between the Arabs in Israel after 48 and the settlers in

the occupied territories now. In 48 they were legally residents and land owners. The settlers are their illegally and have no claim to be a part of Palestine.

That said, it would be up to Palestine to decide who they give citizenship to.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Many of the pre-48 inhabitants of the West Bank and East Jerusalem

were Jewish. They were legal residents and land owners who were subsequently thrown off their land and out of the territory when Jordan occupied it.
Why is someone who moved back to their previous area an illegal occupant? Take Hebron for example. Jews lived in Hebron for 3000 years, only leaving after being forced out in the 20's. You say that they have no claim to any part of Hebron now. Why and when do you think they lost that claim?

Let's say Israel lost land in the Yom Kippur War instead of gaining it. Let's imagine that they lost the areas of the Galilee that used to be occupied by Palestinians to Jordan and Jordan decided to let any Palestinians who wanted to live there permission to do just that. Would you then say that those Palestinians were illegally occupying Israel?

[breakaleg]

84. Hebron

Unless the Jews that live there today are the children of the ones thrown out in the 20s and they have deeds to that land, then no. They have no right to steal land properly owned by another.

[Shaktimaan]

113. That's a unique view, I'll give you that much.

Do you think they would need the actual deed itself? Or would other means of proof, such as Ottoman government records and the like, be sufficient? What if a Jewish family who fled in 1929 wanted to go back to Hebron but they had just been renting and did not own any land there? Should they be allowed back anyway?

OK, last one... what if a Jewish landowner who fled and subsequently died in Israel left the titles to all his land to his friend. Can he go back? What if the Jordanian government had sold the land at some point to a family who has been living there ever since? Who would you consider to be the legitimate owner of the land now?

[breakaleg]

116. Are you claiming that the current fanatic settlers in Hebron fall into the categories you list?

If not, then it's irrelevant.

[Shaktimaan]

117. Of course.

Not all, but some. And not just in Hebron but all over the West Bank wherever there used to be Jewish settlements. Especially East Jerusalem as Jordan took over the Jewish quarter and expelled the residents. Many of those homes were sold to Palestinians who now live there, but the original owners never received compensation for them.

I'm also curious as to your take on whether the Jewish quarter, traditionally a Jewish area, should be part of Palestine? It is in East Jerusalem, after all.

[breakaleg]

118. My feeling is

that anyone who physically lived in an area has a right to stay there. Now, that means they have to live under whatever current government rules that area as well. So, just like there are many Arabs living in Israel, the Jews who would like to return to their rightful homes that happen to be in what will become Palestine, would live as Palestinians or whatever they will be called.

They don't get the right to claim the land, build a fence around it, build roads going to and from it and have their own little army protecting them. That's crap. My feeling is, if you own a house, then you own in on the land it's on, it the town and country where it site. You don't get to redefine borders of a country to include your little patch of land.

As for East Jerusalem, I would have to research it. East Jerusalem should be part of a Palestinian state as far as I'm concerned.

[Shaktimaan]

119. Okay. But how are you deciding which country the land should belong to?

This is really what I am talking about when I challenge the "illegality" of Jewish settlement.

Both Arabs and Jews have legitimate claims to the land as both have long histories of living in Palestine. Some areas or cities were overwhelmingly Jewish. Most areas had a majority of Arabs. In the lead up to the war of '48 both demographies changed as immigrants, both Arab and Jewish, flooded the area. So while both ethnicities have lived in Palestine for thousands of years, not every Arab or every Jew there now is descended from them. So you end up with tough situations. Imagine an Arab whose family immigrated to Palestine in 1935 purchased a plot of land in what was originally the Jewish section of Hebron. The Jewish family that was forced out of that plot in 1929 though had been living there for 1000 years. Which nation, Palestine or Israel, has greater claim to that parcel of land?

There is no right or easy answer. Jews have as much right to settle the land as Palestinians. Remember, this land belongs to no nation yet. No one is redefining the borders of a country. No one has ever told the Palestinians that they own this land. The fence, and the army are ONLY there to keep the Palestinians from killing the settlers. If there was no terrorism there would be no need for the wall or for armed occupation. Israel has likewise not claimed the land as its own, except for East Jerusalem which is really a special case.

Until it is solved through negotiations though, people are allowed to buy and sell land and settle it at will. Jordan had no problems doing it when they were in charge, it is no different now. It does not give Israel greater legal claim to the land than anyone else. Nor do Palestinians have an innately greater right to the land over Jews either.

Why do you think Jerusalem, a city that was both overwhelmingly Jewish and is also the most sacred city to that religion, should automatically be considered Palestinian land? Why should the old city leave the hands of Israel, the first nation to allow all faiths to worship there freely, in order to be given to the Palestinians, who have a habit of restricting non-Muslims from practicing their faiths and destroying non-Muslim religious sites?

[breakaleg]

120. International law. nt

[Shaktimaan]

121. What law/rulings are you referring to?

specifically?

[Violet_Crumble]

123. There's only around 500 settlers in Hebron...

So it'll be really easy for you to point out which ones of those aren't violent religious extremists...

[Phx_Dem]

79. I was looking for opinions

IMO the future Palestine would benefit by allowing the remaining settlers to become citizens. Perhaps the PA can even make a buck or two from the sales of deeds.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Well, you got mine. But I've got a question...

What benefit to the future Palestinian state would there be in giving citizenship to the Hebron settlers?

Also, you do realise that Israel hasn't given citizenship to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem? So why would people think that Israeli settlers must be given citizenship in a future Palestinian state when Israel hasn't done the same with an area it's annexed? Shouldn't people be trying to get Israel to give those Palestinians Israeli citizenship before worrying about future scenarios involving a state that's no closer to existing than it was when this conflict started?

[Shaktimaan]

82. You sure about that?

Also, you do realise that Israel hasn't given citizenship to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem?

They didn't force it on them if that's what you mean. But it is offered to any who want it. Are you saying that Israel was wrong to not force the Palestinians in E.J. to become Israeli?

[Violet_Crumble]

86. I'm positive about that...

And it is NOT offered to anyone who wants it if they're not Jewish. Any Palestinian who was living in East Jerusalem when it was annexed must revoke any other citizenship and also be able to speak Hebrew.

When Israel annexed East Jerusalem all those living there should have been granted automatic citizenship, regardless of whether they were Jewish or Arab.

Interesting that you see what should have been an automatic thing as *forced*, yet you don't say a word about the posts I was replying to, which is pretty much calling for the same thing, but for Israeli settlers in the West Bank...

[Shaktimaan]

94. positively wrong?

And it is NOT offered to anyone who wants it if they're not Jewish. Any Palestinian who was living in East Jerusalem when it was annexed must revoke any other citizenship and also be able to speak Hebrew.

No, it is offered to any who want it. Yes, they have to agree to exclusively hold Israeli citizenship and none other and they need to know a little Hebrew. In other words they have to want to be Israeli. Ergo, everyone who wants it, GETS IT. No one said that they don't have to do anything to get it, just that the option is open to them.

If they do not want to be Israeli they are still allowed to live there, they can vote in municipal elections, access the healthcare and social security systems and receive an education which provides for both Hebrew and Arabic speakers. So it isn't as though they have to leave or anything, the decision is up to them.

You think that Israel should automatically grant citizenship to everyone, regardless of whether or not they want it? Regardless of whether or not they are opposed to Israel's existence? I'm sorry, WHAT COUNTRY ON THE PLANET DOES THAT!?

I am surprised that even you would consider it wrong for a state to ask that new citizens, especially ones of a nationality that the state is at war with, to take a loyalty oath and renounce the citizenship of the enemy nation. Considering that very few East Jerusalemites took Israel up on her offer it seems that had they granted automatic citizenship to everyone they would have ended up with thousands of new citizens who were belligerently opposed to their new nations existence. Besides, considering that there will be a Palestinian state eventually and that some of these people may want to be a part of that instead of Israel doesn't it make some sense to allow them to decide their own destiny?

[breakaleg]

95. Do all citizens of Israel have to revoke their other passports? I think not.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. No, not everyone who wants it, GETS IT...

There's a few threads in the archives here that prove you wrong on that. I'll try to find time later today to go back and find them for you...

If they do not want to be Israeli they are still allowed to live there, they can vote in municipal elections, access the healthcare and social security systems and receive an education which provides for both Hebrew and Arabic speakers. So it isn't as though they have to leave or anything, the decision is up to them.

You think that Israel should automatically grant citizenship to everyone, regardless of whether or not they want it? Regardless of whether or not they are opposed to Israel's existence? I'm sorry, WHAT COUNTRY ON THE PLANET DOES THAT!?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Israel invaded and annexed East Jerusalem and that the Palestinians living there were suddenly being treated as foreigners even though they'd lived there all their lives. If you can find me another country that has done the same thing as Israel has done, then I'll be just as opposed to what that country's doing...

From BT'selem:

'Palestinians hold the status of "permanent resident" of the State of Israel. This is the same status granted to foreign citizens who have freely chosen to come to Israel and want to live there. Israel treats Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem as immigrants, who live in their homes at the beneficence of the authorities and not by right. The authorities maintain this policy although these Palestinians were born in Jerusalem, lived in the city, and have no other home. Treating these Palestinians as foreigners who entered Israel is astonishing, since it was Israel that entered East Jerusalem in 1967.'

And here's what the difference between permanent residency and citizenship is: 'Permanent residency differs substantially from citizenship. The primary right granted to permanent residents is to live and work in Israel without the necessity of special permits. Permanent residents are also entitled to social benefits provided by the National Insurance Institute and to health insurance. Permanent residents have the right to vote in local elections, but not in elections to Knesset . Unlike citizenship, permanent residency is only passed on to the holder's children where the holder meets certain conditions. A permanent resident with a non-resident spouse must submit, on behalf of the spouse, a request for family unification. Only citizens are granted the right to return to Israel at any time.'

http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/Legal_Status.asp

Here's more:

'After annexing East Jerusalem in 1967, Israel offered citizenship to any Palestinians there who requested it. One of the conditions was that they take an oath of allegiance to the state. Most refused. Israel then issued them Jerusalem identity cards. The meaning of this card remained without clear definition until 1988. In a High Court decision concerning nonviolent activist Mubarak 'Awad, Aharon Barak (now Chief Justice) wrote that the status of East Jerusalem's Palestinian residents would be determined pursuant to the law concerning Entry Into Israel. To ordinary observers it might have appeared that Israel had entered them and not vice-versa, but as the gentlemen of Japan said, "You just don't understand these things." Under this Entry Into Israel Law, which had been intended for new immigrants, Jerusalem's Palestinians are considered permanent residents. They have the right therefore to live and work in Israel without special permits. (This right has taken on major importance since Israel's imposition of closure in 1993.) They are entitled to social benefits provided by the National Insurance Institute (NII). They may vote in local elections, but not for the Knesset. Unlike citizens, they do not have a guaranteed right to leave Israel and return. The Minister of the Interior may revoke their Jerusalem ID's at his or her discretion. The Entry law also provides that the status of permanent resident expires automatically if a person receives a similar status in a foreign country, or becomes a citizen there, or lives there for more than seven years continuously.

Until very recently these provisions were not strictly enforced. The government wanted to encourage Palestinians to leave Jerusalem – it did not want them staying on out of fear of losing their rights. The apparent liberality of former years now turns out to have been a trap. The many thousands of people who moved outside the municipal boundaries – whether to find homes or work or simply to stay together in their marriage (when one spouse was not allowed to live in Jerusalem) – now discover that their status is in jeopardy. In the last eighteen months the Interior Ministry has changed its policy and applied its new rules retroactively. There are three major changes:

1. The Ministry no longer adheres to the seven-year rule. If you cannot prove you live in the city and that your center of life is presently there, the Ministry may revoke your status without right of appeal.
2. In the past, if you lived in the West Bank or in Gaza, this was not considered residence in a foreign country. Now it is.
3. The burden of proof is on you to show that Jerusalem is and has been the center of your life. You must present your leases, bills, school certificates, and many other documents. Furthermore, in order to receive a government service of any sort – get a license, for example, or register a newborn child – the Palestinian Jerusalemite must undergo, each time, an examination of residency. If the officials decide to revoke the status, they need not explain why, and the person, together with his or her family, has fifteen days in which to pick up and leave. The family no longer belongs anywhere. Israel considers them Jordanians, but Jordanian officials, till now, have avoided taking a position on the matter. The East Jerusalemites, in short, got the status of resident foreigners in the land of their birth, and now even that is being cut out from under them. The Challenge staff has here summarized material from The Quiet Deportation: Revocation of Residency of East Jerusalem Palestinians, a joint publication of B'tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories and Hamoked – Center for the Defense of the Individual, Jerusalem, April 1997. Additional information comes from Attorney Eliahu Avraham, Jerusalem.

http://www.challenge-mag.com/47/camp.html

What surprises me is that you not once mention the fact that Israel invaded and annexed East Jerusalem, and that you view people who had lived there all their lives as being a nationality (Palestinians aren't strictly a nationality as no state exists) that Israel is at war at and manage to put the blame on them for not supporting Israel's invasion and annexation of East Jerusalem??


Now maybe you can answer a question I've got about Israeli citizenship. Is there a requirement that Jews emigrating to Israel have a knowledge of Hebrew or that they must have their citizenship in other countries revoked?

[Shaktimaan]

102. Oooookay.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Israel invaded and annexed East Jerusalem and that the Palestinians living there were suddenly being treated as foreigners even though they'd lived there all their lives.

I didn't overlook it. Israel had a few options after annexing E.J. It could have done what you suggest. It could have done what Jordan did, either murder or throw everyone the fuck out and keep all their stuff. Or it could have done what it did end up doing, which is a compromise position.

You seem possibly confused on the Permanent Resident thing. Palestinians can choose between living in Jerusalem as Permanent Residents and becoming full-fledged citizens. What's wrong with that? It seems like the absolutely best option for everybody. Considering that they had just lost a war and also the way they treated their enemies when the situation was reversed they got pretty much the best deal anyone could ask for. A choice.

By the way, the people in question were Jordanian at the time of annexation. And Jordan attacked Israel. So they were all citizens of a belligerent enemy state. Would you grant automatic citizenship to thousands of people who also held citizenships to a nation that you had been at war with for decades? Maybe you would. Anyway, no one is blaming them for anything. The question of Jerusalem's nationality does not revolve around the whims of the Palestinians who happen to live there. Jerusalem is now part of Israel. So they can leave, stay as non-citizens or become citizens. You would rather force them to become citizens and stay. Like what the Soviet Union did. You are actually criticising Israel for not imposing citizenship on them?

No, Jews don't have the same requirements put on them to become citizens. If Jordanians wanted to join then they had to meet a slightly higher level of criteria. This is not a big deal, most countries do this. In America, Cubans qualify for asylum and get automatic citizenship while people from Cambodia have to meet more stringent requirements. So, this is your big problem? Really? (Actually, after re-reading your original post on this, I think you just didn't know that Israel offered the East Jerusalemites citizenship and are now too embarrassed to admit it.)

By the way, does your country let non-citizen residents vote? Mine doesn't.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. So many excuses for such a horribly discriminatory practice, I see...

Did you not bother reading the information I gave you from BT'selem? You seem to think that it's totally acceptable for a country to invade and annexe an area and then bestow permanent residency on people who've lived there all their lives, making them foreigners in the only place they know.

I see you have no problems with Israel imposing permanent residency on people but think it would have been totally wrong if it was citizenship instead of permanent residency. If yr opposed to something being imposed on people, then you'd be opposed to both...

Ah, so it's a whole different story when it comes to Jews migrating to Israel. And it doesn't strike you as wrong that people who have never lived in Israel can get citizenship at the drop of a hat without any added requirements, while the requirements added to citizenship for people who had lived in Jerusalem all their lives are deliberately done so that those people can't get citizenship?

btw, will you be needing links to prove yr claim that Israel never refuses citizenship to Palestinians in Jerusalem false? I noticed you avoided that :)

My country doesn't allow non-citizen residents to vote, but then again my country hasn't invaded and annexed any territory and then imposed permanent resident status rather than citizenship on the people who'd been living there all their lives. Israel has...

[Shaktimaan]

98. What would be wrong with offering the settlers in Hebron the same deal as Palestinians in E.J.?

They can get full Palestinian citizenship if they renounce their Israeli citizenship and swear allegience to Palestine. Or if they prefer, they can retain their Israeli citizenship and receive the status of Legal Resident, where they aren't full citizens but are allowed to reside in Hebron and have certain rights like voting in municipal elections, healthcare, social security, free education in Hebrew and Arabic, etc.

The only issue with this thing is that in the past, Jordan or the Palestinians threw out any Jews living within their borders. No policy was needed because no diversity of nationalities existed. I don't really care what nation's jurisdiction Hebron falls under, I just disagree with any solution that advocates the destruction of some of Judaism's oldest cultural/religious landmarks or outlaws Jewish residency in a place that is so important.

Realistically, this argument is totally academic and I realize that. Hebron may be lost to the new state of Palestine in future negotiations, it may not. If it is though, no agreements will matter. The settlers there have been cultivating a hatred rarely seen elsewhere and the level of animosity that now exists on both sides will guarantee that any Jews who value living over praying will hightail it back to the other side of the border. Looking at the past ramifications for Jews and our religious sites that fell under Jordanian/Palestinian jurisdiction though, it seems likely that the fate of Hebron will be the fate of any Jewish or mixed town that is unfortunate enough to land outside of Israel's borders, regardless of whether the inhabitants were as ugly as Hebron's or not.

But, that may eventually change in time. Who knows. We have to negotiate under the assumption that any promises made will be upheld in order to reach a fair agreement. If/when they end up being broken we can figure out what comes next. There are very few things that would be too valuable to risk losing in the quest for peace. The one or two things that are, though, should rationally be excluded from this policy. My 2¢.

[breakaleg]

99. When you say

"Jews who value living over praying will hightail it back to the other side of the border", you make it sound as if Jews aren't safe amongst Palestinians in general. In the Hebron case, they are a pretty nasty bunch and they make a clear case for a group who brought any troubles they could have in this regard, on themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Obvious answer. Because the settlers are violent extremists...

Seeing as how yr equating them with Palestinians in East Jerusalem, it seems a good time to point out that unlike East Jerusalemites, the settlers in Hebron are violent and fanatical.

[Shaktimaan]

109. Hmm. Good point.

You're right about that. Anyone zealous enough to want to stay in Hebron even after it becomes part of Palestine would be a perfect specimen of the worst of the worst of the most wretched settlers. And since everyone knows exactly who they are in Hebron they would never get granted residency or citizenship of Palestine. (Well, they shouldn't at least.)

Here's the problem though. If they're all forced to leave Hebron and most of the other settlements also, then they are going to have to move, en masse, back to either Israel or New York. Which means that I might have to deal with them. Which is clearly unacceptable. Luckily I have a third solution that should make everyone happy.

We gather all the kipot shrugot up and put them on a cargo plane. Then we ship every last one of them over to Australia where we release them back into the wild. Eventually, they will either learn to happily live in the outback in wild herds or they will slowly drift into some of the Australian cities. Either way, the Palestinians are happy, I am happy, problem solved!

Henry Kissenger, eat your heart out.

[Violet_Crumble]

110. I think you've missed the point...

You're right about that. Anyone zealous enough to want to stay in Hebron even after it becomes part of Palestine would be a perfect specimen of the worst of the worst of the most wretched settlers.

The reason why no-one should demand that the Hebron settlers be offered citizenship in any future Palestinian state has nothing to do with whether any would want to stay on, but because of their violent behaviour that has been going on for a long time...

Here's the problem though. If they're all forced to leave Hebron and most of the other settlements also, then they are going to have to move, en masse, back to either Israel or New York. Which means that I might have to deal with them. Which is clearly unacceptable. Luckily I have a third solution that should make everyone happy.

We gather all the kipot shrugot up and put them on a cargo plane. Then we ship every last one of them over to Australia where we release them back into the wild. Eventually, they will either learn to happily live in the outback in wild herds or they will slowly drift into some of the Australian cities. Either way, the Palestinians are happy, I am happy, problem solved!

We don't take other countries human effluent and our days of being a dumping ground for humans is long in the past. I'm assuming most of the Hebron settlers are Israeli citizens, which means they are Israels problem. Any that have only US citizenship should be shipped back to the US. It's up to the countries they come from to deal with them, not the Palestinians nor any third country...

[Shaktimaan]

112. very interesting. I have 3 questions.

The reason why no-one should demand that the Hebron settlers be offered citizenship in any future Palestinian state has nothing to do with whether any would want to stay on, but because of their violent behaviour that has been going on for a long time...

So you think the Jewish settlers of Hebron should be denied the opportunity to stay there if Palestine takes control of it, and should not be given the opportunity to apply for Palestinian citizenship or given non-citizen residency rights, based on the violent behaviour most exhibit, right?

But you also believe that the Arab residents of Jerusalem should have been given automatic citizenship to Israel as soon as Israel annexed East Jerusalem. And that the current system which asks any E.J. Palestinians seeking citizenship to meet some requirements first, (otherwise giving them permanent resident status instead,) is discriminatory and immoral, correct?

Considering that Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem are in no way LESS violently inclined than Jewish settlers in Hebron why are you drawing a distinction between how the two groups should be treated?

While many settlers in Hebron are violent fanatics, some of them are not. Would you consider a Palestinian law barring all of Hebron's Jewish settlers from obtaining Palestinian citizenship to be an unethical form of "collective punishment?"

Do you think Israel should have given automatic citizenship to all Palestinian residents of E. Jerusalem even if it meant disregarding the wishes of some of them who did not want to become Israeli citizens?

Oh, I figured they were probably rhetorical, but if they weren't I can go back and answer your questions for you.

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Hold on a minute....

Considering that Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem are in no way LESS violently inclined than Jewish settlers in Hebron why are you drawing a distinction between how the two groups should be treated?

Since when have the Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem been violent religious fanatics??

[Shaktimaan]

115. I never said they were religious fanatics.

But they have ALWAYS been violent. Did you think that East Jerusalem was a safe place?

[Violet_Crumble]

122. Nothing like a bit of negative generalisation about Palestinians, eh?

There's over 400,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem. You claiming they're violent is just the same sort of generalising that's done by those who claim Palestinians are terrorists based on the actions of a few. If you were trying to make a point because you think me pointing out that the Hebron settlers (who number less than 5 or 600) are violent religious extremists is wrong, then think again. You aren't going to find Israeli settlers in Hebron who aren't there because of their bizarre and twisted religious beliefs....

[Shaktimaan]

124. But are they all violent?

No. Many are extremely religious, which is why they are there, but are not violent extremists. And that's Hebron, which attracts the worst. What about the rest of the settlements? All full of violent extremists? No.

Most of the settlers in Hebron actually live just outside of Hebron in Kiryat Arba. There's a lot of them. A few thousand I think. They may all be fanatics, but they are certainly not all violent.

And as far as the Palestinians go, I am talking about the actions of thousands of people, not just a few. How many protesters were there when Sharon went to al aqsa in 2000? And how many of them were slinging rocks and iron at security, the press and anyone else? What about the canadian tour bus that was just attacked? What do you think would probably happen if an Israeli couple went for a stroll through east jerusalem for a few hours?

I am not even talking about terrorism, THOSE people are worse than the average settler. Very few settlers go on killing rampages. I am talking about your average Palestinian stone thrower. Just like the people in Hebron. Actually, not like them at all. Settlers throw stones. Palestinians often shoot them from slingshots along with ball bearings, marbles and anything else. You think stone throwing is only something that a few people in East Jerusalem do? Or that they haven't killed anyone by doing it?

[bemildred]

125. "Very few settlers go on killing rampages."

Great line. :thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

126. I've been waiting for you to tell me which of them aren't violent...

And you aren't able to do so. Yet in the same breath you make the false claim that over 400,000 Palestinians are violent. I hope you realise how disgusting yr post was in trying to equate East Jerusalemites with the violent religious wackos of Hebron, and that despite yr claims that you condemn the actions of the Hebron settlers, yr posts are telling a very different story in yr attempts to defend them and make false claims that East Jerusalemites are worse...

As we were talking about Hebron settlers, not settlers living outside of Hebron, maybe you can explain why yr trying to make out we're talking about settlers who don't live in Hebron, and not the around 500 violent extremists who do live in Hebron?

As for yr 'settlers throw stones':

8 Aug. 02: Standing Idly By - Non-enforcement of the Law on Settlers: Hebron, 26-28 July 2002

Killing of Nibvin Jamjum, age 14

Testimony of Marwan Musa ‘Awad Jamjumn, age 22, brother of the deceased

I live with my family, eleven11 people in total, on the third floor of an old building in the old city of Hebron, in H2. On Sunday, 28 July 28 2002, I was at home with my parents, my brothers Nidal and Mazen and my fourteen14-year-old sister Nivin. Nivin was playing video games. The area had been under curfew since Friday morning, and no one could leave their home. At around 1:30 P.M., I heard gunfire and people screaming:. “Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! Settlers! Settlers!” I hurried downstairs to lock the main iron door. Nivin wanted to know what was going on and followed me. When I looked through the small stairway windows in the stairway, I saw more than 25 settlers on the street, near our house. Some of them had guns were armed and and others had knives. and daggers. They were young, between the ages of 18 and 30. I went on down started down the stairs, and was surprised to see that two settlers had already entered through the iron doors. They wee standing at the edge of the stairs.

My sister, Nivin, went ahead of me. I suddenly heard two shots. Nivin fell down the stairs. She didn’t scream. Blood started flowing on the stairs and on her clothes. I realized she was hit and shouted: “Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! Settlers are attacking us!”

I carried my sister in my arms and went into the street. I went to a neighbor who had a car and asked him to bring it his car. The neighbor, Abu Ramzi, started the car and I put my sister inside. My brother, Nidal, arrived in a hurry and we took off toward ‘Alyah Hhospital. Three soldiers stopped us near Beit Romano. We told them a girl had been hit and was going to die. They detained us for about five minutes while they checked the car, and then let us go.

Nivin was breathing heavily. When we got to the hospital, she was taken into the eEmergency room. She was pronounced dead 15 minutes later. A bullet had hit the right side of her head and fractured her scull.

When I was at the hospital, one of the doctors noticed blood on my foot. He asked to examine it, and I was surprised to find many wounds on my right ankle and another large wound on my left foot. Apparently, I was hit by shrapnel. I received treatment at the hospital, but refused to stay there. I insisted on going back home to pay my respects bid farewell toto my sister, who was buried at the Harat a-Sheikh cemetery on Monday, July 29, 2002.

Stabbing of Ahmad a-Natsheh, 8, and beating of his brother Falah, age 9

Testimony of their mother, Maryam a-Natsheh, age 39, married with six children

On Sunday <, 28 July> 28, 02, at about 2:00 P.M., I was at home, cooking, when I heard a noise and the sound of the door being pushed open. I went out of the room to see who pushed the door open. My sons, nine-year-old Falah and eight-year-old Ahmad, went ahead of me. As soon as I was out of the room, I saw an old settler with a gray beard. He was tall and fat. He was armed and held had a gun and knife a knife in one hand and a large stone in the other. He was holding some more, smaller stones between his arm and his chest. The settler ran up the stairs, and more than ten others settlers, also older, ran after him.

When the first settler saw me, he threw the stone he’d been holding in his hand at me. The distance between us was about one meter. I ran back into the room, shouting “Settlers! Settlers!”, hoping that the neighbors would hear me and come to help. I thought that all my children were inside the room. When I discovered that my sons Ahmad and Falah were not there, I thought that they might have been with my sister in the kitchen. I opened a crack in the door ajar, looked, and saw two settlers beating my son Falah. One was lifting him by the ears and the other was punching him. I couldn’t take it. I thought that the settlers would kill my son. I decided to defend him myself and pushed my four younger children to the back of the room. I then took a pair of scissors and decided to go out and attack the settlers who had already walked down the stairs toward the door. It seemed that the last settler saw me come out of the room and fired a bullet from his gun. I later found the shell near the door.

My husband, who had been sleeping in a room on a higher floor, woke up and saw the settlers beating his son Falah. He retreated, went to the roof and began shouting, “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar, the sSettlers are attacking us!”

When I went back to the room, Falah was still lying on the ground unconscious. I looked for my other son, Ahmad, and found him standing inside the room, with his back bleeding. Ifrom the back. I thought he must have been shot by the settlers, but as I held him, looked and cleaned the blood from his shirt, I realized that he wasn’t shot, had been but stabbed, not shot. Heis wound was still bleeding and I brought his father’s clothing and wrapped him with it. The clothing was covered in blood. I thought felt that my son was about to die., and cried. I couldn’t move. I just cried

A few minutes later, some soldiers came into the house. I can’t say how many. One of them was an army doctor who tried to give my son first aid inside the house. My husband’s sister carried the boy in her arms and along with my husband, his brother Hassan, and my sister, and my husband’s sister who carried the boy in her arms, followed the soldiers towards the vegetable market.

My son stayed in hospital for three nights. He and was released today. He is now cross eyed, which he wasn’t before.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20020808.asp

Now, explain to me why you think the Hebron settlers should be offered citizenship in any future Palestinian state?

[Shaktimaan]

127. So when Palestinians attacks innocent people it is excusable.

And when settlers do it, they are judges by a different standard.

My point here is not to defend settlers or portray all Palestinians as terrorists. It is to ask you why you have two distinctly different sets of rules. Have you stopped to consider why Hebron's Jewish civilians are all extremists? Where did all of the normal families who used to live there go? What you are suggesting is that no areas of the west bank should be open for Jews because the only ones left after the ethnic cleansing of the Jordanians and the Palestinians are extremist.

Let's say there are 500 extremists in Hebron. Do you suppose there are that many in Jerusalem? Or more?

Here's the thing. Either it matters or it doesn't. You clearly see the settlers as a threat to public safety. And for good reason, they are. But giving thousands of Palestinians, most openly hostile to the very idea of Israel, citizenship without even asking them for their loyalty, is seen to be an unassailable right... why?

You can't have it both ways. Either you make policy based on real life or you don't. But your attempt at portraying settlers as being a far more dangerous threat to law and order than Palestinian terrorists doesn't wash. They are both scum. Yet denying either group any rights based on their identity would involve denying innocent people their rights as well. So you end up having to balance the rights of the whole vs. the potential danger they present.

Do you get it yet? For all your insistence on looking at this conflict as simplistic oppression, it isn't. No decision is "right." Protecting some people's rights involves hurting others. When you read these stories you posted you should try and remember that there are many just like them written by Israelis. So if the danger that settlers pose is great enough to warrant their expulsion from Hebron then the same must be said of the EJ Palestinians. Because when you challenge me to point out the non-violent settlers, you must realize that the task of doing the same to any group is just as impossible.

You just find it OK to discriminate against some groups and not others I guess. That's usually how it works though, isn't it?

[breakaleg]

128. Not all Palestinians are terrorists. It's about time we stop conflating the two.

And it seems Israeli policy does this as well and that is a large part of the problem.

From your post:

"But giving thousands of Palestinians, most openly hostile to the very idea of Israel, citizenship without even asking them for their loyalty, is seen to be an unassailable right... why?"

"But your attempt at portraying settlers as being a far more dangerous threat to law and order than Palestinian terrorists doesn't wash."

[Shaktimaan]

133. Why the need to put words in my mouth?

From my post:
My point here is not to defend settlers or portray all Palestinians as terrorists. It is to ask you why you have two distinctly different sets of rules.

As I said before, there were thousands of Palestinians involved in the protest outside of al aqsa in 2000 and in the riots following it. All of them throwing stones or more dangerous things. Now stone throwers are not the equivalent of terrorists. But while neither Jewish nor Palestinian stone throwers can be considered terrorists, they CAN be considered violent extremists. Which means, quite simply, that even though no one thinks that every Palestinian is a violent militant, violent acts like stone throwing against Israelis are considered socially acceptable and are even encouraged. The protest at al aqsa was organized by fatah. Stones were collected ahead of time.

And there are thousands of Palestinians who hurl stones.

So my question still stands. Why are settlers who throw stones at civilians considered monsters while Palestinians who do the same are excused? Why do you have two sets of standards?

[pelsar]

134. stone throwers...

i tried on an earlier post to try to clarify if "all stone throwers are the same"....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x169049#169291

needless to say i failed. You will notice that when israelis do it, its violent etc...when palestinians do it...well i received several excuses as well as reasons but not a single solid condemnation. (I was told that i dont understand, etc.....)

it does however tie in to the "non voilent protests" that are claimed that the palestininas have on this forum every so often, that i've never read about nor seen....and which when i ask where they are, of course i never get a response. BUT

if palestinian stone throwing (its actually rocks) is not considered violent then that would tie in to the "non violent palestinians protests........

[breakaleg]

135. I'm not.

On the one hand you say that extremist settlers are a threat to public safety. Then you say that Palestinians hate Israel and it would be foolish to give them citizenship etc.

Do you spot the problem?

I'll help you out. EXTREMIST Palestinians are an equal threat as the extremist settlers. Not ALL Palestinians are extremists nor are they all a threat to Israel. And you have grouped them together without distinction, several times, in this thread.

[Shaktimaan]

136. Let me clarify then.

I was not grouping all Palestinians together. I was saying that there are enough violent Palestinians, (and please recognize that there are different levels of "violence", not everyone who is violent is a suicide bomber in my opinion) to warrant precautions. If throwing stones, as many settlers do, is violent enough for you to support expelling them all from land that is one of their four holiest cities then the fact that many Palestinian men do the same should at least be cause for concern.

Stone throwing is encouraged in Palestinian society. There's no way around it. Many, many people do it and they do it using slings and ball bearings and marbles to maximize damage. And they do it against civilians as well as soldiers and police. Just so there's no confusion, I am NOT trying to lessen the crimes of settlers here. I am trying to put the often excused Palestinian practice of stone throwing into perspective. It is not any less hateful or harmful when a Palestinian does it than when a settler does it. And I do not think that Palestinians who do this should be automatically given citizenship.

Since there are, literally, thousands of young Palestinians who view stone throwing as a legitimate form of protest and engage in it, which clearly illustrates animosity towards Israel, Israel's practice of requiring a loyalty pledge and renunciation of other nations' citizenship is a necessary stopgap.

A bigger issue as it relates to this forum is the double standard constantly applied to this topic. If it is wrong for Palestinians to get thrown out of their homes then it is wrong when it happens to Jews. If the only Jews who should be allowed back into Hebron are the ones who actually owned land then the only Palestinians who should get compensated for their expulsion in '48 would be the ones who owned land. I am not arguing for anything other than abolishing a double standard.

[breakaleg]

141. You said there were enough violent Palestinians to warrant denying

citizenship to thousands. Again, you could have said we won't give citizenship to those Palestinians that we have determined violent. In leaving it vague, not making any distinction, you did lump them all together.

"But giving thousands of Palestinians, most openly hostile to the very idea of Israel, citizenship without even asking them for their loyalty, is seen to be an unassailable right... why?"

[Shaktimaan]

142. determined violent?

I said that there are thousands of violent EJ Palestinians. There are. I was not vague. If giving everyone citizenship means citizenship for thousands of violent people who hate Israel then perhaps citizenship should NOT be automatic. Note that I never said we should deny anyone citizenship who is willing to be a peaceful and productive member of society. But I do have that requirement.

What you suggest is that Israel give everyone citizenship and then individually strip them of that right if they're determined to be violent? So, in other words, REAL discrimination and racism where they treat Arab citizens differently than Jews when they are charged with a crime.

How about this instead... EJ Palestinians who wish to be a part of Israel can apply. If they would prefer to be a part of the Palestinian state when it arrives then they can retain that option. Becoming a citizen carries with it certain rights and responsibilities. If someone does not care to take on those responsibilities then they should not be compelled to. Or are you also against equal rights and responsibilities? Because if you are for equal treatment and also for automatic citizenship for EJ residents then you suddenly have a situation where thousands of Palestinians face the mandatory draft into the IDF. I guess you have to figure out which piece of that puzzle you are actually against, huh?

Brilliant work there Breakaleg. Create a situation that either exposes Israel to risk while simutaneously disregarding the will of the actual people it affects. Then add a 'solution' that is far more racist and illegal than any policies that Israel actually has. Seriously, whose side are you on?

[Shaktimaan]

143. In any case

I noticed that you took the route of accusing me of racism several times in this thread to the exclusion of addressing any of my points, none of which were racist by the way. Let me boil it down for you...

Why do Israelis have less rights than Palestinians to live on land that has historically been home to both ethnicities? How come Israeli Arabs can have citizenship and live in Israel yet you find it ethically defensible to deny Jews the same opportunity to live in a future Palestinian state?

[Shaktimaan]

137. And when did I say THIS?

Then you say that Palestinians hate Israel

When did I ever say ALL Palestinians are a threat to Israel? I specifically said that they were NOT several times. I drew a clear distinction between all Palestinians and those who are hostile and those who are terrorists. When I say "thousands of Palestinians who are hostile..." I am talking about the thousands of violent protesters, NOT every resident of Jerusalem. And I made that very clear, and I think you realize it.

Do you really not have any other argument than to accuse me of racism or predjudice? Do you think that attributing hateful statements to me like "All Palestinians are extremist" is an honest or constructive way to debate? Especially considering that I NEVER said, implied or ever even thought anything like that.

[msmcghee]

138. I quote this from another thread for your reference.

Where breakaleg tried to pull the same stunt on me, yesterday.

*****************************************

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=169033&mesg_id=169507

I didn't think you were asking a serious question.

Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 11:38 AM by msmcghee
Why should this time be any different?

I never said one thing about "all Palestinians".

The conference itself stresses the positive aspects of Islam in that those can provide a better set of more positive beliefs for Palestinians to identify with - rather than the more violent exclusionist racist beliefs that do exist in some parts of Palestinian society.

You never even read the links did you? Or you would have known that.

It seems that if any statement by any member of this forum can't be reduced to something less complicated than "Jews bad - Palestinians innocent" - then it just doesn't compute for you, does it?

You said, "You are using negative stereotypes about Islam, linking it to all Palestinians, claiming all Palestinians hate Jews and it's basically bred into them."

That's an outright lie.

*********************************

Notice a pattern here?

[Shaktimaan]

139. It's a shame.

Many, many people on the extreme banks of both sides of this issue have a real need to simplify the conflict into something that places blame on only one of the participants and could be easily solved, (if only the world would OPEN its eyes and see what they're showing us!) Most ethnic conflicts are complex and long-standing yet this one, by any standard, is extremely complicated as it involves history and politics central to so many other events and issues. Colonialism, World War I and II, The Jewish Diaspora and European and Arab anti-semitism, independence movements in post-colonial states, Socialism, inter-Arab state politics, Sunni vs. Shiite strife, The freaking Cold War, oil politics, The collapse of the USSR, both Gulf Wars, etc. all play substantial roles in shaping this conflict, usually in nuanced ways requiring a better-than-basic understanding of them. It is anything but simple.

Still, when it gets to the point where someone needs to falsely attribute statements to you just so they have a something solid to refute it can seem pointless to keep discussing anything. I never understood the point of twisting the facts. We are all, obstensibly anyway, here for the same reason. To talk about how this conflict could possibly be resolved. If it becomes about "I am right and you are wrong" or about punishing either the Palestinians or the Israelis for real or percieved crimes then we are merely demonstrating the worst reasons that achieving peace is so difficult.

[breakaleg]

140. I read your post yesterday several times.

You didn't say "all" but your post implied all simply by the fact that you were linking Palestinians, Islam and the I/P conflict without specifically clarifying which group of Palestinians you were referring to. So, by omission, it's assumed you meant "all'.

I didn't bother to reply yesterday because frankly, as usual it's a waste of my time to argue with you and your opinions mean nothing to me one way or another. But I see you managed to bring up in another thread when you didn't get the response you craved.

[oberliner]

129. Regarding the incident cited here from July 28th, 2002

You are aware of what transpired on the Friday before the Sunday of that incident?

You are aware that Rabbi Yosef Dikstein, his wife Hannah, and their nine year old son, Shuvel were shot and killed by Palestinians while riding in their car to visit relatives.

Also killed by Palestinians in a shooting attack that day was Sgt. Elazar Lebovitch and it was during his funeral that the events described in your citation took place.

And of course these incidents are all less than two weeks after members of Hamas opened fire on a bus in Bnei Brak killing nine people (including an eight-month old baby) and injuring twenty.

And then just three days after the incident you cited was when members of Hamas placed a bomb in the student center cafeteria at Hebrew University which killed nine people and injured eighty-five.

And then four days after that Hamas claimed responsibility for the sucide attack on a bus in Haifa, killing nine people and wounding fifty.

Hebron settlers being offered citizenship in a future Palestinian state seems almost as far fetched as Hamas members being recognized as legitimate partners for peace.

[Shaktimaan]

130. you forgot two important ones.

What is the saying? The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?
If members of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron are not even protected, then what makes anyone think that any future Jewish citizens of Palestine would be either? And why, WHY, are any of Hebron's Palestinians attacking TIPH members, who are there solely to protect Palestinians? The 2006 attack was perpetrated by a mob of people who were angry about the Danish cartoon thing. So they naturally attacked the... Norwegians who selflessly came to Hebron to help them?


On 2002-03-26 two observers, Catherine Berruex and Turgut Cengiz Toytunç were killed by two Palestinian gunmen. A Palestinian man is currently being prosecuted in Israeli court for participation in the attack.

On 2006-02-08 following an attack on their headquarters by rioting Palestinians, all TIPH observers were temporarily withdrawn from Hebron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_International_Presence_in_Hebron


Due to the complex circumstances surrounding the event, several different versions have appeared. The TIPH would therefore like to clarify certain details.

It is clear that the three TIPH members left for Tel Aviv at 20:10 hours on the 26th of March. Just outside Hebron, on bypass road 35, they heard shooting in the immediate vicinity. After stopping, an armed man was observed standing approximately five metres in front of the car. The observers identified themselves to the man in English and Arabic, and pleaded for him not to shoot. A few seconds later the man opened fire through the left window, killing driver Major Toytunç. Observer Berruex, who was in the right front seat, was also hit. Duty Officer Hüseyin Ozarslan was in the back seat, and immediately threw himself down on the floor. He was also hit, either directly or by shrapnel.

The shooting ended after some time. Looking up, Officer Ozarslan ascertained that the gunman had fled. He then alerted TIPH headquarters by phone, requesting an ambulance. He stated that Major Toytunç was dead and that Observer Berruex was possibly dead. He proceeded to take Ms. Berruex out of the car, noticing that she was still breathing.

The Israeli Defence Force arrived shortly after with two jeeps and some Armoured Personnel Carriers. The soldiers began to give first aid to Ms. Berruex, while Officer Ozarslan was taken to an IDF jeep. Shooting then erupted towards the scene of the incident. The IDF soldiers discontinued the treatment, and started retaliating. The IDF then moved the APCs in to protect Ms. Berruex and the TIPH car. After the shooting again stopped, Ms Berruex was found to be dead. Subsequent medical examinations showed that she could not have survived the initial hail of bullets.

http://www.tiph.org/en/News/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=1578

[Violet_Crumble]

131. Yes, I was aware of that...

I'm also aware that it doesn't justify the Hebron settlers murdering innocent Palestinian civilians in retaliation....

I agree with yr last line, though...

[Phx_Dem]

111. Hebron is problematic

I suspect that there will be UN observers there for many years to come, assuming that the settlers will be allowed to stay after an agreement is reached. Personally I would extend citizenship to the settlers in Hebron, there are after all only around 600 of them, but I don't think they would accept given their rigid religious beliefs and general contempt for anyone different.

E. J-lem Palestinians have a special status, it's not quite citizenship but it's close. I don't see any sig. changes until 242 is resolved and a settlement is reached.

[breakaleg]

85. Allowing them to become citizens is certainly their choice. But

are talking about sale of land properly owned by Palestinians that is already occupied? Because that would sound more like forcing Palestinians to legitimize land theft.

[sabbat hunter]

34. israel was attacked

by hizbollah. they had a right under the geneva convention to protect itself and get rid of hizbollah, which is an illegal milita/terror group.

the lebanese government is unable/unwilling to take care of the hizbollah problem to the point that southern lebanon is virtually autonomous from the central government in beruit,

final borders for israel technically were never made offical. . all you have are cease fire lines.so they did not technically violate the geneva convention. additionally UN resolution 242 calls for israel to have "safe and defensible" borders. which means those borders no not necessarily have to be along the green line.

[dusmcj]

132. he was speaking from an undisclosed location

another reactionary bunker boy