PMO: New PA stance 'flies in the face' of international demands

[Shaktimaan]

<snip>

According to Hamas, the new platform states that, "The government confirms that the resistance is a legitimate right for the Palestinian people."

It goes onto say that, "halting resistance depends on ending the occupation and achieving freedom and return and independence."

Nonetheless the platform states, "The government abides by the protection of the higher national interests of the Palestinian people, and the protection of its rights ... on the basis of that, respects international resolutions and agreements signed by the PLO."

The new government, Hamas says, also recognizes that "the key to security and stability in the region is in the ending of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, recognition of the right to Palestinian self-determination."

To that end, the manifesto states, "the government will work with the international community to end the occupation, and to return the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."

The platform also touches on one of the key sticking points in negotiations between the two sides - the issue of Palestinian refugees.

According to Hamas, the government "holds fast to the rights of Palestinian refugees, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their land and belongings."

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/838221.html

Seems a little schizophrenic, no? The new government asserts its right to continue terrorist attacks against Israel yet promises to abide by agreements signed by the PLO which state their commitment to ending such attacks.

And the refugee situation truly makes no sense to me. Why would a movement dedicated to a nationalistic cause list emigration to a foreign state, (and an enemy one at that,) to be one of their crucial, non-negotiable demands? Why would they prefer that instead of a more equitable arrangement, say for instance, trading the ROR for undeveloped land that could actually become annexed to Palestine, or maybe a cash settlement with added economic incentives to kickstart their economy? There's a hundred things they could ask for as compensation that could better benefit the Palestinians as a whole without also arresting the peace process, as this demand clearly would.

[Solo_in_MD]

1. What do you expect, its the middle east

Seems a little schitzophrenic, no? The new government asserts its right to continue terrorist attacks against Israel yet promises to abide by agreements signed by the PLO which state their committment to ending such attacks.

Its a pretty skitzoid place

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Not half as skitzoid as the US n/t

[breakaleg]

2. I don't think there is anything they can do that will please Israel anyway.

You don't know why refugees who were forced out of their homes would want to come back? I'm actually a little shocked by this. How would you feel if it happened to you?

[oberliner]

3. These are not refugees who were forced out of their homes

These are the children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of refugees.

I do not have the legal right to return to the country that my grandmother and grandfather were forcibly evicted from.

[breakaleg]

4. True enough. But then didn't they ask to return after the fighting died down?

And Israel refused? If so, then what Israel seems to have done is refuse to address the issue for long enough so that they are all dead. That to me sounds like Israel is trying to circumvent the law with time.

If my parents were forced out, and asked to return within their lifetime, and their country delayed indefinitely, then it's a different thing for me to fight for what they were entitled to.

[Shaktimaan]

5. When...

did the fighting die down?

After the armistice agreement you mean? Israel tried to negotiate a peace settlement that would have allowed many to return but none of the surrounding Arab states were willing to recognize Israel or agree to peace with them under any circumstances. At any rate, the fighting never stopped, it just changed form over time.

[pelsar]

6. the trouble with history and facts...

is that sometimes it can "fly in the face of a belief".....of course it doesnt always change the belief since beliefs are not always based on facts:

anyway heres an article that does explain a bit for those who are actually interested in history:

http://www.varchive.org/obs/481026.htm (new york post archives)



Since then more than three months have passed. The Israelis offered to negotiate directly with the Arabs; they refused. The mediator offered negotiation at a round table conference; the Arabs refused. They acted as though they were the victors. They did not begin to make even the smallest concession. They refuse to sit down with Israeli representatives since they do not recognize an Israel state, large or small.

the war was hardly over.....

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. Oh You Mean The "Agreement" That Would Give The Minority of The Population

The majority of the region? The Arabs are crazy to reject that :sarcasm:

[pelsar]

10. the agreement that would mean peace....

the end of the war and the acceptance of the new reality......so they rejected it , and with the support of so many they kept on trying and apparantly (according to hamas) still are attempting to remove israel..and so they are where they are now...guess they were crazy to reject the offers in 48.

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. A New Reality Imposed By The West

The plan was to allocate 33 percent of the population 56 percent of the land - quality land as it was. Look at it in a vacuum devoid of all the politics of Zionism and you'd see no reasonable people would accept that "new reality" any more than the Iraqis would accept the "new reality" of a US occupation.

[Shaktimaan]

48. The negev is quality land?

I don't know much about you, or where you live, but from where I'm standing the Negev looks like shit.
And why is it that no one ever mentions Jordan when they are computing the percentage of Mandate Palestine that has become Israel? No one in the west seemed to care about Jordan's occupation of the west bank.

Iraq is not a very relevant parallel to draw. Iraq is about as different from Palestine as it is from the situation in Tibet.

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. Did The Partition Include Only The Desert?

And never mind the fact that it included Galilee and most of the costal areas.

And nobody's counting Jordan because Jordan was never part of the patition plan.

And the way Iraq and the Palestinian territories are related are because both areas are under occupation.

Do I have to explain everything slowly to you?

[Violet_Crumble]

12. The trouble with thinking that an article by someone called 'observer' in the NY Post is FACT...

Is that those of us who are interested in history have read books dealing with the subject and can spot the overly simplistic tone of portraying Israel as being the willing and peace-seeking side of good guys vs the intransigent and mayhem-seeking side of the bad guy Arabs. Instead of relying on rather suspect articles from a New York newspaper that doesn't even have the name of the author accompanying it, how about relying on some credible books from historians and scholars in international issues that deal with the conflict?

[pelsar]

25. how about the Palestinian Post ? 1949

Palestinian Post:
Nov 9, 1949

http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/PalestineP/Client.asp?Skin=PalestineP&GZ=T&AppName=2


...the Arab states had each declined to enter negotiations either directly or through the palestinian Conceiliation commission...

Aug 17, 1949

Israel Receives Egypts Reply

Furthermore, the Egyptian govt does not reguard it as necessary to reply to the zionist offer which your excelllency has transmitted from

http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/PalestineP/Client.asp?Skin=PalestineP&GZ=T&AppName=2


or perhaps:
May 19, 1949

Mr. Eban emphasized that his govt did not reject the principle of the internationalization of jeruslalem of the return or the Arab refugees....

________

I wouldnt look to deep at the information.....the arab strategy then, is as it is now, not a very successful one..... (dates may not be exact as they are bit fuzzy). It appears the links just go to the home page and youll have to do your own searching..i just took some small parts of the articles.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. But they all signed armistice agreements with Israel...

The original ceasefire proposal on 27th June 1948 was rejected by both Israel and the Arab states, and both sides continued the fighting. During that time Israel took Lydda and Ramla, and also tried to capture Latrun and Ramallah (both of which were in territory earmarked for the Arab state). While Israel was busy capturing territory meant for the Arab state, the Arab Legion made no attempt to capture territory that had been earmarked for the Jewish state....

The second and final ceasefire on 7th January 1949. Armistice negotiations started on the 13th of January 1949. They were bilateral agreements negotiated between Israel and each of the Arab states (with the exception of Iraq, who'd packed up and gone home from the war early, and were included in the agreement between Israel and Jordan). Between February (Egypt) and July (Syria) the bilateral negotiations led to armistice agreements being signed.

There seems to be some confusion between the armistice agreements and the Lausanne Conference, because the Arab states did negotiate with Israel when it came to the armistice agreements. Where the Lausanne Conference came unstuck was that the Arab states wanted the refugee problem resolved prior to entering negotiations with Israel over their own separate issues, and that Israel alone had created the problem and was responsible for resolving it. Israel's position was that the Arab states had created the problem and were responsible for resolving it, and was prepared to cooperate with international organisations to resettle the refugees as long as they were not to return to Israel. At one point Israel offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return to their homes, but the remaining 600,000 were to be resettled in other countries, and that no further claims to return would exist after that happened. This of course was unacceptable.

'." The Israeli government offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees, but only as part of a final settlement in which all other refugees were absorbed by Arab states. Compensation would be paid, but not to individual refugees or Arab states, only to a "common fund" and only for land that had been under cultivation prior to being abandoned; not for any movable property or uncultivated land. The common fund would be reduced by an amount of compensation to Israel for war reparations.

The Commission found this proposal to be unsatisfactory and declared that the Government of Israel is not prepared to implement the part of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 which resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Conference,_1949

So, it doesn't take too deep a look at information to realise that there was intransigence on both sides, and that claims that Israel was willing to make all sorts of concessions for peace are pretty much fairytales. Ben Gurion made comments that showed he was willing to wait as long as it took for formal peace agreements to be entered into under the terms he wanted. He also realised that formal peace agreements would involve Israel returning territory it had taken during the war, and he wasn't prepared to do that...

I borrowed heavily from Avi Shlaims 'The Iron Wall' in this post, and for anyone interested in moving beyond a very one-sided anonymous article in the NY Post, I'd recommend the book to them...

btw, I don't have the time or the inclination to go searching through stuff at that link you gave me. Here's a way you might be able to link directly to what you wanted me to read. When you've got the page open, right-click anywhere on the page (not on the browser menu), and a list will appear. Go right down to the bottom and left-click on 'Properties'. A box will appear that will have the url and it can be copied and pasted into posts from there.

[wellst0nev0ter]

8. Jews, No Matter How Far Removed, Have Greater Rights To Return Than Arabs

that is the current policy and we are sticking to it :sarcasm:

[wellst0nev0ter]

7. Hey, If Jewish Ancestors Have The Right To Return To Israel When It Was Founded

then why not. . .forget it. such comparisons would just hit the walls of denial that frequently turn up here.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. True, but Israel does offer an unlimited right of return to Jews...

Tom pointed that out in another thread where I'd said I was opposed to the unlimited right of return of Palestinians, and what he said got me thinking. If Israel didn't offer that unlimited right of return to Jews, I wouldn't think that things were really unfair. For example, I fail to see the fairness in an American with no family or ancestors in Israel who can 'return' there solely coz they're Jewish, while Palestinians who's parents and grandparents were expelled or forced to flee are not allowed to 'return'. While I can see the unfairness in that, I'm convinced very few 'supporters' of Israel in this forum can...

[oberliner]

15. But that is what the foundation of Israel is based upon

The idea that Jews who are persecuted anywhere in the world have a place where they can go and live as Jews without such fears.

Historically, the Jewish people have been forcibly evicted from numerous countries where they previously had felt safe and secure.

And of course, during World War II the Jews were met with an even worse fate than that.

The dream behind the foundation of Israel was that there would be one country in the world where Jews would not have to feel that the majority population could turn on them as has happened so many times throughout history.

[breakaleg]

16. And if that land in Israel was an empty patch of land that they acquired by purchasing

it or in some similar way, we probably wouldn't be having these discussions. But the fact is the people living there at the time have to be dealt with in a fair and reasonable way. Israel needs to achieve it's goals without minimizing the rights of ALL of the people that live there, including Arabs. They cannot rightfully discriminate against them in any way. They have more right to be there than some of their Israeli neighbors.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Can you explain how US Jews who've gone there are persecuted?

Or Australian Jews or Canadian Jews?

I wish instead of trying to justify the unlimited right of return for Jews, you'd have acknowledged that it's incredibly unfair to have such a policy which can be taken up by people who have no family ties to Israel, yet people who were expelled or forced to flee Israel and their descendants are treated so very differently...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

19. How US Jews who immigrated to Israel were persecuted in their home

home country, the US. Dido for Canada, and Australia.

Now, if you can return the favor by translating all of Pelsar's posts, I'd be most appreciative.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

21. I clarified violet's question for you. You haven't answered it.

And I have no clue what your last post said.

[msmcghee]

22. The question was directed at oberliner.

I'll let him answer it if he wants to.

"And I have no clue what your last post said."

I'm not surprised.

[breakaleg]

23. Perhaps you aren't the wordsmith you think you are. nt

[msmcghee]

24. I often fail to convey the meaning I intend in my posts.

That's why I spend a lot of time on them and also explains why almost all of my posts include the red notice that it has been edited - including the post you are referring to. But I guess I still didn't get it right. I'll try again.

Violet asked oberliner "Can you explain how US Jews who've gone there are persecuted? Or Australian Jews or Canadian Jews?"

In that context she was challenging oberliner's assertion that the Jews had a real reason to establish a state of their own where they would be free from persecution wherever in the world it might occur. She was asking oberliner to establish that those particular Jews had a need for such a haven by casting doubt on the idea that they experienced any such persecution in those places.

I used an analogy to reveal the subtle racism behind such a question. If the same question is applied to African Americans under similar circumstances then the racism in the question becomes obvious.

* By similar circumstances - I mean living in a society where you are considered to be an inferior, dirty, smelly, ugly (add your insults here) person by the majority because of your ethnicity. I can see why only those who have experienced such hatred understand that it is a particularly potent form of persecution. I assure you that is the case.

Hope that helps.

Added on edit: There have been several good movies that deal with the subject of antisemitism in the US. One of the best is called "Porkies". Rent it.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. You often fail to get the meaning I intend in my posts...

Violet asked oberliner "Can you explain how US Jews who've gone there are persecuted? Or Australian Jews or Canadian Jews?"

In that context she was challenging oberliner's assertion that the Jews had a real reason to establish a state of their own where they would be free from persecution wherever in the world it might occur. She was asking oberliner to establish that those particular Jews had a need for such a haven by casting doubt on the idea that they experienced any such persecution in those places.

I was challenging nothing of the sort. Maybe it'd help if you read what other posters actually say and address that, rather than coming up with bizarre interpretations that aren't there....

[msmcghee]

28. An additional clarification . .

. . since my first reply above is now closed to editing.

I did not mean to imply that all Jews who emigrated to Israel from the US in the 20th century did so because they felt persecuted - or that whatever discrimination they experienced was the cause of their decision to become a citizen of Israel.

However, I grew up in Texas in the fifties - when I was between the ages of 7 and 15. "Niggers", "Jewboys", "kikes" - were the terms used by many school kids in those days for those respective ethnic groups. They were used casually and matter-of-factually in the sense that no-one even expected there was any other term that would be more appropriate.

Especially by those boys (and some girls) who wanted to appear to share the values of their parents and much of Texas' poor white society. Each ethnic group of course was the subject of their own special jokes and fables among the white kids. We never actually saw any black kids since the schools were strictly segregated - unless we were riding in the car as our parents might have gone to what we kids called "niggertown" to drop off or pick up our maid.

There were no Jews in my school that I knew of but occasionally a kid could be accused of being a Jew as a form of insult.

I can see why some Jews who might have experienced that environment (most were smart enough to stay away from the south in those days) might have decided that Israel was a better place to raise their families - or at least why such treatment could contribute to such an important decision as emigrating to and becoming a citizen of another country on the other side of the world. Just as many African Americans decided that cities in the northern US with thriving black communities in those days were a better place to raise their families.

And of course, there was plenty of the same treatment waiting for both African Americans and Jews in the northern US. And racial discrimination is still alive today in many communities throughout the US and in the world at large and in many cases is increasing. And I am sure it still provides motivation for people of all minority ethnicities to emigrate to friendlier places in the world where they will not have to deal with such ignorance.

[rockymountaindem]

30. Since nobody has replied to this post, I'll add to it

I guess it's hard for the anti-Zionists among us when you challenge the myth that Jews have no problems whatsoever in western society and just went to Israel to expel the Palestinians. Firstly, to recommend more films on anti-Semitism in the US, check out "Focus" (based on the book by Arthur Miller) and "Gentleman's Agreement", the winner of the Best picture oscar in 1947 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman%27s_Agreement ).

Right by where I go to college in Toronto you can find Christie Pitts park, the site of a huge anti-Semitic and anti-Italian riot in 1933:

http://www.boldts.net/TorCh.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_Pits

Another thing to consider is that during 1938, at the Evian conference, a meeting of twenty-nine western countries on the issue of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, only one country out of all those supposedly philo-Semetic western states decided to admit any Jewish refugees: the Dominican Republic. The Austrialian delegate remarked that his country "had no racial problem and had no desire to import one". In addition there is the sad story of the SS Saint Louis and the Wagner-Rogers bill.

Once when Golda Meir was speaking about this issue, she said words to the effect of "I hope someday my people won't need to rely on the sympathies of others anymore". I can see why. The fact is that in the hour of our greatest need, the world turned its back on us. *That* is why we will not forget the need for the Jewish state. The odds of having something like that happen to us again are very slim, but it's nice to know that Israel is there. Just look at all the international efforts to stop the slaughter of people in Darfur, E. Timor and Rwanda... oh, wait... :sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I think you should reread the thread and address what's actually being said...

I guess it's hard for the anti-Zionists among us when you challenge the myth that Jews have no problems whatsoever in western society and just went to Israel to expel the Palestinians.

Firstly, I'm not an anti-Zionist. Secondly, can you point out where I or anyone else in this thread has said that Jews have no problems whatsoever in western society and just went to Israel to expel the Palestinians? Because no-one's said that, so I'm wondering if there's some posts appearing in invisible font that you can see while others can't....

[breakaleg]

37. 2nd that. Also, I think the sub-thread in question questions whether the same

set of circumstances that existed for Jews in the 30s are still in effect today. They aren't.

No one questions why there was a need for a Jewish state back then. I wonder why those same reasons from the 30s and 40s are forth as justification today when the world we live in has changed substantially.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Why is it that Israel alone is constantly asked to defend her existence?

Israel was created because of the need for Jews to have self-determination. It is not up to anyone else now to decide if its validity is still pertinent. That's not how self-determination works. The whole point of giving the Jews self-determination is so they will have the resources to care for their own people. If there is less anti-semitism today it is BECAUSE of Israel's actions in protecting Jewish refugees. Saying there is no justification now for Israel is like saying there is no need for police because crime has dropped.

Incidentally, the world has not changed substantially in terms of genocide, unless you meant to say that there's more of it lately. If it has not been against many Jews it is only because of America and Israel. Not because people are different. If you require an event of holocaust proportions to convince you that Israel is justified in existing then you may remain unconvinced forever. But there have been many lesser events in the past 50 years that plainly demonstrated Israel's role as necessary.

I'd like to point out a contradiction in your reasoning though. You are proposing to disassemble a soverign state based on your prediction that there will never again be a need for it. Now, you admit at least that a need did exist back in the thirties. But Israel did not exist in the thirties, did it? Remember how that worked out? Israel's existence is only helpful in a crisis if it exists BEFOREHAND. And while I appreciate your zeal for thinking up unothodox solutions to the conflict, I'd prefer if they did not hinge on gambling with the safety of my family and the ultimate existence of my ethnicity.

[breakaleg]

51. They don't need to defend their existence.

The question arises when they have to explain their treatment of Palestinians. That needs to be explained. And the reasons from 40 years ago are no longer valid. It seems they are using very old ills to justify bigoted policies. Meanwhile, many Arab refugees are still living in camps.

I am proposing to disassemble a sovereign state? Where?

[Shaktimaan]

131. you are right, you didn't say that.

I read your post quickly and took it to be a critique of Israel's existence instead of their ROR policy. Sorry.

The whole thing about "how come any Jew can go there but the refugees who once lived there can't" is that they are two seperate issues, although they may seem connected they are actually unrelated. Refugees from 48 left or were expelled during a war that split down ethic lines. It's not an issue with an easy solution While the refugees do have the right to return to their land, I think everyone realizes that it is an impracticle idea with no chance of succeeding. We don't want to follow a course that will increase the problems faced by both sides just because it is the law. We really don't. To paraphrase shlomo ben-ami, "there is no way Israel can fully compensate the refugees at this point. so the generally accepted method of compensation to be is giving parts of Israel to Palestine and allow them to have right-of-return to Palestine, along with huge cash settlements."

The sad fact of the matter is that the plight of the refugees is as much the fault of their Arab hosts and the UN as it is Israel's. Most refugees would prefer to just be repatriated into their host countries at this point and are really being kept in camps and oppressed by Arab league decisions passed to keep them impovershed as a way to gain leverage over Israel. The Arab league, UNRWA and even the UN itself has continuously blocked any effort to really solve their plight unless it meant sending them to Israel. For example, Israel constructed new, sturdy housing for refugees in Ramalla only to be chastised by the UN for attempting (as they saw it anyway) to duck their responsibility for repatirating them. So while Israel did expell them, creating the problem, responsibility for the massive refugee issue that exists today lies elsewhere. It is an interesting problem worth reading about. The refugees have really been used by everyone, it is such a joke to think that any country outside of the west has their interests in mind. If the Arab world treated their own people as Israel has treated all the Jews then this problem would have been solved decades ago. (As the Jewish refugee problem was.)

Jewish ROR is based on a few different things. Historic homeland, cultural significance and anti-semitism. Is it discriminatory? Sure. But there are plenty of other countries that have the same laws. It differs from the Palestinian problem significantly in that Jewish immigrants are undoubtedly going there to be a part of Israel and can be trusted to try and advance the best interests of Israel. The history of Jewish/Palestinian strife though, makes it very difficult to be sure that millions of Palestinian immigrants would not end up destroying the state they have built. It was hard enough bringing in 1000000 jewish russians. Consider the debates happening today in many European countries who are facing a tiny tiny taste of the difficulties inherent in having significant numbers of immigrants who do not want to adopt their host's culture but alter it. It is not racist to want to ensure your country retains its cultural significance.

So, is it fair that Jews can go live there but Palestinians who may have always lived there cannot? No. It is profoundly unfair. But the alternatives are even less fair.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Why is it that yr accusing Breakaleg of proposing to disassemble a sovereign state??

I've just read their post and they neither suggested or implied anything of the sort...

[rockymountaindem]

39. You said to explain how Jews who have gone from the US to Israel have been persecuted

My post was intended to point out how persecution of Jews in the west contributed to a desire to move to Israel. As for modern-day Jews, I see no reason why they can't live in Israel if they want.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. And where did I say any of the things you claimed was said? n/t

[rockymountaindem]

42. Well, I'll quote you

"I wish instead of trying to justify the unlimited right of return for Jews, you'd have acknowledged that it's incredibly unfair to have such a policy which can be taken up by people who have no family ties to Israel, yet people who were expelled or forced to flee Israel and their descendants are treated so very differently..."

The people who would have liked to go somewhere in 1938 didn't have "family ties" to Israel, and you sound like you think anybody without "family ties" shouldn't live there. That's why I was trying to justify the "unlimited right of return". Family or not, I just think it's important for there to be a last resort, because sometimes the other last resorts (like the US and Canada) just aren't open to immigrants. Not that I think it would happen again, but I wouldn't take that chance.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Huh? How is that anything close to what you claimed?

Let me quote you: 'I guess it's hard for the anti-Zionists among us when you challenge the myth that Jews have no problems whatsoever in western society and just went to Israel to expel the Palestinians.'

How on earth is the comment of mine that you quoted anything remotely close to that???

As for the rest of yr post, I think you've missed the point I was making. People in this forum are claiming that the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees should have no right of return because unlike the original refugees they'd never lived there. Yet they don't see any inconsistency in thinking for example that it's totally okay for an American who has no physical ties to Israel and who is there for reasons other than being persecuted to move there...

[rockymountaindem]

44. Well, I guess I just took you out of context then

I thought that's what you were trying to say. If not, then I apologize.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. No, I definately wasn't trying to say that...

On it's own, I don't think the Law of Return for Jews is unfair. It's only when the refusal to grant any return for the Palestinian refugees is taken into account that I think it is unfair. Thinking it's unfair is a very different thing from thinking it shouldn't exist, because I understand the reason for the Law of Return coming into being. I hope that makes more sense :)

[rockymountaindem]

46. Okay. Sorry I jumped on you

As for the right of return for Palestinians, I don't want to get in a discussion now 'cause I'm about to watch a movie, but I think I've gone on the record about it a couple of times around here. Have a good one :hi:

Edit: smilies work better with colons.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. That's okay...

Our mutual timing is good. Yr about to watch a movie and I'm about to go out for the afternoon to visit the parental unit..

Enjoy yr movie :)

[Lurking Dem]

62. Focus is an amazing film!

Great recommendation. It should be required viewing in school, really.

Those of us of a certain age and older had to limit our university choices, our career choices, even where we did business or who our children played with because we were Jews.

Times were changing. But now it seems the pendulum is starting to swing back to where hatred of Jews is acceptable and even encouraged in society.

[msmcghee]

78. I just put "Focus" in my Netflix que . .

. . and moved it to the top.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. The difference between schoolyard taunts and persecution...

The schoolyard taunts you heard were definately discriminatory, but since when has every incident of discrimination been persecution? Persecution is a much more serious thing. While I've faced discriminatory attitudes at varying times from different people for being a woman, being an atheist, being a single mother, and for being of Jewish descent, I have not been persecuted for any of those things...

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

80. Butting in...

When the state of Israel was established, I don’t think the UN intended for all of the Arabs in the land assigned to Israel to be expunged. Israel would have had to accept those people currently living inside its borders as a part of its population. What is so difficult to understand about this concept?

Now, if Israel had allowed them to return when the fighting died down, then their numbers would have seemed not so outrageous 40 years later. The idea that we have to support illegal acts or bigotry in order for Israel to have its state is outrageous.

Also, Jews are being attacked or persecuted today the way they were 70 years ago. They already have their state, it’s not going anywhere. So why do we have to support illegal acts today? The risks they claim are not there. Although the fear mongers would have us believe otherwise.

[msmcghee]

84. Interesting

"When the state of Israel was established, I don’t think the UN intended for all of the Arabs in the land assigned to Israel to be expunged."

Do you think they intended for the Arab League to attack the new state of Israel in the name of those Palestinians with the intent to destroy it - and almost succeed? Or is attacking a sovereign state with massed armies not relevant to this topic for some reason?


" . . all of the Arabs in the land assigned to Israel" ?

In 1949 after the war of independence there were 160,000 Arabs (Palestinians) living in Israel. That number has now increased to 1.3 million which is over half the Arab population of the West Bank.

Be careful about butting in. When I address your questions I will be accused of diversion. I know you'd hate to see me unfairly accused of something like that.

:-)

[breakaleg]

86. And this relates to my post how? Or does two wrongs make a right somehow?

Because that seems to be the crux of your argument.

There was a typo in my previous post.

It should read: Jews are NOT being attacked or persecuted today...

[msmcghee]

92. You said . .

"When the state of Israel was established, I don’t think the UN intended for all of the Arabs in the land assigned to Israel to be expunged."

I simply pointed out that they were not.

"Or does two wrongs make a right somehow?"

The two wrongs being what . . The Arab war waged against the new state of Israel and what?

Israel "expunging all the Arabs"? We already established that Israel did not do that.

Maybe you mean the "wrong" of Israel not having a "fair" immigration policy that treats Palestinians preferentially over all other non-Jews in the world so they can become a majority in the democratic state of Israel. Is that it?

If so, it seems you are saying that Israel is wrong to not allow its own destruction. And naturally that could hardly be called a "wrong" IMO.

That's like saying if I am mugged by two low-lifes on a dark street - that I am "wrong" and "unfair" for not allowing the three of us to vote on who gets to keep my wallet and car keys and if I get to live.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. This may come as a shock, but I do have to sleep sometimes...

Also, I don't think someone who consistantly fails to address points raised in my posts and resorts to nonsensical one-liners is in any position to accuse another DUer of 'walking away' from a topic (also, I suspect such accusations may well be against the rules here)...

So instead of failing to address a single point I've made in my last two posts and trying to hide it by firing off a barrage of questions, how about you go back over my last two posts and actually try to address them. I'll give you some assistance here by reminding you of what was said:

I pointed out that despite yr attempts to claim otherwise, there is a difference between persecution and discriminatory comments. I gave you a link to a legal definition of persecution, but it appears you aren't interested in anything factual when it conflicts with yr very slanted and one-sided view of the conflict.

As usual, you are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend something which I have pointed out clearly more than once in this thread - that standing on it's own, I don't see any unfairness in the Law of Return. Where I do see the unfairness is when I look at that and then see the very different attitudes applied to the original Palestinian refugees and their descendants (y'know, the folk you tried to equate with suicide bombers). If that's not clear enough for you, then it's obvious that yr not the slightest bit interested in discussing what I actually say and think, but in yelling and getting personal over something you'd prefer me to have said or thought....

[msmcghee]

111. There was nothing in your post that was on topic . .

. . except this, "I don't see any unfairness in the Law of Return. Where I do see the unfairness is when I look at that and then see the very different attitudes applied to the original Palestinian refugees and their descendants (y'know, the folk you tried to equate with suicide bombers)."

While on topic, that's just a repeat of what you have said several times now.

I will repeat my challenge to you in the last post that you have not answered:

Care to actually address this strange belief of your's that so bizarrely claims that Israel is being "unfair" to Palestinians? Would you like to show what principles of fairness in terms of international relations apply here?

Maybe you could show some examples from history where the citizens of states that elect governments whose stated core mission is to destroy their neighbors and "push them into the sea" - have been invited to preferentially immigrate into that democratic neighbor's state so that they might become a controlling majority?

It would be especially relevant to show examples from Muslim majority states in the region and how they have historically dealt with such delicate questions.

Basically I have challenged you to explain your belief - to fill it out with some logical justification. Most people who have a real point to make would welcome such an invitation from a detractor. I even gave you some examples that would be acceptable to most anyone interested in your response.

Can you explain your belief - fill it out with some logical justification? Or would you rather keep on pretending that the discussion is really about the semantic difference between persecution and discrimination - so you want have to?

PS - If you think I violated some rule that's what the ALERT button is for.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. I didn't realise you were DUs topic monitor...

Of course it was on topic, which you'd know if you actually bothered to read the thread...

Again you totally ignore my post and refuse to address the points that were made. Then you create a set of questions based on yr inability to comprehend what I've said in this thread and demand I address them in an attempt to hide the fact that you refuse to address what other people say to you.

btw, thanks for the tip on the alert button. I'll be making sure now that I hit it every time I see one of yr posts veer into getting personal at the poster yr replying to, rather than addressing the points of their posts...

[msmcghee]

117. Yeah, I didn't think you had the ability . .

. . to explain your bizarre belief that Israel's immigration policy is "unfair" to Palestinians in any logical way. But good bluster. :thumbsup:

I'm just looking for a little intellectual honesty here.

[Violet_Crumble]

119. Put the mirror down and stop projecting...

Was there something in my past few posts that yr not comprehending?

[pelsar]

29. the formula for understanding an israeli...

very simple:

if you make an accusation...be able to back it up.

be able to explain the consequences for any action or inaction that you believe in

be able to look at the immediate history to guess at the consequence of any action.

be able to explain in the simplist of terms when questions are asked.

_______

if you would like i can give examples of "questions unanswered"...or how accusations arent backed up...or how consequences for actions and inactions are either ignored or somehow deemed "not relevant".

[Violet_Crumble]

36. That's strange. It's similar to the formula for understanding an Australian...

Oh, except for this bit...

be able to explain in the simplist of terms when questions are asked.

While I don't even pretend that all Australians think the same as me, I don't subscribe to the formula that insists that things are simple when it comes to anything that involves condemnation of the Palestinians, yet they're incredibly complex when it comes to anything that justifies Israel's actions...

Then again, as I've told you many times, I ignore yr loaded questions because in the past my answers have been twisted and used against me to try to portray me as holding views I don't hold. I answer questions asked by DUers who show a genuine desire to discuss issues in a constructive and civil way, and I tend to ignore those who do the opposite :)

[pelsar]

65. the questions are just realistic...

what i've slowly come to realize is the inability of many here to want to face up the consequences of their beliefs. i believe that is what you would call "twisting".

In fact its those consequences that are by far the most important:

many here when it comes to "post occupation" have expressed a view (breakaleg) that its none of anybodys business what the palestinians do. Well that is nice as long as your arent in mortar range.

Others have expressed similar thoughts.

You i believe, and i here i shall be very carefull (I do have the full quote if interested) made it clear than in a situation where a helicopter pilot has a choice of shooting a missle to stop a kassam or not, given that palestenian children may be hurt, you believe he shouldnt

at that point you stop:....the consequence of that kassam flying over to israel seems not to interest you...though it does israelis (I'm assuming this since you didnt want to follow up my questions). My obvious question is why doesnt it?...it may after all land on a school as they have in the past. And though no doubt you will express horror if it lands on hospital, the quesition remains to what is your preference: for the helicopter pilot to shoot or not?

that question you have answered....if i am wrong or if i am somehow twisting your words than i would love to know how.

my interest is to bring real honesty in to the discussion, and that also includes the consequences that result from ones belief....without that its just word games.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. No, they're loaded questions, pelsar...

You probably don't spot the trend in yr questions where you throw out scenarios, but there's only ever two end results: First, Palestinian civilians are either killed or put at great risk of being killed because Israeli civilians may be hurt or killed. In which case I'd think you'd be happy with the answer. The second is that Israeli civilians may be hurt or killed because the risk to the Palestinian civilians in the scenario is seen as greater, in which case yr not happy with the answer. There is no allowance for answers that deviate from those two extremes that involve any and all efforts to ensure that no civilians are killed, regardless of whether they're Israeli or Palestinian...

I remember answering a question of yrs about what could be done to deal with what were then very regular launchings of Qassams at Israel. My answer came from a belief that the safety of both Palestinian and Israeli civilians is paramount, so I suggested a short-term 'fix' of creating a buffer zone of equal distance on both the Gazan and Israeli sides of the border, with civilians being evacuated from the areas. That way there would have been no chance of Israeli civilians being killed by rockets and no chance of Palestinian civilians being killed because they happen to be near where militants were launching missiles. In that sort of scenario it would have left the IDF with a clear target and I wouldn't have any criticism of any attempts by the IDF to take out the militants when they were in the process of trying to launch rockets. To be fair to you, I don't recall if it was you who waited a few weeks and then accused me of advocating ethnic cleansing, but someone in this forum did. To add to that, some weirdos who have long been banned from here followed me to another board I post on and popped up in threads totally unrelated to the I/P conflict (I only talk about the I/P conflict here at DU), accusing me of being an antisemite because I advocated ethnic cleansing. Of course I'd advocated nothing of the sort. The British evacuated children from London during the Blitz. That wasn't ethnic cleansing, but a wise move at the time to remove people from danger. I don't know about the Israeli govt, but over here, while the danger to population centres is always natural rather than man-made, evacuations are done when fires, floods or cyclones are threatening towns (or in the case of Darwin, even though the evacuation happened after the cyclone had destroyed it, cities). Volcanic eruptions will lead to the compulsory evacuation in many countries of people in the projected path of any eruption. None of what I've described, including my suggestion for the buffer zone, are ethnic cleansing...

I told you at the time about yr scenario where Palestinian children were playing near a rocket about to be launched that using Australian rules of engagement (they're more stringent than US or Israeli ones coz we've signed more UN Conventions that affect how our military act), I would have refused to fire if there was a risk civilians could be harmed. And in yr scenario it was circumstances, rather than making a choice between Palestinian and Israeli civilians, that leads to that decision. The chance of children playing nearby being hurt or killed was far greater a risk than that of a rocket with a notoriously poor aim harming or killing Israeli civilians. And if the circumstances were reversed, and it was Israeli children playing near a rocket about to be launched by Israel, my response would have been exactly the same...

[pelsar]

129. but...the scenarios are real.....

and yes they have limited options..that is the nature of a low level war. You mentioned that they're are too many maybes, but that too is what its all about.....lots of guesses and actions based on those guesses.

(just to clear it up, no i never accused you of ethnic cleansing).

your choice of the helicopter pilot not shooting i understand is based on "greater risk" statistics if you will. But risk is exactly that, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And if the pilot doesnt shoot and like i said the jihadnikim succeed and do hit the school, then what (i wont even discuss the alarms that go off daily in sederot sending people to shelters). My question was, what do you tell the parents of those children when you chose not to shoot, your supposed to be defending them and here you failed.....its simple a realistic scenario, and its in the mind of those pilots when they make their decision.

they're scenario is exactly that with limited options and no deviation from those options.

or take it further: lets say the IDF takes your advice and israeli policy now states no shooting when children are around. Do you believe the jihadnikim will just stop? or will they bring they're whole family to watch the rockets?.....perhaps you think i'm just "playing around"...except these are exactly what israelis talk about, when it comes to gaza and the future westbank.

Your buffer zone has a slight problem:
As far as from where they launch (the buffer zone). They can launch from n. gaza where there are no civilians and where they do once in a while, except that its practically suicidal so they prefer the built up civilian areas.

the IDF is now mentioning the longer range missles being made in gaza and they're copying "hizballa'. I dont know if its just "scare talk" or realistic, time will no doubt tell....but that scenario is even worse than the present and decisions involved that much more extreme.

[breakaleg]

38. This is a prime example. It has nothing to do with my post. nt

[pelsar]

63. sorry..

Now, if you can return the favor by translating all of Pelsar's posts, I'd be most appreciative.

i though i was helping to explain....

[breakaleg]

64. you obviously missed the meaning of my post. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

33. No-one else seems to have had problems working out what I said...

Try reading the thread carefully. Though it doesn't surprise me that even after admitting you didn't understand the conversation, you came out with an accusation of subtle racism. It does help when making accusations like that to actually understand the conversation that's happening around you. There is no subtle racism in anything I've said in this thread, btw, but seeing yr making the accusation, maybe you could point it out?

Speaking of racist (technically it's bigoted as neither Jews nor Palestinians are a race) comments, here's one that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer. In response to my comment: 'I wish instead of trying to justify the unlimited right of return for Jews, you'd have acknowledged that it's incredibly unfair to have such a policy which can be taken up by people who have no family ties to Israel, yet people who were expelled or forced to flee Israel and their descendants are treated so very differently...' I find this response: 'Like maybe you were working on a headline for a coming article in The Onion. Something like "Palestinian Suicide Bomber Miffed at Israel for Strict Immigration Policies" would work'. Will you be needing me to point out the bigotry involved in trying to equate the original refugees and their descendants as suicide bombers?

[msmcghee]

53. I'm afraid you missed the irony in your own statement.

Study it for a while. It might come to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. There's no irony there at all...

Care to actually address what I said rather than coming up with one-liners that don't address the post at all?

[oberliner]

26. No I cannot

While Israel serves as a place of safety for Jewish persons who are persecuted in other parts of the world, it is not the case that all Jewish people who move to Israel do so because they are persecuted in their home country.

During the first several years after the establishment of the state of Israel, there was a massive immigration of Jews who had survived the Holocaust in Europe. Many of these Jews were living in displaced persons camps throughout Europe. The majority of what was left of the one-sizable Jewish community in Poland immigrated to Israel during this time. As did many surviving Jews from Romania, Bulgaria, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

In addition to this wave of immigration from Europe, the Jewish populations which had been harassed, expelled, or otherwise made to feel unwelcome in Yemen, Libya, and Iraq moved virtually their entire communities to Israel.

The number of immigrants who came to Israel during this period under the Law of Return were clearly fleeing persecution and numbered close to 700,000.

Similarly when governments unfriendly to the Jewish people took power in North Africa (i.e. Morocco and Tunisia), large numbers of those Jewish communities immigrated to Israel.

And then of course there was the large influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union. Over 100,000 during the 1970s, and then close to one million throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Indeed, not all of those Jewish people who decide to move to Israel do so in order to flee persecution in their home countries. I do not know the reasons why individual Jews from the US, Canada, and Australia choose to make aliyah. Perhaps they are uncomfortable living as a minority in a Christian majority nation. Perhaps they are disturbed by the degree of anti-semitism that exists in their home country. Perhaps there are religious underpinnings to their decision (after all, many mitzvot can only be completed in Israel). Perhaps they believe so strongly in the continued existence of a Jewish homeland that they want to support such an entity by becoming citizens.

The existence of Israel as a Jewish homeland serves as a safe haven for any Jewish people who are facing persecution in their home country. The vast majority of those who have immigrated to Israel since its inception have done so in an attempt to escape hostile conditions. That many Jewish people choose to immigrate to Israel for other reasons does not do anything to counter the critical importance of the existence of a Jewish state.

The creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza living side by side with Israel in peace and security seems to be the goal we should all be working towards. The replacement of Israel with a state that does not serve as a homeland for the Jewish people does not.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. My comments have nothing to do with the existance of Israel as a Jewish state...

I'm very aware that in the early years of Israel coming into being, that many did go there to escape persecution, and I'd be surprised if anyone wouldn't understand why Holocaust survivors wouldn't want to keep living in Europe after what happened to them. But it's clear that especially in the last few decades, it's not persecution but other reasons, including economic, that are the reasons people move to Israel. Yet I'm seeing arguments here that Palestinians who are the children and grandchildren of the orginal refugees have no right to return to the homes the original refugees were either expelled or fled from, yet when it comes to Jewish immigrants, they've got every right to go to Israel despite the fact that many don't go because of persecution, and there's no concerns that they don't have any family ties to Israel at all.

If Israel had done the right thing from the start and allowed the refugees to return to their homes, I'd not think it was totally unfair that while they're not allowed to return, people who don't have any physical ties to Israel are allowed to move there...

The only reason I support a two-state solution (and that state includes all of the West Bank and Gaza) is because that is what most Palestinians and Israelis want. But that doesn't mean I have to think it's fair that Israel refuses the right of return to people who orginally lived there and their descendants while allowing anyone to move there as long as they're Jewish. Do you honestly think it's fair?

[oberliner]

54. Yes they do

A mass return of Palestinians and their descendants would turn Israel into an Arab country with a Jewish minority. This would automatically defeat the purpose of Israel's creation, doing away with a Jewish state as a refuge for the Jews of the world.

(Credit to Wikipedia for that pithy analysis)

In my opinion, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza living side by side at peace with the Jewish state of Israel seems to be the fairest of all possible solutions to this conflict.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. No, they don't...

Have I not made it clear enough that my comments about the unfairness of treating the Palestinian refugees one way while allowing anyone to migrate to Israel if they're Jewish DOES NOT mean I think the existance of Israel is in any way illegitimate?

I didn't ask you what yr opinion of a fair resolution to the conflict was. I asked you a specific question about whether you think it's fair that Palestinian refugees and their descendants are not allowed to return to their homes while anyone who is Jewish can migrate there regardless of any physical ties to Israel...

[pelsar]

66. i will answer..

no its not fair...not fair at all.

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Thanks...

I figure you understand that acknowledging something's unfair doesn't mean that it automatically follows that the unfair thing must be changed. In the case of this one, changing it would cause more harm than good. Allowing an unlimited right of return to the original refugees and their descendants would kill off any two-state solution and change Israel's demographics dramatically in a way that would be unacceptable to most Israelis, as well as having an influx of refugees who have a collective memory of their homes and land from back in the 1940's, and the reality today is very different. To change the unfairness by getting rid of the Law of Return would also cause more harm than good. There are some parts of the world (not the Western countries) where it's quite possible that persecution of Jews could happen and given the attitude to asylum seekers in places like the US and Australia, at least Israel is there for them to flee to....

[oberliner]

106. I do not agree with the person who answered on my behalf

I do not think it is unfair for Israel to avoid granting an unlimited right for all people who are descendants of Palestinian refugees to return to homes inside of Israel.

Not all of the Palestinians who left in 1948 were expelled or forced to leave. In addition, some Palestinians have actively engaged in war and/or terror against Israel since that time.

I think that some compromise arrangement would be fair, such as the ideas discussed at Taba in 2000.

Allow me to cite the Israeli response to the Palestinian refugee proposal at Taba:

1. The issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to Israeli-Palestinian relations. Its comprehensive and just resolution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace.

2. The State of Israel solemnly expresses its sorrow for the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees, their suffering and losses, and will be an active partner in ending this terrible chapter that was opened 53 years ago, contributing its part to the attainment of a comprehensive and fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

3. For all those parties directly or indirectly responsible for the creation of the status of Palestinian refugeeism, as well as those for whom a just and stable peace in the region is an imperative, it is incumbent to take upon themselves responsibility to assist in resolving the Palestinian refugee problem of 1948.

4. Despite accepting the UNGAR 181 of November 1947, the emergent State of Israel became embroiled in the war and bloodshed of 1948-49, that led to victims and suffering on both sides, including the displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian civilian population who became refugees. These refugees spent decades without dignity, citizenship and property ever since.

5. Consequently, the solution to the refugee issue must address the needs and aspirations of the refugees, while accounting for the realities since the 1948-49 war. Thus, the wish to return shall be implemented in a manner consistent with the existence of the State of Israel as the homeland for Jewish people, and the establishment of the State of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people.

a. To Israel - capped to an agreed limit of XX refugees, and with priority being accorded to those Palestinian refugees currently resident in Lebanon. The State of Israel notes its moral commitment to the swift resolution of the plight of the refugee population of the Sabra and Shatila camps.

b. To Israeli swapped territory. For this purpose, the infrastructure shall be prepared for the absorption of refugees in the sovereign areas of the State of Israel that shall be turned over to Palestinian sovereignty in the context of an overall development program.

c. To the State of Palestine: the Palestinian refugees may exercise their return in an unrestricted manner to the State of Palestine, as the homeland of the Palestinian people, in accordance with its sovereign laws and legislation.

d. Rehabilitation within existing Host Countries. Where this option is exercised the rehabilitation shall be immediate and extensive.

e. Relocation to third countries: voluntary relocation to third countries expressing the willingness and capacity to absorb Palestinian refugees.

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

This seems to be a pretty fair compromise in my view.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. Pelsar didn't answer on yr behalf....

I was quite happy for anyone else to give their opinion, seeing as how you hadn't answered it. And you still don't appear to have answered my question, because I didn't ask you whether it was unfair for Israel to avoid granting an unlimited right for all people who are descendants of Palestinian refugees to return to homes inside of Israel. I'd said: "I wish instead of trying to justify the unlimited right of return for Jews, you'd have acknowledged that it's incredibly unfair to have such a policy which can be taken up by people who have no family ties to Israel, yet people who were expelled or forced to flee Israel and their descendants are treated so very differently."

[pelsar]

132. a compromise is just that...

its a compromise, meaning not everyone gets what they want and no doubt some will (if not all) will feel screwed....meaning its "not fair'.

to be a palestinian refugee vs an jewish immigrant in 1948 shows too vastly different lifestyles...and for the uneducated palestinian peasant who was forced, or convinced or was caught up in a battle, or whatever to leave his home that his grandparents built, was incredibly unfair....

Sure there were reasons and circumstances etc...but in the end, this guys family is now living in a squalid dirty smelly refugee camp, trapped between Hamas, Fatah and the IDF....and all he was 50+ years ago was a simple sheep header in the hills of south of Haifa.

His home?...its now an artists home in an quaint artist colony in the carmel hills.....and the inhabitant is a concentration camp survivor who lost his whole family and found refuge in israel.
(one has a home and no family, the other, family and no home....)

life can be incredibly unfair......and no compromise in the world no politicians words or policy can ever make it right.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

89. Did you hear about the "settler housing fair" in North Jersey

2 weeks ago? They actually had a fair at a synagogue trying to sell housing at Settlements!!! LOL!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/nyregion/26settle.html?ex=1330146000&en=7e0638b1be1d94c2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

We thought about going up to try to buy, but hell, we're not even allowed on the roads that lead to the settlements!

Violet, the thing about the history is this: Israel was built on the 400 demolished villages and stolen ("abandoned") land. They never could have allowed the refugees to come back. My understanding is that the refugee flight wasn't a byproduct to be addressed; IT WAS THE GOAL!

[breakaleg]

93. It was discussed here.

You'll notice, there wasn't very much outrage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=168005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=166789

[ProgressiveMuslim]

97. OMG i was furious over this

Called my state senators, NJ Dept of Civil Rights, etc.

I think it's OUTRAGEOUS that that happened.

Can you imagine a well publicized housing fair at which Jewish Americans would not be allowed to purchase?

It's unthinkable.

[breakaleg]

98. It seems to me that when it comes to Israel in many cases, common sense goes out the window. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Yeah, there was a thread here about it...

That whole settler housing fair thing was totally wrong :(

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. Why should they not have the right to resist murderous occupation?

Is there some universal rule that people in Palestine must be condemned to passive acceptance of a brutal foreign occupation?

I challenge any American who says that if their family lived in a certain land for 2000 years and another group to move there from Europe, kicked them out, subjugated them, stole their land, jailed their children, shot them like dogs, denied them education and created an apartheid system for them to live in...

I DEFY ANY AMERICAN TO SAY THEY WOULD TAKE THAT WITHOUT A FIGHT!!!!!

I applaud the people of Palestine for managing to maintain their grace, humor and humanity in the face of a brutal foreign occupation!! I hope that in a similar circumstance that the people of my country could stand as strong.

[Shaktimaan]

59. Don't you think your summary of the situation is a little simplistic?

There are certainly two sides to this story. And rather than being a one way street of Palestinian oppression by Israel, you have to recognize that everything you said could just as easily be referencing the Jewish experience in Arab lands, including (but certainly not limited to) Palestine.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

60. The truth is often pretty simple...

I am curious: do you think Palestinians do not have a right to resist a brutal military occupation that has sought to dispossess them of their land and culture?

[cali]

61. I don't know about the poster you addressed, but I'll take

a crack at your question. Yes, I think Palestinians have a right to resist the Occupation. To my mind that means restricting attacks to military personnel and hard targets, not targetting civilians, as alas, has been common practice.

And I do think that your view, is indeed overly simplistic, and boils down to Israel bad, Palestinians noble. I reject such black and white thinking. It lacks context.

And claims that the "truth"- whatever that is on any given day, is the the exclusive purview of one side, and simple; is simply not useful or true.

[oberliner]

68. What about Gilad Shalit?

Do you think that action was justified?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

69. Sure. Do you know how many Palestinian captives Israel is holding? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

116. Of course it was justified...

Unlike attacks on civilians, attacks on military targets are legitimate and the only real argument is whether or not an attack achieves more good than harm for the Palestinian people...

[msmcghee]

120. Well, not quite.

If there is not a state of war then an attack by a group of combatants on peaceful defensive military is an act of war and violates the UN Charter.

If there is a state of war then Israel is justified on doing almost anything it wishes to defend against an enemy that is actively attacking them or preparing to do so - including occupying their land, building high walls to isolate factions and make it harder for the enemy to move around, killing suspected enemy combatants on sight, setting up as many checkpoints as necessary, etc.

So either there's a state of war or not.

a) If there is not a state of war then the attack is a violation of international law and deserves your condemnation. (I won't hold my breath.)

b) If there is a state of war you can stop complaining about the presence of IDF in the disputed territories and their actions - unless they purposely target civilians.

So, is it door a) or door b) for you?

[Violet_Crumble]

121. And yet again you get it wrong...

No, if there's a state of war Israel does not have the right to do whatever it wishes.

Also, care to explain why you think Israeli attacks on militants are legitimate, but you don't think that Palestinian attacks on Israeli military targets are legitimate? That stance makes no sense at all....

[oberliner]

127. Would you argue that Iraqi attacks on US soldiers are legitimate?

Are Iraqi militants justified in attacking US soldiers?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

70. I think your POV assumes

that if Palestinians resisted in the "correct" way Israel would do the right thing. I share no such assumption. I believe Israel has done everything possible to undermine the possibility for peace.

[cali]

72. You're wrong about my POV

It's always a tad dangerous to make those kinds of assumptions. I don't believe the Israelis would have made peace had Palestinians restricted their attacks to military and infrastructure instead of deciding to target civilians. I also don't see the Palestinians as sharing no responsibility- albeit a lesser share, in the bollixed up mess that is I/P.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

73. sorry to have made assumptions

I find most Americans blame palestinians for their predicaments, as though if they managed their occupation "better" they would no longer be occupied. I think that's poppycock.

I think we have to be careful not characterize this as a conflict with "two equal sides."

Do you think the current unity government should be recognized and dealt with?

[cali]

95. No problem.

As to your question, my answer is an emphatic and resounding yes. Much to be gained, nothing to lose. Both Israel and the U.S. are dead wrong about not recognizing the new unity government.

[pelsar]

67. i would say they have the right..

just as much as the american indians have, the austrailian aboriginees, the kurds, the serbs, the vikings, the albanians, the eskimoes, the sunnis the shities, (take you pick which country), the bedouin, the american blacks, the american southern whites, the american jews, the koreans in japan, the muslim brotherhood in egypt, etc etc etc.

but after 50+ years of losing, they might want to rethink their strategy, but then you dont live in gaza do you?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

71. Actually, I have lived in Gaza! But thanks for acknowledging their moral right to resist! n/t

[pelsar]

74. theres simply a difference...

between having the right and being smart about it....the palestinians have the right to fight and so do the jews.....and so far its the palestinians who have been losing and losing and losing....and whos lives have only been made more and more miserable as the years go on....


though you may have lived in gaza....obvously in better times.... i was referring to the present, where its hit a new low in personal security and economics.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

76. I lived in Gaza during the first intifadah. We were under curfew about 60% of the time

and of course, there was the 8PM curfiew every single night.

But at least people had work.

I don't blame the current situaton on Palestinians though.

I do think that the current make up of the unity government represents a good cross section of the parties in Palestine. I think this current government could bring about an agreement, unlike the PLO gov't of the mid-90's, which was interested in its own grip on power, and which basically sold out to the highest bidder.

I believe people in Palestine are clear about not accepting corruption, and that Hamas is pretty clearly abandoning armed struggle against civilians. Seems to me like the time is ripe, but then again, I think that's exactly why the Israeli gov't continues its attempt to isolate the Palestinian gov't...

[msmcghee]

77. If Hamas is . .

. . "pretty clearly abandoning armed struggle against civilians" . . then why don't they just say that? Isn't that really all that Israel (and the US and EU) are asking for?

Why is that so hard for them to do? It seems to me if they actually did intend to abandon their armed struggle against Israeli civilians - it would be the easiest thing in the world to state. It would solve the one major impediment to peace there that has existed for seventy years - and the world would breathe a sigh of relief.

What you are proposing is that they have dropped their long-held and repeatedly stated demands that they have a right to attack Israeli civilians - and their intentions to continue doing so - but they don't want to tell anyone about it.

Why would that be?

Added on edit: I note from the OP:

"According to Hamas, the new platform states that, "The government confirms that the resistance is a legitimate right for the Palestinian people."

The resistance means suicide bombers and Qassams you know.

It goes onto say that, "halting resistance depends on ending the occupation and achieving freedom and return and independence."

In other words we won't stop doing that until we can see our way clear to destroy the existing state of Israel and replace it with one where Palestinians will be in a majority and Jews will be the minority.

[breakaleg]

82. hmmm...

"he resistance means suicide bombers and Qassams you know." Why didn't they say that in their statement then?

[msmcghee]

83. Hmmm, the history of Hamas since it's inception . .

From the AP - Here are the main events in the history of the Hamas movement:

December 1987: First Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation erupts, and Yassin founds Hamas as an Islamic resistance movement against Israel.

1988: Hamas publishes manifesto calling for "holy war" to create an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including Israel, and challenging the Palestine Liberation Organization's claim as the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

1989: Hamas militants kill Israelis in dozens of shooting attacks; Israel outlaws Hamas as a terrorist organization.

1989: Israel imprisons Yassin.

1991: Hamas forms "Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades," its military wing, for attacks against Israelis.

April 6, 1994: First Hamas car bombing kills eight in Israeli city of Afula.

April 13, 1994: First Hamas suicide bombing kills five in Israeli city of Hadera.

Oct. 19, 1994: Hamas suicide bomber blows up Tel Aviv bus, killing 22.

February-March 1994: Hamas suicide bombers blow up two Jerusalem buses, killing 45.

Jan. 6, 1996: Hamas master bombmaker Yehiyeh Ayyash killed in explosion, Israel held responsible.

February to March 1996: 47 Israelis killed in three suicide attacks in retaliation for killing of Ayyash.

September 1997: Yassin released from prison after botched Israeli attempt to kill Hamas leader in Jordan.

September 2000: Second Palestinian uprising begins.

June 1, 2001: Hamas suicide bomber blows up outside Tel Aviv disco, killing 21.

Aug. 9, 2001: Hamas suicide bomber blows up Jerusalem restaurant, killing 15.

March 27, 2002: Hamas bomber blows up Netanya hotel, killing 29.

July 23, 2002: Israel drops one-ton bomb on house of Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh in Gaza, killing him and 14 others.

Aug. 21, 2003: Hamas leader Ismail Shanab killed in Israeli airstrike.

August-September 2003: 39 killed in three Hamas suicide bombings.

Sept. 6, 2003: Yassin slightly wounded in Israeli bombing in Gaza.

March 14, 2004: Two bombers, one from Hamas, kill 10 at Ashdod port.

March 22, 2004: Yassin killed in Israeli airstrike in Gaza City.

I would note that they have never retracted their mission statement "to create an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including Israel." Perhaps the better question is, if Hamas now has decided to stop attacking Israeli civilians - why don't they just say so. Which is the question I asked the poster to start with.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

88. I would counter with Haniyeh's Wash Post editorial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns


I am not denying any past activities.

I am not a Hamas supporter, though I do think they are not corrupt, and are working for the good of teh country as they see it, rather than to their own ends at the PLO did under Arafat. I personally favor the Third Way party.

But I think the best chance for peace comes when the hardliners on both sides sit down together; they're the only one who are going to be able to deliver on the deal anyway!

And really, isn't it absurd for the occupier to demand that the occupied stop the violence? Am I the only person who feels insane when I hear that?

OK, world! Demand that Hamas give up violence, but say nothing about the decades-old Isareli Occupation!?!?!?!

[pelsar]

90. this is a sentence from one who knows...

But I think the best chance for peace comes when the hardliners on both sides sit down together; they're the only one who are going to be able to deliver on the deal anyway!

________

its funny but i think only those of us who have (do) live out here actually understand that..........it is only the hardliner who can deliver, only them.

[pelsar]

79. gaza: first intifada.....

where were you living?....

i had reserve stints in gaza city (palestinian square was where i spent a lot of time)....a bit in jebaliy, Khan Junis and rafiah

might as well add the personal touch to this forum....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

85. Lived in Khan Younis

in Heil Amal... my MIL and FIL are still there in fact! We haven't been back there since 1997, unfortunately...because my DH is Gazan (aside from his American citizenship, which as you know, means donkey squat there) there is great concern about his being able to get back out

We also lived in Ramallah (one block from what used to be the sijjun, and then became Arafat's headquarters) from 1995-1997. I think we got out just in time.

[breakaleg]

81. Tell us, if you care to, of your experiences living there. nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

87. The most telling thing for me is this:

My DH is Palestinian from Gaza. We met there (Bir zeit university), married there, moved back here in 1989. DH finished his PhD in environmental engineering. We moved back to Ramallah in 1995. He has American citizenship. He was actually teaching engineering at the university, and working to secure grants to do research and development projects.

But the problem was related to his being Gazan. I don't think most Americans realize how strictly movement is controlled. People from Gaza can't go the WB or Jerusalem without special persmission... if caught outside Gaza without the proper permission, you go to jail.

He entered on his American passport, but as time went on, authorities realized he had a Gazan huwiyya (identity card).

In 2 years, DH could never get permisson to officially be in the West Bank.

Despite development expertise...
Despite being a political moderate...
Despite education, great skills and knowledge of the West...

You would have thought the Isareli authorities would have rolled out the red carpet for educated moderates with practical knowledge to come back. But they made it impossible for my familiy to stay.

By 1997 my Dh would have to get out of the taxis at check points and sneak around like a common criminal -- several times a day.

Nor could I ever get a work permit, despite numerous promises (I taught in Catholic school outside Jerusalem). For a "good" american girl, and an educated man with dignity, there is only so much of sneaking around that you can live with.

Leaving ended up being the right thing for my mixed family.

For me though, that experience really crystallized that neither the Israeli gov't, nor the PLO gov't at the time (who let's face it, didn't exactly negotiate this stuff with their Israeli counterparts), had the long-term interest of buildng a stable civil society.

It pains me that Palestinian people are portrayed primarily as terrorists (or hapless refugees) in the American press. We had a happy life in Ramallah, aside from the political difficulties) with wonderful friends, work, an active social life.. the whole gamut.

I tell my Palestinian-American kids that they should hold their heads up high, knowing they come from a long line of strong people who have surrendered neither their dignity nor their humanity in their quest for the basic freedom and self-determination that the rest of take for granted every single day.

[breakaleg]

91. Thanks for sharing.

I have to say I am appalled at the reports of Palestinians Americans and other 'foreigners' in the occupied territories being forced out by these new 'rules' Israel has imposed. I always wondered why they would want to keep out the educated, perhaps well-off and moderate people which should be the exact type of citizen they would want to attract. After all, aren't these the people who would best serve a peaceful state?

But now I realize that their policies lean more towards punishment than peace. As there is no rational reason to expel moderates from the territories.

I also think that there are likely many people like yourself on both sides of this issue. It's unfortunate that the extremists on BOTH sides are the ones who get all the press.

[pelsar]

94. hate to break it to you....

I also think that there are likely many people like yourself on both sides of this issue

but i'm the "other' people on the otherside.......i've probably got more in common with ProgressiveMuslim and more to talk about than many here would even understand.

[Violet_Crumble]

115. I've got no doubts about that...

You both have the commonality of having lived or spent time in Gaza, though from very different perspectives, and I for one am looking forward to more discussions of this nature between you and Progressive Muslim :)

[pelsar]

130. yes it would be interesting..

and then you would really learn about the stuipidity of both sides....

[Lithos]

123. Unfortunately

I think I do understand; modern history of the region has bore this out many times. However, I've never seen it stated so simply.

L-

[msmcghee]

96. Thanks for filling us in.

You expressed puzzlement at the attitude of many people like me. Let me try to explain why I am puzzled.

In your post you said, "For me though, that experience really crystallized that neither the Israeli gov't, nor the PLO gov't at the time (who let's face it, didn't exactly negotiate this stuff with their Israeli counterparts), had the long-term interest of buildng a stable civil society."

In that sentence you state that neither Israel nor the PLO " . . had the long-term interest of building a stable civil society."

My experience is with western style governments that are formed and legitimized by their ability to do what's best for their citizens. They don't always do that (look at our government's policy and stupidity in Iraq for example) - but when they don't serve the citizens' interests they are replaced and generally held accountable for that failure.

It seems to me that the Palestinians have had a government since at least 1949 that never " . . had the long-term interest of building a stable civil society" . . for Palestinians - and instead took on the ideological mission of destroying a neighbor state that had far more military and economic power. They have not only stuck to that doomed mission, they have re-affirmed it through several administrations while their economy, health, personal freedoms and hope for the future have slowly disappeared over the decades.

And yet, many if not most Palestinians - and certainly all the anti-Israel posters here - blame Israel today for the Palestinians failure to have their own state.

Please explain this.

a) How can Israel be expected to be concerned about the future of Palestine - if Palestinians are more concerned about destroying Israel than in that future themselves?

b) Has it not occurred to you that if the Palestinians had accepted Israel 70 years ago and had tried to make the best of the situation by living in peace with Israel and shutting down all terrorist activities - that you would now be living a prosperous, happy life in the state of Palestine right now with your husband and family?

c) Has it not occurred to you that if the Palestinians had accepted Israel at any time during the past 70 years and had tried to make the best of the situation by living in peace with Israel and shutting down all terrorist activities that you would now be living in peace and would be well on your way to having your own state where you would some day be able to live a prosperous, happy life with your husband and family?

If you could answer those questions that would really help me understand things better.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

99. Well my answer would be:

If Israel wants to continue the status quo, continuing occupying and settlement expansion, then it' s not in Israel's interest to have a stable government in palestine.

If Israel is interested, then it would seem pretty clear why a stable gov't in palestine would be warranted.

If you really think the main concern of Palestinians is to "destroy Israel"... if you honestly believe that, then there is really nothing to discuss with you. You've bought the occupation propaganda hook line and sinker, and I'm not interested in trying to educate you further.

Trust me when I say, being related to Palestinians, having lived there... their #1 priority is not the destruction of Israel. Are you for real? Are you aware that we're talking about human beings, and not cartoon characters?

I think your grasp of history is questionable at best. There was no Palestinian gov't in 1949.. there were not terrorist activities 70 years ago. Do you have any concept of what percentage of land in Palestine was actually owned by Jewish people prior to the War in 1948?

I'm sure you're a nice person and everything, but I don't think I'll be addressing your posts in the future. It makes me feel hopeless about progressivism in this country.

[pelsar]

101. i think i should add some here.....

you made an earlier statement that only the hardliners can make peace....let me expand that....only the self interests of the societies and their acting in such will create workign societies.

israelis dont care about the palestinians...nor do they care about us....only as much as we interfer with each others lives.....thats the basis.

i believe very much in the ideal that "you make the best of what you've got"......thats whats been driving israel all these years. Its beginning was being overwhelmed with wars, boycotts, etc yet israel not only survived but improved year after year.

i dont believe thats the attitude within the palestinian society. Leaving Gaza was a watershed event for the I/P conflict. As imperfect as it was by the various interest groups, the citizens of gaza, actually had a chance to really do something about their society..and they really screwed up and continually do so...I"m very well aware that its a minority that is causing the problems, but thats what a society is all about, taking responsability for itself....and here the palestinians have failed totally in israelis (not the govt) eyes.

btw: there were not terrorist activities 70 years ago,,,,yes there were...

[msmcghee]

102. Please don't leave.

You said, "If you really think the main concern of Palestinians is to "destroy Israel"... if you honestly believe that, then there is really nothing to discuss with you."

I don't think I said that at all. I said, "How can Israel be expected to be concerned about the future of Palestine - if Palestinians are more concerned about destroying Israel than in that future themselves?"

See, I made it a question about what the world should expect from Israel - based on the observable relative concerns of Palestinians. I will agree with you that maybe my observations are wrong and have been distorted by a pro-Israeli media, as you imply.

It seems to me (perhaps wrongly) that it's more important to Palestinians that Israel is destroyed than that they live in peace. But I base that on a reading of seventy years of Palestinians consistently electing administrations that declare and attempt to carry out that policy. I base that on a reading of seventy years of Palestinian administrations never once repudiating that policy verbally - or by electing someone or a party to power that was honestly in favor of such a reconciliation.

It seems to me that my question is valid since every administration that has been elected in Palestine either openly supports attacks and orchestrates attacks on Israel themselves - or looks the other way as various militias carry them out - and does little or nothing to stop them.

Those various administrations also claim generally that the attacks are legitimate, that they have no intention of stopping them, that Israel is an illegitimate entity that should be destroyed and that they will rejoice to Allah on the day that happens.

Now, maybe that's all just propaganda that I have been fed by a pro-Israel media. But it seems to me that there would be some anti-Israel groups bringing to light the various peace proposals put forward by the Palestinians over the years along with the statements of their desire to live in peace with Israel. Don't you think some of those would have penetrated the wall of anti-Palestinian propaganda? I mean it's pretty hard to stop the internet.

Can you explain to me why none of the peaceful intentions of the various Palestinian elected administrations toward Israel ever get publicized in the media? And why is it that all I see are their refusals to simply say in a few words that they accept Israel's right to exist and will do what they can to stop attacks against Israel from Palestine.

Can you show me one clear unequivocal sincere attempt at reconciliation and negotiation with Israel - over a seventy year history - to end the conflict by recognizing Israel's right to exist and agreeing to end attacks against Israeli civilians?

I ask these questions sincerely because it is a puzzle to me and perhaps as you say - I have been misled by a slick media that doesn't want me to know the truth. Please show me the truth.

Thanks.

[Violet_Crumble]

114. They didn't say they were leaving. They said it was pointless trying to discuss anything with you...

Big difference...

[msmcghee]

100. I hope my questions don't sound . .

. . antagonistic or like I'm trying to set a rhetorical trap for you or anything. I am really curious as to what an actual Palestinian person would say about this - not that I expect that you would represent all Palestinians. But you do seem to have some well thought-out opinions on the matter.

I am asking in all sincerity. I'd be happy to hear your answer to any one of those questions - but especially the first:

a) How can Israel be expected to be concerned about the future of Palestine - if Palestinians are more concerned about destroying Israel than in that future themselves?

Thanks in advance.

[breakaleg]

104. Your question assumes that Palestinians are more concerned about destroying Israel

than whatever. What do you base your assumption on? How can this question be answered if someone were to disagree with this assumption?

I find a lot of your posts are phrased this way. You say you spend a long time on your posts. Yet your questions are posed in such a way that they are impossible to answer if you don't agree with the premise on which they are based. Perhaps you think the premise is a widely held belief. But instead it's based on Israeli PR, which is not a given in this forum, certainly when you are posing a question to the 'other side' in this debate, which often you are.

[msmcghee]

107. Do you not understand the principle of debate

I stated what seemed to be true to me and explained in great detail why it seemed that way. I gave you lots of opportunities to show me why I'm wrong.

If you think I'm wrong then you (or others) get to explain to me why I am wrong - if you can. You can offer any evidence that my view is distorted, for example. Or you can show some evidence that refutes mine.

To make it easy I stated that I would reconsider my opinion that Palestinians are more concerned with Israel's destruction than living in peace if someone could show me " . . one clear unequivocal sincere attempt at reconciliation and negotiation with Israel - over a seventy year history - to end the conflict by recognizing Israel's right to exist and agreeing to end attacks against Israeli civilians?

To make it easy I also didn't ask for several examples. I only asked for one clear example. So far no-one including you has provided anything.

It is called intellectually honest debate. Try it sometime.

[breakaleg]

108. No.

An honest debate would be to use as a launching point incontrovertible facts. Then pose your question. We have to start from some form of agreement and then discuss where we diverge.

Try that some time.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. Uh, the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist and agreed to end all attacks on civilians...

To make it easy I stated that I would reconsider my opinion that Palestinians are more concerned with Israel's destruction than living in peace if someone could show me " . . one clear unequivocal sincere attempt at reconciliation and negotiation with Israel - over a seventy year history - to end the conflict by recognizing Israel's right to exist and agreeing to end attacks against Israeli civilians?

To make it easy I also didn't ask for several examples. I only asked for one clear example. So far no-one including you has provided anything.

Haven't you heard of the Oslo Accords? I suspect that no matter what gets shown as examples, you'll argue that it's not what you want to see...

btw, is anyone else but me wondering why msmghee appears incapable of telling the difference between an entire population and it's leaders? Even if there'd never been instances when the Palestinian leadership had entered into negotiations, etc, I'm still at a loss to understand how that would mean that the Palestinian population want to see Israel destroyed. If those sort of broadbrush comments were made about the Israeli population, it wouldn't be acceptable, so why is it acceptable when the broadbrush is applied to the Palestinian population?

[msmcghee]

122. Thank you for an actual answer to my question.

I think the Oslo accords do come close to meeting my criteria. As I understand it though Arafat, according to his own words, saw Oslo not as a chance for peace but as an opportunity to achieve victory over Israel through a peculiar Islamic form of deceit that says it's OK to lie to enemies of Islam if it gives you an advantage.

From wiki: For evidence they brought statements of Arafat's in Palestinian forums in which he compared the accord to the Khodeyba agreement that the prophet Muhammad signed with the sons of the tribe of Quraish. Those statements would then be understood as an attempt to justify the signing of the accords in accordance with historical-religious precedent, with the same intentions.

I'm not saying that was the case - just that if Arafat tells his own people not to worry, that that's what's happening - then even if he was lying to his own people for obvious reasons - that kind of takes Oslo out of the realm of clear unequivocal attempt at peace on the part of Arafat. That, aside from the problem of having to lie to his own people about wanting peace with Israel.

There were other problems with Oslo. From Answers.com: The Palestinian reactions to the accords were not homogeneous, either. The Fatah accepted the accords, but the Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which were known as the "refusal organizations", objected to the accords since those groups completely denounce Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

This brings up the question of who has authority to speak for Palestinians and enforce any agreement made with Israel. The reality is that Israel has the ability to control its population and military forces and enforce any agreement it makes. Many observers seriously doubt that any party in Palestine has ever had the ability to do so.

Since the UN and many states in the world have donated billions of dollars to Palestinian administrations for infrastructure and civic projects (most of which seems to have disappeared into personal bank accounts) the inescapable conclusion is that either Palestinians are not concerned enough about peace with Israel to elect someone who can pull that off - or that Palestinian society has enough militants opposed to peace with Israel - no matter what Israel does - that they can make sure that never happens.

I suspect it is the former. If Palestinians really valued peace more than Israel's destruction it seems logical they would raise bloody hell about the militants - and would have no trouble asking for assistance against those militants from the UN or some friendly Arab state (or even the IDF) and would make some attempt on their own to subdue the militants or assist some stronger military to come in and do it for them.

I think if Arafat had spoken to his people and said, "Look folks, we've had enough war. Let's put this behind us and get on with creating a state for ourselves that we can be proud of - and yeah we need to accept Israel as a legitimate state and neighbor in order to do this." - or something to that effect, I'd go a long way toward accepting your premise.

Also, if Arafat had expressed some regret that Oslo failed and didn't result in peace, a lost opportunity - and let's try it again from a different perspective - or something along those lines. I've never heard words like that from any Palestinian leader. It seems those words would not be difficult to say if Palestinians really valued peace more than Israel's destruction.

In any case Oslo, for those various reasons, does not seem like a very compelling example to me. Still, if the Palestinians really do desire peace with Israel more than Israel's destruction - which their leadership continually calls for - there must be some better evidence for that somewhere don't you think?

I'll admit I'm no real expert on these matters. Educate me.

[Violet_Crumble]

124. That's okay. I figured you'd discard any example that was given...

And in this case it was with: 'As I understand it though Arafat, according to his own words, saw Oslo not as a chance for peace but as an opportunity to achieve victory over Israel through a peculiar Islamic form of deceit that says it's OK to lie to enemies of Islam if it gives you an advantage.'

I very much doubt he said anything of the sort, though I wouldn't be surprised if some zany website somewhere completely lacking in credibility has created that 'quote'.

The fact is that the PLO did acknowledge the existance of Israel and renounced terrorist attacks, and the agreements they entered into with Israel based on those things are legally binding and hold a lot more weight than some 'Muslims lie' nonsense...

If Palestinians really valued peace more than Israel's destruction it seems logical they would raise bloody hell about the militants - and would have no trouble asking for assistance against those militants from the UN or some friendly Arab state (or even the IDF) and would make some attempt on their own to subdue the militants or assist some stronger military to come in and do it for them.

Despite the fact that a Palestinian in this forum has told you that the Palestinian population does not seek Israel's destruction, you appear intent on sticking with what is every bit a negative stereotype as if someone said that the Israeli population seeks the killing of Palestinian civilians coz they don't raise bloody hell about the IDF doing it. You also seem to want to ignore the fact that the Palestinian people are living under a very long and at times very brutal occupation, and that unlike you, they don't view resistance to the occupation as seeking Israel's destruction.

I'll admit I'm no real expert on these matters. Educate me.

I know yr no expert on these matters. But it'll take someone with a lot more tolerance for putting up with broadbrush and negative generalising than I possess to try to edumicate you :)

[msmcghee]

126. So, that's all you've got?

For a premise stated with such certainty I thought you and / or some others here would be able to come up with something not so ambiguous. Certainly, one ambiguous example doesn't say much for your premise.

As far as Arafat's references to the Treaty of Al-Hudaybiya - there are hundreds of references on the Internet to Arafat's reference to the treaty during a speech in English at a mosque in S. Africa - when he didn't think anyone from the west was listening.

From the Sept '99 ME Quarterly:

On 10 May 1994, Yasir Arafat gave what he thought was an off-the-record talk at a mosque while visiting Johannesburg, South Africa. But a South African journalist, Bruce Whitfield of 702 Talk Radio, found a way secretly to record his (English-language) remarks. The moment was an optimistic one for the Arab-Israeli peace process, Arafat having just six days earlier returned triumphantly to Gaza; it was widely thought that the conflict was winding down. In this context, Arafat's bellicose talk in Johannesburg about a "jihad to liberate Jerusalem," had a major impact on Israelis, beginning a process of disillusionment that has hardly abated in the intervening years.

From U.S. News & World Report on 10 June 1996, when the magazine's editor-in-chief, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, touched briefly on Hudaybiya:

The Israelis have a historic question: Is Arafat a true peacemaker, or does he believe his own rhetoric when he echoes the doctrine of the prophet Muhammad of making treaties with enemies while he is weak, violating them when he is strong?

I'm still open to examples that might support your premise - but maybe we should just let this drop at this point.

[Shaktimaan]

125. I think the oversimplification is in describing the conflict as

a brutal military occupation that seeks to steal Palestinian land and destroy their culture. It's a little silly. Is Israel trying to destroy the culture of its Palestinian citizens, or Jordan's? Why is Israel moving some of its population back into the Jewish Quarter in E. Jerusalem considered stealing land? Would you even consider Gaza still being under a brutal military occupation? And if Israel has left Gaza, is it wise to continue "resisting"?

Considering that the violence in this conflict was first begun by the Palestinians, and that many subsequent attacks were initiated from either Palestinians or other Arab states, and the many statements made by PLO, Hamas and IJ leaders making it clear that their goal is not to end the occupation in the territories but over ALL of historic Palestine, it's clear that this conflict is far from a simple one-sided affair. At this point, I think that asking questions that center around ideals like the right of resitance or Israel's right to defend itself aren't helpful. Who cares if they have the "right" to do it if it will bring nothing but continued suffering for everyone involved.

There is no way that either Israel or Palestine will be able to obtain a fully just peace. I'm getting less interested in hearing about what either group's "rights" are in terms of land or history and more interested in hearing about what either side could live with.

So to answer your question, yes I think the Palestinians have the right to resist. But I think it is incredibly pointless, selfish and stupid to exercise it. Pointless because they can never win that way. Selfish because it ultimately requires trading many Palestinian lives for nothing more than a political statement. And stupid because it leads to more of what they are "resisting" in the first place. It ensures a phyrric victory at best. I mean, it hasn't been terribly successful so far, has it?

[pelsar]

128. the "rights and justice argument is simply not realistic...

whenever i hear the arguement for "true justice or rights of .....i realize we're not talking about anything practical

Justice?...now theres a cultural biased loaded word if there ever was one. One mans justice in the west is hardly the same for one in the middle east (honor killings any one?). A previous poster here (temp) made the comment for that its racist to think that his/her cultural version of humility is not accepted by all. I would argue quite the opposite, that its the racist that thinks their versions of justice and "rights" are absolute (its probably reasonable to assume that these people all come from the west).

For those who argue the principle of "its their right to resist"......i suspect either they're members of hamas or dont live in gaza. It may be their right to resist its also israels right to defend itself..both concepts have very vague borders defined differently by different people.

And for the Palestininans.....a sad story that misses a very western concept...accepting the consequences for ones actions......perhaps thats the western value that those in the west forgot to pass on along with their "rights.".

The story of their freedom and land is a very telling one, as they exercise their rights to resist, their freedoms and land keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller...they're lives more and more miserable.

I wonder what will happen in the near future......if they do improve their kassams (as were told) and start hitting israeli major cities......imitating the hizballa, just how more miserable they're lives will become.

i agree, their present strategy which hasnt changed since pre48, is nothing but a massive failure. They keep losing, israel gets stronger, they're friends are ever so slowly keeping them "trapped" (notice egypts silence on letting the palestinians in.....notice how nobody even raises the issue?)..and they're told to keep on exercising those rights?

i guess a relevant question is: are peoples that lose wars, worse off or better when they accept the new reality? should the american indians keep on fighting, should the serbs/albanians keep on fighting? should the austrailian aborigines start?

those would be questions i would ask those who support the palestinans right to resist.