Slow Motion Ethnic Cleansing

[Violet_Crumble]

By Uri Avnery

Counter Punch
09 October, 2003

In his final speech in court, Marwan Barghouti, the Fatah leader on trial, issued a resounding warning: If Israelis do not adopt the Two-States Solution soon, Israel will disappear. The whole country will become one state, and in this state the Palestinians will soon constitute the majority.

I don't know whom Barghouti talked with before using this argument. Probably it was Israeli left-wingers, who are convinced of the brilliance of this stratagem.

<snip>



It may seem that there are only two possibilities: One state in the whole country, which will necessarily be bi-national, or an Israeli state in a part of the country, inside the green Line, next to a Palestinian state. But there is a third possibility: An Israeli state in all of the country, from which the Palestinian population will be expelled. Few Israelis speak of this openly, but a great many think about it.

Good people ignore this alternative because they do not find it thinkable. They imagine Kosovo-style ethnic cleansing: driving millions out in one big dramatic sweep. They console themselves: "The world won't stand for it! Sharon wouldn't dare!"

But there are other ways to implement ethnic cleansing: not dramatically, but slowly, daily, even routinely. Like, for example, what's happening now in Bethlehem.

http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-avnery091003.htm

[izzie]

1. I do not know why we help in that mess?

Would any one in this country put up with this if we dropped that mess down in say NJ?People would find out the reason and fix it. If you look at terror world wide it only stops when the reason goes away. Beating someone over the head never works. Do we ever learn from history? Where are the statesmen in the world?

[rini]

2. BS

[drdon326]

3. Uri Avnery....useful idiot.

it must be rewarding to him to mouth the propaganda BS.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Maybe you could try refuting something he says?

That's if you can take the time out from mouthing propaganda BS that's refuted so easily when you post it here. Instead of just calling him an idiot because his views aren't the same as yrs, you'd be just a tad more convincing if you could do something other than flinging insults around about him...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Yeah, Israel wants all the territory

That's why they are spending tons of money to wall off most of the Palestinian areas.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. They want large chunks of it...

Which is why they haven't removed a single settlement and are walling off areas deep inside the West Bank...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. They are walling off areas to protect Israeli citizens

Perhaps if the Palestinians had tried peaceful resolutions instead of terror bombing, no wall would be needed.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. You know that's not true, Muddle...

I assume you've read the threads where this has been discussed before. Security isn't the reason why the path of the wall is going deep into the West Bank. There's a reason why Sharon opposed the wall when the plan was to build it along the Green Line and now is all gung-ho for it, and it's got to do with grabbing more land before any Palestinian state comes into existance. He's not the brightest crayon in the pack and he thinks that creating facts on the ground will result in a larger Israel....


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. The Wall

Lacking a peace agreement, Israel established a border that it preferred. The border was designed for security of all Israeli citizens and maximizes protection for those living in settlements. There was a time when the Green Line might have been used as a border, but that time has passed. Thank Arafat for that one.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Don't ignore facts...

There's no need for a peace agreement, Israel is in violation of international law in keeping territory gained during a conflict and the only thing required is for them to get out of there. The Green Line is used as a border by the international community, so you spouting some view held by only extremists doesn't come into it. If Israel wants to protect settlers, then it could easily do so by dismantling the illegal settlements. Of course Sharon's not interested in that, and as has been pointed out here many times, the path of the wall is not about security at all...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Back to the Israel only rule

No thanks. International law is applied only to those that the international community wishes. No international law applies to China, so it can annex Tibet. No international law applies to Syria, so it can conquer Lebanon. Clearly, no international law applies to the U.S.

Why only Israel?

No nation will agree to an internationl effort that harms its security and national interest.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. There's no such rule...

The problem is that I don't think you understand international law at all. There's no international law that singles out Israel and says that other states can do the same thing. And what do you mean, no international law applies to the US? Of course it does, but the US chooses to ignore it when it suits it...

Sorry, but taking territory that doesn't belong to a state isn't a matter of security or national interest. Did you know that the security excuse was even used by Germany during WWII? Every aggressor uses that same lame excuse...

If you think it's acceptable to take territory by force, then why would you have a problem with any other state doing it? If it was 1975, I expect you would have been a cheer-squad for Indonesia when it invaded East Timor...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. International law

Is highly subjectively applied.

Israel took the territory in question in yet another war to defend itself from destruction. It keeps some of that territory for security and some (Jerusalem) because it historically belongs to the state of Israel.

My comments about taking territory revolve around the fact that Israel is the only nation really beat up about it. Where is the Syria/Lebanon thread on DU? How about the China/Tibet thread here? How about the endless stream of UN resolutions? How about some international outrage?

No Israel continues to be held to a standard that no other nation is expected to maintain.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. We're not talking about application...

We're talking about what the law is. You either support the law or reject it, so my question is do you reject it when it comes to states taking territory by force? There's nothing subjective about that. It either applies to all or to none...

Seriously, if you can't work out the reason why it'd be a total shock to find any SC Resolutions critical of China, then I don't know how to help you. You going and visiting the UN site and reading about how the SC works and doing a search for Tibet might be a good place to start...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. No one obeys this fantasy law

Not only that, it fails to take into account prior claims on the land.

The UN and the world community use "laws" in a discriminatory manner. In our courts, that would get the case thrown out.

[bluesoul]

17. Fantasy law?

International law is "fantasy law" for you?!? I guess you would apply it only when it suits you. Why should then Palestinians respect it when Israel clearly ignores to do so? You cannot have it one (your) way. You just can't see where such (non)logic is leading to, do you? In many ways you are very similar to those on the right defending Israel's policy. We (the US) and Israel can do whatever we wish, no matter how the international law, UN conventions, universal norms, human rights are violated, but others have to go by the book. Oh my....

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. A law in the U.S. that is selectively applied

Does not count because it is discriminatory.

This concept is not just selectively applied. It applies ONLY to Israel.

[Lurking Dem]

20. If they should give it back

then according to that logic it still shouldn't go to the Palestinians, right?

Fascinating logic.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. You got an answer the last several times you asked the same thing...

And yet again, that answer is that the occupying power doesn't decide who they're giving territory back to. Their responsibility is to remove their military forces from the territory. Then I guess it's up to everyone else to clean up the mess they left behind...


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

22. International law isn't a fantasy...

The reality is that international law exists. You could try giving some credible argument backed with logic and knowledge about why international law shouldn't exist. I'm not sure why yr bringing up US courts when you talk about international law. They're two entirely different things. The same way that domestic laws apply to individuals within a state, international law applies to nation-states, and it's a good time to remind you that despite yr calling these laws a fantasy, Israel is a signatory to many of these laws, so Israel and you appear to be disagreeing yet again. Wonder who I should believe, eh? ;)

Anyway, you've got me curious. Even if they had the capability to do so, why exactly would a domestic US court throw out international laws like the Genocide Convention, the Convention on the prohibition of landmines, the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, or the declaration of the rights of the child, to name only a few? And what would you replace international law with? You claim no-one obeys international law, which is wrong, as many states do indeed obey them...

Violet....

[Gimel]

21. Israel's border

Teh Jordan river. The Arab nations rejected partition in 1947, remember?

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Thanks for the laugh, Gimel...

Nothing like a reminder every now and again of the extremists cling to the fanciful Greater Israel fairytale. When Palestine was partitioned, there were distinct boundaries, and nothing that happened after that meant that Israels borders spread to the Jordan River. btw, the Palestinians weren't even given a chance to accept or reject the partition, which they should have been...


Violet...

[Gimel]

25. The State of Palestine?

...has not yet been born. Let's wait for Arafat to give up his hold on terror. If they want a state, as you seem to have already acclaimed, they will have borders. Todays's maps show the "territories" within Israel's borders.

http://info.jpost.com/C001/Supplements/MapCenter/

Maybe you prefer to think of it as Jordan? LOL

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Palestine in the days of the British Mandate...

I didn't say anything about a Palestinian state, so I suggest you try reading more carefully in future. Does this mean all that time people here referred to East Timor prior to its independence, we were all getting it wrong because East Timor didn't exist?


If yr idea of a credible map is from a right-wing rag like JPost, then it's no surprise that you think the Occupied Territories are part of Israel. While a small part of Israel's border runs along the Jordan River, and you would have been correct in saying so, the West Bank is not part of Israel and so it's border with the Jordan River doesn't become an Israeli border with the Jordan River...

Here's a map for you to take a squizz at. It's not from a right-wing rag, but it's from an American site and defines the OCCUPIED territories borders as not being Israeli borders...



Violet...

[teryang]

4. They've been doing it for 120 years

There's no bs about it.

[Cassandra]

19. Who's been doing what...

for 120 years?