Geneva Accord - PA Selling Out Palestinian Rights?

[Resistance]

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2096.shtml

The Palestinian Authority has given its blessing to a "symbolic peace treaty" reached in Switzerland between mid-level Palestinian officials and Israeli opposition leaders. In the so-called "Geneva Accord," the negotiators outline what they see as the necessary compromises for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Terms of the Accord (snipped some sections - follow the link for more)

Self-determination: The Palestinians would get some level of self-determination on 98% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip (constituting a total of less than 22% of the Palestinian homeland). The demilitarized Palestinians are expected to have control only over municipality-type responsibilities, including disarming and arresting resistance fighters, preventing incitement and promoting "normalization" (including control over media, mosque sermons, and schoolbooks), and collecting garbage. Israel would retain control of airspace, laws, water aquifers, imports, exports, and foreign relations, while borders would be under international control.

Right of Return: Palestinian refugees would be allowed to resettle in the new Palestinian "state", receive compensation (not from Israel, but the international community) to stay where they are, or re-settle in a third country, but could not return to the homes that they were driven out of when the Israeli state was formed. Citizenship options would include Great Britain, Germany, Japan, the U.S., Lebanon, or Jordan. Abdel Razeq offered the empty assurance that, "some could go to Israel, but only if Israel agrees to take them in."

End of Conflict: All U.N. resolutions, previous agreements, and further claims will be null and void, and the parties will sign an "end of the conflict" statement. Both sides agree that the U.N. should adopt the document in full and pass a special resolution replacing and annulling all previous resolutions relating to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including Resolution 194 concerning refugee rights. The settlement would be considered final and the Palestinians would never place further claims against Israel.

Needless to say, these terms are not only an unfair settlement, but a sell-out that is far from reflecting the Palestinian people's aspirations that they have struggled so long to attain. An arrangement like this could only be made by a leadership that is more interested in its own survival than in serving the people it supposedly represents.

(snipped the rest - long article)

[tinnypriv]

1. Looks a useful article

However there is an error in the first section, concerning airspace:

The Parties recognize and respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence, as well as the inviolability of each others territory, including territorial waters, and airspace. They shall respect this inviolability in accordance with this Agreement, the UN Charter, and other rules of international law. (Article 4, Sec 2, 'The Geneva Accord')

Israel would not "retain control of airspace" if Geneva was adopted.

EDIT: Grammar in quote.

[Resistance]

3. hmm

Geneva also says:

(b) Training
i. The Israeli Air Force shall be entitled to use the Palestinian sovereign airspace for training purposes in accordance with Annex X, which shall be based on rules pertaining to IAF use of Israeli airspace.

Annex X is incomplete as of today, correct?

[Darranar]

6. Training purposes...

I don't see what's that bad about that.

[Resistance]

7. The point is

that "retain control of airspace" is not exactly the errant description that tinnypriv suggested it was.

[tinnypriv]

8. You're correct, but that doesn't make any difference

Israel having training use of Palestinian airspace could not in any way be construed as having "control" of it, regardless of whatever is in annex x, which is not published as yet.

If this author wishes to say that the Palestinians will not have the same control of their airspace as Israelis have of theirs, that would be accurate, based on publically available information.

Israel has control of Palestinian airspace at the moment. Since it would lose that if Geneva were adopted (losing combat military overflights for example), ipso facto it cannot possibly be said that it will retain control of it.

[Resistance]

12. probably

the author should have written "retains some control" of airspace?

[tinnypriv]

14. Yeah, but I'd prefer:

"Palestinians will not have the same sovereign rights to their airspace as Israelis have of theirs. This will be accomplished through a combination of straight power play, guile and PLO complicity"

Makes virtually the same point, and has the added advantage of being accurate.

There are enough problems in Geneva without exaggerating small (by comparison) problems such as airspace control. Especially since the Palestinian state will be demilitirized regardless. :)

[The Magistrate]

19. Another Error In the Propagandists' Summary, Sir

Is in the question of repatriation. The section of permanent place of residence is indeed opaque, but there is provision for some repatriation to Israel, in line with a fairly complicated formula that seems to be based on how many people other states are willing to take in.

This question, too, in the world as it is, would seem to be as beside the point as the airspace quibble. Would, for example, Arab Palestinians who returned to properties now in Israel become Israeli citizens? They would not be, at least not by my understanding of current Israeli laws. Would this affect anyone's desire to avail themselves of this course? Would Israelis now occuppying such properties be evicted from them, if the old owners returned? What if the property is a domicile no longer existing? Only one of my childhood residences remains in existence today: the space one of them occupied is now a motel parking lot, people have told me. In some rural areas it might be more simple to determine the remains of a destroyed village, but a very large proportion of the propertied refugees haled from urban locales: what parts of Lydda or Jaffa are just as they were almost sixty years ago?

The more one looks at this question of "right to repatriation", the more one is driven to conclude it is a fantasia, unless it is, as some of the more cynical suggest, a mere formula for practical overthrow of Israel.

[papau]

2. electronicintifada selling out the PA people - rejects reasonable peace so

that more can die, as it attempts to end Jewish state via right of return being demanded.

Tries to sell a myth - the idea that this will ever be accepted - claiming that to do otherwise is a sell-out of the Palestinian people's aspirations - and continued death without a PA state or a PA economy is preferrable to peace.

electronicintifada is sick and evil- as it calls for more to die.

[Resistance]

4. excuse me

where exactly did electronic intifada call for more to die?

[tinnypriv]

10. Eh?

If anybody has sold out the PA people it is Israel, the US and Arafat.

It isn't the fault of EI or the Palestinians that Israel would probably nuke the world if the Palestinians exercised their sovereign human right to return to the homes from which they were forcibly driven from, is it?

And EI isn't "calling for more to die", either.

Did you read the same article?

[Resistance]

13. Frankly

the idea that Israel would "nuke the world" is as much an exaggeration as is the claim that EI calls on "more to die".

That being said, I fully agree with the rest of your post: Israel and the U.S. have mostly sold the Palestinian people out, and definitely with help of Arafat and the PA.

[tinnypriv]

15. I wholly disagree

Israel has shown that it is more than willing to (at the least) threaten to nuke Saudi Arabian oil fields in response to the threat of peace plus the right of return (1980's, Faud Peace Plan).

Assuming Israel carried out that threat, all bets would be off.

Since it also has the known public ability to destroy "every Arab capital", the ability to launch ICBM-style technology and no reason to hold back (since a nuclear exchange would be the likely result from an attack on the Saudi fields), it would essentially "blow up the world" (to quote Chomsky on this specific issue).

An additional element to factor into that mix is the fact that the "Samson Complex" has a great deal of traction in Israel, with educated, westernised Israelis calling for "burning the oil fields" and going "nishtagea" if crossed (the first quote from a settler, the second from PM Sharatt's diaries).

I certainly do not believe the above is in any way an exaggeration. Rather I consider it very serious and the reason I don't think there is any possible hope of implementing the right of return. I certainly recognise it, and deplore the fact it cannot be exercised, but justice is rarely done around the world.

Especially so in this case, unfortunately.

[Equinox]

20. papau...

...as it attempts to end Jewish state via right of return being demanded.

The only thing the Jewish State would lose is its racist nature.

:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. It is not racist

Every state decides who is a citizen of that state.

[Resistance]

25. LOL

... don't mind me, I'm just laughing because I realize you really think you're making sense.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. LOL

I am just laughing because you think you are scoring rhetorical points.

[Equinox]

28. Not every state's decision is predicated on ethnicity/religion...

and futhermore, not every state welcomes only one race/ethnicity/religion at the demise of the original inhabitants who have a...now follow a long, Muddleoftheroad, it get's real complicated, so read slowly.....right to be there guaranteed by international law.

So Muddleoftheroad, you were saying?.......

Edit: fixed something

[Violet_Crumble]

103. Yr partly correct...

Every state does decide who's a citizen of that state. Australia did it with the White Australia Policy right up to the end of WWII, and Nazi Germany decided who was a citizen of its state, just to name a few. So if yr going to try arguing that something isn't racist, trying to say it's not racist because every state decides who's a citizen of that state isn't a good way to argue it...

Violet...

[papau]

30. Why are states with an Islamic bent not "racist"

Or Germany and the Lutheran Church?

"race" as a science fact does not exist -

However discrimination by skin color does exist - as does discrimination by village, height, weight, religion, and just about anything you care to name.

But why do we use the term "racist" in this context?

[tinnypriv]

31. Er, they are

Which is exactly the point.

Anybody who is opposed to Israel's racist laws making it the state of the Jewish people will by definition also be opposed to "Islamic" states, or "Christian" states or "Black States" and the like.

Unless they're not total hypocrites, that is.

As to your question: the term racist is used because it is accurate.

[Equinox]

35. Thank you tinnypriv...

it was just a strawman anyway...but I responded too.

For the record: All Islamic Theocracies are racist. Is that better?

Israel is racist in nature and so are the Islamic Theocracies. Ok...I didn't realize I had to qualify any criticism of Israel to include the "Islamic" states too!

If I say that I hate peanuts, do I have to go and name every other food I hate, as well, just to put it in context?

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Not even vaguely accurate

Racist states clearly that race is the determining factor. Israel is home to the Jewish people who share, religious, cultural and ethnic heritage.

[Equinox]

47. LOL...look at you spin!

Whatever the case maybe. Israel's immigration policy is predicated on religion/culture/ethnic heritage! Not only that, it's predicated on not allowing those that have a legal right to be there not to be there based on the same standard which is religion/culture/ethnic heritage!

Now was that so hard!

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Not spinning at all

Every nation decides what people to allow in. I am guessing you are upset that Israel will not allow current non-citizens into its nation so it can be taken over from the inside. Sorry, but no nation would do that. Israel is identical to all other nations in that it seeks self preservation. Go figure.

[Equinox]

67. The only reason it's worried...is because that's what occurred to...

the original inhabitants. The master doesn't want to make its slave to strong for fear of retribution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Interesting term

"Original inhabitants." There are probably many interpretations of that one.

[Equinox]

76. Probably....n/t

[tinnypriv]

49. Saudi Arabia is home to Muslim people who share, religious, cultural...

....and ethnic heritage.

Hence it is an Islamic State.

And that is cool with you? Gotcha. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. Actually yes

Every nation has the right to set its own immigration policies. Those are theirs.

[tinnypriv]

58. So I assume you disagree with rini

Who whines about Jews in Saudi Arabia all the time? (correctly, I might add).

Weird.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. No I don't disagree

She complains that Jews who are IN Saudi Arabia are mistreated. That is wrong. It is wrong to mistreat Arab citizens IN Israel as well.

[tinnypriv]

66. No, she complains Jews have to hide in airplane toilets

In order to get into Saudi Arabia.

But hey, they can set their own immigration policies, so I assume that is fine.

[Equinox]

71. Well that threw that whole argument down the crapper. Pun intended.

[Gimel]

79. Actually, her point

is that in contrast to the Israeli policy, the Saudi Policy is extreme and phobic with regard to Jews. Only an American Jew who has never visited Israel is allowed to enter.

[Sesquipedalian]

88. Why in hell would they want to go there?

Why would anyone want to go there?

I wonder the same thing about Israel/Palestine to sometimes, but really, why would anyone go to Saudi Arabia outside of religious requirement? I wouldn't spend a week in Saudi Arabia if it was paid for and I damn sure wouldn't hide in an airplane toilet to go there.

[rini]

92. wrong again!

What I said was they could not be found on an aircraft that landed in Saudi and had to stay locked in the bathroom until it took off once again.

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Are these stories from more friends of yrs?

Y'know, like those Iraqi friends of yrs?

Saudi Arabia obviously has immigration policies that discriminate against Jews amongst others. That would be because they don't want these groups in Saudi Arabia, and according to Muddle's logic, that's fine, because every state has the right to let in who they want, therefore it's not racist. I happen to disagree on that...

So why would anyone on a flight that was diverted to Saudi Arabia have to hide in a loo? If the passengers destination was somewhere else, and if the flight was diverted due to mechanical problems, why would Saudi officials be searching for Jews on the flight? They'd be on their way pretty quickly, after all, which would seem to be what the Saudis would like. So, who was searching for passengers and for what reasons? If someone was serious about searching for passengers, methinks the passenger list and the loos would be some of the first places to look. But maybe they do things weird at airports in Saudi Arabia...

Violet...

[Resistance]

73. Wait wait wait, hold the phone folks

Muddle has admitted that it is wrong to mistreat Arab citizens.

Hot damn, I think we're making progress!!!

[The Magistrate]

61. It Is, Sir

At least in its broad outline, as acceptable to me as the state of Israel. My quarrel with Saudi Arabia is centered on the character of Wahhabism, a thing we need not go into here, save to say that if Israel were given to enforcing a similarly retrograde sect of Judaism throughout its whole social fabric and law, my attitude towards that would share a similar hostility. But it does not: though there have been some unfortunate political compromises with the ultra-Orthodox in some matters of civil relations, Israeli society is on the whole enthusiastically secular and modern.

In an ideal world, there would be no particular need or justification for a state of Israel as presently constituted. We do not live in such a world, nor is there any reason to expect we ever will. Israel was established so there would be a state where state persecution of Jews was a practical impossibility, and given the sorry history of that question over a couple of millenia, the doing seems reasonable to me.

[tinnypriv]

70. I agree

Note that I qualified my position with "as the world is now".

"In an ideal world, there would be no particular need or justification for a state of Israel as presently constituted"

Agreed. I was discussing my own personal ethical position on the issue, which is virtually the same as yours. I consider tactical and "realistic" arguments to be somewhat different, but that is not what I was addressing.

[The Magistrate]

Indeed, Sir

Our views are not really all that far apart on most questions concerning this matter.

My inclination is to place the greatest premium on practical concerns, and hope for very little by way of ethical ones....

[Violet_Crumble]

106. State persecution...

I've got no problem with Israel existing, but where I start to get uncomfortable is when in ensuring against state persecution, that state discriminates against others that aren't part of that majority.
Why is a majority needed anywhere to ensure that state persecution doesn't occur? Wouldn't that mean that the various groups of indigenous people persecuted by European colonists deserve their own states to ensure that persecution against them is a practical impossibility? While the persecution doesn't date back millenia, it does date back to the time of those peoples first contact with Europeans, and in places that persecution was incredibly violent and in places like here resulted in the successful genocide of groups of indigenous people like the Tasmanian Aboriginals....

While there are parts of the world where I believe there should be a real fear that state persecution of Jews is real, I find it very hard, not in an ideal world, but the real world, to see that places like the US, Australia, Canada etc haven't made it a practical impossibility for state persecution against Jews to happen....

Violet...

[Equinox]

34. I never said Islamic states weren't racist....

your argument is null and void....

I use the term racist in "this context" and will continue to do so until Israel becomes a state for all its citizens including those that were expelled to make its own existence possible.

I will use the term when Israeli citizens of Arabic decent don't have their shack demolished and told to "go to the West Bank."

Israel as a Jewish state is racist in it's very nature. If the US was a state for "The Baptist People"...it would be a racist state.

Hence, the only thing threatened by the right of return is Israel's racist nature.

[Darranar]

5. This article has several errors...

the exact parameters of the Palestinian Security Forces have not yet been released, and airspace will be under Palestinian control.

The issue of the right of return was handled well, IMO, in the Geneva Accords; reperations should be paid and they should be allowed to re-settle in a Palestinian state. It is the most workable solution there is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Not commenting

But I really would love to see opinions on this from the pro-Palestinian side of the aisle here. I'm curious how they react to this.

[tinnypriv]

11. Are you tacitly admitting you're on a "side of the aisle"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Tacitly?

I've said before, I am a Zionist. I belive in Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people. I believe in the two-state solution and believe a one-state solution would destroy Israel.

So, care to comment on the article above?

[tinnypriv]

17. Right

Take out "Zionist" (because I don't believe the word has a literal meaning), and my views are virtually identical, as the world is now (important caveat).

So, it's a funny side of the "aisle" you're on. You're standing right next to me on those issues you noted. Perhaps you could list some others? I suspect we may diverge on screwing the Palestinians out of their land, killing them, murdering peace activists, journalists etc. I could be wrong though.

As for the article, I've done nothing but comment on it. You can read, right? :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

18. Down Here In Our Dungeon, My Friend

Our differences are often much less than meets the eye.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. It does have a meaning

It has a clear meaning. I support Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.

As for your loaded and propagandistic question of, "I suspect we may diverge on screwing the Palestinians out of their land, killing them, murdering peace activists, journalists etc. I could be wrong though."

Let's see, I don't give a damn about the settlements except to say they are bargaining chips. I do consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel and would not give that up. But the rest would go if the Palestinians ever agree to tackle terror.

The only Palestinians I want to kill are terrorists. If the Palestinians would stop letting them hide in the civilian population, I'd be a lot happier. So would the Palestinians.

As for peace activist Rachel Corrie, I'm sorry she died. I have sympathy for her family, but she died doing something stupid. And accidents do happen. People in a combat zone get shot or killed, it sucks. But it does happen.

[Saudade]

26. Sorry

"Let's see, I don't give a damn about the settlements except to say they are bargaining chips."

Reality has absolutely no effect on some minds.

I wonder if Muddle can provide one single Israeli quote for the proposition that "settlements are bargaining chips".

I bet he can't.

On the other hand, I can provide myriad evidence that settlements (colonies) are the primary means by which Israel intends to permanently annex the occupied territories.

Back up you your words, Muddle, or drop this absurd claim.

[Resistance]

27. you think that's bad Saudade?

We have another ultra-nationalist here (Gimel) who argues that the demand to end settlement expansion is "genocidal" against Israelis. (yes that is a direct quote)

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Why do I need a quote

In every negotiation, there is talk about getting rid of some, most or all of the settements. By their very existence, they are bargained with. That makes them bargaining chips.

The more of them, the more the Palestinians fear "facts on the ground" turning against them. That makes the Palestinians more likely to bargain now rather than be outpaced by changing facts on the ground.

[Saudade]

85. Muddle

"In every negotiation, there is talk about getting rid of some, most or all of the settements. By their very existence, they are bargained with. That makes them bargaining chips."

When you say that the settlements are "bargaining chips," you must mean that the Israeli government (the party that is doing the bargaining, and controls what happens to the settlements) regards them as bargaining chips, i.e., as non-permanent.

Saying that "there is talk about getting rid of them" means absolutely nothing because the Israeli government does NOT "talk about getting rid of them" and in fact continuously expands them, in defiance of the "road map" that Sharon supposedly accepted.

You can continue to repeat this claim ad nauseum, but it means absolutely nothing unless you can back it up with similar statements from those who actually make decisions regarding the future of the settlements.

The truth is this:

The settlers from time to time erect "outposts" on various hills in the OT, and the Government from time to time uses these "outposts" as a bargaining chip, and orders them evacuated (if there is anyone there, and often there isn't). Basically, even this is not a real bargaining chip, but rather a PR move.

But there is absolutely no evidence I am aware of that the Sharon government regards the actual settlements as anything other than permanent, and the settlers themselves also view them as permanent, as the primary tool with which to render a Palestinian state impossible.

Prove me wrong, Muddle.

[Sesquipedalian]

87. theft is apparently a bargaining tool

If you are going to be that pragmatic about things don't complain about Palestinians using random murder for similar ends.

[tinnypriv]

29. So do I

"I support Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people"

Does that make me a Zionist? Guess so!

I do not, however, support the state of Israel being the State of the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora.

A crucial difference.

[Darranar]

33. You do not like the Jewish characteristic of the state?

Are you similarly against a Kurdish state?

[tinnypriv]

38. You've misinterpreted

There is nothing wrong with the "Jewish characteristic" of the State of Israel. Nor would I have a problem with a majority Kurdish state.

I would have a problem if a Kurdish state was defined as the State of the Kurdish people and by law discriminated against citizens who are not Kurdish.

Same goes for Israel. I don't have a problem with a majority Jewish state, but I am against laws which discriminate against non-Jews in that state.

A state should be a state of it's citizens. Nothing else.

[Darranar]

39. Are you in favor of affirmitave action?

[tinnypriv]

45. No

There are two answers here.

The one I've given ("no"), or a 2,500 word essay. I really don't want to have to write that essay. ;-)

[Darranar]

50. I am...

bigotry has far from been extinguished in this country. Affirmitave action helps reverse that.

Israel, to me, is a form of affirmitave action.

[Equinox]

53. How so, when it's the one that has committed the original sin?

To me, Israel is affirmative action in reverse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Israel is a corrective action

For a world that is unable to accept the Jewish people.

[Equinox]

74. Ok..as a "corrective action" can we move....

...all the Palestinians into your home and land?

I knew you'd be a sport.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. I thought you wanted a homeland for them

I doubt it would be as big as the West Bank or Gaza.

[Equinox]

78. But since they don't get that even....

We'll just give them your home as "corrective action."

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. If it would bring peace

They could have it.

[Equinox]

82. Bullshit...

:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. Wanna bet

If I could sacrifice my home and solve the I/P crisis, I'd go live on the street today. Hell, it would be worth it.

Alas, that won't be enough.

[rini]

93. Mr. Muddleoftheroad

You have, per usual, hit the nail on the head. I agree each country has the right to make its own immigration laws. To force people to hide on a plane that makes an unexpected landing because they are Jewish is awful. But all the facts, all the figures, all the shedding light on a situation, will not help those who prefer to be blind, see the light. Instead they curse the bearer of the torch. Thank you sir for bearing the torch with strength and dignity.

[Darranar]

64. What original sin?

Israel's actions and the existence of Israel as a Jewish state are different things.

The Holocaust wasn't caused by Jewish sins.

[Equinox]

72. That's not what I was referring to.

n/t

[Darranar]

75. I know.

[Equinox]

37. tinnypriv....I'm so glad you brought that up!

That is totally crucial....

worth repeating:

Israel should be a homeland for the Jewish people. It should not be soley a Jewish State.

It's inherently racist. It's inherently unjustified to the original inhabitants and most of all, it's inherently backward and self defeating.

[tinnypriv]

40. Well said

:thumbsup:

The really interesting question is how so many so-called "Democrats" are able to support such racist characteristics without question. It cannot soley be the fear of denunciation, smears etc.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. So then you are not a Zionist

When I say the Jewish people, I mean ALL the Jewish people.

[Darranar]

42. What if I don't want Israel to be my state?

What if I don't want to associate with a nation that oppresses a large number of people?

Being a Jew, do I not have the right to choose?

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Then you are not a ZIonist

You have the right to choose, but the term means what it means. If you view, incorrectly I might add, that Israel does as you claim, then don't associate.

[Darranar]

68. But you said...

that you believed Israel should be a state for all Jews.

Simple excersise in logic:

Israel is a state for all Jews.

I am a Jew.

Therefore, Israel is a state for me.

But what if I don't want it to be a state for me?

[tinnypriv]

46. How about I say *you're* not a Zionist?

Like I said, no literal meaning.

Shame it took a while to square the circle.

[Equinox]

51. LOL...

Person A: You're not a zionist!

Person B: No, you're not a zionist!

Person A: Uh...no you're not!

Person B: Nu uh, you're not!

Person A: Are to!

Person B: Are not!

........ :eyes: ....... BTW, This is directed towards Muddleoftheroad since you are the defining power, apparantly, of who is a zionist.

[Equinox]

21. Muddleoftheroad....

...believe a one-state solution would destroy Israel.

The only thing it would destroy is its racist nature.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people

The sooner you accept that reality, the sooner you and others will be able to talk peace in the Mideast.

[Equinox]

36. No..it is you my friend, that needs to wake up...

and understand that Israel can't be the homeland for the Jewish people and:

A) Expect to be at peace with the people it forcibly expelled.

B) Expect to not be an international pariah.

C) Continue with its masquarade as a democracy.

When Israel can finally realize that it must behave to a minimum standard required by other nations, then it will enjoy peace and neighborly relations among other nations besides the one that spends 4 billion dollars on it.

Qualifier: I realize other "Islamic States" must do the same thing.

Happy?

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Nope, not happy

So, you want to destroy Israel and I should be happy with that? Nope.

Just because Israel doesn't meet your requirements, that doesn't change things.

Israel IS the homeland for ALL the Jewish people. If the Palestinians can't deal with that, then they won't get a state. It's that simple. And Israel already is an international pariah because we know how well the world has treated Jewish people for 2,000 years. This is no different. Israel remains a democracy. All citizens vote and can be represented in the Knesset.

As for a minimal standard, Israel far outdoes every other nation in the Mideast, Africa, much of Asia and even some of Europe for democracy, living standards, morality and legality. Deal with those evils and get back to me.

[Saudade]

54. Pitiful

"And Israel already is an international pariah because we know how well the world has treated Jewish people for 2,000 years."

Here we have the standard, tried and true, out-of-date and downright nauseating and completely pernicious eternal victimization ploy, in which historical victimization is cynically and dishonestly used, in a completely narcissistic and self-righteous way, to not only explain but in fact take pride in one's pariah status, and worse, to justify victimization of another people who cannot defend themselves against the world's fourth most powerful military.

It goes like this:

"If the entire world hates us, that only proves our divine national mission. G-d loves us to the extent that the world hates us," which is a good working definition of a fanatic, a la Osama bin Laden.

As a jew, I am thoroughly familiar with this disgusting rhetoric, and I particularly resent it coming from a gentile who thinks he knows.

[Equinox]

62. Saudade....

As a Jew, are you disgusted by the use of victimization and the Holocaust to create an oppressive state? In other words, do you feel that the way the GOI behaves and subsequently uses the Holocaust as a ready made defense, diminishes the gravity of how those people suffered?

Edit: That "Never Again" rings hollow?

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. It's sure as hell NOT out of date

Jews are still persecuted around the world, especially in the lovely Muslim world. You don't need to make up victimization, they ARE victimized.

And for the millionth time, it's not the fourth most powerful military. But we've been over that endlessly and none of you will see logic on that point.

I don't care if you resent my beliefs because I am a gentile or that I am a gentile. Either way, your choice.

[rini]

94. Has anyone

ever insulted your religion here? If so they need to be banned!

[Equinox]

55. Muddleoftheroad....

I'll try again. If you don't get, there is no way on earth that I can help you.

So, you want to destroy Israel and I should be happy with that? Nope.

Never said that. Plus, I'm not that powerful.

Just because Israel doesn't meet your requirements, that doesn't change things.

Hark! You've made an accurate statment! I'm surprised. Congratulations. No, it certainly doesn't change things. Israel can go on doing what it's been doing. The status quo can continue unabated. Israel cannot whine, however, if the same status quo in response, i.e., suicide bombers, resistence, international outcry, continues unabated. Again, I must congratulate you on an accurate statement. I haven't seen you make many.:party:

[The Magistrate]

90. A Small Question, Mr. Equinox, Concerning Your Point B In No. 36 Above

Why on earth must a homeland for the Jewish people expect to be an international pariah?

That would seem to be worth a little exploration....

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. Of course, that's what the PA does best, that and kiss western ass

The PA does not represent the people, and it is the people who will decide the acceptance or rejection of any agreement, not the PA.

Neither the US or Israel will talk to anyone other than the PA, and they will barely talk to them.

It may not be to Washington's liking to deal with Hamas or Islamic Jihad, but neither is it to Palestine's liking to deal with Likud, whose policy has been to systematically murder and imprison any Palestinian who would be willing to at least talk about letting Israel have some land somewhere. but have enough integrity, not to mention sense, to sign off on moonpie crap that the street will not recognize as a legitimate agreement.

[Gimel]

80. Screwed again

Needless to say, these terms are not only an unfair settlement, but a sell-out that is far from reflecting the Palestinian people's aspirations that they have struggled so long to attain.


Let's face it, there's no possible agreement for these people that will allow a Jewish state to exist.

[Resistance]

84. The road is difficult

When you've stolen someone's land and murdered so many of their brethren, I would imagine that yes it would be very difficult to find that agreement where the victim says "Ok you can have somewhere over 78% of the land you stole from my fathers and mothers. I'll take the 22% and we'll work out the details."

Face it: it's not about a "Jewish" state - it's about accepting any state founded on stolen land where hundreds of thousands were either massacred or forcibly removed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. By that definition

Pretty much no nation in the world is legal.

[Gimel]

91. Usually I ignore this kind of BS

It has nothing to do with Palestinian Right of determination. It has only to do with claiming Israel has no moral basis. This is a total bias, and it's not only my opinon.

This kind of propaganda is constantly pushed on websites such as EI.

Even if you can prove that more than 100 innocent Arabs were forced to move 20 miles from their home in 1947, you will not prove the intent of your claim.


Therefore, you should not repeat things that you cannot verify.

Does this justify a massacre in 1974 of 22 children and 2 teachers in Ma'alot?

http://www.yesmalot.co.il/eng/eng.html

[Resistance]

95. Wow

You, Gimel, ignore the massacres of Palestinians and forced removal of hundreds of thousands of them from their homes?

Really, I would have never guessed.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Gimel]

97. There are more objective sources

Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

Winston Churchill observed in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."

Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war – not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.

In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps – not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.

Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone – one of a series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing yet another great injustice to the Jews.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27338

[bluesoul]

98. Oh my

"It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone – one of a series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing yet another great injustice to the Jews. "

This and quoting Worldnetdaily, the bastion of Right wing BS? You CANNOT be serious...

[Gimel]

99. Anticipated response

Your response was anticipated, but the the quote from Churchill and the fact that the writer is an American Arab justifies the posting. Left-wing sites are predominantly anti-Israeli and have succeeded in promoting the series of "lies and myths".

[bluesoul]

100. Say what

So you're saying the right-wing (as extreme as they come) are more credible and those you rely on? Rather then progressive/liberal? And left-wing are anti-Israeli? Like NY Times? Or the Washington Post?

[Gimel]

101. Your definitions

Left-wing implies extreme, at least to me. It is further left than left-centrists such as the NY Times and Washington Post. I would not refer to them as left-wing. However, the Electronic Intifada would be left-wing.

[bluesoul]

102. Extreme left

I guess peace activists are the "extreme" left. If so I am proud to be supporting the "extreme left". I guess people like Zinn, Chomsky, Fisk and other intelectuals also fall under the "extreme" left, right?

[Gimel]

104. If you say so.

There are always more extreme in any case.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. This has got me wondering...

So if Chomsky and Fisk are the "extreme" left, and some of us are rather shocked to suddenly find ourselves labelled as "extreme" left, I wonder what writers and commentators Gimel would label as centre-left? Some of those cretins I had the misfortune to see on Foxnews one of the few times I was bored enough to watch it? ;)

Personally, I find some of Gimels definitions a bit hard to follow. She's claimed in the past that JPost is a moderate liberal newspaper, and takes umbrage if Sharon's govt is referred to as a hardline right-wing government...

Violet...

[Gimel]

108. Let's be truthful, violet

It is not I that called Chomsky and Fisk "extreme" left. That was Bluesoul's idea. What I said is that there were always more extreme.

I don't think the JPost is extreme right either.

BTW, I'd like to call you on your claim that Jews had right of entry into the US prior to WWII. Here is a link that will enlighten you.

http://www.blechner.com/ssstlouis.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

109. I was being truthful...

It was you that said: 'Left-wing implies extreme, at least to me.' No-one in their right mind would deny that both Chomsky and Fisk are left-wing...

I posted what you said about the JPost being a moderate liberal newspaper....

btw, what claim? I've not said anything of the sort in this thread, and suspect you've misread what I said about US immigration policy in another thread, where I was left hanging waiting for a response from you. In that thread I said I wasn't familiar with the immigration policies of other nations, just that of Australia, so feel free to go digging back and reply in the thread the discussion was in, rather than going off on a tangent here that had zero to do with what was posted in this thread...

Violet...

[Sesquipedalian]

89. Israeli's would never accept these terms and call it a "state"

I don't think it's a bad plan, but it's incredibly hypocritical for Israel to bitch about this. No way in hell would they accept a demilitarized state afforded protection via the UN.