U.S. veto thwarts UN resolution condemning settlements

[azurnoir]

The United States on Friday voted against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements as illegal. The veto by the U.S., a permanent council member, prevented the resolution from being adopted.

The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. But the U.S., as one of five permanent council members with the power to block any action by the Security Council, struck it down.

The resolution had nearly 120 co-sponsors, exclusively Arab and other non-aligned nations.

The U.S. opposes new Israeli settlements but says taking the issue to the UN will only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-veto-thwarts-un-resolution-condemning-settlements-1.344333

[kayecy]

1. So what does this say about the US?.........

Does the US no longer care what the rest of the world thinks?
Has the US changed its long-standing policy that settlements are illegal?
Can it be right that a declining power (the US) uses its historical great-power veto-right to allow another state to continue an illegal occupation whilst rising powers (Germany, Brazil, India) have no such veto?

[shira]

2. It would have been bigoted for the US to argue that Jews couldn't build or buy homes in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement like Ariel.

[shaayecanaan]

3. do you think that Obama is a racist?

given that he has stated that he does not accept the legitimacy of further Israeli settlements?

[shira]

4. Could you please answer my question first...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=343635&mesg_id=343665

You could respond to that one here.

[kayecy]

5. Have you any evidence?......

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement like Ariel.

That is a strong statement

Have you any evidence that the International Community has ever recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?.....Which countries have their foreign embassies in Jerusalem?

[shira]

8. Wait. You claimed in #1 above occupation is illegal (it's not) and now Jerusalem isn't the capital

...of Israel?

In addition to all the ridiculous nonsense you claimed in our Zionism thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x338130#338895

Really now, I don't know if I'm interested in yet another pretend rational debate with you.

[kayecy]

12. You appear to have no evidence hence I agree.... any discussion would be pointless.

1. Wait. You claimed in #1 above occupation is illegal (it's not)

2. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement like Ariel.

You have appear to have no evidence to support either of your statements....Stating that something is "ridiculous nonsense" is infantile unless you can support your allegation......can you?

[shira]

13. I'll indulge you once you respond to the main point of my post in #2...

Do you believe it should be illegal for Jews to build, buy, and renovate property in and around the Jewish Quarter, the Western/Wailing Wall, and other Jewish holy places in Jerusalem?

No one has a problem with Palestinians building, buying or renovating property in Jerusalem - even those with Israeli citizenship.

So why make all this illegal to Jews?

[kayecy]

18. My response to your main point...........And your evidence is what?

Do you believe it should be illegal for Jews to build, buy, and renovate property in and around the Jewish Quarter, the Western/Wailing Wall, and other Jewish holy places in Jerusalem?

I believe both Jews and Palestinians should be allowed to build. buy and renovate property in and around the Jewish Quarter, the Western/Wailing Wall subject to planning permission determined by a balanced authority consisting of Jews and Arabs....I also believe that both Jews and Arabs should be allowed to build in West Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or anywhere else in Israel...Can you say the same?

Is that response clear enough for you?.....Are you now prepared to produce evidence to support your previous infantile accusations?

[shira]

20. Good answer, idealistic, and perhaps likely in the event the capital is shared in a future deal...

...but right now the UN is voting to make it illegal only for Jews to build in E.Jerusalem, not Arabs. All Arab residents or citizens of Israel (within or outside E.Jerusalem) will be able to build, buy, renovate as much as they would like but not Jews. Are you for that, yes or no? I can only assume you are since you're disappointed that the USA vetoed the resolution. Just want to make sure, okay?

============

Here's Obama very clearly stating Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWrvPvo8yXc

As to official US policy...

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995<1> is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for ‘‘Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad’’ as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened.<2> The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel's declared capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States has withheld recognition of the city as Israel's capital. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93-5),<3> and the House (374-37).<4>

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

Costa Rica and El Salvador have their embassies in Jerusalem.

[kayecy]

31. Since when has East Jerusalem been recognized as part of Israel?......

...but right now the UN is voting to make it illegal only for Jews to build in E.Jerusalem, not Arabs. All Arab residents or citizens of Israel (within or outside E.Jerusalem) will be able to build, buy, renovate as much as they would like but not Jews. Are you for that, yes or no?

Not so fast.....Is East Jerusalem recognized by the International Community as part of Israel or not?......If it is not part of Israel, East Jerusalem is just another of Israel’s illegal settlement areas in occupied territory....

...Here's Obama very clearly stating Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel...

Good try......Since when has a presidential candidate's stump speech been official US policy?..... He also back-tracked when questioned on it later.

.......Israel's declared capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States has withheld recognition of the city as Israel's capital.....

That seems clear then...Even the US does not recognize the city as Israel’s capital

...Costa Rica and El Salvador have their embassies in Jerusalem.

Great!.... If you can’t do better than claiming Costa Rica and El Salvador constitute the” International Community”, for goodness stop making stupid claims.


Talking of stupid claims, I’m still waiting to see the evidence for your other nonsense statement:

...1. Wait. You claimed in #1 above occupation is illegal (it's not)

[shira]

33. First things first...

"but right now the UN is voting to make it illegal only for Jews to build in E.Jerusalem, not Arabs. All Arab residents or citizens of Israel (within or outside E.Jerusalem) will be able to build, buy, renovate as much as they would like but not Jews. Are you for that, yes or no?"

Could you please answer that one first?

[kayecy]

37. I do not think the draft S.C. resolution referred to Jews...........

"but right now the UN is voting to make it illegal only for Jews to build in E.Jerusalem, not Arabs. All Arab residents or citizens of Israel (within or outside E.Jerusalem) will be able to build, buy, renovate as much as they would like but not Jews. Are you for that, yes or no?"

Have you read the exact wording of the complete S.C. Draft Resolution?.....I believe it does not refer to "Jews".

The draft resolution states:
"the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying power, in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and of all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the (Palestinian) territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and other relevant (UN) resolutions. "

That wording rather makes a nonsense of your "Jews not Arabs" claim.....I have no problem in supporting such a resolution......Do you?

[shira]

38. This resolution would stop individuals like Irving Moskowitz from buying/leasing private property...

...beyond the green line. Remember the Sheikh Jarrah controversy? If that's not anti-Jewish bigotry, then nothing is.

That wasn't the Israeli government, it was a private investor and his private property in East Jerusalem. Doesn't matter that it's foreign investment by a Jew, or by a Rightwing Jew. Israel allows for both Jews and Arabs, foreign or domestic, to purchase private property all they wish.

Here's an example of Arab investment...

Foreign Investment in Jerusalem: Both Jewish and Arab

Jews from abroad are not the only ones buying property in Jerusalem. Munib al-Masri, a Palestinian millionaire from Nablus who holds American citizenship, is planning to purchase property 900 meters from the Teddy Kollek Stadium, not far from Jerusalem's Malha shopping mall. His investment company is planning to build 150 housing units next to Beit Safafa, according to company chairman Samir Halayla. Until 1967, Beit Safafa was an Arab village south of Jerusalem divided between Israel and Jordan. After the war it became an area where Jews and Arabs lived together, generally as good neighbors.

The Gulf States, the PLO, and Palestinian millionaires such as al-Masri and the late Abd al-Majid Shuman have all invested funds to purchase property and support construction for Palestinian Arabs. The Jerusalem Treasury Fund affiliated with the Jerusalem Committee headed by King Hassan of Morocco is also active. The Jerusalem Foundation for Development and Investment was founded in Jordan, and there are several similar funds and foundations in Saudi Arabia.23 Foreign donations from Qatar were also involved in the construction of 58 housing units recently completed in Beit Hanina under the auspices of the Arab teachers' association.

On July 19, 2009, Yuval Diskin, head of the Israel Security Agency, reported to the Israeli government on the extensive efforts of the Palestinian Authority and its security apparatuses to prevent Palestinian land from being sold to Jews, especially in eastern Jerusalem.

Regardless of these ongoing struggles, the State of Israel does not limit or forbid the purchase or sale of property or land within Jerusalem, which is under Israeli law, whether the individuals involved are Jews or Arabs.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3056

The Sheikh Jarrah incident demonstrates how it would become only illegal for Jewish investment, building, and purchasing of private property beyond the green line.

Whether it's someone rich like Moskowitz or just a Jewish family of four, all are settlers, anything they do is provocative, and their homes are "settlements".

It's bigotry.

[kayecy]

43. It is indeed bigotry.........

Stick to the wording of the resolution.......Just admit you were talking a load of crap when you stated "The UN is voting to make it illegal only for Jews to build in E.Jerusalem, not Arabs"

The Sheikh Jarrah incident demonstrates how it would become only illegal for Jewish investment, building, and purchasing of private property beyond the green line.

And is it legal for West Bank Palestinians to do those things west of the Green line?


Sheikh Jarrah incident is yet another red herring. So far you have:
1. Failed to show the draft resolution was racist.
2. Failed to show Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in anyone's eyes but Israel
3. Failed to show that the settlements are legal.

It's bigotry.

It is indeed....Your unsubstantiated claims seem to be one more confirmation of your own bigotry.(definition: a bigot is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race)

[shira]

44. East Jerusalem Arab citizens/residents of Israel can buy as much private property as they wish...

...west of the green line.
http://www.forward.com/articles/110136/

This resolution would now make it illegal for Jews to do the opposite.

Sheikh Jarrah is far from a red herring - it's direct proof. Deny it all you wish. It's not as if this resolution will reverse criticism of Sheikh Jarrah for a Jewish private investor daring to purchase, build or renovate private property. It will re-inforce it, making private Jewish investment illegal from now on.

In fact, the PA has already made it illegal (assigning the death penalty) for Arabs who sell property to Jews. And in case you weren't aware or are still in denial, that's also bigotry.

[kayecy]

46. Dodging the issue again?.............

I asked if it was legal for West Bank Palestinians to do those things west of the Green line. You chose to dodge and talk about Arab citizens of Israel.

You seeem to be saying that Jews should be allowed to live and buy land etc East of the Green Line but West Bank Arabs should not be allowed to live or buy land West of the Green Line?......

[shira]

47. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank, right?

You seeem to be saying that Jews should be allowed to live and buy land etc East of the Green Line but West Bank Arabs should not be allowed to live or buy land West of the Green Line?

Nope.

East Jerusalem Arab residents and citizens (most of whom identify themselves as Palestinians in the West Bank) can live or buy land west of the green line, just like Jews.

[kayecy]

48. You are repeating yourself.........Try answering the question......

Nope...East Jerusalem Arab residents and citizens (most of whom identify themselves as Palestinians in the West Bank) can live or buy land west of the green line, just like Jews.

That is not the question.....I said you seemed to think that Jews from anywhere in Israel should have a right to live East of the Green Line but West Bank Palestinians (except those presently resident in East Jerusalem) should have no right to live West of the Green Line?

Just answer the question so we can see how fair minded you are....

[shira]

49. Israel allows both Arabs and Jews to buy, rent, or own private property anywhere in E.Jerusalem

....and within the rest of Israel.

Your point is.......what? That Israel won't allow people from a nation in a state of war against the Jewish state the same access? And that's bigotry? Are you kidding?

Maybe private individuals from Hamas and Islamic Jihad should have the same access to private property within Israel?

:eyes:

[kayecy]

58. Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line have no legal validity...

You have said that East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank. You have also said that East Jerusalem Arab residents identify themselves as Palestinians in the West Bank and therefore presumably members of your "nation in a state of war".

Same people, same enemy but you are prepared to let one lot live anywhere in Israel but ban the other lot...Logical or just an excuse to demand that Jews be allowed to settle in occupied territory?


Lets just agree that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity.

[shira]

62. So the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter are merely illegal settlements in your view?

In addition, any property privately legitimately owned by Jews beyond the green line is illegal?

[kayecy]

72. No, they are merely historical structures, some of which house Jewish and Arab residents...........

So the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter are merely illegal settlements in your view?

NOPE - They are merely historic structures, some of which house residents (Jews and Arabs)of the putative State of Palestine...

In addition, any property privately legitimately owned by Jews beyond the green line is illegal?

Again, NO.....Any private property beyond the Green Line owned by Jews (or anyone else), whose sale has been registered (in the authorized Palestine Civil Authority land registry) is legal and the owners have the usual rights to the use and disposal of their property.


As the occupying power beyond the Green Line, Israel has no right to confer legality on the ownership or sale of private property.

[shira]

75. You realize the PA has been clear that a future Palestine will have no Jews in it....

....and that the PA has made it illegal (death penalty) for Palestinians to sell land to Jews? How do you factor that in?

As the occupying power beyond the Green Line, Israel has no right to confer legality on the ownership or sale of private property.

The Green Line is not a border, but an armistice line. The land beyond the 1949 armistice line is still in dispute, not sovereign Palestinian land.

[kayecy]

78. So if the Green Line is not a border, where is Israel's Eastern border?......

You realize the PA has been clear that a future Palestine will have no Jews in it....
....and that the PA has made it illegal (death penalty) for Palestinians to sell land to Jews? How do you factor that in?

You realise things are changing all over the Arab world?........and that it is unlikely that the PA will be in power by the time Israel gets round to accepting the inevitability of a Palestine State?

The Green Line is not a border, but an armistice line.

So if Israel's Eastern border is not the Green Line, where is it?

The land beyond the 1949 armistice line is still in dispute, not sovereign Palestinian land.

What is the difference between the 'disputed' land to the East of the armistice line and the 'disputed' land to the West of the armistice line?.....Israel has no recognized Eastern border so, it could turn out to be either side of the armistice line.....Interesting thought!


If you do not accept my statement that beyond the Green Line, Israel has no right to confer legality on the ownership or sale of private property, can you accept the wording of UN S.C. resolution 446:

"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;" (UN S.C. Resolution 446)


Now do you accept that settlements beyond the Green Line are illegal under international law?

[shira]

81. So back to the recent UNSCR - In addition to the present PA/Hamas stance on a Jewish presence

....in the W.Bank, the most likely outcome is that no Jews will be allowed to remain beyond the 1949 armistice line with a unilateral Israeli withdrawal (like Gaza). I can only assume you're for that since there's nothing the UN or anyone else is doing to prevent such a scenario. If the PA is replaced, there's no reason to believe it'll be with an entity more progressive and less bigoted. There's every reason to believe it would be replaced with worse. In addition, the UN did nothing to allow Jews access to the old city between 1948-67 and there's no reason to believe the UN would act any different today in the absence of a negotiated agreement and firm commitment by Palestinian leadership to allow such access, as well as the rights of Jews to purchase property and live in the W.Bank.

UNSCR 446 and the recent UNSCR petition contradicts UNSCR 242, which calls for secure and recognizable borders for Israel based on a negotiated land for peace deal. Not all the land beyond the armistice line is off-limits to Israel based on UNSCR 242.

BTW, UNSCR 242 proves the occupation is legal, otherwise it would have called for an immediate Israeli withdrawl. Israel agreed with UNSCR 242.

[kayecy]

84. If you can't see how stupid that statement is I give up.......

UNSCR 242 proves the occupation is legal, otherwise it would have called for an immediate Israeli withdrawl. Israel agreed with UNSCR 242.

If you can't see how stupid that statement is I give up!

[shira]

86. Sorry, I guess you give up then. In addition the PLO and all Arab states rejected 242.

Which goes to show that 242 stated Israel's occupation was legal and that Israel wasn't expected to withdraw immediately and unilaterally without successfully negotiating a land for peace deal.

[Ken Burch]

95. No settlers, not "no Jews"

They'd be glad to have Jewish people there who aren't Israeli citizens or arrogant settlers. It should be enough to have the right to live there as a humble Palestinian citizen living simply as an equal with everyone else.

[shira]

98. Why do you think Jewish Israelis would want to live beyond the green line, Ken?

Maybe provide a few reasons?

[Ken Burch]

100. Some because of the housing subsudies, some out of ideological conviction

(the whole "Judea and Samaria" thing).

Some would like proximity to the religious sites, but this, in my view, could be achieved without making that area part of Israel and without those people having to be ISRAELI citizens.

This does require believing that it's possible for Palestinians to be civilized and moral human beings, something I'm not sure you're capable of.

[shira]

106. And many have a very deep, genuine emotional attachment to certain historical areas...

...like Jerusalem, which is and has always been the religious, cultural, and political center of Judaism. The vast majority of settlers get along very well with their Arab neighbors, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

108. That's not what I've seen from most reports.

There's really no pressing reason to defend the settlements as such.

I'm for the right of everybody to have full access to their religious sites, but it hasn't been left at that. There's been a massive pattern of pushing Arabs in East Jerusalem out of their homes, some of them out of homes they've lived in for decades.

And it really isn't fair to hold what the Jordanians did in the 1948-67 period against the Palestinians. After all, the Palestinians had no power to affect anything that the Jordanians were doing.

And, frankly, it's really, really offensive to keep framing the issue in terms of "why shouldn't JEWS be allowed to live in such and such an area?" That implies that this is about hatred of Jews rather than a dispute between nations. If any other group were running the area that currently comprises Israel and was treating Palestinians as the Israelis have treated them, the Palestinians would feel just the same and would react just the same. It's not as though they've ONLY rebelled because of the fact that Israel as a state self-identifies as "Jewish". It helps nothing to keep trying to frame this as the equivalent of European anti-semitism. The relationship between Arabs and the indigenous Jewish communities of the Middle East was never quite like that...

Palestinians are not Nazis...and the settlements are not about fighting segregation.

[shira]

115. Ken, it is about the Jews

You know very well if a Palestinian developer/investor bought property in a heavily populated Jewish area and was told it was illegal to provide homes for Palestinians there, that would be rank bigotry.

Abbas has repeatedly said he will not allow for even one Jew in a future Palestinian state (nevermind what Fayyad says to contradict him as Abbas is in charge, not Fayyad).

In addition, 97% of Palestinians in Gaza/WB have bigoted/antisemitic views of Jews, no thanks to the steady diet of hate fed to them daily by the PA/Hamas...
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168176

[kayecy]

118. Is it surprising,...... "it is about the Jews"?

In addition, 97% of Palestinians in Gaza/WB have bigoted/antisemitic views of Jews, no thanks to the steady diet of hate fed to them daily by the PA/Hamas...

And you find that surprising!......After 50 years of being subjected to military occupation, bombing, and demonstrations of racial superiority by citizens of the Jewish State, any normal human being would have to be superhuman not to have bigoted/racist views about the race associated with that State........Talk to Koreans and you will find many of them have racist views about their Japanese occupiers..........That occupation ended 70 years ago.

[shira]

120. It's 97% in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan too, but only 35% within Israel

State-sponsored, non-stop 24/7/365 hate, where great guys like Samir Kuntar are celebrated as heroes on kid's shows.

http://www.palwatch.org/
http://www.memritv.org/subject/en/332.htm

Why only 35% in Israel, Kayecy? What are those evil Zionists doing to brainwash Palestinians within Israel?

:shrug:

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't excuse blatant bigotry if 97% of Americans had racist views of Muslims due to 911.

=======

In your nation (Turkey) the hate rate against Jews is over 70%, where your President Erdogan refuses to give back his Gaddafi award for Human Rights.

:eyes:

[kayecy]

123. Isn't there an obvious explanation?....

Why only 35% in Israel, Kayecy? What are those evil Zionists doing to brainwash Palestinians within Israel?

Isn't there an obvious explanation?....It is 70 years since Israeli Arabs were subjected to military action and ethnic cleansing...Time heals even the worst of wounds......Israel should try withdrawing its occupation forces from the West Bank and time might work there too.


Now to get back to the question......Can you honestly say you would not harbour racist thoughts if you had been subject to a military occupation for 50 years?......Oh,and I think you will find that many Americans became blatant racists with regard to Muslims after 9/11.....If Bin Laden had then subjected them to 50 years of Jihadist Military rule, I think you would find the proportion would have then risen to beyond 97%

In your nation (Turkey) the hate rate against Jews is over 70%, where your President Erdogan refuses to give back his Gaddafi award for Human Rights.

Just for the record and to stop you making a fool of yourself, my nation is not Turkey. nor is my president Erdogan....

[shira]

124. That doesn't explain the high rates elsewhere throughout the mideast...

Why aren't the Palestinians within Israel as resentful and bigoted as 97% elsewhere in Egypt, Lebanon, etc.?

And you're right, you're in OCCUPIED Cyprus, my bad. BTW, what'd you think of the Free Gaza Movement, IHH, etc. a few months back?

[kayecy]

126. I see you are dodging the question again......What's your problem?

That doesn't explain the high rates elsewhere throughout the mideast...Why aren't the Palestinians within Israel as resentful and bigoted as 97% elsewhere in Egypt, Lebanon, etc

Very true.....Most wicked of the Egyptians, Lebanese etc......Being invaded by Israel in the recent past isn't really a good enough excuse for having a racist view of Israelis)......However, what have Egyptians, Lebanese etc views got to do with the Palestinians?......They are the ones under occupation and so far you haven't said whether 50 years of military occupation would have perhaps made your views a little racist.

And you're right, you're in OCCUPIED Cyprus, my bad. BTW, what'd you think of the Free Gaza Movement, IHH, etc. a few months back?

Don't make yourself look more foolish than is necessary........I am in neither "OCCUPIED Cyprus" nor "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and I fail to see what relevance my location is to the Israel/Palestine conflict....

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[kayecy]

131. I have never been asked to comment on such a thing, never mind to admit it.........

However, you have utterly failed to explain how only 35% of Palestinians within Israel have bigoted views of Jews.

I have given you one possibility, I am sure there must be others.....Unlike you, I do not pretend to understand why some people are bigots and others not.......

It's really difficult for you to admit how effective state-sponsored hate is.

I have never been asked to comment on such a thing, never mind to admit it.........Anyway, as I said before, after 50 years of occupation I would be surprised if even you, with, I assume, a western democratic upbringing, would not be encouraging your people to rebel against the hated invader......

The Mufti al-Hussayni, before the state of Israel came into being, was helping the Nazi effort and his fellow Muslim Brotherhood friends in Hamas and Fatah continue to spew the same Nazi propaganda he churned out.

And did the Zionists never resort to seeking the help of unsavory regimes in their quest for a homeland?.....Al-Hussayni was desperate to stop Zionists taking over Palestine and was prepared to ally himself with anyone who would provide support.....Israel made an ally of the brutal Shah of Iran and even Churchill made common cause with Stalin when he was desperate.....


You have made similar claims before...What evidence do you have that Hamas continue to spew Nazi propaganda?

[shira]

132. State-sponsored classic antisemitism...

Hamas and the PA both spew Nazi propaganda:

http://www.palwatch.org/

Check out all the material on the left side in green WRT demonization and dehumanization of Jews, cheerleading for the murder and genocide of Jews, Holocaust denial, child indoctrination, Protocols of Zion, admiration for Hitler and Nazis, etc.

Two words: Narrative Killer.

If you can't see how THAT explains a comparatively lower 35% Arab hate rate against Jews within Israel vs. nearly 100% throughout the Arab world, along with very high rates of antisemitic bigotry in far-off places like Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan, then you cannot be reasoned with.

And if you can't see how this hatred is a major factor in the conflict (being anti-liberal is another) WRT why Arab leadership has rejected every peace or partition plan since the early 1920's and cannot stand to have a Jewish state exist (a theological blasphemy to Hamas/Hezbollah/Iranian/Saudi Islamists), you don't know anything about I/P.

[kayecy]

134. Blockading Gaza is guaranteed to generate more and more hatred.......

And if you can't see how this hatred is a major factor in the conflict ....... you don't know anything about I/P.

If you can't see that blockading Gaza is guaranteed to generate more and more hatred, you don't know anything about human nature.....Israel's policies towards Gaza are just as disgusting as Hamas's hate propaganda.

[shira]

136. Really? Why did the 2005 Gaza withdrawal generate more hatred, rockets, etc.?

Was withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 as disgusting as Hamas and the PA's KKK neo-nazi style hate propaganda?

--------

ETA:

Would you have preferred Israel had never occupied the Sinai, W.Bank, Gaza, or the Golan and that those territories remained Egyptian/Jordanian?

The Palestinians wouldn't have self-determination.

Just wondering.

[kayecy]

139. And you think Palestinians have self-determination now?......

Would you have preferred Israel had never occupied the Sinai, W.Bank, Gaza, or the Golan and that those territories remained Egyptian/Jordanian?

It is not a matter what I prefer, it is what the people affected would prefer......After 50 years of being subject to military occupation and demonstrations of racial supremacy, I think any other alternative would look very attractive....

The Palestinians wouldn't have self-determination

And you think they have it now?......Massive Zionist immigration and 50 years of Israeli occupation has made sure that Palestinians will never have self-determination.......Perhaps one day they might achieve a limited sovereignty in a small percentage of Mandate Palestine.....And you are surprised at their hatred!!!!!

[shira]

141. At least they've been offered it from Israel. That wouldn't happen under Jordan/Egypt.

It is not a matter what I prefer, it is what the people affected would prefer......After 50 years of being subject to military occupation and demonstrations of racial supremacy, I think any other alternative would look very attractive....

But everything was worse under Egyptian/Jordanian administration. Health, Economy, Education, Basic Freedoms, etc. You think that's preferable?

You think life under Hamas is preferable in Gaza to the occupation?

And you think they have it now?......Massive Zionist immigration and 50 years of Israeli occupation has made sure that Palestinians will never have self-determination.......Perhaps one day they might achieve a limited sovereignty in a small percentage of Mandate Palestine.....And you are surprised at their hatred!!!!!

Palestinians wouldn't even have a choice WRT self-determination under Egypt/Jordan. At least they've had that choice under Israel.

Why don't they project even more hate WRT what Arab regimes have done to them historically? What they've suffered under Arab regimes has been worse than what's been suffered under Israeli authority.

For example, apartheid policy throughout the Arab world (still living in miserable and disgusting ghetto camps with fewer freedoms than other Arabs; Lebanon, etc). The only ones perpetuating refugee suffering these days are Arab regimes, including Hamas and the PA. At least when Israel took the WB and Gaza, they attempted to end the refugee camps. Only in Israel, as opposed to the rest of the Arab world, do Palestinians enjoy equal rights and freedom. In fact 94% stated they wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43510

You shouldn't underestimate the power of state-sponsored antisemitic hatred and intolerance.

[kayecy]

143. And what do you think the Palestinians have been offered in the way of self-determination?......

But everything was worse under Egyptian/Jordanian administration. Health, Economy, Education, Basic Freedoms, etc. You think that's preferable?

You seem to be saying that things were worse 50 years ago.......That seems to be stating the obvious....Health, Economy, Education etc were worse 50 years ago in most places.

Palestinians wouldn't even have a choice WRT self-determination under Egypt/Jordan.

And your support/evidence for making such a claim is what?

At least they've had that choice under Israel.

And what precisely do you think the Palestinians have been offered in the way of self-determination?

[shira]

145. Credible Israeli offers in 2000 and 2008

And things got better for Palestinians almost immediately after 1967, in all areas. Life was horrendous comparatively under Egyptian/Jordanian rule when Palestinians were too fearful to raise dissent against the Arab occupation of the WB/Gaza.

So WHY do you think Palestinians would prefer more miserable living conditions under Egypt/Jordan and no self-determination in the WB/Gaza over Israeli occupation?

[kayecy]

146. Anything would be better than having Israelis lording it over them .......

Credible Israeli offers in 2000 and 2008

And did these supposed 'offers' of yours give self-determination to the Palestinians?....

Perhaps they were like Camp David....Nod, nod.... Wink, wink and you can't have a copy because Israel doesn't want anyone to know what the offers are or even what borders they are proposing?.....

Netanyahu said in June 2009:
"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state,".......Some offer of self-determination!.....No mention of borders, access to the sea, stationing of Israeli troops etc......Would Israel ever have accepted such a vague offer of self-determination?

So WHY do you think Palestinians would prefer more miserable living conditions under Egypt/Jordan and no self-determination in the WB/Gaza over Israeli occupation?

1. Most Palestinians think you are talking nonsense...They think they would have been be much better off under Egypt/Jordan and with a real chance of obtaining self-determination......

2. Even if they didn't like Egyptian/Jordanian rule, ANYTHING would be better than having racist Israelis lording it over them and demonstrating their contempt for Arabs.

Why do you think the Burmese, Indians, Kenyans etc hated being ruled by the British?......No people, including the Jews, want to be ruled by aliens......

[shira]

147. Including illiberal, far Rightwing Arab rule with no basic rights, including apartheid laws....?

1. The 2000 and 2008 offers would have definitely given Palestinians self-determination. If you could decide, would you have accepted a Palestinian state 10 years ago? You'd have already celebrated Palestine's 10 year anniversary by now, free of occupation and settlements. No Intifada, Gaza war, blockade, etc...

2. Conditions under Egypt/Jordan were far worse than under Israeli administration immediately following the 6-day war, in all respects (health, education, economy, basic freedoms). How can you say Egypt/Jordanian administration is preferable? Also, at no time did the PLO even suggest a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza, so why do you believe Egypt/Jordan would have just granted them that state?

3. How is "anything" better than Israeli rule? Is Hamas rule really better and if so, how? Seems the 94% of Israeli Arabs who prefer Israel over any other country in the world prefer the supposed "racism" of Israel over any other liberal democracy anywhere. Fact trumps narrative. If Israel is racist and 94% of its Arabs prefer living there over any other country on the planet, what does that say for every other country comparatively? That they're more racist?

4. As to Israeli racism, you keep bringing it up. But I don't see pro-Palestinian "progressives" too worried about Arab racism vs. Palestinians (laws vs. Palestinians in every Arab regime). Why is that? Israel dismantled its own Palestinian refugee camps within 5 years of 1948 but I don't see "progressives" too worried about racist apartheid Arab regimes perpetuating Palestinian suffering in squalid ghetto camps. Israel even tried to dismantle all refugee camps over 30 years ago in the territories but were forced not to do so by the so-called "non-racist progressives" who preferred apartheid conditions for these refugees - and still to this day never speak up for the refugees. Why? Seems they're more racist than the Israelis WRT Palestinian rights. And these are the same non-racists seemingly oblivious to state-sponsored Arab antisemitic bigotry, hate, and intolerance vs. Jews, and its long-term effects on the conflict. What is it about the non-racists that make them out to be more racist than the Israelis? Help me out here, what am I missing?

5. And BTW, Jews are native to the land as well so it's not the same as British alien foreign rule. I don't see Palestinians in Jordan too upset about the Hashemites lording over them. I don't see sanctimonious "progressives" too worried about Hamas lording over Gazans or the Lebanese being lorded over by Syrians and Persian (non-Arab aliens). Where's the 99% "understandable hatred" directed towards those oppressive, racist occupiers?

[oberliner]

148. What happened when the Palestinians tried to establish a state in 1970 when occupied by Jordan?

How many Palestinian civilians did the Jordanian army kill?

Were the attacks mitigated by the fact that it was Jordanians (non-"aliens", presumably) doing the killing?

You truly believe that most Palestinians think they would have been better off under Jordanian rule?

[kayecy]

149. That isn't the most important thing for most Palestinians is it?.....

How many Palestinian civilians did the Jordanian army kill?

I don't know.....How many Palestinian civilians has the IDF killed?

You truly believe that most Palestinians think they would have been better off under Jordanian rule?

Better off, probably no.....but that isn't the most important thing for most Palestinians is it? West Bankers might not have liked Jordanian rule, but I suggest that they think ANYTHING would be better than having racist Israelis controlling their every movement.


Why do you think the Burmese, Indians, Kenyans etc hated being ruled by the British?......No people, including the Jews, want to be ruled by aliens......Or perhaps you think Palestinians are different from other races?



BTW....I'm still hoping for a response from you to my question on the thread "Israel to let 300 Palestinians into the West Bank"

[oberliner]

150. I wouldn't say I could identify one most important thing

Based on anecdotal conversations and survey data, I think there are a variety of important priorities for different groups of Palestinian people. Surprisingly, some have even indicated a preference for Israeli occupation over the creation of an independent Palestinian state this time. For many, the top priority is independence and an end to the occupation, for others it is stability and an improved economic environment, and a host of variations in between. Certainly there is not much call for Jordan to re-occupy the West Bank.

I don't think that most Palestinians view things the way you do. I certainly do not think it is at all accurate to state that "racist Israelis" are controlling the Palestinians "every movement" - that is at the very least a gross hyperbole. There are frustrating restrictions on movement throughout the West Bank, however, there are a great many people living in places like Ramallah for instance who have little to no contact with any Israelis at all on a day to day basis. There are still others who work with Israelis on a regular basis and would not apply the term racist to them in the broad manner in which you have done so.

As to the numbers of Palestinian civilians killed by the Jordanian army - there are various reports ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands. Arguably, there were more Palestinian civilians killed in one month by the Jordanian army than in the the forty years since by the Israeli army. And that is to say nothing of the numbers of Jordanian and Israeli civilians that were killed by Palestinians during that time frame.

Your whole "racial" argument with respect to this conflict is nonsensical to me. Most Israelis are of the same race as Palestinians. And in fact, a sizable minority of Israeli citizens actually consider themselves to be Palestinian citizens of Israel. Are Jews ruled by "aliens" in countries where they are in the minority and very few Jewish people are in government leadership positions? I don't think so.

[kayecy]

151. And the evidence for your belief is what?.......When did most of these these deaths occur?......

I don't think that most Palestinians view things the way you do. I certainly do not think it is at all accurate to state that "racist Israelis" are controlling the Palestinians "every movement" - that is at the very least a gross hyperbole

I take it you don't watch "Al Jazira" or read the "Electronic Intifada"?....If you did, you would perhaps change your view.

As to the numbers of Palestinian civilians killed by the Jordanian army - there are various reports ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands. Arguably, there were more Palestinian civilians killed in one month by the Jordanian army than in the the forty years since by the Israeli army.

And the evidence for your belief is what?.......When did most of these these deaths occur?......Are you sure you are not including the 1970 Black Monday figures in your "tens of thousands"?

Some reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict) say the IDF have killed 8,000 Palestinians since 1987.

Your whole "racial" argument with respect to this conflict is nonsensical to me. Most Israelis are of the same race as Palestinians..

Possibly, but only by a very small margin n 2008:
Mizrahi Jews and Sephardic Jews 2,921,000 50.2%
Ashkenazi Jews 2,767,000 47.5%

Besides, any Palestinian reading such media as "The Freeman Center", "Gamla", "Arutz Sheva", "Women in Green", "The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs", "Jewish Indy" or "JINSA" would know he was considered inferior whether racially, culturally or whatever.

[oberliner]

152. Odd that you don't consider 20 percent of Israelis to be Israelis

There are over 7.5 million Israelis - a little under 6 million of them are Jewish, about a million and a half of them are not.

Electronic Intifada is an English-language web site created by an American with articles written primarily by Americans and Europeans.

If you'd really like to get a sense of the Palestinian perspective, I would suggest that you read Al-Quds or Al-Ayyam - or any of several other actual Palestinian news sources.

[kayecy]

153. For goodness sake berliner, what point are you trying to make?.....

Odd that you don't consider 20 percent of Israelis to be Israelis.

For goodness sake berliner, what point are you trying to make?.....Since when have the 20% of Israelis who are Arabs been a significant proportion of the IDF?......Is there any evidence that Israel Arabs have been manning road-blocks, destroying olive trees or taking part in the occupation?

As to the numbers of Palestinian civilians killed by the Jordanian army - there are various reports ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands.

You haven't yet offered any evidence for this claim.

[oberliner]

154. Most Ultra-Orthodox Jews do not serve in the IDF

Yet you did not exclude them from your analysis of the Israeli population.

Most non-Jewish Druze and some non-Jewish Bedouin do serve in the IDF.

Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset, hold positions in the judiciary, and are a part of Israel's governing apparatus on the national, regional, and local levels.

It is insulting to claim that only the Jewish population of Israel count as Israelis - non-Jewish Israelis ought not to be excluded.

Israeli does not equal Jewish and vice versa.

With respect the Jordanian army killing Palestinians during Black September, here is one very basic link:

Excerpt:

Up to 15,000 Palestinian militants and civilians were killed, swaths of Palestinian towns and refugee camps, where the PLO had massed weapons, leveled, the PLO leadership decimated, and between 50,000 and 100,000 people were left homeless. Arab regimes criticized Hussein for what they called "overkill."

http://middleeast.about.com/od/jordan/a/jordan-black-september.htm:

[kayecy]

157. Oberliner......What relevance has the Black September incident to our discussion?......

It is insulting to claim that only the Jewish population of Israel count as Israelis - non-Jewish Israelis ought not to be excluded.

I have never claimed such a thing.

Up to 15,000 Palestinian militants and civilians were killed, swaths of Palestinian towns and refugee camps, where the PLO had massed weapons, leveled, the PLO leadership decimated, and between 50,000 and 100,000 people were left homeless. Arab regimes criticized Hussein for what they called "overkill."

Black September took place in Jordan.....It was indeed overkill by the King and a shameful act....However, as your reference indicates, the PLO had instituted a rebellion against the King, and they should have expected a violent reaction by his army.


You will remember that we were discussing whether the West Bank Palestinians would have preferred Jordanian rule to Israeli rule...What relevance has the 1970 Black September incident to that discussion?......

If you have a reference which shows how many West Bank Palestinians died under Jordanian rule pre 1967, that would be a different matter.....Do you have such a reference?

[oberliner]

159. In response to your points

In response to my writing: It is insulting to claim that only the Jewish population of Israel count as Israelis - non-Jewish Israelis ought not to be excluded.

You wrote: I have never claimed such a thing.

Yet, you did claim exactly that in response to my previous post.

I stated: Your whole "racial" argument with respect to this conflict is nonsensical to me. Most Israelis are of the same race as Palestinians..

You responded:

Possibly, but only by a very small margin n 2008:
Mizrahi Jews and Sephardic Jews 2,921,000 50.2%
Ashkenazi Jews 2,767,000 47.5%

Thus, you did not include Israeli Arabs in your population breakdown of Israelis.

The population of Israel is approximately 7.5 million. Of that number, only about 2.8 million (or about 37 percent) are Ashkenazi Jews - the margin is hardly a small one if you actually include Israeli Arabs as Israeli which you did not do in your statement.

Your comments about Black September are puzzling. You almost seem to be stating that because the PLO was violent that the violent reaction by Jordan against them made sense. Could you not use that same argument with respect to Israel? Certainly you are aware that the PLO and other groups have attacked Israeli citizens violently over the past few decades.

I think that many Palestinians have unpleasant associations with respect to Jordan due primarily to the events of Black September. Thus, I do not think, given the choice they would wish to be under Jordanian occupation again rather than Israeli. Obviously for the majority of Palestinians, neither of those options is of interest.

[kayecy]

160. Oberliner - Were Palestinian uprisings a threat to the Government of Isreal?......

I stated: Your whole "racial" argument with respect to this conflict is nonsensical to me. Most Israelis are of the same race as Palestinians..
Possibly, but only by a very small margin n 2008:
Mizrahi Jews and Sephardic Jews 2,921,000 50.2%
Ashkenazi Jews 2,767,000 47.5%
Thus, you did not include Israeli Arabs in your population breakdown of Israelis.

I did not include Israeli Arabs as we were discussing occupation and persecution of West Bank Palestinians...

Perhaps it would have been clearer to you if I had said ".....racist Jewish soldiers and settlers controlling their every movement".......I suggest you are being rather pedantic.....Not including non-Jews in my breakdown is not the same as claiming that only the Jewish population of Israel count as Israelis......

Your comments about Black September are puzzling. You almost seem to be stating that because the PLO was violent that the violent reaction by Jordan against them made sense.

Exactly.....Unless the West bank Palestinians decided to revolt against the King why would they fear a repeat of Black September?.....I believe that very few Palestinians were killed by the Jordanian army in 20 years of Jordanian rule prior to 1967.

Could you not use that same argument with respect to Israel? Certainly you are aware that the PLO and other groups have attacked Israeli citizens violently over the past few decades.

Are you suggesting that Palestinian uprisings have been an existential threat to the Government of Israel?.........In 1970, King Hussein and his government were in real danger of being overthrown....

[oberliner]

161. The government of Jordan was (and is) an unelected monarchy that should have been overthrown

Palestinians especially had every reason to rise up against the Hashemite king.

It would not surprise me if that monarchy suffered the same fate as what we are seeing happen across the Middle East today.

Your reasons for not including Israeli Arabs still make no sense to me whatsover.

Your generalities are similarly nonsensical. Not all Israeli soldiers are Jewish. Not all Jewish soldiers are racist. And settlers do not control the Palestinian's every movement.

Most strange, however, are your suggestions that Palestinians ought to have lived peacefully under the rule of the Jordanian monarchy which did (and does) govern by decree.

In any case, we obviously don't see a lot of these topics the same way and are not likely to convince one another of much of anything. I appreciate your polite exchange and I will be happy to give you the last word if you want it.

[kayecy]

162. I'm not much clearer on what you were getting at but thank you for trying .....n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

165. We've been through this recently. There's no unelected monarchies...

It's a completely nonsensical term. The British monarchy is, like most others, hereditary and not elected. Using the argument that a country is a constitutional monarchy as any sort of reason why the monarchy should be overthrown is absolutely nonsensical...

[oberliner]

167. King Arthur: I am your king. Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well how'd you become king then?

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

Dennis: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. Yr dislike of constitutional monarchies isn't a reason to advocate overthrowing them....

The system of government in the constitutional monarchy I live in works just fine, btw, so I hope no Americans would try to get all superior or anything, cause that would just be silly, wouldn't it? fyi, I voted against Australia becoming a republic back when we had a referendum on it :)

[shira]

155. Kayecy - are all Arab regimes racist against Palestinians too?

Why else would Jordan revoke citizenship from all the people in the West Bank in 1988?

Why else would Lebanon legally limit the rights of Palestinians?

All Arab regimes have deliberately left refugees in camps to rot in the most miserable ghetto conditions.

====

So are all Arab regimes racist against Palestinians?

And how about their western enablers who support harmful Arab regime policies WRT Palestinians? Are they racists too?

[kayecy]

158. Shira....projecting again?..........n/t

[shira]

163. If you disagree, please explain why. n/t

[Ken Burch]

94. You have my deepest sympathies, kayecy.

You are now trapped in a shira "I'll ask you the same pointless, irrelevant, yet inflammatory question over and over until your head explodes" exchange. God help you.

I'd suggest you take up heavy drinking if you plan to carry it on.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Could you answer the question you were asked? Do you think Obama is a racist? Yes or no...

On edit: Being antisemitic is bigoted rather than racist, so the question should be 'Do you think Obama is a bigot'? After all, he has expressed opposition to further settlement construction. And do you think Hillary Clinton's antisemitic? She's said that Israeli settlements are illegitimate...

[shira]

21. I could but I'll wait for Shay to answer me first, okay? n/t

[azurnoir]

26. I answered your question so I'll ask does yesterdays vote change your feelings about Obama? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

29. self-edited. Don't want to distract from the question I asked Shira n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

27. No, it's not okay. It looks like yr evading answering a simple question...

I don't give a shit what you've dredged up from old threads as preconditions to answering the simple question you were asked by another poster. I'd just like to see you answer the question I've now asked you. Do you think Obama and Clinton are bigoted because they've stated that Israeli settlements are illegitimate?

[shira]

The only evasion going on here is by the folks on your side...

Not one of them has answered my question directly. I see you haven't attempted to answer it either - why not? What's so difficult about it, Violet?

As to Obama, of course he's not a bigot. His administration voted against the UN resolution. It's one thing to be against settlements in general - it's another to be against Jews building/buying in the capital of their nation. I believe it's quite obvious Obama knows the difference.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I'm not the slightest bit interested in yr going on about other DUers...

I'm not on the same 'side' as anyone else here, and I don't know why yr complaining to me about other DUers. I'm not interested. I hope that's clear enough for you and you'll stick to talking about issues rather than other DUers...

Thanks for finally answering the question you previously evaded, even though it's a completely bizarre answer. Please show everyone here the text of the draft resolution that said it was about Jews building/buying in Jerusalem. My understanding from all I've read (and I haven't tracked down the text of the resolution) is that it was doing exactly what Obama says he agrees with, and that was saying that the settlements are illegal and calling for a stop to further construction....

[shira]

42. See #38 above. Also...

The PA has already conceded that places like the Jewish Quarter and Western Wall should and will remain under Israeli control.

Jimmy Carter and others concede that the Gush Etzion bloc should remain under Israeli authority.

Every reasonable educated person WRT the peace process knows there will be land swaps in a final peace settlement.

This is a step backwards, giving the PA every reason to push for a unilateral declaration of statehood rather than negotiating for peace. If most of the world and the UN only wants Israel out of the territories and the PA to declare statehood without making peace with Israel, then that's fine but it's not peace.

This will not lead to peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. That post doesn't contain the text of the Res. where it talks about Jews...

That's what you were asked to supply, and you failed to do so. And that's because after reading the text of the Resolution it doesn't refer to Jews, but to Israeli settlements, which is what I suspected all along.

The Resolution isn't bigoted at all, though you claim it is. What makes no sense is for you to then turn around and claim you don't think Obama's belief that the settlements are illegal is bigoted, even though his view is the same as that set out in the Resolution, and the reason the US gave for vetoing the Resolution had nothing at all to do with disagreeing with what's contained in the Resolution when it comes to settlements. In fact, after reading the text of the Resolution, how anyone could oppose it is a matter of surprise...

[shira]

54. Violet, the fact is Sheikh Jarrah is portrayed as settlers/settlements when it is private ownership

It's that type of "settlement", in reality Jewish private ownership, that is considered too provocative b/c Jews aren't allowed to dwell amongst Arabs.

This resolution therefore makes it illegal for Jewish individuals like Moskowitz to buy or live in property beyond the green line, including within the Jewish Quarter.

And that's fugged up.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. Yr claim about the Resolution being about Jews was false...

I've now read the text and it said nothing at all remotely close to what you claimed it was about. Please learn the difference between *Israel* and *Jews*. Equating them the way that was done in this thread is very wrong. The Resolution isn't about religion/ethnicity or race as you falsely claimed it was. It's about Israel, a state which is carrying out a long-term and brutal occupation.

You also appear to be confused when it comes to what the issues are involved in Israel's occupation. The religion/ethnicity of any individual is totally irrelevent, as Israel is the occupying power, not a bunch of individuals from one particular religious/ethnic group. It's not about private dealings between individuals, either. It's about Israel, as the occupying power, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by changing the nature of the territory it's occupying. It's Israel that gives out permits and other approvals for construction in East Jerusalem. That's when they're not busy destroying the homes of Palestinians so they can give more building approvals to scumbag extremists like Moskowitz....

As for my feelings about Moskowitz ever being told he can't just build whatever he wants in territory that's not the US or Israel, I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for that piece of crap. I know. Yr clearly feeling he's hard-done by so why don't you go and show yr support for that bastion of philanthropy by visiting one of the casinos he owns in California and urging people to gamble more so the money can get poured into the settlements...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/19/us-bingo-funding-israeli-settlements

btw, the Obama administration has openly criticised construction in East Jerusalem. You claim you don't think Obama is bigoted, yet initially you said that being opposed to construction in East Jerusalem is bigoted. So which is it? Do you now think Obama is bigoted, or have you realised the mistake and no longer think criticising construction in East Jerusalem is bigoted?

[shira]

112. In Sheikh Jarrah, Moskowitz' property was privately owned but Jews living on that private property

...were labeled as "settlers" and the act of Jews living there was deemed "illegal settlement" activity.

Get it now?

How is it that Jews living on private property purchased by another Jew is "illegal"?

Sounds like an apartheid law.

Here's the EU on this "illegal settlement"...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3750096,00.html

The recent UNSCR only re-affirms the illegality of Jews daring to live on private Jewish property, whether it belongs to a billionaire like Moskowitz or any other Jewish person.

-----

Now imagine Arabs daring to live on privately owned Arab property in a heavily populated Jewish neighborhood within Jerusalem, and the EU having a problem with that.

Hard to imagine, isn't it?

[Violet_Crumble]

113. You either didn't read or didn't understand my previous post...

There's no other reason as to why you'd be continuing to go on with 'private property' stuff as though it's a simple case of individual A selling property to individual B. So I'll repost what I said earlier in the hope you either read it or get someone to explain the concept of occupation to you. Also, you either ignored or didn't see the question you were asked at the end of the post:

'I've now read the text and it said nothing at all remotely close to what you claimed it was about. Please learn the difference between *Israel* and *Jews*. Equating them the way that was done in this thread is very wrong. The Resolution isn't about religion/ethnicity or race as you falsely claimed it was. It's about Israel, a state which is carrying out a long-term and brutal occupation.

You also appear to be confused when it comes to what the issues are involved in Israel's occupation. The religion/ethnicity of any individual is totally irrelevent, as Israel is the occupying power, not a bunch of individuals from one particular religious/ethnic group. It's not about private dealings between individuals, either. It's about Israel, as the occupying power, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by changing the nature of the territory it's occupying. It's Israel that gives out permits and other approvals for construction in East Jerusalem. That's when they're not busy destroying the homes of Palestinians so they can give more building approvals to scumbag extremists like Moskowitz....

As for my feelings about Moskowitz ever being told he can't just build whatever he wants in territory that's not the US or Israel, I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for that piece of crap. I know. Yr clearly feeling he's hard-done by so why don't you go and show yr support for that bastion of philanthropy by visiting one of the casinos he owns in California and urging people to gamble more so the money can get poured into the settlements...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/19/us-bingo-fu...

btw, the Obama administration has openly criticised construction in East Jerusalem. You claim you don't think Obama is bigoted, yet initially you said that being opposed to construction in East Jerusalem is bigoted. So which is it? Do you now think Obama is bigoted, or have you realised the mistake and no longer think criticising construction in East Jerusalem is bigoted?

[shira]

114. I suspect you wouldn't be playing a tiny violin for a Palestinian investor...

...who was told it's illegal to build and rent homes to Palestinians in a Jewish neighborhood, for no other reason than Arabs living among Jews is too provocative and extreme.

[Violet_Crumble]

164. Again, you seem to have ignored or not understood that the Resolution isn't about Jews...

Yr claim about the Resolution being about Jews is demonstrably false. Here's the text of the Resolution from further downthread. I urge anyone following this discusion to read it for themselves...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49142006/Isr-draft-resolution-veto

I've already explained in very simple terms why that Resolution, and the others that have come out of the UN about the Occupation, are speaking specifically about Israel occupying territory that isn't part of Israel. While it appears that yr reading the posts yr responding to, it's also clear that yr either not understanding or deciding to ignore what's been explained about the occupation and the question I repeated for you in bold in the hope you wouldn't continue to ignore it. If you disagree with what I've explained, I'd hope that there'd be an argument voiced, starting off along the lines of: 'Violet, here's the reasons why what you said is incorrect......' and then it could go from there. But I'm not sure how ignoring the main argument in my posts and just repeating over and over again what you've been already been corrected on is any sort of constructive or interesting exchange. I'll try to explain it as simply as I possibly can, and this time it'd help for you to ask questions if you don't understand what's being explained to you.

The Resolution isn't about private ownership of property. The Resolution is about Israel asserting its sovereignty and its own population onto occupied territory. Here's a link you provided to the text of the Resolution. I assumed at the time you'd paused and read the Resolution, but it appears you haven't, as anyone who'd read it wouldn't be trying to claim it's about refusing private ownership only to Jews. The Resolution specifically states that it's calling for the state of Israel to cease serttlement activity in occupied territory, including East Jerusalem and to abide by international law. The Resolution has absolutely nothing to do with the religion or ethnicity of individuals, and I consider the wording of the Resolution to be so clear and understandable that attempts to claim it was about anything else are verging on disingeuous.

Israel, as the occupying power, has the same responsibility in East Jerusalem as any other occupying power would have. It's illegal for the occupying power to destroy or take over homes of civilians in order to change the demographics of the area it's occupying. Do you understand that it's about the occupying power, not about some stinking rich extremist millionaire who pours his millions into the settlements? Israel is the power that controls building permits and it's responsible for ensuring that civilians aren't put out of their homes, or that the nature of the occupied territory isn't changed. Moskowitz can go and build in Israel. He can't do it in the occupied territories, or just turn up anywhere apart from the US or Israel and start building wherever or however he wants. If you think he should have the right to do that, please explain why you think he should get special treatment that no-one else would get.

You missed the question I bolded to gain yr attention after you missed it in a prior post. Here it is again:

btw, the Obama administration has openly criticised construction in East Jerusalem. You claim you don't think Obama is bigoted, yet initially you said that being opposed to construction in East Jerusalem is bigoted. So which is it? Do you now think Obama is bigoted, or have you realised the mistake and no longer think criticising construction in East Jerusalem is bigoted?

edit: Let's add Joe Biden to the list of people who are opposed to construction in East Jerusalem, a stance that according to you is bigoted:

Joe Biden attacks Israeli plan for East Jerusalem homes

I for one think neither Obama or Biden hold any bigoted views when it comes to East Jerusalem and the occupation...

[Shaktimaan]

169. Except...

Israel considers EJ part of Israel, not part of the OPT, so its policies towards that area differ significantly than in the WB. The issue becomes whether EJ can appropriately be called occupied territory. It differs from other Palestinian areas in that it was never included even in the original partition agreement to either side. We can describe it as "disputed" of course but to refer to it as occupied implies that the land is Palestinian by right. A right that has not yet been decided.

Now you can argue about why EJ "should be" part of Palestine. But I don't see how you can cogently argue that it already is, which is what the term "occupied" would imply.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. What Israel considers East Jerusalem has fuck all to do with it...

We can describe it as occupied territory because that's what it is, regardless of what Israel or its supporters want it to be described as...

[Shaktimaan]

173. OK...

occupied from whom?

[Violet_Crumble]

174. It's 'occupied BY whom'...

If you look at military occupations carried out around the world, the focus of international law is on the state carrying out the occupation. That's why the Resolution that Shira falsely claimed was banning Jews from buying land wherever they want is specifically talking about the military occupation carried out BY Israel.

[shira]

170. Moskowitz's private property that he legally purchased in 1985 is considered a "settlement" - WHY?

It's not a settlement. It's private Jewish owned property. There's no reason Moskowitz can't do whatever he wants with his own property in East Jerusalem or anywhere else in the world.

BTW, the recent UNSCR vote clearly indicates settlements are not as of yet illegal according to International Law.

And I still don't believe Obama is bigoted, anymore than PeaceNow is bigoted for holding to the same position. Both admirably want a peaceful, non-provocative situation in East Jerusalem. Holding to such a view isn't necessarily bigoted in intent.

But now that you mention it, I asked you earlier if you thought George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Yvonne Ridley, and Lauren Booth were bigots for spewing Iranian anti-Jewish filth on PRESS-TV. When do you think you'll get around to answering that one?

[Violet_Crumble]

172. Yr still ignoring or not understanding what's being explained. I'm patient, though...

I keep on explaining that the Resolution isn't about private ownership of land, but about Israel controlling the ownership of that land with building permits and other forms of control. I don't understand why you keep on repeating the same thing again and again in response. Is it because you don't understand the control Israel has over any building and demolition processes? And yr seriously wrong if you think Moskowitz can build whatever he likes wherever he likes anywhere in the world, or that him being Jewish has anything to do with it. He can't. For a start, he couldn't just turn up here and start buying and building....

As for yr claim about the Security Council vote, that's as false as anything else you've claimed so far. Settlements are illegal under international law. The US vetoing a draft resolution for another reason entirely has no effect at all on their illegality. That you don't believe Obama's views and the views of his administration are bigoted, even though you said very clearly earlier in the thread that views exactly the same as his are bigoted just shows a mindboggling level of inconsistency and doesn't make any sense at all. Biden spoke out specifically against construction in Sheikh Jarrah last year. How is that not a bigoted view, considering you've insisted that holding that exact view is bigoted? And seeing as how yr still failing to understand why the claims you made about the draft resolution are totally false, please don't try to divert attention away from what I'm explaining to you by throwing in ridiculous 'questions' in the hope of going off on a different tangent....


I'm positive that you aren't understanding or wanting to bother with what I've been saying to you about East Jerusalem and Israel as an occupying power, so coz I'm in a bit of a hurry this morning, I'm going to ask you to reread what I've posted about this already, and if you still don't understand, just don't repeat the same stuff you've already been repeating and add a 'why?' to the end. I'm trying to understand why you see no connection at all to Israel being the occupying power and you need to give me some help to understand that...


Yr claim about the Resolution being about Jews is demonstrably false. Here's the text of the Resolution from further downthread. I urge anyone following this discusion to read it for themselves...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49142006/Isr-draft-resolution...

I've already explained in very simple terms why that Resolution, and the others that have come out of the UN about the Occupation, are speaking specifically about Israel occupying territory that isn't part of Israel. While it appears that yr reading the posts yr responding to, it's also clear that yr either not understanding or deciding to ignore what's been explained about the occupation and the question I repeated for you in bold in the hope you wouldn't continue to ignore it. If you disagree with what I've explained, I'd hope that there'd be an argument voiced, starting off along the lines of: 'Violet, here's the reasons why what you said is incorrect......' and then it could go from there. But I'm not sure how ignoring the main argument in my posts and just repeating over and over again what you've been already been corrected on is any sort of constructive or interesting exchange. I'll try to explain it as simply as I possibly can, and this time it'd help for you to ask questions if you don't understand what's being explained to you.

The Resolution isn't about private ownership of property. The Resolution is about Israel asserting its sovereignty and its own population onto occupied territory. Here's a link you provided to the text of the Resolution. I assumed at the time you'd paused and read the Resolution, but it appears you haven't, as anyone who'd read it wouldn't be trying to claim it's about refusing private ownership only to Jews. The Resolution specifically states that it's calling for the state of Israel to cease serttlement activity in occupied territory, including East Jerusalem and to abide by international law. The Resolution has absolutely nothing to do with the religion or ethnicity of individuals, and I consider the wording of the Resolution to be so clear and understandable that attempts to claim it was about anything else are verging on disingeuous.

Israel, as the occupying power, has the same responsibility in East Jerusalem as any other occupying power would have. It's illegal for the occupying power to destroy or take over homes of civilians in order to change the demographics of the area it's occupying. Do you understand that it's about the occupying power, not about some stinking rich extremist millionaire who pours his millions into the settlements? Israel is the power that controls building permits and it's responsible for ensuring that civilians aren't put out of their homes, or that the nature of the occupied territory isn't changed. Moskowitz can go and build in Israel. He can't do it in the occupied territories, or just turn up anywhere apart from the US or Israel and start building wherever or however he wants. If you think he should have the right to do that, please explain why you think he should get special treatment that no-one else would get.

[whosinpower]

6. What an absolute crock full of crapola nt

Figures.

[shira]

7. The Jewish quarter, Wailing/Western wall is part of "East Jerusalem"...

Jews should now be legally denied building, renovating, buying property, etc. in those places??

[azurnoir]

9. IDF base to be built in East Jerusalem

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/haaretz-probe-idf-base-to-be-built-in-east-jerusalem-1.343540

[shira]

11. Do you believe it should be illegal for Jews to buy, renovate, or build within the Jewish Quarter...

...the Jewish holy places, and Western/Wailing Wall in Jerusalem?

[azurnoir]

14. IMO it should be illegal for

anyone to build anything in EJ until a final status agreement is reached and yes that includes Palestinians too

[shira]

22. Good answer but the UN resolution would only make it illegal now for Jews, not Arabs.

But you're for that, since you're disappointed with the US vote?

[azurnoir]

25. Would the UN resolution have made it illegal for Israel

or the Jerusalem municipal government to not issue building permits to Palestinians? Would it have made it illegal for Israel to 'raze' illegally built structures ?

[shira]

34. Probably not, now can you answer my question please? n/t

[azurnoir]

50. This question?

Good answer but the UN resolution would only make it illegal now for Jews, not Arabs.

did the resolution say specifically Jews, I rather doubt it, it said Israeli, didn't it?

the very phraseology of your question makes it self answering as Israeli would pertain to both Jews and Arabs, yet you state unequivocally and multiple times that it is only Jews that can not build in EJ under the resolution.

Under the current system of issuing building permits Israel simply very rarely gives Arabs* building permits and then simply tears down any illegally built structures often tearing down the entire structure or any other structure on the particular parcel of land, so you see whether or not you realize you have made a tacit admission of this fact, the resolution would only be applicable to Israeli Jews, as Arabs whether they hold Israeli citizenship or not simply are not allowed to build in any event

It should also be noted that the resolution was only applicable to Israeli's not to say Americans or other nationalities so in fact Jews other than Israeli could in fact still build in EJ as shown in comments 40 and 41 (posted moments apart and from the same source one that makes cutting and pasting very difficult at best)

[shira]

56. Israel doesn't make it illegal for Arabs to purchase/build, but this UN resolution will...

...make it illegal for Jews like Moskowitz (Sheikh Jarrah) to do so.

See the difference?

But maybe this is "justice" to you, so the bigotry is okay.

This resolution is not applicable to all Israelis, especially Arabs with Israeli citizenship. No one has a problem with Arabs building/buying except for hard rightwingers.

[azurnoir]

59. Israel does not have a law on the books however Israel

very rarely issues Arabs* no matter what their citizenship a building permit, there for making any structure built illegal and subject to demolition

[shira]

63. That's demonstrably false. Just b/c demolition of illegal Arab housing gets more press...

...doesn't mean it's happening at a higher rate than demolition of illegal Jewish structures.

It's actually quite the opposite:
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x328972#329342

So you couldn't be more wrong.

-------

ETA:
Here's the Haaretz link that works...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/lieberman-israel-must-fight-illegal-arab-construction-1.1601

And about the Supreme Court Study...
http://www.examiner.com/israel-conflict-in-new-york/study-shows-israeli-supreme-court-biased-on-arab-israel-land-issues

[azurnoir]

71. okkkk I read you links

the first one from demopedia proves nothing except sometimes DUer's can be really mean to you, but I will assume that you thought you proved something last July

now the second from Haaretz

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday said that Israel must focus on fighting illegal construction in the Negev and the Galilee once the 10-month moratorium on West Bank settlement construction ends.

"When we finish the chapter of the settlement freeze in the West Bank, we will focus the national effort on the illegal construction in the Negev and the Galilee," Lieberman said, referring to construction by Bedouin and Israeli Arabs. "We are talking about a total of 100,000 illegal structures."

Lieberman went on to say, "Not all the building is improvised, but rather the result of intentional planning, taking into account geographical and financial considerations."

<snip>

Israeli-Arab MK Jamal Zahalka (Balad chairman) said in response that "Lieberman doesn't stop at any red lights, and even as Foreign Minister he continues to discriminate against the Israeli-Arab citizens.

and the third from examiner

The Regavim Movement www.regavim.org.il/pic/File/doch%20hashvahot.PDF seeks to prevent illegal takeover of state lands. It compiled statistics for the years 2005-2009, on Israeli Supreme Court handling of mirror-image petitions from the Left against Jewish construction in Judea-Samaria, and from the Right against Arab construction in Judea-Samaria. The facts and legal questions brought by both sides were the same. Both sides petitioned for law enforcement on construction. The first question is whether the court may intervene against duly constituted authority.

<snip>

The Court’s bias is obvious. Its danger to Israeli democracy is clear. The public’s loss of confidence in their judiciary, based on unequal enforcement of the law, is understandable.

Why unequal? The Court considers Judea and Samaria as “occupied territory” and the government as an “occupying power.” The Court does not have the Zionist vision of “a nation returning to its land...after two thousand years of exile and redeeming it from its desolation.” The Court considers the Arabs in Judea-Samaria an “occupied and oppressed people” rather than “an enemy that desires to destroy us and expel us from our ancestral home.”

nothing posted proves your theory, the hilltop settlements go on occasionally IDF knocks one down but it is rebuilt within hours and usually left alone after that, and IDF is known to ignore the Israeli Supreme Court

was this a test to see if I would actually read your links? Well I did

[shira]

76. Congrats, you've proven once again how adept you are at ignoring reality. n/t

[azurnoir]

83. OK if you say so n/t

[azurnoir]

60. "This resolution is not applicable to all Israelis, especially Arabs with Israeli citizenship

No one has a problem with Arabs building/buying except for hard rightwingers.


the resolution makes no such distinction and unless Moskowitz holds Israeli citizenship he can as an American still build in EJ, or could simply transfer ownership to another sympathetic party not holding Israeli citizenship

[shira]

64. But Moskowitz's private property is considered illegal settlement activity. Why is that? n/t

[azurnoir]

67. Does Mosowitz hold Israeli citizenship?

if so that is self explanatory not mention you are conflating 2 different things, public opinion and the law, if Moskowitz is not an Israeli citizen then his property would not come under the resolution, a fact that will never be legally tested as the resolution was vetoed

[shira]

68. It makes no difference. If Moskowitz is Israeli, then as a citizen what he bought legally...

...should remain legally his. He is not the Israeli government and his property is not a settlement, nor is he renting out to settlers.

FTR, there are thousands of Palestinian-Arabs living within the settlements. Do they count as settlers to you?

[azurnoir]

70. no one is at this point removing ownership from Moskowitz

the resolution would have delayed his 'renovation' of the property until final status reached, nothing more or less

Now if in final status he was to somehow lose the property then he would be compensated, however more likely he would retain ownership IMO

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. No, I think they should be allowed to do so under Palestinian rule. N.T.

[shira]

24. Okay, but the UN resolution now would make it illegal only for Jews. You're for that? n/t

[whosinpower]

15. This is a final status issue

How lightning quick you were to play the bigotry card and completely ignoring that this is a final status issue that REMAINS TO BE NEGOTIATED.

And, you obscure the realities - AGAIN, sliding aloong the grey areas ever so close to outright dishonesty. The construction/settlement controversy is not part of the Jewish Quarter....it is elsewhere within East Jerusalem.

Now that Obama caved - and vetoed his own language - it would appear once and for all that in fact, the US is a puppet to Israel - at least in the eyes of many who live in the middle east. Think this bodes well? Egypt fell. Tunesia fell. Jordon threatens to fall. Bahrain is in crisis. Iraq simmers and threatens to boil over. Yemen....Iran......

And the great and mighty United States cannot even get Israel to impose a moratorium on construction building in the occupied territories - WHICH INCLUDES EAST JERUSALEM NO MATTER HOW MUCH ISRAEL DENIES IT until final status peace solution is in place.

Palistinians have yet one more ace in the hole. It isn't the UN. It sure as heck isn't the US. It isn't the Arab states. It isn't terrorism or violence. It isn't Abbas, or Fatah, or Hamas or any political party. Even Israel's nukes cannot save it.

[shira]

23. So being a final status issue, both Jews and Arabs shouldn't be allowed to build & buy land, right?

The resolution in the UN now would make it only illegal for Jews, not Arabs. For example, all of East Jerusalem's Arab residents and citizens.

That's bigotry any way it's cut.

I wasn't aware the Jewish Quarter, Wailing/Western Wall and other Jewish holy places were off limits WRT this UN resolution. Can you prove that?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. No, east Jerusalem is not in Israel.

So, legally, it's exactly like Ariel.

[Ken Burch]

55. It's enough that Israelis can live in West Jerusalem

And, once and for all...the issue is "Israelis", not "Jews".

East Jerusalem is part of Palestine. Israel doesn't need it.

[shira]

57. The Jewish Quarter is part of East Jerusalem. Jews should be banned from buying/building there?

Also, any Jews there are settlers in your view?

[Ken Burch]

88. Please stop saying this is about "Jews"...it's about Israelis, there's a difference

For myself, if people who were Jewish but willing to take Palestinian citizenship and simply live as equals with everyone else wished to live in that area, that would be fine(I'd also have no problem with the descendants of the indigenous Jewish communities in Palestine living in East Jerusalem, also providing that they did so as Palestinian citizens.

I'd be fine with ANYBODY living in East Jerusalem under those circumstances, as far as that goes.

The issue is with self-identifying Israeli settlers moving in, especially those who are doing so with an "it's OUR land, not yours" attitude and being aggressive and intolerant towards the Palestinian Arabs who have always lived there.

Also, if it were up to me(and remember, none of this is)I'd be for everybody having full access to whatever holy places their religion has in ANY part of Jerusalem). Perhaps the "International city" concept might work.

So please stop trying to make this into antisemitism when it's nothing of the sort. OK?

[shira]

90. No one has a problem with Arab Israelis who choose to live anywhere within Jerusalem. n/t

[Ken Burch]

93. Because THEY aren't pushing anyone ELSE out of their homes.

And THEY aren't acting as if they have a greater right to live in Israel than the OTHER Israelis do.

If the settlers behaved as the Israeli Arabs do, there would be far LESS resentment of the settlers. Is this so hard to understand?

To paraphrase James Carville "It's the ARROGANCE, stupid!"(and no, I'm not saying YOU are stupid, just the settlers).

[shira]

97. You're proving my point and stereotyping all Jews beyond the green line

And BTW, the Jews aren't pushing Arabs out of their homes and taking over.

[Ken Burch]

102. There aren't any progressive, pro-peace Israelies beyond the Green Line

no Meretz votere, none with any humane values. And the issue is Israelis, not "Jews". The two aren't synonymous. If you live beyond the Green Line and you're not Palestinian, you aren't there for positive reasons and you don't want reconciliation.

Why would you even BOTHER to defend the settlers, shira? Most ISRAELIS think they're insane.

And will you KINDLY stop trying to twist my words to mean what you know they DON'T mean?

You don't have to defend letting Israelis steal massive chunks of Palestine just to prove you're not an antisemite. A Palestinian state can ONLY be viable if they have the whole West Bank. Non-contiguous countries cannot survive.

[shira]

105. Now that's beyond stereotyping - it's dehumanization

All the settlers, not just the insane hilltop whackos, lack "humane values". That's rich. Imagine someone claiming the same about an entire group of Palestinians. Of course you also feel the same way about the IDF too, which is a people's army composed of every possible type of Israeli citizen. You really need to step back and evaluate what you're saying here, Ken.

You also keep claiming the issue is with Israelis, not Jews. But you admitted before no one has any problems with Israeli Arabs moving around, building, buying, renovating anywhere within East or West Jerusalem and around the green line. Who then are the troublemakers if not the Jews, Ken?

[Ken Burch]

107. The settlers, not "The Jews"

There's a huge difference, and it's demagogic of you to claim that wanting to keep the settlements is somehow an anti-bigotry thing. It's nothing of the sorts.

Those who are settlers because of the housing subsidies aren't as bad as the ideological ones, but they are being cynical. They KNOW the settlements are a provocation and are essentially imperialist in character. Yet they stay in them for cheap rent.

Thanks for admitting the ideological settlers are insane hilltop whackos, btw. That's progress.

Why isn't it enough for people like me to defend the right of Israelis to live in Israeli proper? Why do they HAVE to live on the Palestinian side of the Green Line?

BTW, I'd object to Christians from Texas living on the Palestinian side of the Green Line as well, or Swedish Lutherans, or athiests from Berkeley, IF those groups were living there with the same intent as the settlers: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and to make sure that the Occupation goes on forever.

There's simply no legitimate reason, at least until after a peace settlement is realized(and then the possibility of negotiating the manner in a calmer situation on a level of equality)for non-Palestinians to INSIST on living on the Palestinian side of the Green Line. I agree, in principle, that everybody should have the right to live everywhere-but ONLY on a level of equality with everyone else.

[shira]

109. Now I see why you're demonizing the whole lot of settlers...

You believe they're there primarily "to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and to make sure that the Occupation goes on forever."

Come on.

Is it really so difficult to comprehend that many Jews (not just ones whose families were there prior to 1948) have a deep emotional (not necessarily religious fanatical) attachment to Jerusalem and other parts of historical Israel? While there may be very few who go to live there for the reasons you listed above, the vast majority certainly do not.

As to "PROVOCATION", are we to believe it's perfectly okay for Arabs to move into predominantly Jewish neighborhoods that were once signicantly populated by Arabs but the reverse is bad or provocative - namely, Jews moving into predominantly Arab neighborhoods that once had significant a Jewish population there?

That's bigotry, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

110. Not bigotry, reality

And even if the settlers themselves aren't all there out of a PERSONAL determination to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state(I did agree that some were there for the housing subsidies and perhaps a few for proximity to the religious sites)the Israeli GOVERNMENT clearly intended the settlements as an obstacle to Palestinian self-determination.

You cannot be pro-settlement and still honestly claim to support a two-state solution. Such an assertion is simply intellectually dishonest.

And if you're going to call MY position bigotry, you'd also have to call the position of people like Gideon Levy and much of what remains of the Israeli peace movement bigotry as well(and, even though you oppose the peace movement and people like Levy and Amira Hass, I seriously doubt you'd say that of them).

I can respect the idea of people feeling a connection to historic areas. But I also believe that, whatever the ethnic or faith tradition, everyone has an obligation to recognize it when their wish to live in a particular place, no matter the connection, has the effect or perpetrating an injustice on another people.

And if you really want to wipe out bigotry, the answer, as always, is to work against poverty, austerity, exploitation and human misery in general. Prosperous societies that treat everyone with dignity and respect don't breed bigotry. The only way to really make sure that bigotry dies out is to work to make sure that injustice and suffering in all forms are wiped out or at least significantly limited-NOT to insist that a state formed by ONE particular nationalist movement must be exempt from all criticism and all degrees of accountability for its actions.

No one can truly protect themselves by hiding away from the world.

[shira]

116. Then here's reality...

And even if the settlers themselves aren't all there out of a PERSONAL determination to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state(I did agree that some were there for the housing subsidies and perhaps a few for proximity to the religious sites)the Israeli GOVERNMENT clearly intended the settlements as an obstacle to Palestinian self-determination.

Which government? Every one, including Rabin's? Are you serious?

You cannot be pro-settlement and still honestly claim to support a two-state solution. Such an assertion is simply intellectually dishonest.

Are you talking about me? I'm not pro-settlements. I am against demonizing all the Jews who live beyond the green line, however.

And if you're going to call MY position bigotry, you'd also have to call the position of people like Gideon Levy and much of what remains of the Israeli peace movement bigotry as well(and, even though you oppose the peace movement and people like Levy and Amira Hass, I seriously doubt you'd say that of them).

If it's bigotry to deny individual Palestinians from buying and renting property out to Palestinians in Jewish neighborhoods, then it's bigotry WRT Jews too. What's so difficult about this?

I can respect the idea of people feeling a connection to historic areas. But I also believe that, whatever the ethnic or faith tradition, everyone has an obligation to recognize it when their wish to live in a particular place, no matter the connection, has the effect or perpetrating an injustice on another people.

You cannot say with any certainty that Jews returning to areas they lived in from the mid 19th century to 1948, until they were ethnically cleansed for 19 years, had ill intent when moving back to their former homes after 1967. Would you say the same about Palestinians wishing to do the same?

[kayecy]

119. And how many Jewish settlers are returning to areas they lived in from the 19th century?........

You cannot say with any certainty that Jews returning to areas they lived in from the mid 19th century to 1948, until they were ethnically cleansed for 19 years, had ill intent when moving back to their former homes after 1967.....

And how many of the 500,000 Jewish settlers are able to show that they returned to areas they (or their ancestors) lived in from the mid 19th century?

[shira]

121. How do you prove those returning have/had ill intent when doing so?

Or that those with deep, emotional attachment to the culture, religion (not the whackos) have ill intent towards Palestinians when moving beyond the green line?

That's like claiming all the Palestinian refugees who want back into Israel are only doing so to destroy Israel.

[kayecy]

122. You can't....Anymore than you can prove the evil intent of Paletinians.......

How do you prove those returning have/had ill intent when doing so?

You can't.....Anymore than you can prove that Palestinians wanting to go back to their old homes West of the Green Line only want to do so to destroy Israel.


The difference is that 500,000 Jews have been allowed to settle in the West Bank and virtually zero Palestinians have been allowed to return to their old villages.

I call that a racist policy.....No doubt you, being so concerned about Jewish rights to settle where they please, have another explanation.

[shira]

125. What do you call 250,000 Palestinians in E.Jerusalem with more rights than any Arabs throughout

...the rest of the mideast?

Racist?

They can do whatever they wish as citizens and residents of Israel, including buying/selling, renting, and renovating property.

[kayecy]

127. One thing even you cannot accuse them of is being settlers in occupied territory........

What do you call 250,000 Palestinians in E.Jerusalem with more rights than any Arabs throughout
...the rest of the mideast?

I call them Lucky and Unlucky.........Lucky that they didn't suffer ethnic cleansing like their neighbors to the West.....Unlucky because they have had 50 years of being subjected to occupation, forced tearing down of their homes, blatant discrimination in sanitation, postal services, sidewalk infrastructure and public parks.....In addition there is the racist laws which allow the Israeli authorities to seize ID cards of Arab residents and prevent them returning if they remain abroad for more than seven years without making regular visits home or if they move to the West Bank and cannot prove their "center of life" is in the city....This provision applies even to those Arab residents who were born in East Jerusalem.

One thing even you cannot accuse them of is being settlers in occupied territory......Unlike the 500,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, most of the Arab residents, their fathers and their fore-fathers were born there.

[shira]

129. Really? How many of them or their families replaced Jews who were ethnically cleansed by Jordan?

Any Palestinians or Jordanians who replaced ethnically cleansed Jews after 1948 are by your very own definition "settlers", not only during the illegal 19 year Jordanian occupation but also afterward.

And while they absolutely suffer through discrimination, that's true of most minorities in any democracy. Compare discrimination in the UK and USA to its minorities and immigrants vs. Israel. Now imagine if the UK and USA were surrounded by enemy states with minorities and immigrants from those countries living in the USA and UK. It wouldn't be any contest as to who would treat their minorities better, and we all know this.

[kayecy]

130. A small number compared with 500,000 Jewish settlers........

Really? How many of them or their families replaced Jews who were ethnically cleansed by Jordan?

Some, no doubt......Anyway, a small number compared with 500,000 Jewish settlers on the West Bank......


Chances are that any Arabs moving to East Jerusalem after 1948 almost certainly were born, (as were their fathers) in Mandate Palestine........How many of your Jewish settlers can say that?

[shira]

133. How do you know it's a small number?

Chances are that any Arabs moving to East Jerusalem after 1948 almost certainly were born, (as were their fathers) in Mandate Palestine........How many of your Jewish settlers can say that?

And chances are that nearly all the Jews within the West Bank are descendants of refugees (from the Holocaust, Russian Pogroms, Arab ethnic cleansing) or descendants of Jews born in Mandate Palestine.

Is that something Jews should be ashamed of?

[kayecy]

135. Get your facts straight ........

And chances are that nearly all the Jews within the West Bank are descendants of refugees (from the Holocaust, Russian Pogroms, Arab ethnic cleansing) .......Is that something Jews should be ashamed of?

They are nothing of the sort....32% from African and Asian origins, 31% from American and European origins, 29% with parents born in Israel, and 6% from Russia. Nonetheless, 70% of the settlers were born in Israel.

[shira]

137. Where'd you get your facts from?

And I'm quite certain I was right in my last post, in that most settlers are direct descendants of persecuted refugees who had little choice but to go to Israel.

[kayecy]

138. I'm always happy to help out someone who doesn't know what she is talking about......

I'm always happy to help out someone who doesn't know what she is talking about
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/cprspolls/special/99/setpoll99e1.html

.....refugees who had little choice but to go to Israel.

Perhaps, but NOT to the West Bank.......

[shira]

142. Aww...projecting, again? n/t

[kayecy]

144. Definition of "projecting" - jutting: extending out beyond a surface or boundary.......n/t

[azurnoir]

10. answers

no, never has
talk is indeed very cheap
no

[aranthus]

79. A better question is what it says about the rest of the world.

Why push a resolution that they knew would be vetoed? Politics of course. It looks good in the Arab world, curries favor with it, and they can now point all their fingers at the US. Does it have anything to do with a sense of right and wrong, or what is proper in international affairs? Please. This is about propaganda and politics; also known as business as usual at the UN.

[kayecy]

140. As usual........ Everyone is out of step except Israel.......

Of course - Everyone is out of step except Israel.......

This is about propaganda and politics; also known as business as usual at the UN.

As Israel was the first putative state to take advantage of the UN's susceptibility to lobby pressure tactics, don't you think that is rather rich?

[aranthus]

156. No, it's not rich.

The Partition Resolution was passed for the benefit of the UK and not for the benefit of the Jews, was just a more complex and deceptive example of the political shams barfed out of the General Assembly, and was virtually irrelevant to Israel's creation. That the Jews, in their desperation, took advantage of it is hardly funny or ironic. What I find interesting is that you seem to admit that the Partition Resolution is somehow unworthy of moral respect, but you object to my making the same point about this particular failed resolution. At least I'm consistent.

[kayecy]

166. Passed for the benefit of the UK?.......I don't think so......

No, it's not rich - The Partition Resolution was passed for the benefit of the UK and not for the benefit of the Jews.

Passed for the benefit of the UK?.......I don't think so...... Britain abstained in the vote on the Partition resolution (ie UN General Assembly Resolution 181 November 29, 1947)

What I find interesting is that you seem to admit that the Partition Resolution is somehow unworthy of moral respect.....

I "admitted" nothing of the sort..... I said that as Israel was the first putative state to take advantage of the UN's susceptibility to lobby pressure tactics, it was a bit rich of Israel......The inference being that Israel takes advantage of the UN when it suits it but does not hesitate to flout the will of the UN over such a minor matter as defending its right(!) to encourage settlements beyond its borders.

[oberliner]

28. This resolution already passed over 30 years ago

In the UNSC without a US veto.

[kayecy]

30. Do you have a reference please?......n/t

[oberliner]

39. UN Security Council Resolution 446, March 1979

Link to text of Resolution:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc

Re-affirmed in Security Council Resolution 452, July of the same year:

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/0B7116ABB4B7E3E9852560E5007688A0

[shira]

45. So this resolution is redundant. What's the point? n/t

[azurnoir]

61. it would seem that if this resolution is so redundant that the US veto would infact cancel out 446

do you think that was the Obama administrations goal or simply a fringe benefit? Also it does indeed seem 'odd' that the Obama administration has not mentioned the redundancy factor, are they covering up for the fact that this veto could cancel out all previous resolutions against Israels settlement activity or has this in your opinion simply 'escaped' them ?

[shira]

65. Do you find language within UNSCR 446 that is different than the current resolution?

Maybe we're missing something and not reading carefully enough to see the difference between that resolution and the current one?

:shrug:

Just wondering.

[azurnoir]

66. No I am going on the claims of redundancy between the 2 resolutions

are you now saying that they are not redundant?

[shaayecanaan]

69. Why do you think the US was content to see such a resolution passed then, but not today? (nt)

[oberliner]

73. I don't know - what do you think? (nt)

[kayecy]

74. Perhaps it was for the reasons given by the US UN Ambassador......

Perhaps it was for the reasons given by the US UN Ambassador...... "Rice emphasized a council resolution would not move the parties closer to negotiations and "risks hardening the position of both sides."

There is no evidence to support the US claim but it is the only explanation I can think of.....How Obama could think it worth using the US veto for a draft resolution already covered by the S.C. beggars belief.

[shira]

77. The USA is correct. This UNSCR resolution kills the peace process.

UNSCR 242 is based on peace negotiations WRT land for peace. Why should the PA negotiate for peace and swap land with Israel when it can have all the land beyond the Green Line? The PA could claim via International Law that they don't have to swap a damn thing.

Hence, negotiations end and the PA gets all it wants without having to make a peace deal.

No peace deal means more war.

Being anti-occupation and anti-settlements isn't the same as being pro-peace. Simply ending the occupation and dismantling settlements will not lead to peace. Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 prove that.

[kayecy]

80. What peace process?..................

UNSCR 242 is based on peace negotiations WRT land for peace. Why should the PA negotiate for peace and swap land with Israel when it can have all the land beyond the Green Line? The PA could claim via International Law that they don't have to swap a damn thing.

Why should Israel negotiate for peace when by doing nothing it can hang onto all the land beyond the Green Line and continue building settlements?......Israel flouts International Law and has got away with it for 50 years.

[shira]

82. Okay, so you're not for peace, but for complete Israeli/Jewish withdrawal. Fine.

Gaza redux.

That will work out just grrrrreat.

:eyes:

Israel has agreed to the Clinton Parameters and Olmert offered an end to settlements and occupation but the PA rejected both deals.

[kayecy]

85. Haven't you read the leaked Palestinian Papers?.......

Israel has agreed to the Clinton Parameters and Olmert offered an end to settlements and occupation but the PA rejected both deals.

Do try to read a little wider than your Zionist web sites....If you read the leaked Palestine Papers you would know that Saebe Erekat offered to give away more than the Clinton Parameters....

"Qurei: This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa). This is the first time in history that we make such a proposition; we refused to do so in Camp David."

What was Israel's answer?....
"In July 2008, Udi Dekel, adviser to then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, asked Erekat why “your side keeps mentioning Jerusalem in every meeting.” Six weeks earlier, he told PA map expert Samih al-Abed that he wasn’t allowed to discuss the subject."

Since Camp David, the PA have offered Israel virtually everything it wanted and what did Israel offer in return.....NOTHING!

[shira]

87. LOL...if the PA offered Israel everything it wanted then the gaps b/w the sides were small

Obama would have initiated bridging proposals rather than waste time on a 10 month settlement freeze that led nowhere.

Why insist on a 10 month settlement freeze if the PA was offering Israel almost every settlement without a freeze?

Even Saeb Erekat was quoted asking rhetorically if the PA offered the house, why didn't Israel go for it? Erekat admits Israel would have jumped on such an offer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=342128&mesg_id=342321

[azurnoir]

96. BTW your link is from January 25, 2011 mere days after the Palestine Papers were released

things have changed, perhaps you were to busy extolling a Muslim Brotherhood take over in Egypt, bur Erekat has resigned 'for some reason' Abbas sacked the PA council and Salam Fayyad has been choosen to appoint a new one, also Fayyad has stated that the settlers would be welcome to stay as Palestinian citizens

[shira]

101. So? Erekat says if the PA made a great offer, Israel would have jumped at it...

You think he lied about something like that?

Abbas has repeatedly said no Jews in a future Palestine, at least twice in the last few months alone.

Maybe Fayyad didn't get the memo.

[azurnoir]

104. Erekat was trying to cover his own arse, it did not work

for him or the rest of PA cabinet either

but are you back to claiming the Palestinian Papers are fakes?

[azurnoir]

89. Yep the US fired the fatal shot n/t

[shira]

91. This resolution might've led to unilateral withdrawal, but that's not peace.

It certainly wouldn't have led to negotiations in good faith between the 2 sides. Israel would have zero to bargain with.

[azurnoir]

92. that's truly funny 'negotiations in good faith between the 2 sides"

like its ever happened in the past Israel has no incentive to ever give up the precious West Bank

[shira]

99. Israel's offers in 2000 and 2008 were quite reasonable. n/t

[azurnoir]

103. ah yeah right but it's 2011n/t

[shira]

117. Abbas should have accepted the 2008 offer from Olmert, right? n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Does anyone have a copy of the text of the draft resolution?

After seeing a dodgy looking claim posted in this thread about what the Resolution is about, I'd like to track down a copy to ensure that it's about opposition to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, and not a resolution about trying to ban Jews from building houses anywhere in Jerusalem, because if it's the latter, I'd be appalled...

[oberliner]

40. Text of the UN resolution in question

Link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49142006/Isr-draft-resolution-veto

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Thanks. How did you locate it? I couldn't...

Did you do a particular google search for it, or did you get given the link?

[oberliner]

53. It was linked to in a Huffington Post article

Here is the article where I saw the link to the text of resolution:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/us-vetoes-un-resolution-o_b_825482.html

[shira]

41. Here...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49142006/Isr-draft-resolution-veto