PLO silent on gay rights

[King_David]

The Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) ambassador to the United States has refused to say whether gay rights would be protected in an independent Palestinian state.

“Of course we’re going to have a secular state,” PLO spokesman Maen Areikat told a reporter. “We’re not going to have it based on religion.”

But when asked if homosexuals would be tolerated he said the issue was “beyond my ”.

Areikat also said religious minorities would be tolerated but in another recent interview said that any Jews within the borders of a Palestinian state would have to leave.



http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2011/09/19/israel-plo-silent-on-gay-rights/62088

[King_David]

1. NO RECOGNITION DESERVED

Fuck Them

[Ken Burch]

95. No, Fatah's shortcomings on that

doesn't justify denying Palestinians the right to self-determination. The Occupation was not imposed in the name of gay rights or any other progressive idea. And keeping the Occupation in place can't possibly be good for Palestinian gays.

You should check out what Ezra Nawi has to say about these issues

[King_David]

2. Gay Palestinian seeks residency in Israel on humanitarian grounds

'When Koka realized he was gay, his troubles began: Many Palestinians, influenced by Islam's strict prohibition against homosexuality, take a dim view of homosexuals. Koka said he received various threats, which eventually prompted him to infiltrate into Israel at age 14.

Since then, he has rarely been back to visit his family. But the last time he did go, he said, he was arrested by the Palestinian police on suspicion of collaborating with Israel and subjected to severe torture - which he believes was prompted by his sexual orientation.

"There have been cases of people like me who went back to visit their families and were attacked," he said, adding that in such cases, the assailants usually begin by saying they heard the victim is gay and only then move on to accusing him of collaboration with Israel. '


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/gay-palestinian-seeks-residency-in-israel-on-humanitarian-grounds-1.316274

[aquart]

3. "Infiltrate into Israel at age 14."

Where he was able to live free of torture?

Even though the ultra Orthodox aren't much nicer about homosexuality?

[King_David]

8. No they not but Gay rights in Israel are legally protected.

Orthodox Jews march
Gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews had their first float in the 18th Tel Aviv Pride parade on June 10.

Members of the Havruta gay men’s association, the Bat Kol lesbian association, and the
Pride Minyan prayer group rode on a float sponsored by Google Israel and played Hasidic music to the crowds.

“Seven years ago, a gay or lesbian Orthodox person had three options — to stop being religious, to stay in the closet … or to commit suicide, which is something that happened, whereas today we are in a very different situation,” Havruta spokesman David Jonas told journalists.

A week before the parade, the first boy from a same-sex parented family was bar mitzvahed in a Tel Aviv Orthodox synagogue, with both mothers recognised as the boy’s parents.

“We felt like we belong, like we have a place,” the boy’s biological mother Zehorit Sorek said.

Last year, nearly 90 Orthodox rabbis called for greater inclusivity of Orthodox gays and lesbians in a joint Statement of Principles on the place of Jews with a Homosexual orientation in our community which called for “human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations” to be treated with “dignity and respect”.


http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2011/06/30/orthodox-jews-march/55814

[aquart]

74. Thanks.

Gays and Jews were both put to death by the Nazis. That alone should call for a policy of humane fellow feeling.

[Ken Burch]

96. Most of the tiny number of progressive things in Israel

are the work of people who are now opposed to the Occupation and the settlements.

And the Occupation is not necessary to protect gay people in Israel-almost none of whom live on the West Bank settlements(granted, somebody here will find a few tokens who do, but that doesn't refute my main point).

If you oppose oppression against one group, you have to oppose it against all...and you are not against oppression if you defend the Occupation.

[King_David]

139. As Pelsar points out,you just make things up

One of the reasons the Gay community has made such big gains in Israel is due to their embrace of Zionism .

(and unlike you,I never made it up and I am personally friendly with a large number of individuals in the community-unlike you )

[Ken Burch]

154. They didn't embrace the Occupation and the settlement projects.

Why on Earth would they?

[Ken Burch]

99. Perhaps, but NOT because of the Occupation

keeping the IDF in the West Bank has only had right-wing effects. Their presence there can never be progressive or humanist.

[azurnoir]

4. I've always thought it a take your choice 'brilliant' or 'cynical' propaganda technique

this using the lack of totally liberal Gay, minority, and women's rights as a means of denying an entire people rights and or self determination including the Gay's, minorities, and women among them

say what are Gay right in South Sudan? don't see anyone having much of a problem with that

[King_David]

5. So LGBT rights are not important. ?

Ok thanks for telling us what was suspected?

[azurnoir]

6. the fallacy of your 'logic' is showing its ok to deny the rights of an entire people including Gays

if Gays as a single group are not given rights one could say that you believe Gay rights somehow supersede the rights of others or the whole thing is a cynical excuse to deny every single Palestinian including Gay Palestinians rights?

[King_David]

7. I am afraid you just don't get it

Gay rights ( the way you think of them) are just not up for

discussion and President Obama has been quite clear about it.

I will not even give this right wing sick opinion any more

credence by discussing it any further with you.

I will not debate this.( it is not up for debate in progressive circles )

[azurnoir]

9. No you are upset that I do indeed "get it"

I do not denigrate Gay rights as such nor am I a right winger as you accuse I value the rights of all humans and do not believe that the rights of an entire people should be held hostage to the rights of one particular group

the fact is it could appear as if you are cynically using Gay rights as a means of delegitmizing the rights of all Palestinians straight and gay ?

your refusal to discuss further denotes the weakness of your argument?

will now post a short phrase so as to get the last word?

[shira]

10. It's not just gay rights in Palestine, but women's rights, religious minority rights...

Using children as human shields and combatants as well as preaching non-stop 24/7 hate (child abuse), no freedom of speech/press, etc. Refugees who won't become citizens and will not have the right to vote, get visas, etc...

So nearly EVERYONE in a future Palestine has their rights held hostage.

In a very sick way...

And that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

So why be an enthusiastic supporter of such a regime? :shrug:

[azurnoir]

11. yes we're all familiar with your over the top claims

however we could go claim for claim because Israel is guilty too some of the child combatants you claim so much concern for are being brutalized in Israeli prisons as we speak wheres the concern shira?

your disingenuous claims about Palestinian citizenship are quite well known by now and the truth is that Palestinian refugees will have no different status with a Palestinian state than Jewish refugees did in Israels beginning and I'll take it a step further if the Palestinians were handling it as a 'free for all' type thing we'd be hearing the word terrorists much more and how the PLO/PA was encouraging terrorist to move in on Israels doorstep

what is sick IMO is the apparent cynical use of "liberal" issues as a mask for supporting an on going brutal military occupation and suppressing the rights of Palestinians

[Kurska]

13. Sounds like you're sick of the PLO/Hamas being held accountable for their abysmal human rights

record.

Facts can often be contrary to political narratives, but don't shoot the messenger.

[azurnoir]

15. No I am sick of the cynical calculated use of liberal issues to

deny rights of all Palestinians. Denying basic human rights to a developing countrie not measuring up to Western standards is cynical and the fact that not a peep was raised by those who so want Gay rights for Palestinians prior to recognition on this or the GLBT forum as to the new country of South Sudan being recognized when indeed that countries gay rights laws are nonexistent makes it all the more obvious IMO

[Jefferson23]

16. I don't know if this is a new propaganda line or one I have not noticed

before..it is hilarious imo. So much outrage when you have nothing left in your bag of pro-settlement propaganda. Don't get me
wrong, I understand why you're sick of it, but I only humbly suggest, let them trip over each other while they stand up
for the rights of the Palestinians like only a pro-Israeli, pro- settlement character can. Let them refuse support for
their UN bid, even though this is what the MAJORITY of Palestinians support, these characters here are essentially saying,
no..they can't have our support, we are protecting you from a fate worse than the occupation, we know better. Clearly, they
have reached the bottom of the barrel for excuses, too pathetic I know.

Gay rights first, womens rights first, occupation ends..uh, maybe sometime in the next 10 years or so...ROFL.

[azurnoir]

17. you know if we were talking about a campaign to promote Gay rights

I'd feel quite differently but we're not it seems an either or thing and that just doesn't fly

[Jefferson23]

20. Imo, the lack of sincerity is extremely rich on their part and politically it would not

make sense to approach it that way regardless.

on edit for clarification.

[shira]

61. Where's your sincerity for Palestinian human rights under Fatah/Hamas?

You can't claim to be pro-Palestinian without ever bringing up Palestinian human rights under their Arab oppressors in Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon.

That's something Hamas does.

Hamas pretends they care for Palestinian human rights too, while doing their utmost to limit basic rights to Palestinians.

[Ken Burch]

100. The IDF is NOT in the West Bank out of compassion for Palestinians

or out of any desire to help Palestine become a secular democracy. The only reason the IDF is there is to stop the Palestinian people from gaining the right to self-determination.

NO military occupation is ever about liberalism. and no people are ever better off being DENIED the right to govern themselves. TO disagree with either of those assertions is to see the world through colonialist lenses.

The best way to help Palestinian LGBT people is to help them and everyone else in Palestine gain independence. Independence is the best way to send groups like Hamas to the political boneyard. The things YOU defend can never stop Hamas, and you know it.

[shira]

131. No one says they are. The point is no one here should support an extremely regressive...

...regime led by the PLO/Hamas, that's all.

I'm certain no one for Team Israel would support an Israel that runs like a PLO/Hamas led Palestine.

[Ken Burch]

134. The way to change Palestine's leadership is to END the Occupation

Keeping the IDF in Palestine can't possibly cause a chance for the better in Palestine's leaders.

[shira]

137. It won't change due to that, but I'm for ending the occupation asap.

Israel needs to get out as soon as possible.

Maybe give 60% away to the PA since that's what Netanyahu offered a couple years back.

End of occupation.

Recognize Palestine on that land and if the PA wants more, the door's open for negotiations.

--------

Gee, I wonder what would the Israel bashers do at that point?

[Ken Burch]

152. It's not "Israel bashing" simply to take a critical stance towards what the Israeli government does

And as to what happened next...that would depend on a lot of things...it would depend in particular if the Israeli government were to agree to leave such a state absolutely alone...to never try to cut off its access to the outside world...to allow it to have its own international airport...to allow it to have full control of its own water supply.

What will tell the tale is whether or not Bibi and his crew are willing to give a Palestinian state room to breathe and to grow, or whether they would keep trying to sabotage it. The Palestinians, based on past history, have plenty of reason to distrust Israeli intentions.

[shira]

155. It is Israel bashing and here's why...

The simple fact of the matter is EVERY time you bash the occupation, you pretend it exists for the worst possible reasons. You don't in any way attempt to reach out to Israelis and their supporters who have LEGITIMATE concerns WRT Israel's security in the face of non-stop nazi-style hostility and terror since well before the state was founded.

If you could articulate an anti-occupation position that ALSO took into account the legitimate concerns of those affected - especially after the Gaza and Lebanon pullouts - you might be taken a bit more seriously.

You and your pals here...

Stop the demonization and get real.

[Ken Burch]

158. I recognize that some Israelis have suffered

I don't have to back Bibi's "security concept"(which, may I remind you, would involve having a barely-independent and shrunken Palestine surrounded on all sides by IDF garrisons, would deny that state control of its own airspace, and might not even allow that state to have uninterrupted access to drinking water)to prove that.

Bibi is asking for too much with his "security concept"-he wants only a Palestinian semi-state that would be too small to survive and would have no real sovereignty, since it would be the only nation on earth that didn't control its own airspace.

And Bibi's conception of this semi-state would essentially mean that Palestinian independence would always be conditional-and could be revoked by the IDF at will.

Any Palestinian leader that accepted it would be seen by rank-and-file Palestinians as having been played, and would then be at massive risk of violent overthrow-probably by more extreme forces, who would then simply restart the armed struggle. Given all that, why should I believe that what Bibi wants is really peace at all...rather than simply the right to claim the meaningless word "victory"?

My critique is based, at least in part, on a strong wish that a peace deal be truly sustainable...because only a deal that isn't taken as humiliating on the Palestinian side can hold up. Bibi either doesn't get that, or he truly doesn't want peace, but rather an endless continuation of the oppressive and violent status quo.

A real peace MUST be based on making sure that NEITHER side is seen as being defeated-winning and losing must be seen as outdated concepts. Saving face for both sides is the key question-since the crunch point will involve getting the crazies on BOTH sides to accept the result as honorable and dignified. This isn't about "touchy-feely" shit-it's about breaking the cycle of violence. The cycle can only be broken if neither side is left at the other's mercy. Is this really so hard to understand?

I don't bash Israel-I want Israel, like all other countries, to be at peace-I just disagree with you and Bibi about how to do that. Given that Bibi's never been close to making peace, why would you still trust him or ANY other Israeli hardliner?

[shira]

159. And stop with the "Bibi" style security concerns....

No Israeli PM, not even from Meretz, will allow the PLO and Hamas to control airspace over Gaza and the West Bank. Do you NOT realize how dangerous that would be?

-------

Your utter dismissal of Israeli concerns - you realize "some" have suffered - speaks volumes. As though Israelis have absolutely nothing to be concerned about and are just making excuses....

Disgusting.

[Ken Burch]

161. Why does it have to be dangerous? Neither the PLO or Hamas have an air force.

And denying them control of the airspace hasn't stopped those rockets you keep going on about.

Every other country on the Earth has the right to control its own skies. To deny a country that is to deny it real sovereignty.

The way to make peace is to address the grievances on both sides...not to keep acting like one side can be trusted but the other can't.

[shira]

169. Watch this 5 minute video WRT Israel's security needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWmPqY8TE0

And no, Israel can't trust Hamas with airspace. Israel shouldn't be expected to trust Hamas with airspace. Once the IDF is out of the WB, Hamas will take out the PLO. Your answer is Israel should hope for the best and not worry about what could go wrong.

Tell you what - you send your young daughter to a dark park at night, known to be a dangerous place for young women. Trust it will be okay to send her there. THAT's what you're telling Israelis, actually. You're trusting them to put their children in imminent danger and that's pretty sick advice.

[Ken Burch]

170. OK, I watched the clip, and here's my response-the clip proves MY point

Those "security needs" are code for making it impossible for a Palestinian state to come to life, or to survive for any length of time if such a "state" was created on those terms.

An independent country MUST have sovereignty-and the demands made in that clip would leave Palestine with NO real sovereignty at all.

Giving Israel the Rift Valley AND the Mountain Ridge would mean Palestine would be eternally surrounded by the IDF-thus, not a real country at all. A country cannot be sovereign if it is surrounded on all sides by another country's troops.

Palestine couldn't BE an independent country if Israeli troops had it surrounded on all sides. Palestine doesn't have enough land to be a real country if Israel controls those areas. Palestine couldn't be an independent country if IDF troops remained WITHIN Palestine, because it couldn't still have any sovereignty. Any Palestinian leader that agreed to all or even most of that would instantly and forever destroy whatever popularity he had, and would immediately be overthrown. So what good is it to demand things that the other side can't possibly accept?

And Israel isn't offering Palestine anything that could possibly make up for what would be the loss of MOST OF THE WEST BANK-there's no sweeteners in any of those poison pills.

With all the things that video insists on, less than half of Palestine would be left to the Palestinians, Palestinians couldn't drive from one part of Palestine to another without having to face harassment by the IDF, and there couldn't be any worthwhile areas that could be swapped to it to make up for all that would be lost. You wouldn't accept those demands if YOU were a Palestinian, and neither would anyone else, anywhere.

The "security needs" are code for making Palestine too pathetically tiny to survive-and for making Palestine live forever at the mercy of the IDF. If Israelis shouldn't have to live at the mercy of Palestinians, Palestinians equally shouldn't have to live at the mercy of Israelis.

[Ken Burch]

164. There's no way you can seriously argue that, in the I/P dispute,

Israelis have been greater victims than Palestinians

(Note: I'm talking about the Israel/Palestine dispute-NOT what European Christians did to European Jews, which remains one of the great blights on human history, along with slavery and the genocides against indigenous peoples by European Christian conquerors.)

The view that you seem to hold-that Israelis are victims but Palestinians AREN'T-just doesn't reflect reality. Both sides have suffered, both sides have had many MANY innocent victims, and neither has a claim to moral superiority in the way it has conducted the fighting.

I don't have to believe that Israelis have it worse than Palestinians just to prove that I'm not "bashing Israel". OK?

[shira]

174. There you go again with the same bullshit - Israelis aren't victims at all.

They have nothing to worry about and when they go public with their fears and evidence that their fears are well founded, they should be ignored.

Fuck them.

Why? Because Palestinians are bigger victims and that must never be forgotten.

How fucked up is that?

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

Maybe you'll argue downthread that gays aren't victims either. Others are bigger victims. Gays have little to worry about. Religious minorities? Whatever, because others are bigger victims too. Women? Feh... Jews? No damned way....

Do you hear yourself?

[Ken Burch]

177. I didn't say that Israelis weren't victims at all

I said they weren't GREATER victims than Palestinians IN THE I/P dispute. There's a huge difference between saying that and what you pretended I said.

There's no way you can seriously argue that, in this specific conflict, Israelis have it WORSE than Palestinians do. And you don't need to argue that in order to defend Israel's right to exist.

[shira]

182. I'm not arguing Israelis have it worse...

...only that their security concerns are legit and you're completely dismissing them as though there's zero threat.

You wouldn't send your young daughter into a danger zone, so why try convincing Israelis to do the same WRT their children's safety?

[Ken Burch]

186. I'm not dismissing the safety concerns of Israeli citizens

I'm just rejecting the idea that that the demands laid out in that arrogant video clip will make Israelis any safer. It would be much more effective to try to protect the safety of Israelis AND Palestinians by reaching a fair and equitable peace-not a "security concept" that is based on the notion that one side can be trusted but the other side can't. A peace in which neither side feels as if it's been vanquished is always going to be the most stable peace, especially in a situation(like this one)in which an old style "peace through victory" outcome is impossible.

If any Palestinian leadership ever agreed to everything in that clip, there would immediately be a massive popular backlash throughout Palestine(as there would be in any OTHER country that was expected to submit to such terms) and
that leadership would be swiftly overthrown and likely replaced by a far more confrontational leadership. Knowing this, would getting an agreement based on that "security concept" really be of any value? What's the use of getting an agreement that becomes null and void almost as soon as it is agreed to?

The demands in that clip are a recipe for never EVER ending the war-they aren't a path to peace and they won't make Israelis any safer at all. Can't you see that?

[shira]

206. You think the risk is worth it, right? If Israel does all you say and shit hits the fan...

...just as the video predicted, then what do you say?

Sorry, but the loss of life on both sides was worth it?

[Ken Burch]

209. It doesn't do Israel any good if a Palestinian leader that accepts all those demands

is overthrown(as any leader that accepted those terms would have to be, which you know already, since there's no way that ordinary Palestinians could ever accept those terms as reaonable). That's worse than not having anyone accept those demands at all. Why insist on terms that you know Palestinians could never accept?

The way to protect Israel's security is to offer peace terms that won't require a Palestinian leader to commit political(and possibly literal)suicide to accept.

Those terms are humiliating and they wouldn't leave any significant amount of land for a Palestinian state to be created ON. There's basically be nothing left. That isn't how you end a war.

Why would you ever think a Palestinian leadership would accept terms that would require it to agree that the state that leadership was trying to create could NEVER be trusted?

And the thing is, there's nothing in that list of demands that would EVEN ever offer to lift any of the demands in the future based on a show of responsible behavior by a Palestinian state.

The way to build peace is to work from the notion that trust is at least possible. Those demands assume that trust is NEVER possible.
And they leave any future Palestinian state living completely at Israel's mercy. If Israel shouldn't have to be at Palestine's mercy, why SHOULD Palestine have to be at Israel's mercy?

Do you not understand that those demands destroy any hope of there ever being reconciliation between these two states? And that destroying that makes real peace ultimately impossible?

[shira]

259. Irrational. You have no plan B. I want you to answer, what will happen if shit hits the fan?

You just say "sorry, I meant well" but the price in blood is worth it?

You'll say "yep, you guys were all right and things got very, very bad. You had good reason to worry, but again I think the price in blood is worth it"?

[Ken Burch]

273. International troops to keep order, not the IDF

if there needs to be troops to preserve order in any interim period, they need to be troops that are neutral between the two sides.

They wouldn't even have to be UN troops, if you have an issue with that. Most of the world doesn't take sides between Israel or the Palestinians, so the troops could be drawn from most of the world. Also, set up a neutral dispute-resolution mechanism of some kind. There's a Plan B for you.

It's not as though keeping the IDF in place is the ONLY possible approach.

[Ken Burch]

280. What you aren't seeing is that Bibi's demands would GUARANTEE

that said shit would hit said fan.

It simply isn't reasonable to expect a Palestinian leadership to accept terms that say "the war was all Palestine's fault, and so, in this relationship, Israel will have all the power and Palestine will have to live at Israel's mercy".

It might be different if Bibi were at least to say..."Look, we'll review this every two years or so. If we see good behavior, will pull more and more troops back. And if anything at all improves, we'll let Palestine have an international airport so that people can go into and out of the country without having to get Israel or Egypt's approval for it."

But Bibi's proposal isn't even all stick, no carrot-it's all TRUNCHEON, no carrot. He gives Palestinians no stake in trying to be responsible, no possible benefits. it's "take these crumbs and like it".

Deep down, even Bibi has to know he's asking way too much.

[King_David]

21. Yea Gay rights are only important when there's a campaign

Keep digging

( the mask is not slipping it fell a long time ago )

;)

[azurnoir]

22. what am I masking do you have the courage to say it ? n/t

[Ken Burch]

102. "the mask is slipping" is simply one of the phrases of the day from the International Hasbara Bureau

The "King" insists on falsely(and covertly) accusing everyone who disagrees with HIS interpretation of I/P reality of antisemitism AND homophobia. He knows he's lying every time he brings up the "mask" thing, but he also knows it works, so that's why he'll never give up the slur.

No sane person actually believes that continuing the IDF occupation of the West Bank is about helping gays or secularists.

[King_David]

141. Yes theres an evil 'Hasbarist' plot on DU

and I am lying about it LOL

( do you ever re-read your posts and shrug ?? ) LOL


:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

101. None of us here ever wore a mask

And none of us stand for the hateful things you falsely accuse us of standing for. The settlements are not good for Palestinian OR Israeli gays, and neither is the Occupation. Liberalism and secularism can't be imposed by colonial overlords.

[King_David]

116. Trying to change the topic? Or defending the indefensible? nt

[Ken Burch]

119. It's the Occupation that's indefensible...

And it's also indefensible to keep implying that everyone who disagrees with you about the Occupation is a bigot.

[shira]

208. Go ahead and tell that to victims of OCL and the Lebanon 2 war....

You need to admit there's a reason for occupation. You may disagree and feel the risk involved in ending it is worth it, but don't demonize those who have mountains of evidence proving the occupation prevented mass losses of life, wars, etc.

I think the occupation should end today. Israel should pull out of at least 60% of the WB and annex the rest. That doesn't mean I should demonize all those opposed from Team Israel. I understand where they're coming from. I think we both have valid and legit arguments. Where's your empathy?

[Ken Burch]

215. It couldn't have been better for Israel to STAY in Lebanon and Gaza

Staying wouldn't have stopped any of the suffering, and would only have given aid and comfort to Hezbollah AND Hamas. Those groups were never going to be militarily defeated(in fact, in this dispute, you're going to have to accept that "defeat" and "victory" in the military sense are no longer meaningful concepts or possible outcomes).

Nothing would be better if Israel were still in Lebanon and Gaza. And peace would be even further away.

My empathy is with all those who suffer-none of whom are protected by the status quo, a state of affairs that helps no one and can't be sustained indefinitely.

BTW, why only 60%? That leaves Palestinians with a uselessly tiny strip of land.

[shira]

261. Then it looks like the Lebanon and Gaza war were worth it to you...

And if war breaks out again after Israel pulls out of the WB, so be it, it's worth it. You know how Israel will react - as you'd say - disproportionately.

How many lives lost is acceptable to you? 1000? 1500? 10,000? No matter the loss of life on Israel's side, you will unleash the IDF beast once more...

You realize that?

The reason for 60% is that this is what was offered to Abbas over a year ago...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879974,00.html

If Israel believes it will be secure giving up 60%, who am I to argue? The occupation would be over and if the PLO/Hamas is interested in the other 40%, the ball's in their court and Israel's door is open. After the PA's bid to the UN last week revealed that in their application letter they want the 1947 partition borders, I figure 60% is a good place to start. If you don't have a problem with the PA going beyond 1967 lines into demanding the 1947 borders - which reveals this is not about 1967 at all - then why would you have a problem with a 60% offer?

[Kurska]

26. I am. If they want a state it needs to be in line with modern principles like women and gay rights.

Not that the laughing stock of the UN run by tyrants and dictators would ever demand that.

[King_David]

19. You think it's funny ?

Maybe we should just ignore it ?

Seems a lot of people want the issue to disappear ?

Well your not "surprising" me.

[Ken Burch]

103. We're all just as pro-gay as you are

We just disagree with your absurd notion that continuing the Occupation is somehow beneficial to gay people. It isn't, whether those gay people are Palestinian, Israeli, or any other nationality. Military occupations cannot produce progressive social change. Only organizing on the grassroots level, independent of any power relations, can do that.

[King_David]

117. Trying to change the topic? Or defending the indefensible? nt

[Ken Burch]

118. It's the Occupation that's indefensible...and the settlements

It will be easier to fight for LGBT rights in an independent Palestine. It can't be done will IDF troops are still on Palestinian soil.

[Shaktimaan]

222. really?

OK, well gaza is independant now. IDF troops are gone. There's still fighting, but that because the Palestinians chose to make continuing to fight with Israel their TOP priority. Things like gay right and the general welfare of their citizens seems low on Hamas' list of priorities. But it was all 100% Palestinian made decisons that brought Gaza to this point. So according you your theory it should be much easier now to establish equal rights for GLBT Gazans.

SO! What's the plan? How should homosexual youth in Gaza start effecting change?

[Kurska]

24. The oppresion of millions of gays in totaltarian muslim societies is HILARIOUS

Look over there! Settlement Israelis! Please pay no attention to the vicious abuses of human rights behind the curtain.

[Jefferson23]

29. No one said that but, keep trying to convince yourself and others

here against the occupation that your approach even makes sense..if it were true you were sincere. Imo, you're not, nor are the others.

Deny the Palestinians what they want for their own good, that's your claim, lol.

[azurnoir]

33. Time has a piece :Is Israel Using Gay Rights to Excuse Its Policy on Palestine?

Next month is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride month, an international season of parades, cultural festivals and street parties celebrating gay rights. But amid all the good cheer, tensions are rising over a controversial issue that is splintering LGBT communities. Around the world, major pride events are being used as battlegrounds to combat what some pro-Palestinian, progay activists are calling pink washing: Israel's promotion of its progressive gay-rights record as a way to cover up ongoing human-rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.

The accusations stem from efforts over the past half-decade by the Israeli government to weave the country's gay-friendly policies — including national hate-crime laws, employment protection for LGBT workers and openly gay military service — into its larger national-rebranding strategy, in the hopes of redirecting its global image away from politics, terrorism and the occupied territories. "The Israeli government and its propaganda organs ... insist on advertising and exaggerating its recent record on LGBT rights ... to fend off international condemnation of its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people," says Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University in New York City.

<snip>

On the other side of the issue, activists and the authorities who support Israel are pushing back against the anti–pink washers. In March, a planned Israeli Apartheid Week event at New York City's LGBT Community Center was canceled after loud opposition from local pro-Israel groups. And in Toronto, the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid has had to pull out of the July 3 pride parade after the mayor's office threatened to withhold funding for the parade.

While it may seem unusual, the conflation of LGBT politics with the Middle Eastern politics is somewhat inevitable. Jews have traditionally been at the forefront of historic LGBT-rights battles, while the gay community has long played a prominent role in the antioccupation movement. But what is surprising about the pink-washing movement is the relatively muted response from Jews themselves. A few New York Jewish groups did protest February's planned Apartheid Week event. But most major Jewish advocacy organizations, like the Anti-Defamation League, have stayed silent.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2070415,00.html#ixzz1ZHIw9RLA

I've also seen it referred to as 'pink washing'

[Jefferson23]

36. For crying out loud, so it is a planned convoluted attack..thanks for posting. n/t

[Kurska]

38. Oh no you've discovered our vast evil conspriacy of caring about the future of gay Palestinians!

Quick men to the flying menorahs! We'll get you next tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime.

:crazy:

[Jefferson23]

39. You forget to forge on about how your approach would ensure those

you claim to care about will achieve their goal. Include how winning a state bid at the SC would ensure they would
never see this level of equality that you worry so much about for them.

You're as transparent as glass, but do carry on your pro- occupation blitz..for the good of the Palestinians,lol.

[Kurska]

40. Here ya go.

Assurances of the protection of gay, women and ethnic minority rights should be a requirement for any process, be it the security council or direct negotiations, that could reward the Palestinians with a state.

Is that such an evil idea?

[Jefferson23]

41. It is not part of the process, period.

The occupation needs to end,(THEIR MAIN PROBLEM) get behind that some day and let the Palestinians deal with their rights, their
government, their way. They know what their problems are, they don't need you to hold them back.

[Kurska]

42. If Palestinians value jailing/excuting gays over a state, they aren't ready for one.

Sovereignty is no excuse for barbarism and neither is "their rights, their government, their way".

[Jefferson23]

43. Yea, but the barbarism of occupation works fine for you, lol.

I have left enough commentary here to suit me, I leave you to your devices, empty of political reasoning and sincerity
for the Palestinians imo.

[Kurska]

44. I want the occupation to end, two states living side by side in peace.

Because I want Israel to exist in the future and Israel has to give up most of the west bank to ensure that future. The question is how does that happen.

I've repeatedly stated that.

[azurnoir]

47. But as you staed down thread not until Gay rights are in place in Palestine n/t

[Kurska]

49. Yup, and I stand by it. n/t

[azurnoir]

52. Tell me do you actually think such a thing will help Gay Palestinians? n/t

[Kurska]

80. Will ensuring gay rights in a future Palestinian state help gay Palestinians?

Of course it would, what sort of question is that?

[azurnoir]

83. ensuring Gay Rights by maintaining a military occupation guess that's tough love ? n/t

[Ken Burch]

110. That wasn't the question

What you were being asked, essentially, is how can you think that using LGBT issues as an argument for preserving the Occupation could ever be helpful to Palestinian gays? Aren't you concerned that you might possibly be putting Palestinian LGBT people(NONE of whom see the IDF as their liberators)at risk by tying their cause to the cause of defending the Israeli government's position on the Occupation and the settlements? Or do you really care about them at all?

[King_David]

142. What you said had nothing remotely to do with anything Kurska said

Not even tangentially related. I know you really really want to change the topic ,but your post (and others) do not relate to the topic being

discussed even peripherally.

[Ken Burch]

121. But you know perfectly well that keeping the Occupation in place

can never help Palestinian LGBT's. Please stop pretending that you care about those people...you never did...you just want to preserve the status quo in the West Bank.

[King_David]

143. WHAT A DISGUSTING SLUR

-Please stop pretending that you care about those people...you never did...you just want to preserve the status quo in the West Bank.-



Even though it was adressed to Kurska - it was a disgusting slur !!

[Ken Burch]

153. Why? He obviously never had any sincere concern about Palestinian LGBT's

If he did, he'd admit that the Occupation is as oppressive for them as it is for everyone else in Palestine.

[shira]

157. No, we can be sure you and your pals here aren't concerned about Palestinian LGBT's...

...nor are you all concerned about women in Palestine, religious minorities, children, and anyone else whose basic rights there are severely abused by the ruling Arab factions.

Now seriously Ken, how will life actually improve for Palestinians abused under Hamas/PLO rule? Have you ever thought about this before? While the Israeli occupation ends, their occupation under Hamas/PLO remains. How about that? You don't really care, do you?

[Ken Burch]

160. I do care.

I support all Palestinian democratic movements and all Palestinian secularists-the IDF doesn't.

The Occupation doesn't do any of those groups any good. And, given that the leadership has never come close to improving in the West Bank while the Occupation has remained in place, how can you still pretend that continuing the Occupation is anything remotely like an effective tool for creating progressive values in Palestine?

If keeping the IDF in place in the Territories was ever going to have any positive effect on Palestinian internal politics, shouldn't it have had such an effect by now?

Isn't pretending that it still could have such an effect pretty much the definition of insanity: I.e., doing the same thing over and over again but still expecting different results?

[shira]

166. You never speak up for Palestinians oppressed by Hamas/PLO...

...and rarely ever condemn Hamas/PLO for what they do to all citizens (and non-citizens like the refugees).

Tell me how life for the average Palestinian will improve under Hamas/PLO rule once the occupation ends, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

171. I don't like Hamas or Fatah.

It's just that, unlike you, I accept reality-the reality that keeping the Occupation in place can NEVER cause the defeat of Hamas or Fatah. The fact that the Occupation has never weakened the grips of those organizations before proves that. The very idea that it could is as silly as Begin's old claim that it was possible to get a local Palestinian leadership with genuine popular support that would give up on independence and settle for Begin's proposal for (Tibetan-style)autonomy. No such leaders would ever have emerged, any more than the Bantustan Quislings in South Africa could ever have been the true leaders of the black majority there.

The best way to bring down Hamas and Fatah is to change the conditions that keep them in power...the daily miseries of the Occupation. Those parties would not hold onto support in an independent Palestine that was being allowed to flourish on its own terms.

[Shaktimaan]

223. are you sure?

Since the occupation always existed you have no real frame of reference. But has leadership really gotten worse? Mufti Haj-Amin to Arafat to Abbas. Is that worse?

And once the IDF left Gaza and there were elections the first thing they did was elect Hamas.

Beyond that, it is not up to Israel or the occupation to develop liberal policies in the OPT. It is up to the Palestinians to do so. Nothing about the occupation prevents that from happening. Israel did it under far harsher circumstances. As did the US, and India. No one ever accused Gandhi of being a British plant.

If the Palestinians can't form a working government, (not even a liberal one, who cares... just one that doesn't have blood running in the streets), then the blame falls on them alone. Not Israel or the occupation.

Everyone said that it was Israel who caused Hezbollah because of the occupation. So Israel left. What happened? Hezbollah grew in strength exponentially.

[Ken Burch]

233. The British were never trying to prevent the State of Israel from being established

And they never treated the Zionist and Palestinian representatives as equals. This probably had something to do with the one and only Grand Mufti(his predecessors in Palestine were just "The Mufti", with the British adding the "Grand" for no particular reason)deciding to eventually throw in with the Germans.

[Shaktimaan]

245. True. The British never treated the Zionist and Palestinian representatives as equals.

They treated the Jews far worse, probably banking on their need to develop strong allies within the Arab world in the coming years. And they certainly DID try and prevent the state of Israel from being established! Fighting the Brits AND Arabs is a big part of Israel's formation history.

Following the Great Arab Uprising and the Arab rejection of the Peel Plan the British held a conferemce in London to try and mediate the conflict between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs refused to even meet with the Jews so everyone met seperately and both sides rejected any compromise. The Arabs rejected the Balfour Declaration and called to stop Jewish immigration and forbid the purchase of land by Jews. And so came the White Paper of 1939 which gave in to every Arab demand.

• The idea of two states was abandoned in favor of one state administered by both groups, according to population.
His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.

• But the immigration of Jews was capped at 75,000 over 5 years. After that Jewish immigration would be permitted ONLY with the permission of the Arab leadership. Otherwise no more. (Arabs had no immigration regulations.)

• The sale of land to Jews was outlawed or heavily restricted everywhere but in a 5% section of the country. Sale to Arabs was encouraged.

-----

The White Paper of 1939, also known as the MacDonald White Paper after Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary who presided over it, was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate for Palestine, as recommended in the Peel Commission Report of 1937, was abandoned in favour of creating an independent Palestine governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000, spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III).

The White Paper was published on 9 November 1938, and approved by Parliament in May 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

[King_David]

193. UGLY

Do you read your posts?

You get real personal and trash people.

Is it because he is gay?

UGLY !!!

[Ken Burch]

200. I get ugly?

This from Mr "the mask has slipped" himself?

You know perfectly well that nobody in this forum hates LGBT people or Jews, and yet you constantly insinuate that people do, simply because they disagree with you.

I don't even hate you. I just disagree with you. OK?

And no, it isn't because Kurska is gay(most LGBT people worldwide do not support what Israel does to the Palestinians). Kurska doesn't hold any of his opinions as a result of his sexual orientation...any more than I hold any due to mine.

What I object to is his and your effort to force people to accept the proposition that people who support LGBT rights should feel obligated to defend the Occupation UNTIL the Palestinian leadership embraces gay rights.

If that leadership DID embrace those rights(and I agree that they should, as everyone else should)you'd find some other reason to insist that the IDF and the settlements remain in place in the West Bank. You simply oppose Palestinian self-determination and you should just admit you'll always oppose it.

[Ken Burch]

109. Demagoging about LGBT issues as a justification for preserving the Occupation

can't possibly lead to any of the things you SAY you want ever happening. Your mindset, whether you consciously realize it or not, is still "peace through victory".

[aquart]

76. Hey, the Mormons officially gave up polygamy for statehood.

These things can be done.

[Ken Burch]

111. Not because of a military Occupation or anything like that.

The choice the Mormons made doesn't vindicate using armed coercion in this context, since it wasn't part of what happened to the Mormons.

[Ken Burch]

108. So, the U.S. shouldn't have gained independence while it still allowed slavery

while it still stole land from Native Americans, and while it still denied most people the right to an education OR the vote?

Plus, Israel itself didn't have any gay-rights legislation until FORTY YEARS after its independence.

[Kurska]

129. Protecting slavery into the constitution was TRAVESTY of justice and one of our greatest mistakes.

Would you be okay with executions too? Is that the price you would pay for an independent Palestine? The government sanctioned murder of homosexuals?

[Ken Burch]

133. I don't want a Palestinian government to murder anybody.

But continuing the Occupation isn't the way to try to change that...assuming that those who defend the Occupation actually care about Palestinian gays at all.

[Kurska]

135. All I'm asking for is for the new Palestinian state to ensure gay rights.

You are the one who seems to be willing to sacrifice gay lives to get a Palestinian state.

[Ken Burch]

162. Fine. We all want that.

But that can be achieved after independence. It doesn't have to be done BEFORE the Occupation is lifted, especially since you are endangering Palestinian gays by using this issue to keep them and all their countrywomen and men in what is, effectively, colonial bondage.

BTW, Israel didn't have gay rights legislation until FOUR DECADES after independence. Does that mean you'd have been anti-Zionist until the 1980's?

[Kurska]

172. Why should we tolerate even a day of discrimination against homosexuals in a Palestinian state?

Also while Israel had a law on the books that made homosexuality illegal as a hold over, it was never enforced and in 1963 it was declared it would never be enforced. I'm not asking for anything besides legal homosexuality at this point. If the PA won't do that I question whether I really want them running a state.

[Ken Burch]

178. But it's not fair to make that a case for preserving the Occupation

Which is what, let's face it, you are doing.

[King_David]

292. +1

[hack89]

149. Unilateral declarations of statehood were not part of the process either. nt

[Ken Burch]

107. In principle no-but the IDF doesn't actually care about Palestinian gays.

But short-term lack of such assurances does NOT justify continuing the Occupation, because the occupation isn't about LGBT rights or any other aspect of social progressivism. Military occupation are always right-wing and anti-liberation in practical effect.

Plus, has it ever occurred to you that Israeli propaganda may be ENDANGERING Palestinian gay people by falsely identifying the LGBT cause to the continuation of the status quo in the West Bank?

[Ken Burch]

106. You DON'T care about gay Palestinians...if you did

you wouldn't occupy their country. The IDF is not the liberator of the Palestinian gay community, and it never can be. Just admit that the occupation has nothing to do with gays already.

[King_David]

62. 'pink washing' lol , yea Israel should rather opress and discriminate against gays

to make all you guys happy .

They should hang and stone the Gays like Iran does and a future Palistinian/ Hamas state?

[azurnoir]

92. what a ridiculous statement the Time article posted earlier

well describes pink-washing and your statements that occupation for the good of Gay Palestinians or that Palestinians do not deserve freedom until ...... exemplifies that Hasbara technique

[Ken Burch]

112. No, no one should discriminate against gays

But that isn't what the Occupation is about...and you know it. The Occupation has never been about anything progressive.

[King_David]

114. Umm were we talking about that?

Or you just think now is a good time to change the subject on the future Palestinian States denial of minority groups hume men rights?

[Kurska]

35. My claim is if you want to be a modern state ACT like one.

Such a hard concept.

[Ken Burch]

104. Nobody defends the oppression of gays anywhere

It's just that, unlike you, we are in touch with reality, so we know that keeping IDF troops in the West Bank and continuing to build settlements can never have positive effects for Israeli OR Palestinian gays. At some point, you're going to have to face reality:
The settlers had gays just as much as Hamas does-settlers are not social progressives.

[King_David]

146. Quite a few of my gay friends parents , brothers and sisters are settlers

I have been to quite a few of their houses and they do not hate their sons (or daughters)

So where did you get that information from :wtf:


Oh yes...you made it up !

[azurnoir]

187. well that explains so much you have a personal iron in the fire

besides being supposedly Gay yourself that explains your support of continued occupation the Gay rights concern could seem a vehicle to help your friends and family from losing their homes and I hear housing prices inside the Green Line are killer indeed

[King_David]

18. This is not the South Sudan website but

Yes there should be NO recognition for any state criminalizing

homosexuality... NONE

[azurnoir]

25. But as I mentioned there is nothing on GLBT forum either

in fact on search of the GLBT forum one finds exactly 3 posts from you who claims so much concern for Gay rights 2 the day you started on DU and one on a thread that was cross posted from here on I/P
it seems your concern is quite focused

[Kurska]

27. How about me buddy?

Or do records only matter when they support your point?

[azurnoir]

30. Have you posted about South Sudan on the GLBT forum

you have posted on that forum but a cross reference of your user name and south sudan when using the search function netted zero

[Kurska]

34. I've frequently spoken about the plight of LGBT persons in Africa.

Perhaps not on this forum I can't recall, but if you want to know my position I want the United States to have nothing to do with states that violate women and gay rights. We shouldn't support the ambitions of any that state doesn't share our view of the modern world.

[azurnoir]

46. I was specific to South Sudan because they were quite recently recognized as a state by the UN

Gay rights are almost nonexistent in most of the 3rd world BTW would you deny them rights too?

[Kurska]

70. I don't support any regime that denies gays rights.

South Sudan included.

[azurnoir]

93. well you say that now but couldn;t find any concern then

but the people of South Sudan aren't demanding their land back from Israel are they ?

[King_David]

94. umm yes , maybe it could be because we Jewish

And have a special attachment to Israel and Palestine . So it interests us and therefore we post on the topic?

Theres a large world out there and not every region has a special place in my heart like the Israel/Palestine and Gay issue , South Sudan included.


SO AGAIN :

WTF is your point ?

[azurnoir]

185. My point is that you who so claim to care so much for Palestin Gays never once not once offer

any type of support or fellowship any help for changing their society from within for advocating for Gay rights with in a Palestinian country which is what at least one group has eloquently expressed a desire for just as Israeli and American Gays have and are still working for, but no you only suggestion is keep the occupation going its good for them as if ....... keeping the occupation in place under the guise of liberalism could seem the goal

Tell us do IDF treat Gay Palestinians differently from straight Palestinians, if so in exactly what way ?

[King_David]

51. ohhh you caught me out

Yes I care about Gay rights In Israel and Palestine , do a search on this forum and cross reference the 2 topics.

You are such a good detective.

What it proves is beyond anyone .


But I am sure you understand what your post means to the discussion.

[azurnoir]

55. It coulds prove you have very focused interest in Gay rights when it comes to

using them to deny Palestinians a state as to whether or not you are Gay who cares that's not an issue

[shira]

58. Nah, it means you only care about human rights if you can use an issue to bash Israel. n/t

[azurnoir]

59. oh your back Hi shira how was your day ? n/t

[King_David]

63. ..

:eyes:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[King_David]

291. Indeed nt

[aquart]

77. Yeah, only Israel does that.

I'm totally for Palestinian statehood. Can't think of a better, quicker way to get them to turn the guns on each other.

[shira]

78. Now see, that's one way of putting it. The Palestinians' worst enemies would look forward...

...to a Palestinian state in which they're too busy killing themselves and make life miserable for all other Palestinians in their way.

I would imagine anyone who loathes Palestinians would support such an endeavor.

Maybe that's why Netanyahu supports a 2 state solution. He can't think of a better way for Palestinians to kill each other off....

[Ken Burch]

279. Bibi doesn't really support a two-state solution

You don't have a state if another state has you surrounded with its troops(the insistence on having the Mountain Ridge AND the Jordan Rift Valley)and if the sliver of territory that's left after accepting those things can't even have an international airport and a water supply that's guaranteed not to be interrupted by the country that's got you surrounded.

And there's nothing in Bibi's proposal that even offers to ever lift those particularly honerous requirements, no matter how many years a Palestinian state were to not even try to do anything antagonistic to Israel. Bibi's proposal is for Palestine as a statelet-on-sufferance, not a real state with full sovereignty.

[shira]

286. No Ken, it looks like you guys don't support 2 states and an end to occupation.

Not unless all conditions are perfect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311362#311379

That thread shows your side here at DU all against an end to occupation and for a sovereign Palestinian state in the WB.

Sure, it's only 60% but it's a start. Just like Gaza, which your side here at DU is against as well because all conditions weren't perfect. You empathize with extreme rightwingers like Hamas and the PA and make their case for them, constantly and without fail.

---------

You guys are apologists for extreme rightwing positions here held by Fatah/PA and Hamas.

You all need the occupation.

[Ken Burch]

98. Nothing in Palestine can be made better by keeping IDF troops there

And none of those troops see their presence in the West Bank as a fight for anything progressive. Military occupations can't be progressive.

[King_David]

289. Because it's different when it is Israel Doncha know ? nt

[King_David]

290. 'So why be an enthusiastic supporter of such a regime?'

That is the biggest mystery nt

[Kurska]

12. "I do not denigrate Gay rights" Sounds like you are to me.

You're accusing those asking the hard questions about the future of the Palestinian homosexual community of some malicious intent. If you're not going to stand up for them fine, but don't stand in the way of those who are trying to.

[azurnoir]

14. could sound to me like denigrating human rights for all Palestinians under

thin mask of promoting Gay and women's rights but that could never be right?

[Kurska]

23. Maybe I'm a homosexual and these issues actually matter to me.

But alas I've committed the cardinal sin in this forum of trying to hold Palestinians accountable for the often horrible things they do. I'm sure Palestinian homophobia is the fault of Israelis SOMEHOW.

[azurnoir]

28. Do you believe a Palestinian State shoulsdd be denied based on the Gay rights issue?

perhaps you are Gay really I don;t care your gender preference has little to do with denying human rights to all based on Gay rights if the issues matter so much perhaps you should support the advancement of Gay rights in Palestine

[Kurska]

31. Gays rights ARE human rights.

What sense does it make to give a group power and self determination if they are just going to turn around and oppress another group? If the Palestinian authority won't commit to some basic level of gay rights then I have no interest in fighting for their right to oppress people like me.

And no I don't think countries like Uganda and Saudi Arabia that don't actually represent their people either belong in the UN. That is one of the biggest problems with the UN, giving equal voice to democracies and tyrants.

[azurnoir]

32. do you believe a Palestinian state should be denied based on Gay rights issues?

simple question requires a yes or no

[Kurska]

37. To even consider supporting a new state I would need an assurance of gay, women and minority rights.

So yes, I would not support the creation of another state that that won't ensure the legality of homosexuality, the equal treatment of men/women and the offical protection of ethnic minorities from discriminatory laws. Especially when the state they want to break off of does ensure all those rights. I would never consider supporting an action that strip thousands of homosexuals of their status as people who have a right to exist as they are.

Tolerating the mere existence of gay people isn't such a huge demand in mind.

[azurnoir]

45. The state they want to "break off from" is that in your mind what Palestinians are doing ?

incredible really just incredible but would deny every Man, Women, and Child Straight and Gay their rights over this? I wonder how many Gay Palestinians living presently in the West Bank or Gaza want the occupation to stay in place until'.... surely you have something lined up for that

BTW it is not illegal to be Gay in the West Bank which is not to say its accepted either it is ilegal in Gaza since the Hamas takeover

[Kurska]

48. Exactly! It is legal now, I will not consent to gays being STRIPPED of the rights

by a future Palestinian state. Frankly, if the Palestinians find homosexuality so disgusting that they would value imprisioning and executing them over getting a state, they don't deserve one yet.

This is not a lot to ask, this is CURRENTLY HOW THINGS ARE. All I'm asking for assurances that it will stay that way.

[azurnoir]

54. so first off Palestine is part of Israel? Palestinians are Israeli citizens?

both would have to be true for them to "break off" also do the Palestinians currently execute Gays in the West Bank? I could not find anything about that happening in Gza either but I did find some Syrian saying that being Gay carried the death penalty his name is Muhammad Rateb al- Nabulsi and MEMRI says he supports the death penalty for Gays but again he is Syrian

[Kurska]

60. Break off was a bad choice of words, I apologies for it. It does not represent my views.

I said executed or imprisoned those are the two possible outcomes for something being illegal is it not? Most countries in the middle east don't actually execute gays, they simply imprison them for a rather long time.

[azurnoir]

64. Hey if you are really interested check out this group

Al Qaws resisting-homophobia-and-occupation Haneen Maikey

http://www.alqaws.org/q/content/resisting-homophobia-and-occupation

or this

The clearest message resounding from all three speakers was that if one actually cares about LGBT rights within Palestine, one should be working to end the occupation. That Israel has cultivated a vibrant and open gay enclave is laudable, yet such accomplishments do not give the ‘Jewish State’ a free pass to violate human rights, including the rights of the gay Palestinians they allegedly care for. As Haneen dryly explained, “It doesn’t matter what the sexual orientation of the Soldier at a checkpoint is, whether he can serve openly or not. What matters is that he’s there at all.” Sami echoed the same sentiment, jibing that “the apartheid wall was not created to keep Palestinian homophobes out of Gay Israel, and there is no magic door for gay Palestinians to pass through.”

When pressed by an audience member as to which situation they would prefer, a perfectly egalitarian, queer-friendly society still under occupation or a free Palestine that still suffers from sexism, patriarchy and homophobia, the three became visibly angry. Abeer looked to the audience and asked, “Please raise your hand if you’d like to live one day under occupation,” before saying that occupied people cannot adequately address civil rights issues as they struggle for their very means of survival. Sami went on to contend that freedom transforms the mind, giving people the best opportunity to examine their previously held attitudes. Drawing on recent events in Egypt, he related that while sexual harassment is rampant within the country, in Tahrir square women remarked an utter absence of abuse during the mass protests. At the same time, if one does not wish to see the correlation between the unacceptably slow pace of social change and the increasing weight of the occupation, one cannot honestly contend that Israel's actions do anything to help the plight of Palestinian women/LGBT individials.

Each had their own story to tell about the intersection of queer identity and Palestinian identity, agreeing that Palestinian homosexuality had its own unique experiences. Yet for all three, the liberation of their country reigned supreme in their minds. The meeting ended with a standing ovation as the moderator boomed, “Clap if you understand that queers will never be free until Palestine is free.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/palestinian-queer-activists-challenge-the-pinkwashing-of-the-israeli-occupation.html

http://www.alqaws.org/q/content/resisting-homophobia-and-occupation

[Kurska]

68. Respect for basic human rights is not a heavy price to pay for a state.

If they can't do that, what hope is there that this state will be peaceful? I stand by my position, no human rights no state.

[azurnoir]

73. Even if Palestinian Gays and Lesbians disagree with that sentiment

and feel their state should work towards more liberal Gay rights once it's a state?

[Kurska]

81. How did you create this consensus from 3 people?

And one group?

[azurnoir]

84. How do you creat a consensus from how many ? and it is more than 3 people and 1 group as you claim

you've had plenty of time to search links and contacts lets see something how many Palestinian Gays want the occupation to continue? That is what your doing playing for time to find something right?

why is it so troublesome for you that Palestinian Gays wish to liberate themselves in their own country, just as American are doing it's a rather patronizing attitude being displayed here

now as to a Gay consensus there is not a Gay consensus on this particular issue anywhere not the US not Israel not even among Jewish Gays and possibly not Palestine either the same would go just about any other issue too

[Kurska]

88. Suppose for a second you are part of a hated minority in an intolerant society.

Could you safely advocate for you the hated "occupiers", how long do you think a gay "Israeli apologist" would last in the west bank? I do know that plenty of gay Palestinians have voted with their feet, making their way to Israel to escape persecution.

Why is it so hard for the Palestinians to accept slimmest standard of gay rights (not imprisoning gays) as part of a statehood deal? Why are you so opposed to that?

[azurnoir]

91. oh so now they're only pretending to be against the occupation

how long did it take you to dream that one up?

[Kurska]

125. I'm pointing out the obvious difficulty of finding a gay views in a society where they hide.

You certainly haven't found a wealth of information either.

[azurnoir]

130. well what I found was not to difficult to find obviously they weren't hiding and still alive

that must so frustrate but what must we hear an opinion from every Gay person in the West Bank do you actually believe that a 'consensus' of Gay Palestinians living under Israeli occupation want that occupation to remain because of some imaginary Israeli protection?

[Kurska]

136. Not every, let at least wait until "more than 3" before using it as an absolute truth as you are.

Why don't we?

[King_David]

67. Impossible to know what Gay Palistinians

Want .

They wouldn't dare come out the closet and risk death to tell us.

[azurnoir]

85. what a laughable statement as you've been shown that some have come out the closet

and made statements

[King_David]

65. We need not recognize any state that

Discriminates against minorities (including LGBT)

I do expect my country to break relations with Uganda and

not recognize any country behaving like medieval barbarians ..

So YES is the only answer .

[azurnoir]

66. Even if Palestinian Gays disagree with that ?

Is it the it's for their own good school of thought or what?

and what is your country you list 3 you expect all 3 to break off relations with Uganda?? How did they vote on South Sudan?

[Kurska]

69. All I've seen is one group you've posted.

They can hardly assume to speak for all gay Palestinians. That is the problem with repressive societies as the west bank is (even if homosexuality is nominally legal it is social discouraged), minorities aren't allowed a voice.

[azurnoir]

72. well they seem to have their voices and are using them n/t

[Kurska]

82. As are you and I. n/t

[azurnoir]

86. yep I saw yours down thread where you agree with a poster who compares me to Anne Coulter I respect

voices more when they talk to face rather than my back

[Kurska]

89. I'll say it to your face, your comment was out of line and demonstrative of a possible apathy

about the plight of homosexuals not only in Palestine, but in the world at large.

''do not believe that the rights of an entire people should be held hostage to the rights of one particular group'' being fucked up is what I agreed with. And frankly it does sound like something straight out a rather right wing mouth. Whether you sound like Coulter or not, I can't say. Coulter's name is unpleasant here and I don't engage in name calling.

[azurnoir]

90. Palestinian Gay Rights activist want progress in their own country

without Israeli occupation why does that so bother you? tell us does IDF try Gay Palestinian differently than straight Palestinians?

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[azurnoir]

138. the rights of all Palestinians including Gay Palestians should not be HELD HOSTAGE to

to the to the transparently false pretense of Gay Rights , you are willing to keep all Palestinians including Gay Palestinians under the a brutal military occupation for their own good or something but yet I am Anne Coulter like for pointing that out?

[King_David]

147. Again a disgusting statement :

The Minority rights holding Majority rights as hostage meme is an extreme right wing point of view.

[azurnoir]

148. Not when the minority rights and the majority rights being held are one and the same

which in this case they are

eta we aren't talking about taxing the rich here in that case it would be rightist

[King_David]

75. You should google that nt

[azurnoir]

79. google what Palestinians agaist homophobia and occupation or something that suit your politics more?

Palestinian Gays support Israeli occupation? really what an interesting reply though

eta just tried that Palestinian Gays support Israeli occupation here's the first link up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPzRK-hhec

[Ken Burch]

113. You KNOW that continuing the Occupation can never liberate Palestinian LGBT people

And you also know(or should)that Palestinian LGBT people do not accept the argument that the IDF are their protectors.

[Kurska]

127. Please don't attempt to dictate my views to me.

It is childish, as if I couldn't disagree with your perfect argument and am only pretending to hold a different view.

[King_David]

53. 'your gender preference '

I am sorry again, WTF is a 'gender PREFERENCE' ?


WTF



Azurnoir this is a progressive website not some rightwing homophobic forum.



(in case you still do not get it, the word is ORIENTATION and not PREFERENCE and homosexuality is not a 'gender''preference WTF )

[azurnoir]

56. saying that I do not care about someone "gender preferance" ie whether or not they're Gay

rather than orientation is homophobic okay then seems grasping to me but I see your back to using ad hominems- again

[King_David]

87. ''someone "gender preferance" ie whether or not they're Gay ''

WTF ?? Your repeating this foul garbage again ?

[King_David]

50. 'do not believe that the rights of an entire people should be held hostage

''do not believe that the rights of an entire people should be held hostage to the rights of one particular group''


FUCK if that is not something someone like Coulter,Bachman, or Buchanen would say.


YOu realize this is a Democratic Party supporting website?


MINORITY RIGHTS are a cornerstone policy of this party.



You do realize where you are ?

[Kurska]

71. Indeed, that is a rather what the fuck moment. n/t

[Ken Burch]

105. What part of "the Occupation has never been good for gay people" do you not get?

It's only going to be possible to work for social change in Palestine after that country gains independence, especially if the Israeli government is going to insist on unjustly bragging about it's treatment of gays...and gay rights legislation only started getting passed in Israel in the last twenty years or so, so really, the Israeli government(made up at present of the most-retrograde and pro-hatred parts of the Israeli political spectrum, the part that always OPPOSED gay rights)has little space to brag.

No one can be liberated through having another country's army on their country's soil-the only time anyone ever was was postwar Germany, and the situation then will never be replicated.

It's bullshit to use the LGBT cause to justify keeping an entire country under military occupation. Civilized people understand that.

[King_David]

115. Trying to change the topic? Or defending the indefensible? nt

[Ken Burch]

120. It's the Occupation that is indefensible.

You know perfectly well that the fight for social progress can ONLY happen once Palestine is no longer living at the mercy of the IDF. And you also know perfectly well that the Occupation isn't good for Palestinian OR Israeli LGBT's.

[Kurska]

128. You're not crafting an argument you're just stating your views over and over again.

It is childish and unbecoming.

[Ken Burch]

132. No, actually I'm imitating King David's tactics.

n/t.

[Kurska]

140. Yours word represent yourself and yourself alone. n/t

[azurnoir]

144. and your well crafted argument is? n/t

[Ken Burch]

163. He doesn't need an argument, as long as he keeps spamming insults

And keeps implying that anyone who disagrees with him is a closet gaybasher and/or antisemite(I.E., his repugnant "the mask is slipping" comments).

[azurnoir]

181. oh no he was far more plain with mehomophobic and Anne Coulter like too n/t

[Kurska]

175. I will do my best to present my case, ask me a question.

I have no fear of my views standing up to the hard light of public inspection. Fire away.

[azurnoir]

180. I already have you failed to answer n/t

[Kurska]

183. Um, refresh my memory? n/t

[azurnoir]

188. the last time I asked you went on a rather nasty rant

I presented you with a Lesbian Palestinian who express quite well a desire for the occupation to end and to work for change with her own country and society, you blew that off in several ways but why is that so bad why should she and others not be given the same opportunities for self determination and change that other Gay communities elsewhere have been given?

[Kurska]

212. Yes it would be bad if they had to fight for their rights, why shouldn't they have them to start?

Homosexuality is legal in the west bank, if while crafting the laws for a new Palestinian state they make homosexuality illegal they are setting that region back. I am not of the view it is acceptable to give someone the right to self determination (as the Palestinians do indeed deserve) at the cost of someone's right to live their life. If the Palestinian state doesn't have legal homosexuality I'm simply not going to support it's foundation. I will never support the reversal of gay rights anywhere for any reason. If you view gay rights as lesser than the right to self determination, fine, but don't dress it up as it being noble to allow the Palestinian gays to suffer and struggle for their rights like other gays do. They shouldn't have to.

[azurnoir]

217. so would deny or spare Palestinian Gays the fight for full rights that even Gays in this country

are waging? well how 'kind' Gay people like women should not have to struggle for rights but they do that is reality even in the 21st century and those that are brave enough to invoke these changes are brave and noble do not belittle them or the struggle

[Kurska]

218. Of course we should spare them oppression and suffering, how is that even a fucking question?

What sense does it make to allow people to be oppressed just so they can struggle against it? I have a great idea, make sure women can't vote either. Why should gays have all the fun? How DARE you deny women the struggle for suffrage?

I'm sorry, but this is the stupidest fucking argument I have ever heard.

I'm not even asking for full gay rights, I know that isn't realistic. So don't worry gays will still have something to "struggle" against. I just don't want any young men to imprisoned or executed for who they love.

[azurnoir]

219. but how is maintaining a military occupation sparing Gay or Straight Palestinians

oppression and suffering? Is it a kinder gentler oppression and suffering?

[Kurska]

220. If statehood means that much to the Palestinian leadership they can tolerate homosexuals.

If the current Palestinian leadership is willing to sacrifice their statehood ambitions because they can't possible tolerate the existence of homosexuals, they have no place founding a nation.

[azurnoir]

221. so its an either or I see

but that is what you've saying all along the strong belief that collective punishment and double standards will some how 'bring them around' has been shown to be oh so successful at least for those interested in continued occupation and colonialism but not so much for the people who are suffering under it

[Kurska]

228. I don't want "leaders" who value imprisoning gays over self determination running a country.

Honestly I think the Palestinian leadership would buckle on this if even a decent amount of pressure was applied, sadly it probably won't be. Part of the reason it won't be is people who take any attempt to hold Palestinians accountable for their actions as a deceitful attempt to prolong the occupation.

[azurnoir]

255. I honestly think this an desperate effort to justify a brutal military occupation

by "any means necessary" but please do go on with it

[shira]

265. Really? Be honest and apply that to Gaza. How are things there 5 years after occupation?

Hamas runs the show and things have only gotten worse WRT human rights.

Where are you - one of the many paper champions of Palestinian human rights? Where's your voice?

[Ken Burch]

275. Things aren't good. Things would be worse if the IDF and the Gaza settlers

were still there. But it's time for you to finally admit the pullout from Gaza was not a meaningful concession, especially since it was always intended to give the Israeli government an excuse NOT to pull out of the West Bank yet.

[Ken Burch]

97. He's just as supportive of gay rights as you are

It's just that he rejects the argument that the Occupation is good for gay people(most gays, throughout the world, don't think that it is, from what I've seen).

It isn't possible to use the Occupation to move Palestinians towards social liberalism. Military occupations don't ever have that effect. And those who defend the Occupation need to admit that it isn't being kept in place in the name of any humanist or progressive values-it's simply about denying Palestinians the right to self-determination).

[pelsar]

122. i don't care how much your against the occupation...no excuse to be factually wrong

you keep on writing yet even though the simplest study of occupations shows how wrong you are and the simplest look at revolutions and regime change also show you how wrong you can be. Do you believe if you keep on writing, you can change history?

you use words like "can't" is not possible" "never"

and yet your always wrong........again and again and again and again.....i would say about 90% of your posts are factually wrong.
____

unless perhaps you believe the "ends justifies the means"...meaning facts are really irrelevant, do you?

[azurnoir]

145. well Pelsar IMO this thread is a study in "ends justifies the means". n/t

[shira]

150. Would you support Israel if it were as dark a regime as Gaza or what the WB will be? n/t

[Ken Burch]

165. You can't assume that an independent West Bank will be a dark regime

OR that the Occupation protects Palestinians from darkness.

And there's no reason to assume that positive changes could ONLY be made in the Palestinian leadership(or could be made at all)by keeping the Occupation in place.

[shira]

167. You didn't answer the question. Would you?

And what evidence do you have - anything - that gives you hope the West Bank won't be a dark regime?

Just something.

Not blind faith...

[Ken Burch]

168. The fact that all human beings are capable of changing for the better, if allowed the chance.

For example, prior to the 1790's years ago the governments of Europe were just as retrograde as Hamas is now-prior to the French Revolution, most had strict laws against "blasphemy", all persecuted gays and women, all persecuted religious minorities within their boundaries-and yet, thanks to diligent grassroots efforts, those states ceased to be repressive.

The early United States was brutally repressive to most of those who lived there-since the majority of the population of those states was female and/or black, Latino, or Native American. That majority was denied the right to vote. Most people were denied the chance to get an education or even to learn to read-all of that only changed because people worked to change those things from below, for months, years, decades, centuries even.

Why assume that such changes can ONLY occur in Europe and North America? The movements that changed those things on this continent, in particular, involved people of all races, all religions, and all economic levels-they were never the exclusive province of any ONE race, gender, or religion.

All people are capable of progress, if given enough freedom to work for it on their own terms.

BTW, what good does it do to ASSUME, as you do, that an independent Palestinian state can never have a humane, forward-looking government? And if you DO believe that, how can you think that continuing the Occupation could possibly prevent such a development? The IDF can't stay in the West Bank forever, you know. And Palestinians are not congenitally incapable of working for changes within their own society-but they need independence to be able to work for it.

[shira]

173. Yes/No? Would you support an evil, dark Israeli regime?

I'll answer that.

Such a regime would have no right to exist.

Now how about yourself?

[Ken Burch]

176. I don't support ANY dark, evil regimes

I also don't accept they idea that you can deny another country independence because of what you THINK their government might be like. Agreed?

Nobody is ever freer under another country's military occupation than they would be if their country were independent.

[shira]

184. But that's exactly what you support WRT a PLO/Hamas run regime

It's not that I "think" their government will be dark and evil.

They already are and unfortunately there's no reason to believe they'll change anytime soon.

It's delusional to believe - without any shred of evidence - things will improve.

That's religious blind faith, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

189. No it isn't...it's simply an awareness of the progressive nature of history.

Why do you think that removing Hamas or Fatah from power BEFORE Palestine became independent would offer any greater chances of a Palestinian state coming into existence that WASN'T repressive? If Palestinians are as vile as you think they are, wouldn't Hamas or a Hamas-like movement re-emerge AFTER independence? It's not as if trying to remove them while the IDF is in place will be magically effective in keeping them out in a way that working against them after the end of the Occupation couldn't be.

We can assume that any potential alternative leadership that emerged as an alternative to Fatah or Hamas while the Occupation was still in place would automatically be dismissed by ordinary Palestinians as collaborationist-just as the leaders of the Bantustans were in the dying days of apartheid South Africa. If such a leadership did somehow gain power, it could well end up being kept in power in pre-independence Palestine solely due to the presence of the IDF- and this would automatically and permanently discredit that leadership.

The United States had a leadership in its early years that was shamefully repressive...a leadership that defended slavery, stole the continent from the indigenous population, denied not only people of color but women and even white men who didn't own property the right to vote...and yet, no one would seriously argue that this would have made a case for forcing that young nation to remain part of the British Empire against its will.

The politics of most nations changes dramatically after independence...usually providing opportunities for debate and dissent that could never have existed while the old order still hold sway. It's my awareness of this history that informs my analysis of the I/P situation.

An independent Palestine will have to be more democratic than Palestine under the Occupation...and Israel will become more democratic as well, since it will be freed of the corruptions of politics that are caused by keeping the IDF and the settlers on another people's land for an indefinite period.

[Shaktimaan]

190. The progressive nature of history? Hahahahaha!

Give me a break!

Seriously, name a single post-colonial colony in the Arab world that has become more stable, more democratic and or more progressive following independence.

We can assume that any potential alternative leadership that emerged as an alternative to Fatah or Hamas while the Occupation was still in place would automatically be dismissed by ordinary Palestinians as collaborationist

So your argument here is that Palestinians are themselves not capable of believing in reasonable alternatives to their corrupt and/or extremist options. Certainly if you really think that it would be impossible to develop a liberal, honest democracy under Occupation then you are tacidly admitting to the belief that they are incapable of doing so at all. Like it or not the Occupation provides a stabilizing force, preventing mass riots and massacres while enforcing the outcome of elections. It will be harder to oust entrenched politicians following Israel's withdrawal, not easier.

Moreover, it is not Israel's job to convince Palestinians that they can produce a successful government but vice-versa.

The politics of most nations changes dramatically after independence

Only in the case of the failures. Success stories, like India or the US or Israel, established a firm foundational government prior to the end of occupation.

[Ken Burch]

191. The United States was not a free country at the time of its independence

It only really came close to being able to call itself "free" with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This did not make a case for forcing the U.S. to remain a British colony. That's what I'm saying.

In the 18th century, there was no prospect that the U.S. would end slavery or grant women the vote...and you don't even WANT to know how this country treated gay people back then.

There was little in the pre-independence era of American history to suggest that The U.S. would ever be as free as it is now...and we still have a long way to go to be truly free, since that will require freedom from want.

If the U.S., could be given that leeway, why can't Palestine? And how can anyone, in the era of the Arab Spring, STILL insist that Arabs are incapable of working to liberate themselves on their own terms? The revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and the other countries prove that Arabs are as capable of change and of improving their societies as any other people are. And even if this revolt doesn't lead directly to full democracy, it won't be the end of the story-because it took generations for the peoples of Europe to throw off tyrants as well.

As to the notion that Palestine is obliged to prove to Israel that it can put together a successful government-no, it isn't, because if it truly is, no Israeli government will EVER admit that Palestinians can govern themselves(and none will stop stealing the West Bank for more illegal settlements).

And there is a major difference between the way the British treated the Zionists before they gained independence and the way Israelis are treating Palestinians-the British never WANTED to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel. The Israeli authorities, on the other hand, are STILL trying with all their might to keep an independent Palestine from being born.

[pelsar]

196. zombies? your idea utopia is zombies?

we still have a long way to go to be truly free, since that will require freedom from want.

UGGGGGGG! i have never heard of something so "zombish" in my entire life. Your ideal utopia are people walking around with no passion, no desires, no challenges, no dreams (wants) to attempt to do, to acquire, to fantasize for what they don't have.

UGGG i repeat my reaction UGGGGG
___

oh yea, as per your standard, the above "history lesson" is factual wrong. (but i guess were in the broken record syndrome)

[Ken Burch]

197. Freedom from want does NOT equal being a zombie

It refers to freedom from poverty, from material want-not freedom from any goals or desires. Freedom from want WOULD give people the freedom to use their energies for the work they truly WISH to do...rather than on merely struggling to survive, which is something no one should have to do. If no one had to struggle just to live, the world would be full of passions, desires, and challenges-it's just that none of them would be negative and none of them would harm anything. Why would you object to a world in which everyone could use their lives solely for the creativity, positive work, and the improvement of life?

Struggling just to live is a waste of everyone's energy and time-it demeans us and vulgarizes us-drains the poetry from our souls and the songs from our heart. From the struggle to live comes nothing that is beautiful. It takes away and gives nothing back.

And nothing in my description of U.S. history was factually wrong. The U.S. was not a free country for most of its history, unless you were one of the tiny minority of people who were property owning white men. I know my OWN country's history, thank you very much.

[pelsar]

202. try reading the declaration of independance

In the 18th century, there was no prospect that the U.S. would end slavery or grant women the vote.

something about "all men are created equal".....i.e. the basic building block was already established

I know my OWN country's history, thank you very much
clearly your intrepretation of the history of the US is equal to that of the middle east........

[Ken Burch]

211. I know what the declaration said

And I know that, in the Eighteenth Century, there was no prospect that universal human equality would ever come to the United States IN PRACTICE. It took decades, even centuries, to get as close to it as the U.S. is now. The U.S. had no real freedom at all in the era of Washington and Jefferson(unless you count property rights as freedom, which they never were for more than a tiny minority).

I am an American. I know the truth of my country's history. And for most of it, my country wasn't entitled to gloat about anything. It had to be forced to be free, and forced from below, and by the kind of people you would have dismissed as woolly-headed idealists.

If it were left solely to the hard-eyed tough guys(as you fancy yourself being)the U.S. would still be stuck in the Eighteenth Century...and freedom would solely be for rich white guys who owned mansions.

My point stands...the U.S. was no freer in 1793 than Palestine is now. We even had a lot of religious crazies who were just as severs and brutal as Hamas and Hezbollah...they were the ones who had burned witches...they persecuted religious minorities in their communities...and they rejected the idea that there was any such thing as separation of religion and state.

Don't DARE tell me I don't know about my own country...and stop listening to old Ronald Reagan speeches. Your notion of American history is a right-wing fantasy.

[pelsar]

213. you may know what it said, but clearly you don't understand....

so i shall explain:
the phrase "all men are created equal" was the basic building block for the future. The founding fathers were wise enough to understand that eventually that phrase would be used bring equality to all, even if in the present (the 18th century) the society wasn't quite ready yet.

Now the Palestinians it appears refuse to put such a phrase in to their own version of their declaration of independence and this is 300 years later, where civil rights, minority rights are a standard in some variation in western democracies.

your friends, the Palestinians, are planning on a state that simply rejects your western version of minority rights....and you are for promoting the establishment of a new facist state.(nationalism over civil rights- a right wing standard)

as far as telling you about your country, you seem to feel you can tell me about mine (though your usually wrong), so i figure i should at least straighten you out about the US.

[Ken Burch]

214. "a building block for the future"? Yeah, right

Fifty years after that "building block", the U.S. launched an unprovoked attack on Mexico and stole more than half of Mexico's territory, from which they expelled most of the residents, solely for the crimes of being mestizo and Catholic.

Sixty years after that "building block" was put in place, the Fugitive Slave Law was enacted by the U.S. Congress, REQUIRING all American citizens to return escaped slaves to their "owners". And the, after the Emancipation Proclamation was announced in 1862, there would be a pathetically brief period of freedom for African Americans followed by a bipartisan deal in 1876 to impose Jim Crow(essentially, South African-style apartheid before the R.S.A. existed)on them. Jim Crow didn't end legally until 1964.

There were no "building blocks" for the freedom of working people either(unions were essentially illegal in the U.S. until 1935 and the passage of the Wagner Act)or for gays(until, basically, recent weeks, when the bans on same-sex marriage began falling and "don't ask, don't tell" was finally removed from the military)and there are still few building blocks for women(since we don't have the Equal Rights Amendment)and none likely soon for transgendered people. So don't offer me any bogus talk about how "it was all going to work out in the end" so it was ok that repression existed for centuries in the "Land of the Free".

The "building block" was a meaningless phrase, and legal equality only occurred because of people who challenged the smug mainstream view. The Founders did nothing to free anyone, and only really cared about keeping taxes low on private property.

Nonetheless, none of the above, loathesome as it was, makes a case for denying independence to what became the U.S.-and all of which is worse than anything Palestine's leaders have done or ever could do.

And you can't assume that Palestinians have a hive mind and ALL want a dictatorship. Or that keeping them under Israeli occupation somehow gives them more freedom than they would have in an independent country. That was bullshit when the British said it about India, it was bullshit when the Afrikaaners said it about South Africa, and it's bullshit here. No one is ever better off being denied self-determination. You can only truly work for freedom when you know you're going to have independence(as the Zionists always knew they would eventually have, since Britain never wanted to prevent Israel from coming into existence and never wanted the Mandate to be part of the Empire).

[pelsar]

227. the brilliance of the declaration was that it was based on mortals...

clearly your not very knowledgable of how the declaration and the other documents have been used as the basis for changing america. The very phrases "all men are created equal" for instance has been used to promote civil rights via the system devised, once the society was ready for the changes.

its the kind of quote that Martin Luther King and Lincoln would use as would others to promote equality as for one example, based on that initial building block that many believed in, and accepted.


Lincoln argued in a speech given in 1857 that the founders realized that equality did not yet exist among all races and that they “could not right all wrongs at once” so Lincoln explained that what the founders meant to do was “simply to declare the right so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit”



you get easily confused between Principles/concept and actual political/nationalistic actions. The actions will never be perfect, but the principles and their concepts can eventually deliver if they are solid and as history has shown (your read history through filters-very very very closed minded)




______

More so, you have a strange habit of making assumptions that you attach to many of us, then you attack those very same assumptions. Its a bit weird, but i do understand it...as you don't have much else. If you would attempt to attack my (others) actual argument, you would find yourself in a world of contradictions, so i get it, but, it doesn't do much for your argument nor your knowledge. Its like you've been given a 'playbook" and if something doesn't appear in the book, you don't know how to respond, so you take a familiar page and just use that.

[Ken Burch]

230. The ultimate contradiction is to believe

That you can protect one group within a nation from discrimination by denying independence to the nation as a whole.

I do attack your actual argument: You are arguing, in this case, that liberalism can be brought to a people by keeping said people in a state of colonial submission. Furthermore, you are arguing that the people in question can never develop liberal, secular values on their own as an independent country-even though, as I demonstrated in the case of the United States, there is a president for a deeply repressed and disempowered people liberating themselves from oppression AFTER gaining independence-and, indeed, doing so decades after their nation won independence from its colonial bonds. Furthermore, I showed that that people-my people, as it happens-did this by making real the meaning of words that were intended, when originally written, to be merely pretty abstractions that were never supposed to apply to the majority of the people in my country. If my country can do this, and do it as a result of the work of the people, from below, without being held under colonial subjugation, than any other country, including Palestine, can do the same.

I hope it is faster than that. I would be glad to see it happen before Palestine actually gained independence. What I DON'T accept is the right of the nation holding Palestine in subjugation using the rhetoric of liberty to deny it to the Palestinians themselves.

And, in regard to LGBT people, it is perfectly clear to me and to everyone else, I suspect, who agrees with the bulk of my views, that even if Palestine were to enact a full range of legal protections for both LGBT people AND any other group that could, in theory, be subject to discrimination in an independent Palestine, the Israeli government and its apologists would STILL say that wasn't proof enough of the virtues of Palestinians as a nation to actually allow them the right to self-determination. The goalposts would be moved, and moved again, and moved once more.

The LGBT issue is just the latest excuse used to preserve what the entire world regards as an unjust status quo.

[pelsar]

238. no..now try again...

Furthermore, you are arguing that the people in question can never develop liberal, secular values on their own as an independent country

thats not my argument....if you can't get past that, then your understanding of mine and others view point is zero.

(but it keeps you in your comfort zone)

[Ken Burch]

240. That IS your argument

Your whole position is predicated on the assumption that Palestinians, and Arabs in general, are pathologically incapable of positive actions-UNLESS someone else forces them to take those actions. This is why you are so determined to dismiss the Arab Spring-it threatens your whole arrogant "the only democracy in the Middle East" meme-and it proves that Arabs, like any other people anywhere else, are capable of trying to change their societies for the better ON THEIR OWN TERMS and without foreign coercion.

It would scare you shitless to see a fully democratized Arab world-because that Arab world would STILL support Palestinian self-determination and you'd have to admit that the idea of that was never just a trick made up by the Arab elites. You'd have to admit that that support is real and that that cause is valid. That would make your head explode.

[pelsar]

244. nope.....your just arguing with yourself...(its easier that way))

Its pretty clear to probably everyone here on this little forum that you're basically arguing with yourself....you take our arguments, modify them or ignore them completely and then write up a whole long post of why your absolutely right and why we have to be wrong-based on imaginary claims/arguments.

of course if you did reread and actually commented on what i actually wrote, you would find yourself in a major contradiction of your beliefs and it wouldn't be so black and white...which is why i suspect you don't go there.

[Ken Burch]

246. I do read what you write

You just don't accept my interpretation of it.

But my interpretation is not inaccurate. You assume your side in the dispute is capable of reason and the Palestinian side isn't. That your is capable of humanity and theirs isn't. That yours can be trusted with sovereignty and theirs can't be. That your side mourns the death of its children and the other side doesn't mourn the deaths of theirs.

[pelsar]

251. nope....wrong again

You assume your side in the dispute is capable of reason and the Palestinian side isn't. That your is capable of humanity and theirs isn't

this must be the millionth time I've said

i do not believe what you wrote above.
______

there are 8 words in the above sentence, which ones are you having trouble with?

[Shaktimaan]

270. really?

After all this ime how is it that you haven't absorbed pelsar's basic argument against ending the occupation tomorrow? It's as though you have a predetermined idea of what everyone who disagrees with you really thinks. Despite whatever we might say you keep coming back to the same accusations... "we oppose Arab democracy. Our only true motive is to prevent Palestinian self-determination. We are racist and HATE the Arabs and that is why we support settlements. We support settlements."

NONE of those things are true yet you keep returning to them again and again, no matter how many time pelsar outlines his legitimate concerns and hopes for the future.

Why in the world would any of us not want a a fully democratized Arab world along with a successful Palestinian state? THAT is what we have been working towards, THAT is always what we say we have supported! How can you think the opposite after all these years of posting?

The vast majority of Israelis would love nothing more than to see Palestine succeed as a state living peacefully next door to them. They keep returning o the idea again and again and have shown a willingness to pay for it. Again and again. It is not that we don't want it. I certainly isn't that we hate Arabs. (I mean, COME ON! Really!?) It is that we place security for Israel first and have serious doubts about Palestine's ability to form a peaceful, successful state. One where rockets aren't contantly flying over the border and suicide bombers aren't trying to blow up buses. I don't think those doubts are irrational. Nor are we asking for impossible terms... form a government, form the structures that the state will rely on, use the stability that the occupation provides to work out some of the kinks before taking the new state live.

This is the pattern that has worked for almost every state that successfully transitioned from colony to independent nation. If it can't happen under the occupation that doesn't mean the occupation is to blame. That the solution is to just END the occupation and hope for the best. If every other state was able to do it this way then Palestine should as well, right? If they can't, that doesn't mean they are INCAPABLE of doing it. It might just mean that they won't be able to do it right now.

[Ken Burch]

278. All that talk about "forming the structures" would be well and good

if, in the mean time, Palestinians were being given full autonomy within the West Bank-if the borders to Israel were being guarded but Palestinians were otherwise being left alone. But they're being given no breathing space at all. They are being asked to prove to armed troops that are holding them down that they, the ones BEING held down, aren't the villains. There's no acknowledgment in either of your arguments about how much damage the status quo is doing to Palestinians.

If you were to advocate letting them have some room, some ability to not have to be TOTALLY at the mercy of the IDF 24/7, your arguments would be reasonable.

But what you don't seem to get is that you can't treat people like this and expect them to accept such treatment as their due.

And what you also don't seem to get is that the best way to protect Israel's security is to actually address the grievances that have caused some Palestinians to make the choices they have made. Instead, it sounds(and I'd prefer to be wrong)as if you STILL think that this whole business is just about Palestinians "hating the Jews" and that none of their anger towards the Occupation or towards the Israeli government could possibly be justified by anything relating to reality. Were you to admit that they have reasons to feel aggrieved, that would most likely help. Were you to admit that they've suffered at least as much as people on the Israeli side, if not more, that would also help. You have nothing to lose by acknowledging the reality that Palestinians have been the victims of many levels of injustice and that the Israeli side is not made up solely of innocent victims.

People are much more likely to try to change when you recognize their humanity and their pain. Even Palestinian Arab people.

Here's my proposal on the RoR issue, for example

Israel could agree that, formally, Palestinians have the Ror-but that, rather than having them all physically return, the acknowledgment of this right would take the form of compensation AND official apologies, combined with allowing, say, the surviving elders of 1967 and 1948 to return(which would be a rather small group, actually). Acknowledging the right in this way, even if it didn't mean actually having everyone who identified as Palestinian could physically move back and move in, would do a lot.

Plaques could be put up commemorating the Arab villages that were destroyed-this wouldn't mean rebuilding all the villages, but would at least ACKNOWLEDGE that they were real.

These are a couple of small, but real, steps that could bridge some of the gaps and would be taken as a real sign that the suffering Palestinians were subjected to was being admitted and addressed.

[azurnoir]

216. well your understanding the times and US Declaration of Indendence is quite flawed

as the phrase all men are created equal meant just that very literally all men not women and perhaps you did not know but at that time there was also a general belief that most nonwhites were also not quite human this applied in particular to Blacks, it was the justification for slavery which was allowed to stand at that time

[pelsar]

229. apparently MLK and Lincoln disagreed with you.....n/t

[azurnoir]

254. apparently you don't get the time lag involved about 190 years

I guess only some are allowed imperfect democracy

[pelsar]

256. i think you don't understand what Jefferson wrote...

but more importantly, how MLK and Lincoln knew how to use it to make a better democracy.....and get the people behind them-its nothing more than history. Read up on how they used that phrase to improve america.

thats why its considered one of the foundations for american democracy

[azurnoir]

257. again you seem to completely disregard the number of years it took to do that

not to mention a civil war and a civil rights movement

[pelsar]

266. i'm not ignoring the years...they aren't the point....

the foundation of america was based on equality....it may haven take time to get there, but given that its base, its very foundation is that building block, its was used by the politicians to push the issue.

MLK and Lincoln being the most famous ones, but hardly the only ones to use that single sentence to push for equality.

[Ken Burch]

232. Thanks.

It's amazing how "American exceptionalist" pelsar's arguments can be. Do you think he realizes how much he sometimes sounds like an old Nixon or Reagan campaign speech?

[pelsar]

239. i actually prefer MLK and Lincoln.....but..

you can reject them as well....

[Ken Burch]

242. MLK would never defend the Occupation

He stood with all oppressed peoples, against anything remotely resembling colonialism(like the settlement project) and against the idea of any nation living at the mercy of any other nation. MLK would be for REAL negotiations between Israel and Palestine, based on both sides having equal prestige and equal respect. MLK would not favor Israel trying to impose peace-through-surrender.

And Lincoln was for reconciliation at the end of the Civil War...he'd be against what is being done in the West Bank by the IDF AND against the settlements...

[Ken Burch]

249. Note: I meant to delete that post as a duplicate...but computer problems kept me from doing so

until the 30-minute edit period had expired.

[Ken Burch]

243. MLK would never defend the Occupation or the settlements...neither would Lincoln

Dr. King stood with all oppressed peoples, against anything remotely resembling colonialism(like the settlement project) and against the idea of any nation living at the mercy of any other nation. MLK would be for REAL negotiations between Israel and Palestine, based on both sides having equal prestige and equal respect. MLK would not favor Israel trying to impose peace-through-surrender.

And Lincoln was for reconciliation at the end of the Civil War...he'd be against what is being done in the West Bank by the IDF AND against the settlements...He wanted the rancor to end, whereas you seem to be perfectly content with letting it go on and on.

There are no ideals and no wishes for peace or justice behind your arguments on this issue. You just want your side to "win", no matter what that means and no matter if "winning" is even possible in this dispute(which it isn't). That, and your choking hatred for all Palestinians and all Arabs, hatred that drips from every post you make.

[pelsar]

247. stay focused....your losing it again....

the discussion was about the declaration of independence and the sentence that "all men are created equal. " Apparently lincoln and MLK agree with me, that it serves as the foundation for a society based on equality.

as far as i can tell you, and others, disagree with us.

[Ken Burch]

248. You invoked MLK and Lincoln...but they would never back the Occupation

That was my point. They would not take your side in this.

And the Occupation is NOT about getting Palestinians to accept that "all men are created equal", or about creating Palestinian democracy, or about protecting Palestinian LGBT people. It's about keeping the Palestinian people from gaining independence. That is ALL that it's about. No lofty ideals are involved at all. So spare me the "Spirit of '76" rhetoric.

[pelsar]

253. i invoked the constitution.....

because the line that states "all men are created equal" Its something that i believe is essential for modern state, part of its foundation for a stable future democracy. Apparently Lincoln and MLK agree with me and you don't.

here i 'll even make it simple so you can't "wander off" into a rant; (note you are not allowed to use the word occupation here, this is a question of principle)


do you believe a modern state today must have as one of it founding principles the concept of "equality for all"
i believe your answer is no.

[Ken Burch]

268. A modern state should have that as a founding principle

But keeping people under military subjugation is an unacceptable way to get that done. Fair enough?

[pelsar]

285. clarity at last: and where we disagree at its foundation

your wrote:
A modern state should have that as a founding principle

you see i disagree: i believe all states must have that as its base: civil rights, equality for all etc. The state may have trouble getting there, and it may be a fight, but it simply has to be written within its founding documents so that the courts know what to base their judgements on.


nationalism, ownership based on genetics, politics based on genetics (sometimes called: indigenous rights), historical ownership simply does not triumph a state based on civil rights and no state has the right to exist without such rights.

The idea of creating a state that can legally discriminate against its citizens is simply not acceptable to me in this day and age....obviously you disagree and believe that nationalism triumphs civil rights...is that a progressive value?

[Ken Burch]

288. My point is that keeping a foreign army on a people's soil

and continuing to have a foreign country settle that peoples's soil, is NOT the way to get equal rights for all.

That has nothing to do with whether I support equal rights for all.

[Shaktimaan]

252. Wow! Powerful, persuasive post.

MLK would never defend the Occupation or the settlements...neither would Lincoln. Dr. King stood with all oppressed peoples, against anything remotely resembling colonialism(like the settlement project) and against the idea of any nation living at the mercy of any other nation. MLK would be for REAL negotiations between Israel and Palestine, based on both sides having equal prestige and equal respect.

While I deeply respect your ability to discern exactly what these two dead icons (that you never met or studied in depth), would have thought concerning this issue, and am impressed that BOTH of them would so clearly have happened to agree with precisely your own opinion, there is something you are overlooking.

Don't get me wrong. I do think it stengthens your argument exponentially to use the memory of these courageous heroes to all of America, once you explain that they definitely, undeniably, totally 100% for sure would have come to the exact same conclusions as yourself. Good job. Really, really powerful stuff.

Unfortunately, while what you said here is undeniably true, just yesterday I was talking to Jesus (Christ! Really!) and he totally TOLD me how he feels about this very subject. (Right there, over the phone!) And woudn't you know it... he agrees with ME! (Amazing, right?) So while you make a strong case, Jesus clearly beats out BOTH MLK and Lincoln. But then we kept chatting, and he told me how much he hates your hair. Just so you know. That wasn't me at all, just 100% Jesus. But maybe Lincoln would feel differently, who knows? (Besides you, I mean, duh.) Jesus LOVES his hair incidentally. (Great fact for church, right there! Feel free to use it.

There are no ideals and no wishes for peace or justice behind your arguments on this issue. You just want your side to "win", no matter what that means and no matter if "winning" is even possible in this dispute(which it isn't). That, and your choking hatred for all Palestinians and all Arabs, hatred that drips from every post you make.

Who, pelsar? Relly dood? No more caffeine after 12 for you buddy. Wow!
Seriously though, it's stuff like ths that makes Jesus dislike you so much. Ease up on the throttle some, dood.

[pelsar]

262. i'm guessing that tolerance of "others" isn't part of your philosophy

and your choking hatred for all Palestinians and all Arabs, hatred that drips from every post you make.

or perhaps you have "selective" tolerance....(which has a multitude of other names to describe it)

[Ken Burch]

271. I don't work from vicious assumptions about entire nations

I don't assume that Israel as a nation is evil, and I don't hate most or even much of any Israelis.

I don't even hate YOU as a person.

I just disagree with your views.

[King_David]

274. How do you even know what Pelsar's views are

You ascribe UGLY views to anyone who disagrees with your factually incorrect posts.

as Shakti said in 270 :

You are not shy to tell all of us :

"we oppose Arab democracy. Our only true motive is to prevent Palestinian self-determination. We are racist and HATE the Arabs and that is why we support settlements. We support settlements."


You disagree with all our fictional views that you yourself manufactured in a poor work of fiction.

[Ken Burch]

276. Every post from the two of you that even mentioned the Arab Spring

has belittled it or denied that it mattered. You've denied that the settlements have anything to do with the causes of terrorism or any aspect of Palestinian anger at the status quo.

And that's you and pelsar. There's no group assumption I'm making. Neither of you speak for Israelis as a group.

[King_David]

277. Another nonsense post

And it was Shakti talking not Pelsar ;)


Read post #270 please (everyone should)

[pelsar]

281. you seem to understand the concept of tolerance......

you post is a prime example of someone with no tolerance for a different viewpoint:

your choking hatred for all Palestinians and all Arabs, hatred that drips from every post you make

lets seem some of your logic in action to explain how the above is not a good example of lack of tolerance........

[Ken Burch]

282. Everything I ever hear from you about Palestinians

is laced with contempt. COLLECTIVE contempt. You don't seem(from what I can tell)to accept that most of them aren't actually terrorists, or that Palestinian parents mourn their children's deaths just as Israeli parents do(and always did, contrary to Golda Meir's cynical remark to the contrary). You don't seem to acknowledge that they aren't acting out of deliberate moustache-twirling villainy.

Nothing I read from you acknowledges the humanity of these people. You appear to see only an enemy to be defeated.

I'm fairly sure most people reading your posts would come to the same conclusions.

I know there are some terrible people on the Palestinian side(as there are on the Israeli side). But on BOTH sides, there are a lot of people who aren't terrible, and who have suffered without deserving to suffer.

You seem to see yourself as a hard-eyed realist-but the key to realism is facing, well, reality. And the reality is, looking at this situation simply as a conflict to be won is actually making it harder for you to understand what has to be done to end the conflict-and what, among many other things, has to be done, is for both sides to admit that the other side has legitimate grievances and sincere grief, and that neither side acts out of pure malevolence. The Palestinians don't act out of that any more than the Israelis do.

The way to ensure security is to resolve the grievances and acknowledge the injustices and the suffering-NOT to insist that it's all the OTHER side's fault. That is what I've been trying to say. And you always, from what I can make out, just dismiss that and assume that it's all about the now-meaningless concept of "winning". But this conflict can't BE WON-it can only be ended through negotiations based on equality and mutual respect. That isn't wooly-eyed idealism, it's just hard-eyed reality. It's how you win the "street" away from the leadership-on both sides-which is crucial, since the leadership on BOTH sides is equally inflexible and bloody-minded.

[pelsar]

284. dictionary?

you really should check out the definition of "contempt"

the words your write would fit that word better than any of mine:

your choking hatred for all Palestinians and all Arabs, hatred that drips from every post you make

hey i got an idea....see if you (and please include your friends, family, colleagues) can find any posts that i've ever written across the entire internet that comes even close to what you just wrote.....

more so since you also believe those here must come to the same conclusion:
I'm fairly sure most people reading your posts would come to the same conclusions.

ask the posters here as well........

____

you have my permission to gang up on me, attack me personally, slur my "good name"..just find something that comes close to what you wrote about me. (i think you'll find perhaps the closest to what you wrote on the israelforum from many years ago......unfortunately for you i was talking about a few israelis on that forum.....)

[Ken Burch]

287. I laid out a serious response to what you say your fears are abour security

care to address that?

[Shaktimaan]

225. Oh jeez. Try and stay focused here Ken.

I don't need the Palestinians to attain fucking enlightenment. I just need them to develop a functioning, democratic government as a hedge against their new state devolving into violent chaos, rampant terrorism and an economic sinkhole. Save the whole "philosophy of freedom" schtick for a nation-sate that has already mastered the art of political negotiating without guaranteed bloodshed. If they can hold a protest where no one is murdered, that's a great step too. I understand that social issues like criminalizing rape and equal rights for homosexuals will come later. Right now I just need them to fulfil the basics.

The revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and the other countries prove that Arabs are as capable of change and of improving their societies as any other people are.

No. It proves they are capable of revolting. We have yet to see any improving. But I'm optomistic.

(and none will stop stealing the West Bank for more illegal settlements).

I don't think any Israeli government has taken land from the WB to build a settlement in years now. So you MAY want to revise our prediction.

The Israeli authorities, on the other hand, are STILL trying with all their might to keep an independent Palestine from being born.

All their might, huh? Wow! So, like, what are they doing to prevent it? Is their allowance not big enough? Have they not agreed to allow enough Palestinians to immediately abandon their new state and immediately move to Israel? (Having citizens DOES make governing harder, it's true.)

[Ken Burch]

235. They can do that AFTER getting independence-and they're much more LIKELY to do it that way

There's nothing about making them "democratize" while still UNDER Occupation that would make the creation of a liberal Palestine any likelier to stick than allowing them to do so on their own terms as an free country. You do realize that liberalism created under Occupation could be discarded immediately afterwards. There's no reason making liberalism a pre-condition would make it any more durable. In fact, using it as a pre-condition for independence is the worst possible way to create a democratic Palestine. It implies that they would NEVER do it on their own, it implies that Palestine is inherently morally and politically inferior to Israel(again, an example of predicating the relations between these two polities on one having the natural right to insult and disrespect the other) and it puts those Palestinians who ARE working for democracy on their own at risk of being accused of collaborationism. It's a recipe for killing all hope for democracy in Palestine, not nurturing it.

If you really want to help Israel, stop encouraging this tendency of the Israeli government to act like it's ok for that government to taunt and insult the Palestinian side, rather than treating it as it should...with equal prestige and respect. You don't build peace on a foundation of contempt.

The worst way to get Palestinians to do ANYTHING is to have the Israeli government and its apologists make a big, arrogant show of DEMANDING that they do it. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Why insist on following the worst possible strategy for getting Palestinians do follow a given course of action?

You're going to have to accept that the Arab Spring proves that Arabs are just as capable of working for positive change in their own countries as anyone else is in any other country. You can't treat the Arab world as a political dead zone any longer.

And yes, some Palestinians are seeking Israeli citizenship. They are that desperate to escape the Occupation. That doesn't mean that they AGREE with what the IDF has done to the West Bank or that they're against Palestinian independence. And ultimately, we could settle this by giving ALL Palestinians Israeli citizenship and votes in Israeli elections. If you're going to gloat about Palestinians seeking Israeli citizenship, you shouldn't object to that, right?

[shira]

201. So please provide an example of a progressive Arab state in the mideast.

Explain to us how Palestine has a much better chance of turning somewhat more progressive than any other Arab state in the region.

Take your time.

[Ken Burch]

210. Progressive change is happening all over the region now.

The past is not the end of the story. Why are you so obsessed with declaring all Arab countries permanently irredeemable? It doesn't help anything to believe that.

The Arab Spring is proving that change is possible. The status of past Arab states is irrelevant, since there were no progressive or humane European states for centuries on end.

[pelsar]

151. this is a study in ignoring historical lessons....

the recent history of the arab regimes after gaining their own empowerment/independence has been decidedly against the western value system that includes minority rights.

the lefts theory that once they have their independence it will be possible to put pressure on them to change their culture (i.e. disrespect the local culture an try to change it) and accept the western culture has simply not happened, in fact once they have their independence they tend to strengthen their own culture which is not "western" and anti minority rights.


In the early days of the 1979 revolution that ousted the shah, all Iranians, including liberals, Marxists and Islamists, took to the streets and seemingly fought for the same ideals. It was only after the shah went into exile and Ayatollah Khomaini came into power that serious cracks began to appear in the movement. Soon, the Islamists won the race for power, and this led to a horrific dictatorship that has been ruling Iran with an iron fist for more than 30 years.

In 1982, only three years after the success of the Islamic revolution in Iran, I was arrested at the age of 16 for speaking up against the new regime. I was tortured and raped, and many of my friends were executed,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/lessons-from-a-revolution-irans-that-is/article1889288/

obviously we have the same with Hamas in Gaza.....tunisia, Lybia and egypt all have returning islamists...just like Iran did and if democracy doesn't take hold in the beginning, the iranian/hamas scenarios are very real, in which case the minority rights becomes a non issue.

btw, the quotes from the Palestinians gays, reminds me of the liberals in iran that praised khommeni...and were all hung within a year of his gaining power.

[azurnoir]

179. the West Bank and the PA are not Iran but the only surprise in your answer

was that you didn't work in the Taliban too, but never fail to go to the lowest possible denominator they are all Muslims after all eh?

Besides we can't lose the neighborhood to those settlers either

[pelsar]

195. nationalism first, human rights came come later on, if at all.

i'm just going by the history of the region and the actual regimes.....

and there is actually now a retreat from democratic values in the world (the "arab spring" is still up in the air).
____

funny thing about all the noise in creating a revolution as in iran and the incredible silence once they establish their rule of law. The protests were all over, in the streets from the west to support the change, but once that change occurs and they reject the western values, hang a few homosexuals, the level of interests in the street drops off to a minimum and you'll still find those on the left that support the facist regime in the interest of "states rights".

same too for hamas, lots of noise to "support them" for their Independence, but nothing for the individuals who live under hamas thumb...not theory, just reality
______

as far as i can tell, those who promote national independence and place human rights on the second tier have more in common with the far rights nationalistic view than with any liberal view that i know of.

[Ken Burch]

250. Nothing could have been done to ease repression in Iran WITHOUT removing the Shah

The end of the Pahlevi dynasty HAD to occur for any chance of democratization to exist. Iran under that monarchy was unreformable. NO democratic space ever existed under the Shah. And none exists in Occupied Palestine.

[Ken Burch]

156. The Occupation of the West Bank has nothing in common with post war Germany

Also, it's not clear that having Allied troops in postwar Germany had anything at all to do with the revival of democracy there-the defeat of Naziism in the war was what led to that. Once the Reich fell, Germany was going to return to democracy whether their were occupying troops on its soil or not-there was no longer any significant support for Naziism.

The Palestinians are not morally comparable to Nazi Germany(which they'd have to be for your flawed analogy to even partially hold)and this is a stalemate, rather than the winners of a war imposing their will on the losers of one.

[King_David]

192. Stalemate ?

Clueless again and yet you persevere, it WAS amusing.

Tell us how with the wall and all they have Israel at their mercy ?

[Ken Burch]

198. Stalemate is correct.

It isn't possible for the Palestinians to wipe out Israel(and never will be).

It isn't possible for the Israelis to wipe out Palestine(and never will be).

That's stalemate.

If Israel COULD have won absolutely, it would have done so by now. Same with Palestine.

[Shaktimaan]

224. a stalemate?

This post reminds me of that great Abba Eban quote:
I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender.

It isn't possible for the Israelis to wipe out Palestine(and never will be).

Really? Why do you suppose that is? It's not because they haven't dominated them in every physical battle. It's ecause Israel is too ethical to wipe out Palestine. Generally, an enemy won't deign to allow his opponent's army to occupy his land and people for 40+ years unless there was a defeat somewhere along the way.

A staleMATE! hahaha. awesome.

OK, so remember how Germany occupied France during WWII? The French army was defeated, the Nazis took over, all that? Since the French Underground still existed and was fighting a series of guerilla style skirmishes along the edges of Germany's huge war machine, in your opinion does that constitute a stalemate between France and Germany?

If Israel COULD have won absolutely, it would have done so by now.

The problem with that statement is that other, smaller, lamer countries have fought against the Palestinians and easily ground them into the dirt using modern weapons and battle tactics. The Palestinians universally surrendered to Jordan within 25 days or so, despite the harsh respercussions faced by the leadership. So what's the difference? Simple. Israel is reluctant to kill large numbers of innocent men, women and children and ethnically cleanse them all just to end the conflict. This trait, like it or not, is a military weakness. One that the Palestinians continuously exploit. It is their only advantage... Israel's humanity.

This only works because the Palestinians are too weak to really threaten Israel. Which is why Jordan had to react so differently to their threat. It is the Palestinian's ineptitude on the battlefield, their shoddy arms and homemade artillery, that inspires pity in the West and ensures that Israel will never fully engage with the intent to destroy them.

But do not mistake mercy for a deadlock. Frankly, I can't see how you managed to make this error.

[King_David]

226. 'Frankly, I can't see how you managed to make this error.'

I tried telling him .

I can see how, every post has one.

[Ken Burch]

241. No, you told me nothing.

You just put a question at the end of the words "a stalemate", as if doing that proved the very notion was absurd.

You never actually make an argument for anything. You just drop what you consider to be devastating one-line retorts and assume that those will prove the inherent superiority of your views, whatever they happen to be on any given issue.

Israel has not DEFEATED the Palestinians...and will never be in the position to impose peace-through-surrender on them. If it had defeated them, all the Palestinians would have left(perhaps taking the absurd suggestion of that "model Palestinian" leader in the James Michener novel who suggested that all Palestinians should happily move to Costa Rica and become storekeepers there).

If Israel had "won", there would be no PA, there would be no Palestinian resistance of any sort. There would be no Palestine.
It's as silly to claim that the present situation means that Israel has defeated the Palestinians as it was for the British government to believe it had defeated the Irish in the early 1920's. They hadn't then, and they still haven't now. In both cases, it's stalemate.

"victory" and "surrender" have no meaning and no value in either conflict. Why want what isn't worth wanting...that which can't happen. Why not act like a grownup instead, and accept that the only way to end this peacefully is compromise between equal partners, treating each other like adults?

[King_David]

260. "You never actually make an argument for anything"

Ha ha

Yes I should just write some long waffling completely off topic and inaccurate rant and call it an argument.

Hd ha ha ha

[Ken Burch]

231. Why is it so intolerable for you to admit that neither side can win this militarily?

Why is it so important for you to be able to say that Israel has "won" when "winning" is a meaningless and reactionary concept, particulary in this situation.

There's no weakness in admitting that this can't have a "John Wayne ending". Even John Wayne was only able to have those endings in the movies.

Nobody needs to "win" this. What matters is reaching a compromise that is just to everybody. Only that can end this. "Winning" can't. And insisting that "we could win if we wanted to" is the kind of talk only children do.

Israel doesn't need to lower itself to such silliness.

[Shaktimaan]

234. it's very important...

for both parties to have an accurate understanding of the fundamental nature of the occupation before entering negotiations. It is not a stalemate. Palestine holds only one card, violence. But Israel's reluctance to continue fighting is not because the Palestinians have fought them to a standstill, as Hamas bragged following the 2005 evacuation from gaza. That said, Israel hasn't won. How do you win against an enemy that will not yield until they have all been killed, regardless of how much weaker they are? Do you just start massacreing them?

So far you occupy them and try and keep a lid on it. No occupation? Hello cast lead.

[Ken Burch]

236. It is a stalemate.

The IDF couldn't even win in Lebanon in the last war...it cannot win an outright military victory against the Palestinians. Why not just admit that and admit that compromise among equals is the only chance to end this?

Why are you so obsessed with getting to say "We win! we win!" Winning doesn't mean anything anymore. What matters is stopping the fighting. There's no hope and no life for anyone on either side as long as the status quo goes on.

Neither side CAN win outright. Neither side is virtuous enough to deserve to. It's just not worth it.

I'm not saying anything here that Yitzak Rabin wasn't saying at the end of his life. Or anything that Uri Avnery wouldn't say(he accepts that it's a stalemate as well).

You do realize that you sound both like the German high command in early 1919 AND the Reagan right in the U.S. when they talked about Vietnam, don't you? I fully expect you to start talking about "the stab in the back" when a real Palestinian state DOES come into existence.

[King_David]

258. It's difficult for you to Admit your wrong

Shakti has thoroughly debunked your ridiculous argument and yet you waffle

through some nonsense .

Maybe MLK or Lincoln will help you again ?

[shira]

264. Like religious fundamentalists, their worldview can't possibly be wrong...

Hamas can be reasonable like anyone else. They have to be...

And who the hell in their right mind would admit they support evil, if not in intent but effect? They'll never do this.

======

Remember when they used to say this is a conflict about land, not a religious war? That if this were a religious war, it couldn't possibly be resolved? Guess what - they kinda changed their minds on that one. They're now banking on Hamas (part of the Palestinian gov't along with Fatah) to go against the grain, be reasonable, and pretend it's only about land. Their arguments are becoming more ludicrous and desperate by the day. They can't admit they're wrong, just like religious fundamentalists.

The occupation in Gaza ended 5 years ago but they're still clinging to 2004 arguments, as though Gaza were still occupied.

[Ken Burch]

269. Nothing Shakti posted debunks my argument

If his argument had merit, nothing of a Palestinian identity would exist at all. Palestinian nationalism would be extinct. All "Palestinians" would have left.

[Ken Burch]

272. It was totally inappropriate for pelsar to invoke MLK or Lincoln in support of keeping the IDF

in the West Bank.

The Palestinians are not white Southern segregationists and they aren't fighting to defend the institution of slavery. OR to break up a sovereign country.

[pelsar]

283. MLK MLK MLK......LINCOLN.....All MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

they fought for the concept of equal rights for all.......you're fighting for the creation of a state that will clearly deny minority rights as one of its basic founding principles. (spare me the "i can read the future shtick" i simply don't believe you have that ability, though you seem to believe that you do)

funny how the far right has that very same value basic value: states rights over individual rights-nationalism more important than civil rights. Whereas its not a liberal stance, it definitely appears to be a progressive value

are you going to pretend that the PA minister didn't dodge the gay question?

oh yea and the christians are getting screwed as well:
it must be acknowledged that the radicalization of Palestinian Muslim communities under the PA is becoming an increasingly dangerous threat to Christian communities, to individuals, and to the mode of life they practice

public harassment of Christian girls began when the PA came to power “after 1993.


http://www.jcpa.org/text/Christian-Persecution-Weiner.pdf
_______

and you clearly without any hesitation support the creation of such as state..... (as if the world needs one more anti democratic state....)

is it a race thing?.....you believe that only people of certain genes should govern people of the same genes?.....just asking

[pelsar]

194. so add japan...

how is it they ware going to "return to democracy"..

[Ken Burch]

199. Again, the defeat of Japan militarily(which isn't going to happen to the Palestinians)

was going to take care of that. American troops in postwar Japan had nothing to do with the postwar democratization. The drafting of the Japanese constitution(the one good thing Douglas MacArthur ever did)took care of that, combined with a deep-seated wish to embrace democracy on the part of the civilian Japanese population, most of whom were sick of the warlords and despised them for the war they'd led Japan into.

Again, a situation that has nothing in common with the Occupation of Palestine.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[oberliner]

123. What about the US military occupation of Japan?

Some might argue it did exactly that.

[King_David]

124. ..

:eyes:

[pelsar]

204. clarity....

every so often events or words are said that break through the grayness of politics.

One example was leaving gaza, the removal of the settlements and the subsequent rockets was one such moment.
Hamas killing the PA members and taking over gaza, installing shari law was another such moment.

and now we have this: the PA being very vague on Gay rights.....Its not so much that, that is a surprise, quite the opposite, but the clarity is what were seeing here:
_________________________________

what it appears to me is there are two basic viewpoints:
one claims that first and foremost are civil rights/minority rights above all

the second is claiming that first and foremost is nationalism (i.e. a country-not necessary freedom) and after that, civil rights can be addressd.
clearly minority rights/civil rights is not the singular most important value for this group, given the gamble that civil rights/minority rights may not even be a factor in their new state

[King_David]

205. I agree. NT

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

237. All of that is a lie

We don't have to support making LGBT rights a precondition for Palestinian independence to prove we don't support tyranny. It isn't either/or.

Besides, if the PA did address LGBT issues(and, btw, I do think it should)and every other democratic issue, you'd STILL say they couldn't have independence-and you'd still defend every settlement that was built or expanded while independence was delayed.

We know an excuse when we hear it.

You don't care about Palestinian LGBT's at all.

And you need to listen to people like Ezra Nawi, the gay Israeli who supports Palestinian self-determination and was tried for the horrible crime of...wait for it...nonviolently protesting the destruction of a harmless Bedouin village. His lover, btw, is Palestinian.

[shira]

263. I know where you stand based on Gaza. That occupation ended 5 years ago...

...and Palestinian rights are suppressed even more than they were.

You guys remain silent.

I don't expect that would change after the occupation ends in the West Bank.

[Centrist2011]

267. PLO

As a Democrat, I strongly support the two-state solution. Yet, I think this is the problem with the Islamic world. I want to see a flourishing Palestinian state, not a barbaric theocracy like Saudi Arabia and the oil-monopoly tyrants. I also think if all Israeli forces retreated, Palestine would erupt into chaos. I do think Israel needs to withdraw immediately, however, I think the land should be under UN supervision until the transition can be made to a stable Palestinian government, with rights for all, without the danger of turning into an Islamic version of the Vatican City.

[azurnoir]

293. Here is what Maen Areikat said there is a word left out in the snip

“Of course we’re going to have a secular state,” PLO spokesman Maen Areikat told a reporter. “We’re not going to have it based on religion.”

But when asked if homosexuals would be tolerated he said the issue was “beyond my authority”.